HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-05/16/2007
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
RECEIVED f- jdd
I,) ;<15;J1ll
" ')-,
.,
'- -!
Minutes
J';';"'- fl'
~. '~ZI;.
s-6I,'k1.1 '\'v;m treilt
'!!4
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
6:30 PM
Present were: James King, President
Jill Doherty, Vice President
Dave Bergen, Trustee
Bob Ghosio, Trustee
Kieran Corcoran, Assistant Town Attorney
Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, June 13,2007 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, June 20,2007 at 6:00 PM
WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM
TRUSTEE KING: Good evening everyone, welcome to our meeting. I'm
Jim King, Chairman of the Board. I would like to introduce the rest of our Board.
Dave Bergen is to my far left. Peggy Dickerson is ill tonight. She is not with us.
She is another trustee. Jill Doherty is the vice-chair; myself; Lauren Standish is our
secretary from the office. Bob Ghosio, another trustee. At the far end, Kieran
Corcoran is our legal advisor for tonight, and we have Wayne Galante is the
recorder. He records everything we say. Usually there is somebody here from the
CAC but they are not here yet. Don Wilder will be here eventually.
Can everybody hear me all right? Sometimes I tend to ramble on. We'll set the
date -- do you want to do the next two field inspections?
Board of Trustees
2
May 16, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll do the June one.
TRUSTEE KING: Next field inspection is June 13, eight o'clock in the morning. Do I
have a motion?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make the motion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Next regular meeting will be June 20th at 6:30. Work session at
5:30. Do I have a motion?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make the motion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll go ahead and second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just want to, the July field inspection will fall on July 11 and
the July meeting will fall on the 18th. If we can change the meeting to Tuesday the
24th, Bob is going on vacation that week.
TRUSTEE KING: When do you want to do field inspections?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll still do the field inspections on the 11th. Then the 25th
this room is not available but it's available the Tuesday, the 24th.
TRUSTEE KING: So we'll meet on Tuesday.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you want to check with Peggy to see if it's okay
with her?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can just put a hold on the room. We'll make sure Jill is
not away. We'll just book the room for the 24th. We'll book it for the 18th and the
24th and then find out from Peg and we'll get rid of the date we don't want.
MS. STANDISH: All right.
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE KING: The Trustees monthly report for April, 2007. A check for
$7,183.06 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE KING: Public notices are posted in 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 Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, May 16, 2007, are classified as
Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations and are not subject to
further review under SEQRA.
Board of Trustees
3
May 16, 2007
Wilmington Trust Co. - SCTM#7-1-p/o Lot 2
Peter Caccile - SCTM#9-3-11
Brewer Yacht Yard at Greenport - SCTM#43-3-2
John Xikis - SCTM#44-1-13
Anthony Graziano - SCTM#90-4-6
Joseph & Carolyn Ferrara - SCTM#38-8-1
Phyllis Schaffer - SCTM#76-3-1
Estate of Eleanor Bastone - SCTM#127-6-8
Scott Borisky and James Posch - SCTM#119-1-1
Bala and Kathleen Pillai - SCTM#126-11-19
Guido and Marguerite Dossena - SCTM#126-11-18
Henry H. Traendly and Barbara A. Cadwallader - SCTM#21-14-11
Emmanuel Arturi - SCTM#126-11-13
George Carter Sednaoui and Stacey Cayce Sednaoui - SCTM#4-7-6
Peconic Land Trust - SCTM#79-5-20.12
Leoborio Realty, LLC - SCTM#51-1-4
Edward and Christine Volini - SCTM#118-4-13
Jaime and Nancy Santiago - SCTM#111-9-4.1
Stephen and Charlotte Wagner - SCTM#24-1-11
Erik P. Hansen Revocable Trust - SCTM#78-5-15
Cheryl L. Hansen Revocable Trust - SCTM#78-5-17
George L. And Sylvia A. Penny - SCTM#59-6-21
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Resolutions and administrative permits. Do you want to lump
some of these together?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. What are the postponements we have first?
TRUSTEE KING: That's a good idea. Just in case there is somebody
here waiting for one of these to come up that has been postponed, I'll read them off.
Number 11, the application of PHYLLIS SCHAFFER has been postponed.
Number 18, the application of SALVATORE GRANFORT has been postponed.
Under Coastal Erosion and Wetland Permits, number 13, the application of PAOLO
& JEAN BLOWER has been postponed.
Number 17, the application of JAIME & NANCY SANTIAGO has been postponed.
Number 18, the application of ARTHUR R. TORELL has been postponed.
Number 19, the application of JOHN FRANKIS has been postponed.
Number 20, the application of VINCENT P. BASILlCE has been postponed.
Board of Trustees
4
May 16, 2007
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under Resolutions and Administrative Permits, what we try do
is lump some of them together that we have already looked at and have already
discussed and know there has not been an issue on. And from what we saw,
number one, JAMES NEUMANN; number two, CHARLES DIGNEY; number five,
PETER & DOROTHY MICCICHE TRUST; number six ANGEL SHORES
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; number 11, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting on behalf of JOHN NICKLES.
They have all been looked at by members of the Board and
everything looked fine. Everything looked according to plans.
So I would like to make a motion to approve numbers one, two,
five, six and 11.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number four, PARNELL WICKHAM requests an
Administrative Permit to install five-foot wide steps to the beach.
Located: 4299 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk.
We looked at that. The applicant had agreed to change that
five-foot wide steps to three-foot wide steps. So with that
amendment from five foot to three foot wide, I make a motion to
approve that one.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Number three, EUGENE MOTT requests an Administrative
Permit to mow the phragmites and plant native wetland grass.
Located: 360 North Oakwood Drive, Laurel.
I believe there is a violation issued here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, I don't know if he has been to court yet. We
really can't act on it until that is settled. Jim and I looked at this.
TRUSTEE KING: The area has obviously been cleared at some time.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When we were in the field we talked about maybe
letting him have a path down to the creek but not mow the whole
area that has been mowed.
TRUSTEE KING: I guess this has not been resolved yet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, it has not.
TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we just put this over. We'll just put this
on hold. I think what we'll need here, if he wants to do something
down there, I think we'll need a planting plan for him to see what
he actually wants to plant.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we'll just table this and see if it's been
resolved in the courts. If it has been, we'll contact the owner
and have him submit a planting plan for what he wants to do down
Board of Trustees
5
May 16, 2007
there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sounds good.
TRUSTEE KING: So we'll table that. I make a motion to table that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: JAMES & JUDY HAYWARD requests an Administrative
Permit for the removal of weeds and old plant material, to
reinforce wind eroded berm and replace with salt tolerant and
native species and dense grasses, and to provide a seasonal
platform for removable screen room, to be removed at end of the
Fall season. Located: 1450 Three Waters Lane, Orient.
Is there anybody here to speak on this?
TRUSTEE KING: These are not public hearings, but we welcome your
comments.
For the record, state your name.
MS. HAYWARD: Judy and James Hayward.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is the revised plan that Mark Schill gave
us. I saw it but Jim hasn't seen it. What we told Mr. Schill is
we did not want native vegetation disturbed, and you can go further
into your grass and do plantings there. We have no problem with
the platform area here. And so it looks like he's going in a
little bit, taking a little bit out.
MR. HAYWARD: This is largely this portion here (indicating.)
TRUSTEE KING: We are trying to maintain these natural areas. I
know they don't have that nice, manicured look, but they serve a
very useful purpose.
MS. HAYWARD: This edge is dead and we just wanted to trim back
whatever is dead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim did suggest to mark, that maybe we should see
this staked and go out and see it again.
TRUSTEE KING: Mark how far in you want to go and where you'll want
to do this trimming, so we know.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think that would -- and then this side (indicating.)
MS. HAYWARD: This side we were not going to touch. We can work
with what is already there. We'll plant in between. I think he
dropped off something where it described, we were going to do
plantings in between what is already there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, this side, Mark explained to Jim and I that
the brush was more over here. And this was basically the grass.
Because here is the pool. If you remember, the pool fence was in
and the grass was there. I did say to him that these bushes might
not be able to go there.
MS. HAYWARD: Right. We are going to move those in front of what is
existing.
Board of Trustees
6
May 16, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we need to see that staked off.
TRUSTEE KING: Just stake it out and we'll go out and take a look. I
like going into the field and seeing what we are doing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because it's hard to tell how far you are going in
from here. On this side especially.
MS. HAYWARD: Okay. And we are going to work with whoever -- I spoke
to somebody on the phone who gave us native species to use, and
that's what we'll do. We are just trying to make it a little nicer
and neater.
TRUSTEE KING: You don't want the Russian Olive. It's not a native
species here. It will really take over.
MR. HAYWARD: We'll only use native species.
MS. HAYWARD: We'll only use what is allowed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: See, he has area left undisturbed and he has it
right here. That's going way too far.
TRUSTEE KING: That's taking out way too much.
MS. HAYWARD: No, he put a red line down here.
MR. HAYWARD: He was going in this direction.
MS. HAYWARD: We were just going to stake out that bump and make it
go straight.
TRUSTEE KING: Have him stake it out.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we'll postpone it until then. Do you want to
meet us there, we'll have him meet us there, I'll have him call the
office and we can meet him there at the next inspection, which is
June 13. It's a Wednesday.
MS. HAYWARD: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: So we'll table this and re-inspect in June.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to table this.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The next three we can do together, Jim.
TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, THE BARGE AND ASSOCIATION, requests an
Administrative Permit to cut the phragmites to one-foot above
bottom of wetland area and at ground level landward of retaining
wall. Located: Old Main Road, Southold.
Number nine, CARL REITER, requests an Administrative Permit to cut
the phragmites to one-foot above bottom of wetland area and at
ground level landward of retaining wall. Located: Old Main Road,
Southold.
And number ten, CAROL R. DENSON requests an Administrative Permit
to cut the phragmites to one-foot above bottom of wetland area and
at ground level landward of retaining wall. Located: Old Main Road,
Board of Trustees
7
May 16, 2007
Southold.
We went out and looked and the feeling of the Board is not to
go out in the wetlands we can cut those phrags. We would like to go
out in July and take a look. We have no problem with cutting the
phragmites to 12 inches landward of the retaining walls and not to
disturb seaward of the retaining walls until we go out and look in
probably July. That's when the phrags peek. If it looks like
there is a problem then we'll trim the wetland areas.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sounds good.
TRUSTEE KING: That's my motion, to approve cutting phragmites one
foot above ground level landward of the bulkheads on these three
applications. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are we putting that on the calender to re-inspect
in July?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, we'll re-inspect in July to take a look and see
what is going on in front of the bulkheads.
V. RESOLUTIONS-MOORING/STAKE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Does anybody have a problem with any of these?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, we looked at all of them.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number four was the only one we were going to look
at.
TRUSTEE KING: It says 34-foot boat. Do you know what kind of
boat? I just wanted to see. Because I looked at the site, I took
water samples.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Grady White.
TRUSTEE KING: 34-foot Grady White? They make boats that big?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Grady White makes larger boats. That's a big one,
34'. I didn't know they made them that big. But it's a power boat
versus sail, anyway.
TRUSTEE KING: That was my only concern anyway. There may not be
enough water far enough inside the channel for a sail boat. For
this boat it probably doesn't draw much over three feat of water,
tops. We'll have him put a buoy where they want to put the mooring
and I'll check it. And verify it. Because we might want to move it
to the north. I have a feeling he's putting that closer to the end
of the mooring.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He'll be right in front of that dock.
TRUSTEE KING: And my understanding is there is a dock to the
south. I think they may want to move them north.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So it's replacing 102, but you want to possibly
move the location of 102.
Board of Trustees
8
May 16, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So approve it subject to --
TRUSTEE KING: We'll approve it subject to me taking a look at it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we are making a motion to approve resolutions
one, two, three and four.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, with the stipulation on four that it needs to be
re-inspected.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So this is EMMANUEL TZANNES requests a Mooring
Permit in Gull Pond for a 25-foot boat, replacing Mooring #1.
Access: Public.
DAVID BROACH requests a Mooring Permit in Gull Pond for a
20-25-foot boat, replacing Mooring #10. Access: Public.
JESSICA CUSAMANO requests a Mooring Permit in Goose Creek,
replacing Mooring #942. Access: Public.
And ROBERT EZZARD requests a Mooring Permit in Mattituck Creek for
a 34-foot boat, replacing Mooring #102. Access: Public.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make that motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
VI. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS:
TRUSTEE KING: NICOLAS ANDREADIS requests an Amendment to Permit
#268 to reflect the existing 4x65 foot catwalk. Located: 700 North
Drive, Mattituck.
We went out. This was a transfer of a permit last month. We
went out and checked the dimensions. There was a 12x12 platform.
It was not permitted, which is going to be removed. And the
catwalk was, I believe, six or seven feet longer than was
permitted. It was further landward and he's coming in to reflect
what is actually there now, which is all right. So I would like
make a motion to approve this amendment.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: SCOTT BORISKY & JAMES POSCH request an Amendment
to Permit #4665 to include approximately 140-feet of additional
pre-existing bulkheading and a stairway to the beach, and to repair
the existing permitted bulkhead and stairs. Located: 9475 Nassau
Point Road, Cutchogue.
As I recall, I don't think anybody had any problems with this
at all.
TRUSTEE KING: That beach has the bulkhead all around it right?
Board of Trustees
9
May 16, 2007
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Was there going to be any amendment to permit
in anything that was not already previously permitted? I remember
that discussion out in the field.
TRUSTEE KING: Was there an upper retaining wall?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The upper retaining wall was one issue.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did we measure that?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We don't have to now. I'm just saying it would be
easier for the applicant.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is it on the survey, Bob? I would say if it's on
the survey, already there, we may as well include it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, it shows the two timber walls. I remember
when we were out there. Saying it was on the survey and we would
add that to the permit.
So I make a motion to approve the amendment but also include
the two timber walls that are on the survey.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.) (TRUSTEE BERGEN abstains.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Note for the record I'm abstaining from that. The
necessary three votes are there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: PECONIC LAND TRUST requests an Amendment to Permit
#6014 to dredge a four-foot wide by three-feet deep by 150 feet
long channel in lagoon south of the hatchery building. Located:
10273 North Bayview Road Extension, Southold.
We had gone out and looked at this in our April field
inspections. This was exempt under the LWRP. The CAC resolved to
support the amendment and basically what this was that was they
just want a very narrow channel to gain access up by water to this
hatchery building to help them with their hatchery projects. So it
seemed to make sense, and I don't remember any objections that
anybody had out in the field.
If are there are no comments from the Board I would make a
motion to approve it.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll do the next two. First is number four,
ROBERT & SUSAN SOMERVILLE requests an Amendment to Permit #6468 to
move the existing fish pond to the south side of the dwelling and
three feet off the proposed deck, and install a new fence around
the pond. Located: 595 Oakwood Court, Southold.
Just a reminder, on the previous permit we requested a
ten-foot non-turf buffer and also a fence that was down by the
water to be removed. That fence has been removed. The buffer has
Board of Trustees
10
May 16, 2007
not been done yet because the work has not been done. I make a
motion to approve this amendment.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five, ROBERT & SUSAN SOMERVILLE request a
Transfer of Permit #2007 from John J. DeMaria to Robert and Susan
Somerville, as issued on August 2,1985. Located: 595 Oakwood
Court, Southold.
This is for the dock that was out there. There was an addition
of the jet ski float that was removed and will not be put back. So
that is not included in the dock permit. I make a motion to
transfer this permit.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Number six, BASILIO ESPOSITO requests an Amendment to
Permit #6387 to demolish the existing dwelling and the deck and to
reconstruct a new structure with a new foundation. Located: 1745
Bay Shore Road, Greenport.
This looks familiar. (Perusing.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. Esposito came into the office and he was
asking to keep part of the bump out, so I asked him to put it on
the drawing, but this is not what I thought he was talking about.
The way he has it here. Can you come up here, please.
I thought you were talking about, we want you to move the
whole structure back ten feet. And I thought you were talking maybe
this corner bump out five feet and move this side ten feet.
MR. ESPOSITO: We want ten feet in back. If I take this piece out
with a straight line, I have straight water there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. So I thought you were talking keep this
five feet out but move this half ten feet back into the straight
line. Not the whole section five feet. You are just asking for
five feet.
MR. ESPOSITO: Fight feet off the ten. This sticks out ten. If I
cut them in half it would be five and five and this remains the
same all the time. I take it ten feet, this will be straight line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand that. This is what I thought, what
we were talking about in the office, I thought you were going to
move this ten feet and just have half of this out five feet. Just
a little bump out here. And move this back in line.
MR. ESPOSITO: It would not bump out right because this new piece
here, that would not bump out right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So, I don't know how the rest of the Board feels,
Board of Trustees
11
May 16, 2007
but we wanted ten feet. So to do five feet, we can compromise with
part of it maybe, out five feet, but not the whole thing.
MR. ESPOSITO: Ten feet, then I have a straight wall here. That's
what I don't want to have.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand that. That's why I thought you would
take half of this section and then ten feet for the other half.
MR. ESPOSITO: Right, and you realize, we measure it with the
dimension of the bay. Because the bay goes --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. That's why I thought up to here go out
five feet. But from here back --
MR. ESPOSITO: No, it would not match it out.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then it's not workable.
MR. ESPOSITO: This goes out five feet through, then it will balance
out.
TRUSTEE KING: It started out as an addition, and then it was going
to be a complete tear down. That's when we said we have to move it
back ten feet.
MR. ESPOSITO: If you want ten feet, I have to go ten feet. Ten
feet shows right through.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can you move this part back? Move this back ten
feet and just move this back.
TRUSTEE KING: Get the most seaward extension of the house ten feet
back from where it is now.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can also move this back five or ten feet so
you don't have the straight line.
MR. ESPOSITO: If I move this back, then the garage is going to be
on top of the cesspool.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, you have 66 feet from the property line. If
you move it back five feet, it's still -- I don't know what the
distance you have to have.
TRUSTEE KING: Septic tank can be --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not even showing the distance from here to
there. You are not talking moving back 20 feet.
TRUSTEE KING: If you want to go back out and draw it, stake it out
and say here is where you draw the line.
MR. ESPOSITO: If you let me go this way five feet, in other words,
I take the whole thing go ten feet, take this piece off and go ten
feet, that's it. I don't have a choice. I don't want to have a
straight wall. That's what I'm trying to say.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. What I'm saying, move this portion back
ten feet and this portion back five feet. You are still
accomplishing the same thing you want.
MR. ESPOSITO: How about if I bring this up, cut this straight and
bring this piece up, this little piece up here. This way it will
match.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, we don't want anything further. No.
Board of Trustees
12
May 16, 2007
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Remember this was found inconsistent under the LWRP
because of the hundred foot setback back required for the water.
So for this Board to give you permission to move something closer
would be going in the opposite of what the LWRP ruling was. And I
don't think we want to do that.
MR. ESPOSITO: I'll take this off and go back ten feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we want.
MR. ESPOSITO: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you want to describe that for the record?
TRUSTEE KING: We need a dimension.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it's Basilio Esposito requests an amendment to
Permit #6387 to demolish the existing dwelling and the deck and to
reconstruct a new structure with a new foundation.
I'll make a motion to approve that subject to the whole
structure being moved back ten feet; the seaward of the existing
structure be moved back. The existing foundation be moved back ten
feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So it's to be moved landward ten feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Landward ten feet. And subject to receiving the
new survey showing that.
TRUSTEE KING: Is he going to have a deck out front also? Is there
a deck there?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are you still putting a deck out?
MR. ESPOSITO: Sure, yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we told him that would be all right.
TRUSTEE KING: So everything is going back ten. I'm just trying to
get a dimension here, if I can, from the sea wall.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we have it in the notes.
TRUSTEE KING: The deck is ten feet off the sea wall. Move house to
35-and-a-half feet landward of cement wall. Right now the house is
25 feet off the sea wall. So ten feet gives us 35 feet. So the
house is moved 35 feet landward of the sea wall. So that's our
dimension.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So my motion is to approve subject to moving the
existing house ten feet back, which would be 35 feet off the cement
wall.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll second that. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number seven, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of
JOHN XIKIS requests an Amendment to Permit #631 a to excavate a
trench behind the existing bulkhead to allow installation in the
excavated area of one 1 a-inch by eight-foot deadman pile for each
of the existing fender piles on the seaward side of the bulkhead.
Behind the deadman piles, install horizontallaylogs 1 a inches by
Board of Trustees
13
May 16, 2007
20-feet long extending the entire length of the bulkhead. Install
tie rods 3/4 inches by 12-feet through the laylogs and the deadman
piles extending to and through the bulkhead and through the
individual existing fender piles. Located: 55585 County Road 48,
Southold.
I know we all went out and took a look at this. I know that
there was a DEC violation, which has been cleared up, and the
Xikis' paid a fine. And LWRP find it inconsistent. CAC is
supporting this application. And Mr. Fitzgerald has applied to the
DEC for the same as what he's applying for the trustees for, but
has not yet received that permit.
MR. FITZGERALD: Bob, I got it today.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You did get it today? Do you have it with you?
MR. FITZGERALD: James Fitzgerald. No, but I could get it for you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We know that new piles have been put in to hold up
the bulkhead and this is really just to attach new piles and hold
everything in place.
One question we had, will rocks be used in front of this to
help support it?
MR. FITZGERALD: The amendment was to be in addition to whatever has
been previously approved for the existing permit, and I understand
that that permit allows for rocks.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We also wanted plastic sheathing. That's what that
permit said.
TRUSTEE KING: We had issued a permit for an entire new bulkhead,
plastic sheathing and rock armoring. What did we do with that?
MR. FITZGERALD: I can't answer that question.
TRUSTEE KING: I mean now he's come in, he put poles in front of the
existing bulkhead, now he wants to put some piles through those
poles into deadmen.
MR. FITZGERALD: That's right. I'm not aware that there are any
plans to continue with the restructuring of the bulkhead, so.
Because if there were --
TRUSTEE KING: What's he going to do with all the stones that is
there?
MR. FITZGERALD: I have no idea. Stones where? Down below?
TRUSTEE KING: No, up in the yard. There is piles of big stone
there. I thought it was in the process of armoring the bulkhead.
MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I think he thinks that the other permit is
still in effect and that I presume that it is.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: From 2006.
TRUSTEE KING: Then why is he doing this?
MR. FITZGERALD: To hold the thing together.
TRUSTEE KING: He's got a permit to build a new bulkhead but he's
not going to build a new bulkhead, evidently.
MR. FITZGERALD: He has the permit to build a new bulkhead. There
Board of Trustees
14
May 16, 2007
were problems with the contractor, as you may know. And it stopped
in the middle of the project because of the violation from the
DEC. So now he's left with a bulkhead with a lot of piles that are
in the ground that are being held with string and nails and stuff
to the bulkhead, and he wanted to fix that.
Now, the contractor came to me and asked me to get a permit to
fix that by putting the anchoring system in.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Could I make a suggestion?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't know what to do with the original permit
then.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree.
MR. CORCORAN: I think the applicant needs to figure out, needs to
give the Board some direction as to whether he intends to go
forward with the original permit or not. I don't think this Board
wants to be granting permits for all sorts of different plans for
the same spot on the property.
MR. FITZGERALD: The question I have for the Board is when I wrote
to you and said this is what we plan to do as an amendment to the
existing permit, is that okay. You said, no, it was not. We
needed an amendment. But it's the kind of thing that people would
ordinarily do if they were rebuilding a bulkhead. So I didn't
quite understand why it required an amendment.
But being gun shy as I am about this kind of thing I thought I
would get you to say, sure, that's fine, go ahead. It's included
in the original permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I guess the challenge is though, what you are
telling us, is the applicant is not going to perform the work that
was --
MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know what the applicant's intentions are
with regard to the bulkhead itself.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The suggestion I was going to make, if we were to
move forward with this, is to use a helix instead of these
dead men. It would be a lot less -- in other words, it's a very
small area there from the bulkhead to the house. And the use of
the helix screws in there, instead of going in and excavating and
putting these, I think they are horizontal lay logs attached to
dead men and things like that, it would be a lot easier, I would
think, and it's not an engineer or expert in the field, but also
there is a lot less damage and excavation, et cetera. That doesn't
address the other issue we need to talk about.
TRUSTEE KING: We have an expert here that could enlighten us.
John, could I ask you a couple of questions about that?
MR. COSTEllO: Sure. My name is John Costello, with Costello Marine
Contracting.
TRUSTEE KING: If piles were placed in front of an existing bulkhead
and he wants to put lay logs behind the existing bulkhead and put
Board of Trustees
15
May 16, 2007
tie rods through those new poles into the lay logs, David just
suggested using helical screw anchors instead. Can you do that with
the pole in place? How do you do that?
MR. COSTEllO: Yes, you have to put them on a 30 degree angle. So
you dig the whole, you can hand dig a hole behind the bulkhead and
add the helicals in with minor excavation. Then you have to put a
short rod in and make a connection. In certain circumstances that's worked.
TRUSTEE KING: So it can be done.
MR. COSTEllO: Yes, it can.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So in your opinion, Mr. Costello --
MR. COSTEllO: I don't know the site so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I withdraw the question. You are right.
MR. COSTEllO: Because we used them under roads and buildings, where
it is difficult to excavate.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think what the Board was mostly concerned with
was the fact we were going to have all this work done without
actually having the sheathing redone, right?
MS. KA TSIGEORGIS: Marin Katsigeorzis. First of all, I never got a
letter for this meeting tonight. I got informed by the other side
neighbor that he was wondering what is going on. And he asked me
if I was going to be at that meeting.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On an amendment -- it's not required to notify the
neighbors on an amendment
MS. KATSIGEORGIS: All right.
TRUSTEE KING: We have a certified mail right here. Who is Mark?
MS. KATSIGEORGIS: That's my husband.
TRUSTEE KING: We have a certified mail that was sent.
MS. KATSIGEORGIS: We never received anything. Mr. Grilos (sic),
the other side neighbor, asked me if I was going to be at the
meeting tonight.
MR. CORCORAN: Well, if it was sent, that's what the applicant has
to do, and I'm sure that the applicant regrets you didn't receive
it, but you are here, so there is really no legal error. So why
don't you say what you came so say.
MS. KATSIGEORGIS: That's not the issue. And don't get me wrong, I
want Mr. Xikis to fix his wall, but the proper way. Because he
start doing job and as your question was before, if he was going to
fix the new wall, I doubt it very much, because in the meantime he
was in the court with DEC he has put piles, new piles, right
outside the wall. Of course without permit. And two of those is
in my property line. Which I would like him to remove.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Which side of the property are you from; the west
side?
MS. KATSIGEORGIS: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You have the new bulkhead and new pavers and stuff
Board of Trustees
16
May 16, 2007
on the bulkhead.
MS. KA TSIGEORGIS: We have brand new wall. All this three walls, my
two neighbors and mine went all together, and we have brand new
wall there. We got the permit like about five months ago.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Did you get a permit for all the stuff you put
behind the bulkhead?
MS. KATSIGEORGIS: Of course.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Because that's not a non-turf buffer there.
TRUSTEE KING: I believe that was an emergency permit, was it not?
MS. KA TSIGEORZIS: No, we got the permit after that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: She got an emergency then came in for the full.
MS. KATSIGEORGIS: The emergency was just for the rocks.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: CCA and all that brick work and stuff.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was emergency only? I thought that was the one
that came in --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We don't have the file here.
MS. KATSIGEORGIS: The emergency was only for the rocks. We had
that for about seven months. After that we got the DEC permit and
your permit. The emergency one we got right away, but it was only
for the rocks.
TRUSTEE KING: I can't recall ever approving a CCA bulkhead in the
Sound in the last two or three years. We don't have the file here
so I can't tell what is on the permit.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have to look into that.
Anyway, getting back to the matter at hand.
MS. KATSIGEORGIS: I would like to show you some pictures. Those
are two piles and these six piles that has been done. This is the
tall ones that is uneven and those are the old ones. Now, from
what I understand, he's looking to get a permit to support those
piles that he has been supported only with metal wires. If you can
see in the picture, here. Right here.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right, we were down there. We sawall of that.
(perusing.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we table it and have Mr. Fitzgerald go
back to the applicant, to see if he can go back to the applicant.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think that's probably not a bad idea. I would
entertain a motion to table this so we can get more information.
MR. FITZGERALD: What information would you like?
TRUSTEE KING: What is his plans for the original permit?
MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. And what is the complaint here?
TRUSTEE KING: Two poles are on her property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Two poles he installed are allegedly on her
property. If you could check that out.
TRUSTEE KING: Define the property line. See where the property
Board of Trustees
17
May 16, 2007
line is.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And a suggestion, see what he thinks of the helix
screw idea that we have. It might save additional work and, hence,
money.
MR. FITZGERALD: Sure.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And we want to know about the sheathing, too.
Any other comments or questions?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to table this until we get some more information.
MR. FITZGERALD: As I understand it we are tabling it to find out
what the owner wants to do with the original permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's one of the reasons.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We want to know what we are going to be doing about
the sheathing. We want him to give us a response in terms of using
a helix coils. We need to address these two poles that are
apparently on the neighbor's property.
MR. FITZGERALD: Is that a trustees issue?
MR. CORCORAN: If they are not permitted, yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We don't want to authorize work to the applicant
that is not on his property.
MR. FITZGERALD: Good point.
TRUSTEE KING: And the pile of stones. What is he going to do with
the piles of stone. It must be in the plan somewhere.
MR. FITZGERALD: Okay.
MS. KATSIGEORGIS: And extend his deck to about six feet out and
that was like overnight job from one weekend to the other. I don't
know if he ever got a permit for that. I'm not sure, I never got
anything on writing, so I wasn't here. But I would like you to
look into that, if possible. Because now it's covering our view.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That looks like it's pretty old; looks like it's
been there for a while.
MS. KATSIGEORGIS: No, it's like three years that he has the deck.
The poles in the bottom of the balcony, those were the old balcony
walls. The old poles.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a motion on it?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. We have to move on here.
MR. FITZGERALD: May I see which poles of the two poles that are
misplaced?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do I have a second on the motion?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you want those pictures back?
MS. KATSIGEORGIS: No, you can keep that. This is the poles on my
property. It's still there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's an issue for code enforcement.
Board of Trustees
18
May 16, 2007
MS. KATSIGEORGIS: The trees are on my roof covering my windows. He
won't do anything about it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, we have to move on.
MS. KATSIGEORGIS: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number eight, JMO Environmental Services on behalf
of EMMANUEL ARTURI requests an Amendment to Permit #6322 to allow
for a 4x162 foot walkway immediately landward of the reconstructed
bulkhead, a 16x32 foot deck on grade with a 4x14 foot walk
extending landward and a 4x4 foot platform with steps to the beach.
Located: 7600 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel.
Jim and I went out and looked at this. This is a bulkheaded
piece with quite a bit of a buffer before a retaining wall. I also
want to add to this, a split retail fence they have around the
perimeter of this, on the eastern side of the property. And any
plantings they want to do in this area. It's all sand right now.
We suggested to do some beach grass plantings to hold some of that
sand. So I want to add any plantings that they want. Not that
they need a permit to do that. I just wanted to mention that.
Everything here was fine. As I said, it was a huge area, so I'll
make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That includes the split rail fence on the eastern
side of the property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number nine, Suffolk Environmental on behalf of
CHARLES BOYAR requests an Amendment to Permit #6556 to include the
installation of new pilings to secure the existing floating dock
assembly when it is reinstalled after construction of the bulkhead.
Five new piles, 12 inches in diameter and 14 feet long will be
installed in the same location as the existing piles to secure the
floating dock and two new piles 4x4 inches and 12 feet long, will
be installed in the same location as the existing piles to secure
the fixed wood dock.
Located: 250 Goose Creek Lane, Southold.
The Board went out and looked at this and -- I don't know if
there is anybody here. We met with the gentleman out there in the
field and what we were concerned about was the need for the five
new piles along that floating dock, the 12 inch by 14. What we had
suggested out there in the field was there are three pilings, one
on each end and one in the middle, so three total, eight inch
pilings.
We were okay with the two new piles, four inch by four inch
and 12 feet long in the same location for the dock. So we are okay
with that part. But what we had a concern with was five new
Board of Trustees
19
May 16, 2007
pilings where we thought three could handle it. The gentleman out
there in the field said that was okay with him.
It's listed as being inconsistent under the LWRP. I think
what that is referring to is the inconsistency, because I find an
inconsistency report here, but that goes back to the original
permit request and we addressed that inconsistency in the original
permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It is consistent.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: (Perusing.) I apologize for that. I had down
inconsistent. It is consistent. I apologize. So that's our
suggestion. If you would introduce yourself first for the record.
MR. BARRON: Sure. Sean Barron, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. I
think I only met you guys once out at the site with Bruce once,
but, unfortunately this kind of got handed to me tonight. I
haven't been before you guys before actually. So, I'm glad to be
here. As I understand it, I thought all the pilings were five
existing pilings out there now, they are removing to put in the new
bulkhead, then they wanted to replace the five existing pilings
back.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to bring that survey up? We'll show
you on there.
TRUSTEE KING: I think this is the original permit didn't have that
number of piles.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is on the floating dock. This is not the
bulkhead.
MR. BARRON: Correct. This is the plans that are submitted. There
were five. Five existing pilings, that they want to replace
inkind.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is only three out there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, there is five. What we suggested and I'm
sorry, I don't know the gentleman's first name, it was, apparently
two brothers, and it was one of the brothers was there with us and
he said he had no problem what we were suggesting going to three
pilings, one on each end and one, because this is off-center, the
catwalk is off-center, and one in the middle here to support it. So
he said he had no problem with that.
MR. BARRON: I have to verify it since I haven't spoken with them. I
guess I would just, if they are agreeable with that, then we have
no problem with it. I would just add the caveat if it turns out
they need the additional pilings to keep everything in place due to
the weather or whatever, or if they have three, if gets damaged due
to a storm, to come back and put five pilings it to replace what
was there. If it proves necessary.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That requires coming back to us for an amendment
again.
TRUSTEE KING: I think the original permit or drawings we reviewed
Board of Trustees
20
May 16, 2007
was for less. It didn't have five piles. Somewhere along the line
piles got added to it.
MR. BARRON: I have the original permit. I don't know if there are
any plans --
TRUSTEE KING: There was.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Here we go (Perusing).
TRUSTEE KING: This was all grandfathered because of the size of the
floats. Those were grandfathered in years ago.
MR. BARRON: This is replace inkind. (Perusing). That may very well
be the case. I have the old permit. It doesn't specify. If our
clients are amenable.
TRUSTEE KING: I remember seeing somewhere -- there were fewer
piles
MR. BARRON: Is that the En-Consultants drawing?
TRUSTEE KING: I'm pretty sure that was a grandfathered permit on
that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking at an En-Consultants plan dated
January 2,1998. It doesn't show any pilings at all on it, so.
MR. BARRON: If you spoke with my clients and they had no problem
with it and three piles works, that's fine. I suppose we could
always come back if it needs to be strengthened.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You could always request an amendment,
if you need to.
MR. BARRON: Good enough, thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I would like to do is make a motion to approve
number nine, changing it to read from five new piles 12 inch in
diameter, 14 foot long, on the floating dock, to be three new
pilings of eight-inch diameter located one piling on each end and
one in the middle of the floating dock. And then as stated in the
application, approving the two new piles, 4x4 inches and 12 feet
long, to be installed on the wood dock.
MR. BARRON: I'm sorry, are there 12-inch piles out there now?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's --
MR. BARRON: I was thinking if we are knocking it down from five to
three, I don't know if it's in there to reduce the size of the
pilings as well.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We didn't feel they needed 12-inch in that
location. We felt eight was fine.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question is whether they were 12 foot long.
MR. BARRON: I mean if it's 12-inch diameter out there now.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought you said if it was 12 feet long. No, we
would approve the eight inch out there. That's what we wanted out
there in the field.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
Board of Trustees
21
May 16, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of
JOSEPH & CAROLYN FERRARA requests an Amendment to Permit 321 and
6321 C to allow for the installation of two single mooring piles on
the west side of the existing dock. Located: 2170 Maple lane, East
Marion.
We've looked at this a couple of times. This is an area that
has existing docks. This is a smaller than the other docks for the
Crescent Beach Condominium.
We have gone back and forth with this and we have asked them
-- originally they wanted two pile dolphins and they are coming in
with two single piles.
When we were out there last week it was quite windy and for
safety reasons I could see where it would be necessary. And with a
lot of boats docked on the neighboring dock, I think it would be a
lot safer if it is on that west side.
I don't know how the Board feels if we, Bob came up with a
suggestion, if we approve these two piles but also put a
stipulation that no boat shall be docked on the east side of that
float. Because we are trying not to add more structure. This is
just adding two pilings. And like I said, I think it's, for
safety, it would be better. Then we could do the stipulation with
no boat be docked on the east side of the float.
How do you feel about that?
TRUSTEE KING: We denied this once already.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There was a letter from the condo association,
wasn't there, supporting this?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: CAC supports it and it is, the original
application was inconsistent with lWRP.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think one of the concerns that we had, at least
originally, when I came on, it was late, of course, was that we
didn't want to have really anymore structure or have anymore boats
in that area than what is already permitted. So I felt that was,
this was a pretty good compromise to let him move the boat over to
the other side. That solves the problem with the neighbors, and if
they are willing not to put any boats on the east side, at that
point, I think it's a good compromise.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to hear from the applicant.
MR. COSTEllO: My name is John Costello, we are the agents for Mr.
Ferrara on this application.
As you could see, the one-page drawing that we submitted. The
neighboring dock, the Cleaves Point Condominium Group, are
perpendicular to this dock. Their boats, when they come out, run
toward his property. The Board, when they approved the original
dock, approved it so that it would be close to the other
pre-existing dock and the neighboring property wrote a letter and
Board of Trustees
22
May 16, 2007
they have asked Mr. Ferrara, and he has attempted to put the boat
on the west side of the dock whenever possible. For the southwest
prevailing wind, in the summertime, which is your prevailing wind,
the boat gets beat up considerably more.
He will, if this Board so directs, state that he will not use
the other side of the dock. He tries not to now, as an
accommodation, for the safety of his neighbors. They swim in that
area. They also have boats in the area. He doesn't use the east
side of the dock whenever possible. All we are trying to do --
when it was denied, there were two, two-pile dolphins. We reduced
it to 50% of that in order to try to make the boat safe in the
summertime. Again, you only have a 20-foot float and he has a
30-foot boat. So the pilings would certainly secure the boat.
This Board, on many occasions, have allowed pilings to hold boats
off. And I could state a lot of them, but I don't want to start
throwing names around and I don't think that the Board needs that.
But you have allowed it. You have allowed it in creeks. This is
out in the bay and it's just for the safety of his own family. The
dock was built lightly. It was mitigated by using all untreated
materials. Two new pilings, if approved, again, will be
untreated. And it will be a minimum of size.
TRUSTEE KING: What size pile, John?
MR. COSTEllO: It would be eight-inch tip piling so the only part of
the piling that would be out would be eight inches. In the bay,
let me tell you, it would be hardwood piling, in order to be able
to withstand weather conditions with a 30-foot boat tied on it. I'm
trying to mitigate it as best we can, but I would certainly like to
make it safe. And it would maybe the neighboring property safer.
Because they do come out perpendicular. You also look at the
property line of the neighboring dock that is on that drawing. It
crosses the riparian right lines if they were perpendicular. But
it's tight. He's concerned about the safety of his boat and the
safety of the people in the area and he's willing to accommodate
them.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what I'm hearing you say is you would agree to
what Mr. Ghosio is suggesting, that if the Board was to approve
this, with the agreement that he would not dock a boat on the
eastern side of the dock.
MR. COSTEllO: He will not dock a boat there, but I imagine, being
realistic, if somebody came to visit him, they may tie up
temporarily, but he's not going to put it there. He's not going to
put his boat there and he wants to accommodate his neighbors. He's
not going to leave any boats on the east side of the dock
whatsoever. And if that's a condition, he certainly would agree to it.
TRUSTEE KING: I would rather see no boat tied on the east side.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not even guests.
Board of Trustees
23
May 16, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: If you still stipulate no further expansion would be
permitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think that makes sense. I don't think his
intentions are to do that anyway.
TRUSTEE KING: I been in this long enough now. I don't trust
anybody's intentions. Sorry. It just happens.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion on Costello Marine Contracting
Corp., on behalf of Joseph and Carolyn Ferrara request an amendment
to permit #6321 and #6321 C to allow for installation of two single
mooring piles on the west side of the existing dock, subject to --
it will be eight inch piles, non-treated -- subject to no boats to
be docked on the east side of the floating dock and no further
expansion, not even one pile on this permit.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I suggest we get a new survey showing and put a
stipulation on it, saying no docks. Can you just add on the
survey, on the drawing, that there is no boats to be docked on the
east side, then we'll sign that survey.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Number 12, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of DENNIS
& SUSAN DONLIN requests an Amendment to Permit #6324 to construct a
4x32 foot low-profile open-grate catwalk instead of a 4x12 foot
ramp and a 4x20 foot elevated catwalk, leading to a 3x14 foot ramp
and 6x20 foot float secured by two six-inch piles. Located: 8417
Skunk Lane, Cutchogue.
I think this was downsized from what was permitted by the
DEC. This reflects that change. Am I right, Rob?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants, on behalf of the Donlin's.
Yes, physically, the scope of the dock is exactly the same but
instead of ramping up and over the marsh, DEC wanted to see low
profile with the fiberglass open grate so it could be kept low and
allow light to penetrate to the marsh. So the scope of the dock is
identical, it's just instead of going up and over, it's just going
straight out, lower.
TRUSTEE KING: We've always wanted to see the lower catwalks and now
it looks like it's starting to happen. Which is a sign of
progress, maybe. I'll make a motion to approve this amendment.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was exempt from LWRP.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 13, En-Consultants on behalf of LEOBORIO REALTY,
Board of Trustees
24
May 16, 2007
LLC, requests an Amendment to Permit #6136 to remove the existing
concrete foundation and any other construction disturbance
associated with the construction of a new dwelling located beyond
Chapter 275 jurisdiction, and a one-year extension to Permit #6136,
as issued on May 18, 2005. Located: 17877 Soundview Avenue,
Southold.
We all went out there and we saw there is an old, I don't know, an
foundation and an old boiler in there and the rest of the house is
gone, but the boiler still lives. I think that one of the
questions we had was during the removal of all this will we be
cutting any trees or anything like that and how are we going to get
the equipment in there?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants. This is, the permit that
was originally issued by the Board was just issued for the stairs
because at the time it was prior to the changes to the wetlands
law, so the Board had no jurisdiction landward of the top of the
slope and coastal erosion area.
The access to this property will ultimately be gained once all
approvals are secured, to actually open up the right of way through
the Kaplan property. This is an application that, for this part of
the work that this Board has not seen before, has been seen by the
Zoning Board of Appeals who had granted the necessary approvals to
improve that right of way, open it up, allow for emergency access,
et cetera. And it is non-jurisdictional by the DEC and the Board
of Review. The Health Department has heard a variance request for
this due to certain separation nonconformities for the septic and
well.
There probably will be the need to cut vegetation to get
access to this area and to remove all of the existing materials.
We can certainly propose to establish a line of staked hay bales
and project limiting fence, set, say, no closer than 25 feet to the
top of the bluff to ensure that any clearing or other construction
activities do not get any closer than 25 feet to the top of the
bluff.
The new construction meets the 100 foot top of the bluff
setback so the new construction will technically remain out of the
this Board's jurisdiction, but obviously there is disturbance.
Even to build a new home there will be disturbance within that
area. So we may want to set some sort of offset like that from the
top of the bluff in terms of activity so that there is no new
clearing, et cetera, proposed in that area.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What are you going to do with the hole?
MR. HERMAN: They'll probably fill the hole in.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Revegetate it or just leave it?
MR. HERMAN: The nearest part of the existing structure is about 39
feet from the top of the bluff, so that area will probably end up
Board of Trustees
25
May 16, 2007
being part of the landscape and lawned area.
TRUSTEE KING: Where is the coastal erosion line compared to the old
foundation, do you know, Rob?
MR. HERMAN: The coastal erosion line actually runs through, almost
on the east side of the property, it lines up -- it should be on
the survey, actually.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: On the survey it's down the bluff.
MR. HERMAN: It kind of crosses a contour marker. So on the east
side it's lined up with the top of the bluff and as you move west,
the coastal erosion line moves north.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just curious.
MR. HERMAN: So the setback I'm talking about would not be from the
coastal erosion line, it would actually be from the top of the
bluff, which is farther landward than the coastal erosion line.
The top of the slope has probably migrated toward the road since
those maps were drawn.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Will the applicant be okay with a 50-foot
non-disturbance buffer?
MR. HERMAN: You could not establish 50-foot non-disturbance
buffer. You could establish a 25-foot non-disturbance buffer.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You're right. There's not enough room.
MR. HERMAN: The existing materials are already set in there the
proposal is to move the house all the way back, so.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right. Any other comments?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: CAC did support it with the condition of the
20-foot, non-tu rf buffer from the top of the slope.
MR. HERMAN: 20 foot?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
MR. HERMAN: Sold on the 20.
TRUSTEE KING: That was quick.
MR. HERMAN: You know how I feel, whatever CAC says, you guys are
just going to have to go along with it.
TRUSTEE KING: Did it say 40?
MR. HERMAN: But that opinion may have to change as the night goes
on.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion that we approve the
applicant's request for an amendment with the stipulation that hay
bales be placed at 25 foot from the top of the bluff and that we
establish a 25 foot non-disturbance buffer.
MR. HERMAN: Non-disturbance or non-turf?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Non-turf. Sorry.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. HERMAN: Thank you.
Board of Trustees
26
May 16,2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 14, MICHAEL J. CONFUSIONE requests a
Transfer of Permit #4755 from Maria Andriopoulos to Michael J.
Confusione, as issued on June 30,1997. Located: 1605 Westview
Drive, Mattituck.
Jim and I looked at this and we had no problem with it. We just ask
-- there is a bulkhead and then there is more than ten feet
between the bulkhead and a retaining wall that is sand and some
plantings, maintain that as non-turf and behind the retaining wall,
to maintain that seven foot, existing seven foot, non-turf buffer
that is there now. With that, I make that motion.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: PATRICIA LOIACONO requests a Transfer of Permit
#1749 from Edward Yanke to Patricia Loiacono, as issued on October
28,1983, and to Amend Permit #1749 for the existing 3.5x22.8 foot
fixed dock, ramp, and 5x23.2 foot floating dock. Located: 2055 Bay
Avenue, Mattituck.
The Board went out and looked at this and met with the
applicant out there and we have agreed to the transfer of the
permit from Edward Yanke to her. Is she here tonight?
MS. LOIACONO: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you want to step up to the microphone and
introduce yourself for the record.
MS. LOIACONO: Hi, I'm Patricia Loiacono.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Ms. Loiacono, what we discussed out there was not
approving right now the amendment as requested because what we
talked about, as you had agreed, to use one of the two floats that
is there instead of using both of them, whichever was better of the
two, with allowing you to do some minor repairs to that. I believe
there was some decking that had to replaced. I think there was a
couple of boards missing.
MS. LOIACONO: A piling came out, actually.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are talking on the float first. So that that
could be attached to the present dock and used in its present form
and then if you want to come back in the future and have a new dock
put in, because we talked about possibly changing the location of
that, that that could be done at a future date.
MS. LOIACONO: Okay. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's the motion I would like to make, and approve
the transfer of the permit and not to approve the amendment of the
permit.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
Board of Trustees
27
May 16, 2007
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number 16, RONALD MASSAB requests a Transfer of
Permit #123-5-24 from John and Joan Holse to Ronald Massab, as
issued on January 28, 1993, to repair the bulkhead inkind and
inplace. Located: 4295 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck.
It was a grandfathered permit to repair the bulkhead, stairs
and platform.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The only question we had -- I don't know if it's
in the notes -- was he was going to need some backfill that he lost.
TRUSTEE KING: Replace fill. We didn't have a problem with anything
he was doing. But he does -- it wasn't much.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Put backfill as needed?
TRUSTEE KING: He wants to rake the sand that's blown up on his
lawn, rake that out to the bulkhead, and if he has to add a few
yards of sand behind the bulkhead, it would not be a problem. It
was just a minor storm damage to repair that he was doing. He just
wants to put a cap on the top; is that the deal?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's more he's going to reattach the old one.
TRUSTEE KING: It's just minor repairs, so, I didn't have a problem
with it.
I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 17, EUGENE BOZZO requests a Transfer of
Permit #158 from Paul Kelly to Eugene Bozzo as issued on May 8,
1984, to repair the bulkhead inplace utilizing the same materials
that pre-existed before the storm damage. Located: 4135 Camp
Mineola Road, Mattituck.
This is the neighbor of the previous applicant and basically
the same issue is there, with the same needs.
Does anybody have any questions or comments on it? It's pretty
straightforward.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it's pretty straightforward.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would entertain a motion to approve this transfer
of permit as written in number 17.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off regular hearings and go
into our public hearings.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Board of Trustees
28
May 16, 2007
(ALL AYES.)
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: These are our public hearings. We ask you try and
keep your comments limited to five minutes, if possible. We would
like to move things along as quickly as we can.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: En-Consultants on behalf of STEPHEN & CHARLOTTE
WAGNER requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to
construct approximately 44 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place
of existing concrete seawall and backfill with approximately 15
cubic yards clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source; and
install approximately 150 linear feet of 50-200 pound stone rip-rap
to be buried by dune to be constructed with approximately 80 cubic
yards clean sand trucked in from an upland source and planted with
Cape American Beachgrass (12 inches on center.) Located: 20 Harbor
River Road, Orient.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants, to speak on behalf of the
applicants Steve and Charlotte Wagner. The owner is here as well.
This is really a two-part project designed, obviously, to stem
a chronic erosion and less chronic but still serious flooding
problem on the property. The most straightforward part of the
application is the replacement of an existing concrete retaining
wall or seawall that is set a few feet inside the applicant's
westerly property line was in better shape before April 15th than
after April 15th. You can see probably a slight variation in the
condition of the bulkhead when you were out there recently compared
to the photos that we took a couple months back and submitted with
the application.
That part of the proposal involves the removal of that wall,
that concrete debris that exists. It does not speak to the
concrete wall that runs across the property that is mostly buried
and will remain that way. But what will be tied in in place of the
existing wall will be a vinyl bulkhead, fairly standard
construction of what the Board would typically approve and the
detail of that is included in the lower of the two cross-sections
that are on the project plans that the Board has.
The other part of the project involves the construction of a
dune along the southerly shoreline, portion of the shoreline, that
is exposed to Orient Harbor. What we are proposing in order to
stem what has been a continued landward transgression of that
little berm and the upland area subject property is to set rip-rap
into that toe which has moved, again, did move back somewhat after
the April 15 storm. The staking that I assume you saw out there is
Board of Trustees
29
May 16, 2007
the taking of how this project was originally proposed based on
what the location of that berm had been before the April 15 storm.
I don't think it's moved that much. It may have moved in one area
more than others. But in order to prevent a situation where we are
just putting a hard structure out there, especially in an area that
is so low, to prevent the flooding and try to recreate some of that
elevation there and create more of a natural condition, we are
proposing to construct a dune area over that which is shown in the
upper of the two cross-sections on the plan. Coming from the
landward side of the house, the peek of the dune would not be more
than three feet above existing grade. It would be about
four-and-a-half feet above the existing elevation on the beach a
few feet in front of the rip-rap and up where the two
cross-sections shows what that would ultimately look like.
The idea here is really to create a situation where we can
create a natural protective feature against flooding which will be
sand and beach grass but have an emergency really have the rip-rap
serve as an emergency measure where if you had another storm like
this and had a complete wash out of that area, you would at least
have the stone hold be the initial line and we can go back, it
might be an endless money pit for Mr. Wagner, but have to go back
out and reconstruct the sand over it. But at least it would
prevent that property from being eaten away in large chunks, which
is what has happened now over the years.
That's the two-part project in a nutshell. If the Board has
any questions about the design or what we are trying to accomplish,
obviously I'm here to answer them.
TRUSTEE KING: So rip-rap is going to be covered --
MR. HERMAN: Rip-rap will be buried as it shows in the cross
section. The dune will be planted and that really is an area that
the Wagner's will have to maintain over time and not for the
purpose of servicing some, you know, environmentally friendly
aspect for the Board or for the permit purposes. They are trying
to prevent a flooding problem on the low part of that land. So
this dune is really the most critical part of the project for them
and the rip-rap is going to serve as a stop gap. You can see that
area has moved landward just since we submitted the application,
but because the house is so far setback, it's really the flooding
that is creating more of a potential problem now to the Wagner's
and the home than the erosion.
Obviously those two events are coupled and that's why we are
trying to take a two-part approach really here. It's really the
DEC desirable soft approach, quote unquote, with the rip-rap as a
stop gap. The rip-rap would be similar to what the Board approved
on Selig.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: A €Duple of comments first. This was found
Board of Trustees
30
May 16, 2007
consistent under the LWRP. And CAC resolved to support the
application.
MR. HERMAN: So far so good.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: To talk about this in two phases, the first phase
being what you want to do with the buried rip-rap out front, the
Board did not have an issue with that, and based on your
presentation tonight I don't seem to have any issue because we saw
exactly what you are talking about; that the purpose here is to
address the flooding, interior to that or landward of that.
With regard to the second project, going along the western
boundary of the property, Mr. Tuttle met us out there in the field
and is Mr. Tuttle here tonight?
(No response.)
Mr. Tuttle questioned the part of this project that is actually
going to be on his property. So that's why we are interested in
seeing the survey and I know you have a survey here submitted to
us, it's dated here May 8, and as I look at the survey, it looks
like part of this project is on his property.
MR. HERMAN: You are talking about the replacement of the concrete
seawall? You said two phases.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: When I say two phases, the first one is out on the
bay.
MR. HERMAN: Now you are talking --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The 40 feet of bulkhead. 44 linear feet of vinyl
bulkhead. Is that just the length of what is shown on the survey,
the concrete wall; is that the exact 44 foot? Because it seems to
be depicted in the plans. I'm looking at the plans and at the
survey. I'm trying to superimpose one on the other.
MR. HERMAN: For the Board's information, what it is, our drawings
are actually based on an electronic file of a Sea Level Mapping
survey. So when you are looking at these two, where this shows an
En-Consultants planning, existing buried concrete wall and this 44
foot vinyl bulkhead to be constructed in place of the seawall, that
is an electronic replica of this, the boundary lines of this and
the location of the wall.
This was mentioned to me, I think Lauren had advised me, this
issue had been brought up and I'm frankly befuddled by it because
it's not -- the wall is not even on the property line. It's set
inside the property line, and what I did is I did drop off to your
office a second survey that had been prepared previously by Stan
Isaacson which shows the exact same information, and in fact even
on Stan's survey shows a 3.4 foot offset set to the inside of that
property line.
So what we are doing is eliminating that concrete wall and
replacing it with a vinyl bulkhead which if anything will be
thinner than the wall. But I mean even if they got it wrong by
Board of Trustees
31
May 16, 2007
three feet it would still be -- I'm not suggesting the contractor
would do that -- but it would still be within the Wagner's boundary
line so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question that I had is not on the replacement
the vinyl. I'm not speaking for the other Board members. They
could speak if they like. The question I'm bring up is the work
going to be in fact on the Wagner's property and I'm satisfied,
based on the survey, the two different surveys, the one we had
stamped here May 8, by Robert Fox as well as the second survey that
is from 2005, by Isaacson, that it is on Wagner's property.
MR. HERMAN: And just so you know, the Isaacson survey, I think, may
have been previously plea submitted to the Board by the Wagner's
architect for purposes of getting a non-jurisdiction letter for
some work on the house. So this survey had been done previously.
We asked the Wagner's to get this newer survey from Robert Fox only
because his company specializes in all this shoreline and details.
It just so happened when the question was raised we had two surveys
don independently in two different years by two different
surveyors.
TRUSTEE KING: Sometimes they differ on their opinions, too.
MR. HERMAN: Yes, but in this case, they came out the same.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience who would
like to make a comment on this application?
MR. LUKMAN, JR.: My name is Cyril K. Lukman, Jr. Thank you for
giving me this opportunity to address the Board.
The application in front you is what I would like to speak
to. I just saw notice of it on a telephone pole over the weekend.
So I didn't have a lot of time to go anywhere to see what it is,
the plans that are being proposed here. But what I would like to do
is just to educate the Board on a little bit of the history of that
property and maybe why the flood problem is occurring.
That land where that old wall that the gentleman spoke of
earlier, was a prior wall before the lawn was elongated to the
beach head. Before that was done without permit, that was all
natural wetlands and grass. The water would flow in and out with
the tide. So the water would not hold up to the house. That house
has been there for a couple of hundred years and never had any
flood problems.
The water that sits at the end of the Harbor Road and doesn't
drain out, that sits, gets stuck in by what we call the bulkhead at
the end of the road, Harbor Lane, that water sits in there because
it has not been able to escape since the '80's when they put in the
wall and they went further into the creek, because the way that
creek was open to the bay, that hard wall that was placed in was
placed over bog. So they actually elongated the property to the
northwesterly and went in further into the creek to add more lawn.
Board of Trustees
32
May 16, 2007
So this whole application on its face looks fine. But if you
go back to when the work was done, and I don't think you'll find
permits for it, at least not applications for permits, before the
work was done, and that was during the days of forgiveness, where
it was easy to just go out and do it and come back and say, well,
we did it. Well, we are not going to make you tear out a concrete
bulkhead. Oh, you just covered up a lot of beautiful wetland with
fill. And so the problems that are there were created by the
previous owner and that flooding that we always get at the end of
the bulkhead which causes other erosion problems, stems from
hardening that wall to begin with and covering up the beginning of
that property with grass instead of letting it be its natural
wetlands. So a better idea may be is to go back to the way it was,
that had worked for a couple hundred years, before they hardened
that wall and then placed the grass in after that buried wall. And
that's buried with fill. Instead of just allowing the wetlands to
do what is always did. So this is much more complicated than it
appears. And thank you very much for your time.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I was kind of curious as to what that concrete wall
used to be.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from anybody in the audience?
Any comments from Board members?
TRUSTEE KING: My only concern was the property issue. Property
line issue.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Being no further comments from the Board, I would
like to make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to make a motion to approve the
application of En-Consultants on behalf of Stephen and Charlotte
Wagner as stipulated.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. HERMAN: Thank you.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Wetland Permits, number one, GUIDO & MARGUERITE
DOSSENA request a Wetland Permit to remove and replace the existing
upper bulkhead using timber and backfill. Located: 8180 Peconic Bay
Boulevard, Laurel.
Board of Trustees
33
May 16, 2007
Jim and I went out and looked at this, and the lower bulkhead
has a permit already. That's why we are just doing the upper
bulkhead. And it's exempt from LWRP; and CAC supports the
application with the condition of a 15 foot, non-turf buffer and no
treated lumber to be used.
Is there anyone here to speak on this application?
MR. DOSSENA: Hi, I'm Guido Dossena. The bulkhead was damaged in the
storm last month. All we are requesting is replacement inkind with
no modifications or anything else.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any comments from the Board?
MR. DOSSENA: Now, I heard you say two stipulations. I didn't hear
what they were.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was just the CAC that reviews all our
applications; a 15-foot non-turf buffer they requested and no
treated lumber to be used. That's from the CAC. That's not
necessarily what the Board is going to approve.
MR. DOSSENA: Because I would like to point out there is not one
property on that entire stretch that has any open land by the water
and that bulkhead is something like 15 feet away way from the
water. It's not even close to the water. It's a retaining wall.
It's not even a bulkhead in contact with the water, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We talked in the field about a ten-foot, non-turf
buffer.
MR. DOSSENA: Right. This is the first time I'm hearing 15 feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's just the comments from the CAC. They
review every application and give their comments and the Board
considers them.
MR. DOSSENA: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments?
(No response.)
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted with the condition of a ten-foot, non-turf buffer and no
treated lumber to be used.
TRUSTEE KING: We've been allowing it on the retaining walls.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: It's a secondary retaining wall that's not in the
water at all. We have been installing CCA there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll revise that subject to approve subject to a
ten-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Number two, BALA & KATHLEEN PILLAI requests a Wetland
Board of Trustees
34
May 16, 2007
Permit to replace the existing lower bulkhead using C-loc vinyl
sheathing. located: 8280 Peconic Bay Boulevard, laurel.
Is there anybody here to comment on this application?
(No response.)
Jill and I went out and looked at this also.
MS. PlllAI: My name is Kathleen Pillai
TRUSTEE KING: It's pretty straightforward. I believe it's going in
place of the existing.
MS. PlllAI: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: What do we have for a non-turf buffer?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Ten feet.
TRUSTEE KING: Ten foot non-turf buffer?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: CAC supports it with a 15-foot, non-turf buffer. No
treated lumber, which is not going to be used. It's going to be
C-loc vinyl with a ten foot is fine. Any Board comments? Any
questions? It's just a straightforward replacement.
(No response.)
I didn't have a problem with it. Anybody else?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. And it's exempt from lWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this application?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted for
replacement with vinyl with ten-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number four, ANTHONY GRAZIANO requests a Wetland
Permit to widen the existing catwalk at the seaward end, move
position of floating dock slightly to deeper water and replace the
rotting boards on the catwalk. located: 915 lakeside Drive North,
Southold.
Is there anybody who would like to speak to this application?
MR. GRAZIANO: Anthony Graziano, applicant.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We all went out there and took a look at this. I
think when we measured it, the appropriate measurements are here,
we checked to see if it went a third of the way across and water
depth. Did you need to transfer the permit?
MR. GRAZIANO: Yes, we need a transfer.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The platform was quite a bit wider than what we
would normally allow. I think the Board wanted to address that
Board of Trustees
35
May 16, 2007
with you. Catwalks are limited to four feet wide. There is also
the two stairs that are on the side. There was some questions
about that as well.
This is inconsistent according to LWRP and; the CAC resolved
to support the application.
Did we want to do something with that catwalk?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we talked about reducing it and not having
it. We would not normally allow that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I had suggested was it was widened equal
distance on each part of the platform from the dock and there was a
bench on one side and it's just a deck on the other side and it's
the possibility that the Board would consider leaving the side with
the bench there but taking the other part of that platform off.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And making it even with the catwalk?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct, as a compromise.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's the side depicted on the plan there?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, the side with the bench.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: To the north, right?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't know, I don't have the plans in front of me.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And we also wanted to remove those two sets of
stairs. Aside from that, I don't think we had any other problems
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have a problem leaving one set of stairs
there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think the same side that the bench is on,
allowing those stairs, because that would allow access to the same
side as the racks where the kayaks were, as I recall.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments on this application?
MR. GRAZIANO: If I could, it sounds like the Board might be open to
compromise, since you use that term. The small platform at the
seaward side of the catwalk, we put there as a matter of
convenience. Obviously the bench is on one side for a nice seating
area. The other for convenience for loading and off-loading
passengers on the boat so everyone doesn't have to crowd the dock.
That is already constructed. And I apologize. I didn't realize
that we shouldn't be doing something along those lines. I did it
without impacting the ground in any way. It's just cantilevering
over the catwalk and it seems to be high enough not to interfere
with any of the grass or natural environment. I would be happy to
take both sides of those steps off so that we don't step down into
the wetland. We don't typically do that. Those boat racks are
going to get moved closer to my home, just for esthetic reason
anyway, and pushed over to the non-wetland area. So I'm going to
request that we can have that compromise; so leave the platform
alone, I would be happy to take the steps off, that's easy. If
there is any chance of doing that, that would be appreciated.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments, questions, ideas?
Board of Trustees
36
May 16, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know. Because it's not something we would
allow anyway. I mean it's a matter of what, two feet, that we are
asking him to take off?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, roughly. The existing platform that is there
is 8.2 feet by 7.6 feet.
MR. GRAZIANO: I think we pick up about a foot-and-a-half on either
side of the, of what was the existing catwalk.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The ramp is 12 foot by four foot long.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would still be more comfortable with just
allowing the part of the deck that has the bench on it -- you know,
people are going to be loading and off-loading the boat on a
floating dock, not up on the catwalk, so I would be more
comfortable with just reducing that in half and allowing the side
with the bench. That's just my own personal opinion. And I
appreciate your willingness to remove both sets of stairs and move
the rack landward.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: By reducing that we can bring it into consistency
with LWRP.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is that what the problem was with LWRP?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm not sure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You have the file.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: (Perusing.) It's inconsistent with LWRP. The
applicant has not demonstrated that the following proposed action
meets the dock standards pursuant to 275.11, whether the dock will
impair navigation, assure public access to public trust land,
navigable waters, whether the dock will cause habitat
fragmentation; there is a whole list concerning the dock. Provide
access to and reasonable recreational use of navigable waters;
proposed action would obstruct public use and navigation,
recreation of the public trust purposes within the immediate
vicinity of the dock and structure. The proposed use is private
and not proposed for water dependent industry or commerce,
commercial or public access or use, therefore the proposed action
does not meet the above policies.
And there are some other -- proposed increase with the catwalk
is 7.5 feet. It's supposed to be four feet. So there are several
reasons why LWRP finds it inconsistent. But out in the field, we
really didn't see how it was going to be blocking navigation, at
least particularly since we were going to move it out into slightly
deeper water there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We felt that would improve the navigation through
there.
MR. GRAZIANO: We are actually moving it over to where the channel
is wider and follow the shoreline as opposed to impose on the
shoreline.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If there are no other comments I would like to make
Board of Trustees
37
May 16, 2007
a motion that we close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion that we approve this
application with the stipulation that we shorten the platform by
making the sides opposite the bench even with the catwalk itself
and also eliminate the steps on that side allowing the platform to
remain where the bench is and also allowing the steps on the bench
side of that platform to remain. And also stipulate that a proper
drawing with all the dimensions be made with what will be finalized.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, Bob, I thought the applicant said he didn't
need either set of steps.
MR. GRAZIANO: I was hoping that would be a compromise. If you
leave that alone, that would be fine, too, as you proposed it, Bob.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you want the steps on the bench side? I don't
think the Board was against you having it.
MR. GRAZIANO: Okay, then let's leave it if you are not against it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. GRAZIANO: Thank you, good night.
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to go back and reopen hearing number
two, BALA & KATHLEEN PILLAI requests a Wetland Permit to replace
existing lower bulkhead using C-Loc vinyl sheathing.
The reason I reopen it, there was no mention of any fill being
added because they are going to need quite a bit of fill between
the bulkhead and existing upper retaining wall that was lost during
the storm. I think she already left. It's not a problem, but I
think it should be on the record that there will be fill added
between the two bulkheads, between the bulkhead and retaining wall,
fill as necessary to come up to the level of the new bulkhead.
That shall remain sand or be replanted with American Beachgrass.
With that being said, 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 what I just said as far
as the fill goes between the bulkhead and retaining wall for clean
sand, among necessary needed to come up to the level of the
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
Board of Trustees
38
May 16, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five, Docko, Inc., on behalf of JAMES BAKER
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x62 foot fixed wood pile
and timber pier and an 8x20 foot floating dock with associated ramp
and restraint pilings and install seven tie-off pilings, all
waterward of the apparent high water line. Located: Peninsula Road,
Fishers Island.
Jim looked at this. It is consistent with LWRP and; CAC does
not have a comment as they did not inspect it.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. NIELSEN: I would like to speak on behalf of the project. My
name is Keith Nielsen, I'm the president of Docko, Inc., a
licensed, professional engineer in New York, and I have prepared
the application documents before you. I have also prepared a
rather lengthy and detailed narrative statement which addresses all
of the coastal use and resource issues associated with the
Department of State regulations, the DEC regulations, Town of
Southold regulations and the Army Corps of Engineers policies for
approval on this item.
I would like to direct your attention to page four, the
summary statement, which addresses each one of the aspects of those
regulations and policies, and I'll just describe briefly what this
project consists of.
The application documents included a property boundary survey
prepared by Richard Strauss of CME Engineering in Norwich,
Connecticut, and we prepared 24x36 inch illustrations of the
proposal which shows existing conditions as well as the proposed
pier which is located approximately midway up the property owned by
James Baker, just north of his father's property, also in Darby's
Cove. In that illustration we show all of the criteria for
approval including the tidal wetlands which were flagged in
accordance with state regulations, the apparent low water and
apparent high water in accordance with DEC regulations. The water
in Darby's Cove which for some strange reason has a deep spot right
adjacent to Mr. Baker's property, and we have tried to take
advantage of that deep spot in order to comply with DEC coastal
policies for reaching four feet of water so that dredging is not a
necessity. We also have 25% and 50% of the waterway marked on the
application documents. That was the basis for the application the
way you see it.
I spoke with Mr. King last week after a site visit last week
and acknowledged that there were three stipulations they would
like, in accordance with town policies; one, make the piles
smaller, and we have checked into the availability and the
structural characteristics of smaller piles, eight-inch piles and
nine-inch piles which would have adequate depth and penetration for
the sandy sediments at the site and would adequately restrain the
Board of Trustees
39
May 16, 2007
float in place and support the pier as we have proposed it.
Second issue was to make the pier, I'm sorry, the floating
dock smaller. Instead of 8x20, we have agreed to 8x16 float. We
prefer the eight foot width because of the inherent stability
issues associated with floating docks and the fact the only waves
that come into Darby's Cove come in from the north and this float
is broadside to those waves. So that appeared to be acceptable
during our conversation, and that's, we are agreeable to that
stipulation.
The other thing was reducing the number of tie off piles from
seven to five, and we have conferred with Mr. Baker about that and
he's in agreement with that stipulation, so those modifications
have been made.
I would like to point out that according to DEC policies to
keep the stern of the boat or the motor drive end of the boat in
four feet of water to prevent future dredging and shortening the
float by four feet, that means we also have to extend the ramp.
In the original application I had proposed a 20-foot long wood
ramp and by shortening the float I either have to extend the ramp
or I have to extend the pier by four feet. And if we extend the
ramp by four feet, it's probably going to have to be aluminum in
order to make the extra span. If the esthetics are a fundamental
consideration here, I have a feeling that aluminum is probably not
going to be the desired material, and if that is the case I would
like to respectfully request the pier be elongated by the
additional four feet so that we can make a 20-foot wood ramp and
retain the esthetics. And either option is acceptable to Mr. Baker
and either option is fully constructible and still consistent with
all of the policies, with the exception of esthetics.
I think the profile remains as is in the application
documents. If you have any questions about -- I know there is a
concern about minimizing, one, the appearance of the structure. If
you have any concerns about the railing, I would like to go over
those now, because there are some other options, if that's an issue
for you.
TRUSTEE KING: I think by code, isn't it just one, around the two
double handrails?
MR. NIELSEN: You mean deleting the middle?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. One railing on one side of the structure, not
on both sides.
MR. NIELSEN: I don't think Mr. Baker would object to that. The
railing is really a safety issue. The standard building code is if
there is more than a 30-inch drop off from a structure to the floor
or the sediments, there should be a safety rail. And since these
structures are sometimes used in inclement weather or high winds or
hours of darkness and so on, we have typically shown rails on both
Board of Trustees
40
May 16,2007
sides.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't see it now but I believe in the code it
says one railing unless otherwise approved by the Trustees. If we
feel it's a safety issue, whatever, we can approve it, too. But I
also believe we have a size limit on the width.
TRUSTEE KING: We've talked about this before on these state codes.
I don't think it applies to like a private dock.
MR. NIELSEN: You are right. Building code doesn't apply to a
private dock but the safety issue is still there.
TRUSTEE KING: But it's not required by state code.
MR. NIELSEN: It's not required, that's right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim, do you remember the size of the railing?
TRUSTEE KING: I think it can be no larger than 2x4, if I remember
right. It's in the code there, on handrails.
Is there any way we could further reduce the number of tie off
piles? It just seems like an awful lot for that small cove to have
that many tie off piles.
MR. NIELSEN: Well, five, going back to the plan view, five allows
two tie off piles on each side and one tie off pile off the end.
Do you have a number in mind that you would like?
TRUSTEE KING: Two.
MR. NIELSEN: Would you settle for three?
TRUSTEE KING: Three sounds better for me. You know, it really
takes up a lot of bottom for the amount of time you are going to
use them, and it's really, you know, it's really a very protected
little cove in there. It's not like you are out exposed like you
are really going to have any seas going up where you need a tie up
like you do in the bay or the sound. If we could reduce those
numbers I would feel much more comfortable with it.
MR. NIELSEN: One question --
TRUSTEE KING: I like your drawings, too. Those are pretty
attractive.
MR. NIELSEN: If Mr. Baker, through the use of the pier, finds that
he needs to come back to you for the five piles, would you be
agreeable --
TRUSTEE KING: We would entertain an amendment.
MR. NIELSEN: In that case, let me stipulate we'll knock off the two
piles on the south side of the float and go with three, okay, if
that's all right; two on the north side and one off the end of the
float. Is that all right?
TRUSTEE KING: That sounds better to me. How does the rest the
Board feel?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think that's a compromise because also in the
code is says tie off piles associated with docks will only be
permitted to secure one vessel and should not project farther
seaward than the outer edge of the float.
Board of Trustees
41
May 16,2007
So in our code it says tie-off piles can't project farther out
than the outer edge of the float.
TRUSTEE KING: That kills the one off the end of the float.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
TRUSTEE KING: What's the purpose of that one, Mr. Nielsen?
MR. NIELSEN: Spring line to keep it centered or to hold it from
moving longitudinally.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: From what you heard you say in your presentation,
the boat has to be anchored so the stern projects farther seaward
than the seaward end of the floating dock because of depth. So
that's used to accomplish that.
MR. NIELSEN: Right. If you look at my profile, you'll see, the
water gets deeper as you go out to the west end of the float, so
it's used, I'm trying to make sure that the boat stays moored out
beyond the end of the float, just for motor clearance on the
bottom.
TRUSTEE KING: I think a spring line from the offshore, not the one
off the end of the float but the one at the seaward end of the
float that is offshore of that, spring line from that to the bow
would keep the boat from going ahead. You could add a spring line
from the float to the bow which would also keep the boat from
moving ahead.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are reading my mind. That's what I'm
wondering. If you run the spring line off the bow back to the
float pile, would that succeed in keeping the stern aft?
MR. NIELSEN: We generally train not to tie the boat off to the
float restraint pile because if the float goes up, it binds on the
tie off line.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What's the tidal action in there?
MR. NIELSEN: It's only three feet on a normal basis.
TRUSTEE KING: To tie the boat to the float, not to the pole that
holds the float in place.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand. Put a cleat on the float and tie it
to the cleat.
MR. NIELSEN: So then we are down to two piles on the north side.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. NIELSEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Getting back to the handrails, it says only one
handrail is permitted on a residential dock unless the need for two
is demonstrated. Rails shall not be higher than three feet above
the surface of the dock and posts shall not be placed closer than
six-feet on center or larger than four inches by four inches in
dimension.
MR. NIELSEN: It's if all right with you, we would like to have the
piles serve as the rail supports, okay, just because of the
complexity of the structure and the eventual slop in a post mounted
Board of Trustees
42
May 16, 2007
system. Those piles are anticipated to ten foot on center, so we
don't have a problem with that. If necessary we can live with the
one rail. It will be on the south side since the adverse winds will
be from the north.
And the other thing, three feet; um, standard rail height in
accordance with code, I know the building code doesn't apply, is 42
inches. And I think that all of you would agree, if you bump into
a rail that is three feet high, you still have a fair tendency to
fall over it. At 42 inches, it's only six inches higher but it
makes a substantial difference in your ability to maintain your
balance. I would urge you to allow 42 inches.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a problem with that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have of a problem with that.
TRUSTEE KING: And you might make a note to amend the code to
reflect that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll write a note to Peggy to let her know.
MR. NIELSEN: Would you be willing to come to a decision on the
length of the pier versus the length of the ramp?
TRUSTEE KING: Its well within less than one-third of the way across
the waterway if you add the three feet; am I correct?
MR. NIELSEN: Yes. We are, the whole structure is less than a
quarter of the way across the waterway.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have of a huge problem with that. We've
shortened the float, made it smaller. This is the first time we
really reduced something on Fishers Island but it's something we
are going to have to start looking at, as we see more and more
build out.
MR. NIELSEN: I'm not arguing.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. So can you give us a new set of plans now
reflecting all these changes?
MR. NIELSEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll briefly go over them. The fixed dock will be
three feet longer than is indicated, it would make it 65 feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe you said four feet.
TRUSTEE KING: Four feet. 66 feet will be the overall length of the
fixed dock.
MR. NIELSEN: Yup.
TRUSTEE KING: And we'll have three-and-a-half by 20 foot ramp to an
8x16 float with two tie-off poles on the north side of the float.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: At eight inch to nine inch in diameter.
TRUSTEE KING: And eight inch piles.
MR. NIELSEN: Can I get eight to nine inch?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. I know there is a variance. I have seen a lot
of eight inch piles, six inch piles sometimes measure almost eight
inches with a variance. A tree is not perfect.
MR. NIELSEN: Rails, 42 inches?
Board of Trustees
43
May 16, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to do both sides or one side?
TRUSTEE KING: One side, on the south side. Did I forget anything?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
(No response.)
Being none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve this application with
the new changes and a new set of plans.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
MR. NIELSEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number six, JMO Environmental Consulting Services on
behalf of GEORGE CARTER SEDNAOUI & STACEY CAYCE SEDNAOUI
requests a Wetland Permit to demolish an existing single-family dwelling,
guest houses, decks, steps and driveway and to construct a new
single-family dwelling, guest house, retaining wall, breezeway,
steps, covered porch, terraces, grass courtyard, pool house and
trellis. Located: East End Road, Fishers Island.
Is there anyone here to comment on this?
MR. JUST: Good evening. Glenn Just, JMO Consulting. If there are
any questions from the Board on this project.
TRUSTEE KING: It has been found inconsistent with LWRP because the
setback is 80 feet instead of 100. If action is approved and to
further policy five, require gutters, downspouts, subsurface
drywells to contain roof runoff and bay hay bales during
construction. Maintain non-turf buffer to protect the waterway,
which is a fresh water pond.
I was over on Fishers Island. I think we all looked at this
about a year ago, if I remember right.
MR. JUST: You did.
TRUSTEE KING: Steeply sloped down here. Did we locate the septic
system?
MR. JUST: We went back out. Dick Strauss went back out yesterday.
He thinks it's out by the road. It's going to be like 200 feet
away from that pond.
TRUSTEE KING: It's going to be well out of our jurisdiction.
MR. JUST: The owner has agreed to leaders, gutters and drywells. We
are calculating it now because of the amount of square footage of
the roof, we have to calculate how big the drywell has to be. We
Board of Trustees
44
May 16, 2007
are doing that.
TRUSTEE KING: They don't really have much of a buffer in there, do
they, Glenn?
MR. JUST: If you recall, Jim, the bottom of the pond is the
chainlink fence that's about 20 feet of that Japanese Knotweed that
they have been mowing.
TRUSTEE KING: Did they do some plantings in there?
MR. JUST: The DEC is recommending they remove the Japanese Knotweed
and put in low profile shrubs for about a 30-foot buffer there.
That's what we are working on now. Get rid of the lighting system
down there. It's down there on the pond.
TRUSTEE KING: Remember that, flood lights built into the back.
They are going to do away with that?
MR. JUST: (Affirmative nod.)
TRUSTEE KING: Those are my concerns. The septic is out of our
jurisdiction. Basically the footprint hasn't changed an awful lot.
It is what it is. Any other comments from the Board?
(No response.)
Where is this as far as DEC goes?
MR. JUST: DEC asked the same questions you have as far as the
septic. That's their main concern. That's why CME went back out
there yesterday to try and locate it. I think, if you recall, you
and I looked around for it for a while. We couldn't find it. But
definitely has to be on the roadside of that house, the way the
house is laid out.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll stipulate that in the permit.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
(No response.)
CAC probably didn't get out there. The only notes I have. I made
notes myself, locate the septic system and drywells. CAC did not
make an inspection. You guys better get out there.
Being no further comments, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
I'll make a motion to approve this application based on the
new set of plans showing the septic system which will be out of our
jurisdiction and with a notation gutters and drywells to contain
roof runoff and there will be a non-turf buffer down there to the
chainlink fence to be planted up with some appropriate planting.
MR. JUST: As soon as we find a way to get rid of the Japanese
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, then I would do some plantings in there. The
chainlink fence, there was some questions about that. Looks like
it's been there for years. I think it would be more disturbance to
pull it out.
MR. JUST: According to the owners, the chainlink fence and lighting
Board of Trustees
45
May 16, 2007
system was there from the previous owner.
TRUSTEE KING: And the lighting system will be removed from the
hillside.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: So we'll get a new set of plans in on that.
TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, JMO Environmental Consulting, Inc., on
behalf of WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 22x32 foot detached garage. Located: Private Road,
Fishers Island.
We looked at this, I believe, about a year ago, again. This
is at the request of DEC to move the garage further away from the
wetlands, from the original proposed location.
MR. JUST: If you recall, Mr. King, when we were out there last
week, as you just said, the garage is moved about 30 feet further
away from the wetlands. It's proposed 81 feet away from the little
freshwater wetlands on the side of the house. We've shown it to be
a 75 foot natural buffer zone between the garage and any
disturbance. So we'll have to do about six feet of clearing on the
one corner between the wetlands and the garage. We are going to
provide drywells for drainage as shown on the plans. And there
will be a continuous line of hay bales and silt fence set up at
that limits of disturbance. We've maximized it pretty much as we
could during the last two meetings that we have been there. Based
on the last two meetings.
Initially they wanted it next to the house then they moved it
further down the driveway. Now it's up near the road.
TRUSTEE KING: It's inconsistent with LWRP. Once again, I'm sure
it's because of the distance. It's within the 1 DO-foot setback.
MR. JUST: As you know, we have three different modifications to
maximize it as far way as possible.
TRUSTEE KING: It's a garage. It has drywells for roof runoff.
It's a nice 75 foot buffer in place. With all that has been done,
it makes it consistent with LWRP.
Any other comments on this application?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted with the new plans.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Board of Trustees
46
May 16, 2007
(ALL AYES.)
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. Have a good evening.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Kinlin Rutherfurd Architects, PLLC, on behalf of
PETER BACCILE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new
garage/storage accessory building and install an inground swimming
pool with pool enclosure fence. Located: Equestrian Avenue, Fishers
Island.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. KINLlN: Hi, I'm Bruce Kinlin, Kinlin Rutherfurd Architects and
Lily Rutherfurd, my partner.
TRUSTEE KING: This one is not going to be so easy. The proposed
action is inconsistent with the LWRP. The proposed distance to the
new pole from the top of the bluff is 32 feet. The new garage is
proposed at 85 feet to the top of the bluff. The minimum setback
distance of 100 feet from the bluff line is required pursuant to
Chapter 275-3.
CAC did not make an inspection therefore there is no
recommendation from CAC.
I went out and looked at this when I was over on Fishers
Island. There are pictures here if anybody wants to look at the
pictures.
(Perusing.)
The rest of the Board has not seen this. I was the only one
over there. I'm trying to give them a quick rundown on what is
what.
MR. KINLlN: Sure.
TRUSTEE KING: This is the house. This is the next door neighbor
looking down. This is looking seaward. This is where they want to
put the pool.
(The Board is perusing the file, drawings and pictures.)
TRUSTEE KING: I've got a lot of questions. The stone walls. What
are the plans for the stone wall?
MR. KINLlN: The existing stone wall, the idea of the siding of the
pool is to place it within the existing stone wall that runs in
that area. There is an L-shaped stone wall that is really a
retaining wall. The intent is to keep that wall but to only modify
it in the area where the steps would then come up to the back of
the new building.
TRUSTEE KING: Was there any thought of putting the pool up more on
the lawn where the house is rather than down in that little squared
off area?
MR. KINLlN: The short answer is no. When we first met with the
client, that was the area they thought was best. And we agreed
with them. And part of the rationale for that was that it was not
Board of Trustees
47
May 16, 2007
directly in front of the house, that the natural views of the Sound
remained in tact. And when it's off season and the pool is
covered, that it's not the center focal point outside the living
space, it was kind contained off on the side.
TRUSTEE KING: I pretty much have a problem with the pool being that
close to the bluff. That's a lot of the problem. I was wondering,
if there is any way to move it landward, including the garage.
MS. RUTHERFURD: I believe the garage can't move landward because of
the rear yard setback for that building. The corner of that
building is currently placed on the rear yard setback, as it is now.
MR. KINLlN: We kind of tried to pull it as far from the bluff as we
could. There is a 25-foot setback on the side yard and then a rear
yard setback.
TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing). I was looking more at that paved area,
put the garage up where that area is.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to come up? Jim will show you what
he's talking about.
TRUSTEE KING: Would it be possible up where you have the turn
around there where it's all paved for the garage to be somewhere in
this area? Rather than be so far seaward?
MS. RUTHERFURD: The rear yard setback is here. So it's either here
or here.
TRUSTEE KING: So is this paved section not on their property?
MS. RUTHERFURD: No, this is just the setback (indicating.)
MR. KINLlN: Can I draw on that. That's the rear yard setback. It
comes from the corner of the house then comes along that way.
That's the side yard setback, so we tried to pull that back as far
as we can without crossing those two lines.
TRUSTEE KING: What you would you need to put it back here, a
variance?
MR. KINLlN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: That's not an impossibility.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm sorry. What do you mean by rear yard setback?
MS. RUTHERFURD: The Building Department doesn't allow the garage to
be setback. So anything in this area would qualify as the side
yard.
MR. KINLlN: It doesn't really look like that when you look at the
house, but that line runs across there. That's the line out of the
side yard.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any way you can move the pool here?
know you want to keep the stone wall.
TRUSTEE KING: I would love to see the pool go where the proposed
garage is going. That's what I would like to see. And move the
garage landward.
MR. KINLlN: I was not anticipating that question that I could
represent the owner's thinking on. That was not one. We walked the
Board of Trustees
48
May 16,2007
property also, Mr. King, it just seems to us and the owner and
everyone else that this is just --
TRUSTEE KING: I know it's like an isolated little spot. I
understand that.
MR. KINLlN: It's a tranquil spot. It doesn't have any other
playground component now. There is no plantings there. It's a very
level spot.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm looking at the LWRP, what we have been going
through lately with some of the set offs, distances to the bluff.
What's the proposed size of the pool?
MR. KINLlN: Can I give you an approximate?
TRUSTEE KING: What's the dimension of the pool?
MR. KINLlN: 60x30. Approximate.
TRUSTEE KING: The pool itself is roughly 50x20.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do they have to go to the ZBA?
TRUSTEE KING: Unless it's 150 feet off the bluff. Many times
people come to us first. Sometimes if they need ZBA, we'll push
you over to ZBA.
MR. CORCORAN: The point is it looks like you'll probably have to go
to ZBA anyway because the setback from the bluff is 100 feet. You
are well within that. So let's not contort ourselves over trying
to avoid trying to get a variance if you need one anyway.
TRUSTEE KING: I think the zoning is only for the Sound. I don't
think it's for bays. I'm not trying to make the case for you. Our
setback is 100 feet. ZBA, I think in the zoning code, specifically
states Long Island Sound and possibly Fishers Island Sound and
Block Island Sound. I'm not a zoning expert.
MR. KINLlN: I'm glad you reminded me of that. That's what we were
told by some of the other consultants working on the project is
because it was on the harbor, that the hundred foot setback --
TRUSTEE KING: You may want to ask them. I don't think we know
enough tonight to move forward with this. I would encourage
somehow how to get this pool back further. I know it's going to be
difficult because the stone wall is right there. As far as the
fence, I know what the idea of putting the fence on the bluff is,
so they don't have to look at it.
MR. KINLlN: Correct.
TRUSTEE KING: But you have a privet hedge there. My feeling is put
the fence landward of the privet hedge, right up tight to it. That
way there will be no disturbance. It's a nicely vegetated bluff. It
doesn't need to be disturbed.
As a matter of fact, the neighbor to the left, as soon as we
get a bay constable out there, he's going to have to look at that.
Because somebody has done some clearing on that bluff and now they
Board of Trustees
49
May 16, 2007
have an erosion problem.
MR. KINLlN: That's not our facilities.
TRUSTEE KING: The next door neighbor.
MR. KINLlN: He's definitely given me the authority to move the
fence up. The intent is put it down so you don't see it. He'll
move that as necessary to make that happen.
TRUSTEE KING: I kind of like to check zoning just to make sure what
their law is.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As far as what? I missed that.
TRUSTEE KING: I think the zoning code is 100 feet setback applies
to Long Island Sound, Fishers Island Sound and Block Island Sound.
I think this Little Hay Harbor. I know it's a technicality but
they might say ZBA doesn't have anything to do with it because this
isn't what it is. But I think we need to get a clarified.
MR. CORCORAN: We need to get A clarification on what the side yard
is we are trying to avoid.
TRUSTEE KING: We try and maximize what we can.
MR. KINLlN: If you can tell me, the one clarification is does the
hundred foot setback apply on this property, because it's not on
the Sound, but it's in Little Hay Harbor.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. KINLlN: That's my understanding. We'll check that and see what
the deal is on that.
MR. CORCORAN: Is it your view that the pool and accessory
structure, what yard are you under the impression that is in right
now?
MS. RUTHERFURD: Rear.
MR. KINLlN: Rear yard
MR. CORCORAN: And moving it away from the bluff is going to do
what?
MS. RUTHERFURD: Brings it closer to the side yard.
MR. KINLlN: (Indicating). This line right here, this is the rear
yard setback. It comes off that corner of the house and moves this
way. This is the side yard setback. It cuts right here. There is
kind of a triangle that is formed.
MR. CORCORAN: This may be one of those cases we may want to
conference it with one or more members of the ZBA to come up with a
compromise here. Because I'm sure nobody wants it to be to 30 feet
from the bluff and maybe putting it in the side yard on such an
irregularly shaped lot is better than having it so close to the
bluff.
So I mean, we hate to make you go to the ZBA where you don't
have to but if they are going to approve something they would not
want to approve, maybe it's worth it for you.
MR. KINLlN: How would that work, for my own education, how does the
dialogue between this Board and the ZBA, how does that happen?
Board of Trustees
50
May 16, 2007
MR. CORCORAN: It happens case by case.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can start the dialogue with them and let you
know. We might say, okay, we can go ahead and approve and then you
apply to the ZBA or we'll say go to the ZBA first and come back to
you us. We'll talk to the ZBA to find out which way to go.
Because it's case by case.
MR. KINLlN: If I can ask this question. Is there a difference in
your mind, I don't think the owner wants to do one over the other,
is there a difference in your sense or sensitivity, I mean if the
pool is closer to the bluff than the auxiliary building?
TRUSTEE KING: Most of my concern is closeness of the pool to the
bluff.
MR. KINLlN: Their intent is to, if Peter were here, he's traveling
on business now, he would say the intent is to build an auxiliary
building, which we have drawings on, of which is in the spirit of
the existing building, kind of looks like the original building
that was part of the this property. Same shingle style, same trim
details, roof slope, types of things, so it looks appropriate for
the property. Then there is this natural stone wall that is
already there, kind of creates this flat plane that is aside from
the building and not central to the property and kind of removed.
And it's lower. You look out, the retaining wall goes down another
three or four feet, so the pool would be in kind of a discrete kind
of private setting.
TRUSTEE KING: I was wondering which the original use was for that
area.
MS. RUTHERFURD: Probably gardening. I'm not sure.
TRUSTEE KING: It's definitely a separate area. Separated from the
rest of the property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Might have been an ornamental garden of some type.
TRUSTEE KING: I think the best thing we should do is just table
this for now and I'll get hold of the zoning board and we'll start
the dialogue with them and we'll see what it looks like.
MR. KINLlN: And you will contact us or we'll call your office?
TRUSTEE KING: If you don't hear from us, give us a call.
MR. KINLlN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number nine, RLH Land Planning on behalf of GEORGE
L. & SYLVIA A. PENNY requests a Wetland Permit to repair and
replace inlike and inkind the existing bulkhead. Located: 9305
Soundview Avenue, Southold.
Is there anybody here who would like to speak on behalf of
this application?
Board of Trustees
51
May 16, 2007
MR. HilL: Yes. I'm Ronnie Hill for RlH land Planning Services on
behalf of George and Sylvia Penny.
I would like to first apologize for not having submitted to
you plans for the bulkhead and I did receive a message from Ms.
Standish regarding the Board's desire to have plans tonight for
this meeting, as well as plans for the stairs and for the slope, I
believe it was. I apologize because this is a message that was
given to me so I'm only responding to it as I read it now.
Also, you want to see the bulkhead raised and grade change to
be considered. I don't know what that meant but that was the
message that I got.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Essentially, when we went down to take a look at
it, the bulkhead as it exists is where it is and we have quite a
slope there.
MR. HilL: Down to it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. But we would like to see a ten-foot non-turf
buffer. The best way to achieve that is raise the bulkhead 12
inches and flatten it out and put plantings in there.
MR. HilL: Then you have your non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right. That's what we were looking at.
MR. Hill: Okay. I believe that would be acceptable to my client.
I would have to take that back to him pending me review of that
stipulation by you with him. I don't see a problem with that. One
of the other things I would like do at this time is indicate that
the actual reading of this says that it's a matter of repair and
replace. That's true, but it's more of a removal and a replace or
replacement of the dead men and the actual planking with plastic
material. So the dead men -- what we actually want to do here is
dead men to be replaced and plastic material to be used instead of
the wood material that is currently there. And outside of that,
the description is as it is. I understand what you guys wanted to
do so I'm here to answer any additional questions that you might
have.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We also spoke about cutting and replacing the
phragmites. Our environmental technician did mention mitigating by
trimming the phragmites in July, planting some cattails. There are
muskrats in that area which eat cattails. There is a
recommendation if no CCA due to the low flow there. And we do
have, if you are interested, we do have some nurseries that carry
the native plants that fit very well over there
MR. HilL: Could you repeat again? You said trimming of phragmites
in July. And next thing was --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Planting some freshwater species such as cattails.
We have quite a few muskrats over there that do eat cattails.
lWRP, finds that this is generally consistent but recommends that
we require no CCA, establish a non-turf buffer, deploy a silt
Board of Trustees
52
May 16, 2007
curtain to be set and placed to contain localized turbidity during
construction and restore the shoreline by trimming the invasive
species of phragmites and planting freshwater species such as
cattails and bayonet rush.
The CAC revolves to support the application with the condition
that a vinyl sheathing is used and a non-turf buffer is installed
and there is no further encroachment of the bulkhead.
Now, the question I guess I have, do we want to table this
until we get the plans?
TRUSTEE KING: We could approve it pending -- didn't we talk about a
float?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There was a float down there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That should be put on the plans also.
MR. Hill: Typically that's the case. Everything that you see there
will be depicted on the plan. I just apologize for not having it
here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what we wanted to make sure.
TRUSTEE KING: This way everything is on the permit.
MR. HilL: Absolutely. One of the other things I did want to say,
back in 1978, the DEC did issue a permit for this particular
bulkhead to be placed in front of the old bulkhead which is behind
it and so the length of the bulkhead itself is 100 feet. Which you
saw when you were onsite.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or questions on this
application?
TRUSTEE KING: No.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion that we close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion that we approve the
application for George and Sylvia Penny to replace inlike and
inkind the existing bulkhead with the stipulation that a plan be
submitted reflecting a ten foot non-turf buffer, raising the
bulkhead 12 inches to accommodate that, no treated lumber--
MR. Hill: Raising the bulkhead 12 inches?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Bulkhead be constructed of vinyl.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, vinyl. No CCA treated lumber to be used.
Deploy a silt curtain to contain the turbidity and restore the
shoreline by trimming the invasive species and planting freshwater
species, and we suggest cattail and bayonet rush. That's it.
That's alii have. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
Board of Trustees
53
May 16, 2007
MR. HILL: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number ten, Century 21 Agawam Albertson on behalf
of the ESTATE OF ELEANOR BASTONE requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing 41.9x11.8 foot deck. Located: 1810 Oakwood Drive, Laurel.
It is inconsistent with LWRP because of the hundred foot setback, however
this is already built and it's been there a long time. Jim and I went out and looked
at this.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. CIBULSKI: Jerry Cibulski, Century 21.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: CAC says existing deck has no environmental impact
on the wetlands.
Jim and I didn't have a problem with this and the buffer that
is there is sufficient so unless anybody has any questions,
comments?
(No response.)
I would make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would like to make a motion to approve as
submitted the request of the Estate of Eleanor Bastone.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 11, Alpha Consulting on behalf of BREWER
YACHT YARD AT GREEN PORT requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
25x45 foot open-air pavilion with pea gravel floor. Located: 500
Beach Road, Greenport.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. ANGEL: Ladies and gentlemen, good evening. Ted Angel, Alpha
Consulting, on behalf of Brewer Yacht Yard.
The application before you is for an open-air pavilion on our
existing grass space for the use of the yacht yard clientele.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The LWRP review came up inconsistent. The reason
for the inconsistency is because the structure is within 100 feet
of the water, so within 100 feet of our setback. The CAC resolved
to support the application.
Now, the Board went out and looked at this and we noticed that
do have a dedicated drywell for rain water. How do you propose to
address the water coming off the pavilion?
MR. CIBULSKI: Leaders and gutters piped into a four-foot ring,
which would support the amount of rainfall, two inches, 24 hours.
Basically it's been calculated as sufficient.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. I think with that drainage system as
proposed that would mitigate the LWRP inconsistency.
Board of Trustees
54
May 16, 2007
Was there anybody else in the audience who wants to comment on
this application?
(No response.)
We had asked for during construction of it for hay bales to be
placed between the pavilion and the waterway. And we have down
here there is an opportunity for plantings to be done between the
pavilion and what is listed here as the bluestone walkway. What is
planned right now in that area between, I believe there is a
six-foot area there; were there any plans that the applicant had as
far as plantings between that area between the pavilion and
walkway?
MR. CIBULSKI: The plantings that were planned would be on the other
side all the way around to the flagpole with all the native species
because basically you have the walkway and a very short buffer area
and then have the bulkhead. So any plantings there might tend to
get a little bit messy with debris and anything else. It would be
a lot cleaner this way, it would be maintained a lot better since
there is an existing walkway. This is the way we thought we would
present it, with sufficient plantings and everything on center
according to the DEC suggestion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And that bluestone walkway would create a non-turf
buffer that is already there.
MR. CIBULSKI: Yes, it will.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments from the Board on this
application?
TRUSTEE KING: I went out and looked at it initially when we all
went out. I didn't have a problem with it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there are no other comments I would like to make
a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to make a motion to approve the
application of Alpha Consulting on behalf of the Brewer Yacht Yard
at Greenport as indicated with the inclusion of leaders and gutters
to address the road runoff into the drywell as depicted on the
plans. And the inclusion of hay bales during construction between
the pavilion and waterway, the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. CIBULSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number 12, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf
of DAVID SHAMOON requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
single-family dwelling, deck, driveway and sanitary system.
Board of Trustees
55
May 16,2007
Located: 2404 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck.
Is there anyone here to speak on this application?
MR. BARRON: Sean Barron, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for
applicant. Mr. and Mrs. David Shamoon are also here tonight.
If I could, Bruce asked me to give you a copy of the DEC
permit for this. I'm not sure if you have that in the file. It's
a title wetland permit. It's for a larger, actually house, garage,
swimming pool, deck. It's tidal wetlands as the state doesn't
regulate any freshwater wetlands on this property. I have the
original copy but --
TRUSTEE KING: I think a lot of concerns with the Board is this one
lower area where this deck was proposed. This was one of our
concerns.
MR. BARRON: I'm coming into this late in the game. As I said
before, Bruce had some other important stuff to deal with. Where
exactly was this left off with you guys?
TRUSTEE KING: We talked about reducing, shifting the house a little
bit to get it further away from the wetlands. We talked about
downsizing the size of the house.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He was going to try to have plans for us tonight
to look at showing what we discussed in the field, which was to
downsize it and move it further back.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question was, there was a corner of the house
as well as the deck which was into a depressed area where I know
that there has been some question as to whether or not that is
wetland area or not. But what we wanted to see was the house
either shifted or moved so the corner of that house was definitely
out of that -- I'll call it simplification purposes -- a depressed
area.
MR. BARRON: I mean, we are dealing with, unfortunately, a
problematic lot that, as you know, it's obviously filled land.
There may have been a wetland there at some point. Somebody did a
bad job filling it in the '60s apparently, when they were probably
dredging the marina or the channels out there and we are left with,
unfortunately, what remains; which is some upland and something
else, I guess. I have been out to the property several times.
MR. SHAMOON: I'm David Shamoon. I'm the owner. My daughter is
getting married. I promise her this land. And we have been
two-and-a-half years. We spent so many surveyors, so many times,
and so many times we have appeared here, the Suffolk Environmental
was here, and we did -- whatever you want us to do, we'll do. But
it's two-and-a-half years. I mean.
TRUSTEE KING: You have to understand this is a very, it's really a
sensitive piece of property and we just trying to do our best here
MR. SHAMOON: I understand. He didn't tell me.
TRUSTEE KING: Of course it's inconsistent with LWRP. The proposed
Board of Trustees
56
May 16, 2007
distance to the new residence from the freshwater water wetland
boundary is 20 feet. Proposed distance from the deck to the
wetland is 15 feet. The proposed distance to the new residence from
the tidal wetland is 80 feet. Everything requires a minimum setback
of 100 feet. The proposed residence is in an AE flood zone
elevation. Please require the applicant amend the application to
meet the above policy to the greatest extent possible.
Those are the comments from the LWRP coordinator.
The CAC found a discrepancy with the flagging of the proposed
location of the structures compared to what was being proposed on
the plans. The flags appeared to be too close to the wetlands.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was the old flags were still there. That's
what confused us. That's what postponed it another month; because
the old flags were never taken out. Old stakes.
Since we didn't get the new plans showing what we discussed in the
field, I think we should table this until we get the new plans. We
want to see if it works. So we need to see that.
MR. BARRON: I have some revised plans that Bruce had me work on
that we were a little reticent to bring forward. Mr. Shamoon is
not happy with it. If you look at the information on the survey, I
put a copy of the site plan. It's not that good. You notice
ground water elevation is 5.1 feet. The survey shows some
topographic areas that are five feet and below, actually.
Presumably when the ground water is at five feet, that's where a
wet spot is going to be. This proposal shrinks the house back an
awful lot.
It's a dwelling with a footprint of 1,210 square feet, plus or
minus; 525 square foot deck; then the area for the sanitary system
which of course is going to be contained with a retaining wall
system.
Everything you notice is behind the six foot contour which is
why I mention the groundwater elevation of 5.1. Presumably this
brings it all out of that wet area. And actually, a little bit of
graphics, and I have to find my aerials.
TRUSTEE KING: Any plans for any fill being brought in?
MR. BARRON: No, with the exception for the sanitary system where
they may need -- the wall is going to be about two feet above
grade. This shows 10.6 top of well elevation in an area about
eight or nine feet above sea level. So there will be fill brought
in for the sanitary system. The structure is proposed on pilings as
well as the decks, so we don't need any fill for the structures
themselves.
I made a graphical rendering showing the subject property with
the proposed improvements on the revised site plan we are looking
at. The property with respect to most of the other improved
properties, it's an acre, which is bigger than most of the stuff
Board of Trustees
57
May 16, 2007
that is around there, and the proposed improvements are in general
smaller than what is around there, too. There is actually a
closeup of the two foot. You guys know the area, it's obviously
highly developed residentially, there is even a giant marina right
across the way.
TRUSTEE KING: Originally that was all wetlands. I have been there
from the '60s. This was all wetlands and then what happened is
someone did the dredging and then it was all fill.
MR. BARRON: Right, and somebody filled it in.
The DEe regulates the tidal wetland --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This was wetland here.
MR. BARRON: That was before anybody thought to regulate that stuff.
TRUSTEE KING: That was all done in the '60s, before you were born.
MR. BARRON: It was subdivided in the late '70's, early '80s, that
was approved by the town and planning board, which adds another
wrench to the whole problem what to do with the land. I'm sure
it's been assessed and taxed as a buildable property as well and
Mr. Shamoon is looking to get some sort of improvement for his
daughter.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So this new set of plans shows proposed dwelling
footprint of approximately 1,210.
TRUSTEE KING: 850 is the minimum in Southold Town. It's well above
the minimum size.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This drawing shows what we asked for.
TRUSTEE KING: Is this a two-story home?
MR. BARRON: It would be two stories. Figure 800 or so square feet
on the second floor. Total of about two grand, gross floor area.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we could do a lot more with it.
MR. BARRON: It's a difficult lot. If it was a pristine, untouched
wetland, it might be, it would certainly be a different story.
TRUSTEE KING: There tidal wetland boundary as per Southold Town
Trustees, what does this line indicate closest to the house here,
with two little "X's," what is that?
MR. BARRON: That's apparently where the flags were. That's just a
tracing of what was on the previous survey which is shown basically
two arcs of wetland flags by the town. I have it on the Ingegno
survey last revised March 5, 2007. That's when they set to lay it
out for you guys to inspect. But presumably somebody from the
trustees flagged it. I don't know.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Maybe from all the discussions.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it was more or less from all our discussions.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think Bruce just marked it from what we said.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think this addresses more, most of our concerns.
TRUSTEE KING: We need to see drywells for roof runoff shown on the
survey.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We need a better survey.
Board of Trustees
58
May 16, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we could do much more.
MR. BARRON: Also, incidentally, it complies with the zoning
setbacks.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We would just need to see the gutters, leaders,
drywells, all that stuff.
MR. BARRON: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Was there a swimming pool proposed?
MR. BARRON: No.
MR. SHAMOON: I would like to have a swimming pool.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We could say no further expansion on this.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from anybody else in the audience
on this application?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, we have been at this a long time. I think the
new drawings reflect what we discussed in the field as far as
trying to downsize this. We'll do what we can do to mitigate
everything. I don't think you can do anymore. I don't think the
Board can do much more with this. Based on these new drawings I
would like to make a motion to approve the application.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: One comment. I think with the changes that have
been made here, that would mitigate the LWRP inconsistency, with
the inclusion of the gutters, hay bales during construction also.
TRUSTEE KING: We've maximized all the setbacks we could get. We've
downsized the house. We'll have gutters to drywells for roof
runoff. The septic system is out of our jurisdiction.
I would make a motion to approve as submitted with the
stipulation there would be no further additions to this structure
in the future. No additions.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: As per the plan dated May 16, 2007.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to see new plans showing --
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, a revised plans showing gutters and leaders and
drywells for roof runoff. It's a pervious driveway. We need a set
of hay bales on the -- ten feet beyond the six foot contour. That
will give them enough room to work around the house. Anything
else?
(No response.)
No fill to be brought in, with the exception of the sanitary
system. No fill to be brought in on the rest of the property. Do
I have a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
Board of Trustees
59
May 16, 2007
MR. SHAMOON: No garage?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's not on the plans. We approved it as per the
plan.
MR. SHAMOON: I see. Thank you.
MR. BARRON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Give us a new set of plans showing everything
MR. BARRON: Yes, sir.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 14, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of ERIK
P. HANSEN REVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove and
replace inplace approximately 94 linear feet of existing timber
bulkheading and +/- 11 foot return with vinyl bulkhead; remove 10
foot return associated with adjacent boat ramp to be closed; and
backfill with approximately 28 cubic yards spoil to be incidentally
dredged from area up to ten feet off bulkhead (to maximum depth of
-30 inches ALW.) Located: 305 Williamsburg Road, Southold.
Is there anybody who would like to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. HERMAN: Do you want to open up the next one at the same time? I
don't know if you could do that. They are contiguous.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They are contiguous. I was thinking about it. It's
all part of the same structure.
MR. CORCORAN: You can make two motions for both permits.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to open up number 15 as well.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 15, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of
CHERYL L. HANSEN REVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to
remove and replace inplace approximately 98 linear feet of existing
timber bulkheading with vinyl bulkhead; construct +/-14 feet vinyl
bulkhead return on landward side of existing timber return to be
cut to grade; remove +/- 21 feet return at boat ramp; and backfill
landward of new bulkhead and existing deteriorating boat launching
ramp (to be closed) with approximately 18 cubic yards clean sand
fill trucked in from an upland source and approximately 27 cubic
yards spoil to be incidentally dredged from area up to ten feet off
bulkhead (to maximum depth of -30 inches ALW.) Located: 405
Williamsburg Road, Southold.
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicants
for each of the opened hearings; Cheryl Hansen and Eric Hansen.
These two properties are contiguous. The bulkhead is in
effect a contiguous structure that will all be replaced at the same
time. It should be a pretty straightforward application. The
existing bulkhead is being replaced with vinyl. We don't show it
but we would propose a ten-foot, non-turf buffer behind the
Board of Trustees
60
May 16, 2007
bulkhead on both properties. You'll notice from the plan on the
Eric Hansen piece, there is a bow-out of that bulkhead and that
will be straightened up. You'll see straightening will occur
landward of where the bow is. You'll see on the plans is a double
dashed line that shows the bow. That will be lined up from corner
to corner to replace that push out.
There is that deteriorating boat launching ramp that they
would like to close. I would say about 95% of it is on the Cheryl
Hansen property. But it is a feature of both plans, just for
technical purposes. And there are no docks coming off these
bulkheads. These bulkheads are where the boats are tied up, so for
the fill that has been lost behind the existing bulkhead, it's
shoaled up against the bulkhead but runs out to about 30 inches
about low tide about ten feet off.
So we are proposing dredging to recover that fill and
reestablishing that dockage area, but no closer than 15 feet to
either of the property lines. You'll see on both plans we are
limiting that dredging to 15 feet off the corner. On the Eric
Hansen piece that's 15 feet off the Peters' piece, and on the
Cheryl Hansen piece it's 15 feet off the Taggio's (sic) property
where there is that natural shoreline.
If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. Oh, and
we are, in order to be consistent with the LWRP, although I believe
the project should be exempt, we are proposing to install a silt
curtain set off the percentage to contain any turbidity from the
work.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It is considered consistent with LWRP but they are
requesting we follow best management practices and request no CCA
treated lumber be used, and also a non-turf buffer, which you
mentioned.
TRUSTEE KING: Did they mention the silt curtain in there?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They did. But since he already mentioned it.
15-foot, non-turf buffer. CAC resolved to support it, both of
these applications, also with a 15 foot non-turf buffer.
MR. HERMAN: Actually, I said it was not on the plans but the ten
foot non-turf buffer we were proposing is actually noted on the
plans. On the notes. As a 15-foot area back fill proposed and
they were just seeking to reseed the first fight five feet of that
and lay the rest as a ten-foot buffer, which is noted on both of
the first pages.
TRUSTEE KING: Rob, was there ever any thought there, just in my own
mind, as to where the boat launching thing is, to come in and build
like a basin in their property for more boats?
MR. HERMAN: No, they just wanted to close it off. I think they
would probably have to invest a lot more money to do that.
TRUSTEE KING: Extra money and extra bulkheading. But what an
Board of Trustees
61
May 16, 2007
asset. For waterfront property where you are on a canal that is
really restricted in width, if you have a basin of your own, what a
tremendous increase in the value of the property and use of it. If
it was your property, you know.
MR. HERMAN: I don't know, Jim. We had discussed it and the request
was to close it off. I mean I suppose that if they had a change of
heart we could come back and amend the approval to rather than
close it off, to dredge it.
TRUSTEE KING: In my mind it has nothing to do whether it's approved
or not.
MR. HERMAN: I understand. It's a good point.
TRUSTEE KING: As somebody who lives on the water, I know a private
basin like that is really a valuable asset. And if they are going
to do something like that, now is the time to do it.
MR. HERMAN: I wonder if the realtor had suggested that. I don't
know.
TRUSTEE KING: Like I say, it's your property then.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions or comments? It was pretty
straightforward.
(No response.)
I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you need me to make a motion for each one
separately?
MR. CORCORAN: Why don't you just identify each one.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion we approve the
application as stated in number 14 and number 15 for Eric Hansen
Revocable Trust and Cheryl Hansen Revocable Trust with the
stipulation there be a 15-foot non-turf buffer. We already
discussed silt curtain to be placed localize turbidity.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me, Bob. There is one comment about the
retu rn on the --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In the dredging down at the one end. There is a
comment there, I believe you'll see from the environmental
technician to not dredge that last ten feet of property because
there is vegetation already growing there.
MR. HERMAN: It's actually the last 15 feet is not to be dredged.
That shows on the plan. Even better..
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. I apologize. I don't have the file.
didn't notice it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No dredging, how far is that?
MR. HERMAN: 15 feet on each one. It's off the non-related adjoining
property. But it shows on the plan. If you just stipulate as
depicted in the plans, it's on there.
Board of Trustees
62
May 16, 2007
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Stipulated as depicted on the plans, no dredging
for the 15 feet. And I think that was it. And no CCA treated
lumber to be used.
MR. HERMAN: Now, the structural materials will have to be CCA. The
sheathing is proposed to be vinyl. That's on there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
MR. HERMAN: We have most of the stuff already on there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. HERMAN: It's just so shocking to the Board that it's all there
that nobody knows how to --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. I guess we'll just roll through the next one,
too.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 16, En-Consultants on behalf of EDWARD &
CHRISTINE VOLlNI requests a Wetland Permit to demolish and remove
an existing one-story dwelling and appurtenances and construct
landward thereof, a two-story, one-family dwelling with attached
porches and terrace; install drainage system of drywells; and
establish a 15-foot wide non-turf buffer adjacent to the bluff
crest to be planted with native vegetation. Located: 8625 Nassau
Point Road, Cutchogue.
Is there anybody theory spoke on behalf of this application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicants Edward and Christine Volini. Sean Mulligan, the project
architect, is also here.
This is a project that is similar to many the Board, the town
has been seeing and probably will continue to see where we have a
pre-existing, nonconforming structure. In this case, with respect
to -- well, most significantly to the crest of the bluff, with an
existing house setback of 21-and-a-half feet to the nearest
structural portion of the house.
The proposal -- and I should note that it has also a
pre-existing, nonconforming sanitary system and no formal drainage
system and no buffer behind the crest of bluff.
The proposal is to remove the existing structure entirely and
to construct a newer, larger house, in effect, farther landward
with a minimum proposed bluff setback of 50.1 feet, which more than
doubles the existing setback to the bluff; to install a Suffolk
County Department of Health Services conforming sanitary system
landward of this Board's jurisdiction, well more than 100 feet from
the crest of bluff; to establish a formal drainage system designed
to handle a two-inch storm water rainfall and; to establish at
least a 15 foot non-turf buffer adjacent to the crest of bluff.
Board of Trustees
63
May 16, 2007
We have argued in our application that despite the proposed
dwelling's failure to meet a 1 DO-foot setback which would be
required if this were a vacant parcel, what the applicant is
proposing is a substantial improvement in all aspects to what is
there. We were adding drainage to the property, septic treatment
to the property, removing a grossly nonconforming structure to the
property and constructing a new house landward thereof and;
establishing what would be an actively planted buffer adjacent to
the crest of the bluff.
There are other structures proposed but they are more than 100
feet from the crest of the bluff and therefore beyond Chapter 275
jurisdiction and not within the scope of this permit application.
If the Board has any questions or comments, Sean and I both
here to answer them.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. I want to read, I'll summarize a letter
that we received on the 14th from Kathleen and David Kilbride who
are adjoining neighbors to this property to the south.
We had hoped to attend Wednesday's meeting but it appears
business and personal complications will prevent us from making
this special trip to the East End. In view of our proximity to the
project we wanted to provide some thoughts for the record.
The exist residence on the property is a condition of advanced
deterioration and is located closer to the water's edge than most
would prefer today. The proposal to remove the residence and
reposition the building is quite understandable. Such a project
will involve a series of setback requirements under both Trustee
and zoning guidelines. We are not conversant with all the current
complexities of these requirements. Our hope and expectation
simply would be that any site redevelopment plan that the Trustees
might approve would be consistent with current site planning
regulations, guidelines and best practices for new residential
construction for property of this nature.
The LWRP review found this to be inconsistent because it is
within, the proposed new structure is within 100 feet of the bluff
and; the CAC did review this. They resolved to support the
application as long as it included the installation of a system of
drywells and 15 foot non-turf buffer to be planted with native
vegetation.
The Trustees did all go out and looked at this and while we
appreciate very much the applicant's desire to push this back to
what is now listed on your plans as 50.1 feet from the top of the
bluff, we were looking to try to bring it into consistency with the
LWRP, and one of the factors we looked at, which is in our code, is
to see if the house could be positioned between, so it corresponds
with the two adjacent homes within the same line.
Board of Trustees
64
May 16, 2007
So we did that and when we measured that out, it was moving
the proposed structure 31 feet landward from the edge of the
existing house. In other words, 31 feet. That would bring it,
overall -- we measured it out but I don't see she put it in the
notes.
MR. HERMAN: Are you suggesting adding 31 to the 50? Or am I
misunderstanding what you are saying?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, not 31 to the 50. 31 from the back corner of
the house.
MR. MULLIGAN: The back corner being the water side?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, landward side of the existing house. 31 feet
back from there. And we measured that and that was going to be
approximately 100 -- that would bring the house to approximately
100 foot landward of the bluff line in total.
MR. HERMAN: I understand. Short version being it would be 100 feet
from the crest of the bluff.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. And that would be bring it in line to the
Kilbride's home which is to the south and I'm not sure who owns the
property to the north. But to the property in the north.
MR. HERMAN: Castaldi. I would actually like to speak to that
because I think it's going to be a pressing issue not just for the
Volini's, but for others, and I know there is a code committee
meeting tomorrow that is open to the public. Apparently Mike
Verity is putting something together to speak about the way section
281-16(a)(3) is written in the zoning code. But I want to offer
something from the perspective of a consultant and a planner that I
think the regulators in the Town of Southold are going to have to
give a lot of thought to when it comes to dealing with these kinds
of projects. Because right now there is enough -- let me put it
this way. This Board in particular has a history of allowing
landward additions and expansions to pre-existing, nonconforming
dwellings. The way that 281-16 is written, there are those who the
Building Department feels are trying to take advantage of the way
the code is written and they are saying, well, if I just keep the
12 most seaward inches or something like that, of the existing
structure and knock everything down behind it and move back, then I
don't have to go to the zoning board.
But the way some cases have actually been approved by the
zoning board, in accordance with 281-16, is if you in effect
maintain the existing structure, and people renovate,
superficially, to put on windows, doors, et cetera, and then expand
it landward, you can maintain that pre-existing, nonconforming
structure.
So when somebody comes to us and to someone like Sean and
looks into the design of this, their options are basically, they
have the right to reconstruct or renovate the existing structure
Board of Trustees
65
May 16, 2007
and expand it landward in a way that would not require them, at
least as the code has been interpreted by the Building Department
now, do not have to go for a variance, and have routinely gotten
permits from this Board for that kind expansion. But because of
this Board's practice in terms of the demolitions and
reconstruction of dwellings, there has been enough flexibility that
folks like us or at least like me and architects like Sean can
convince a client, you don't really want to do that. You want to
get rid
of this nonconforming structure and move it back farther
from the bluff. It's better ecologically and it's safer for you in
the long run. I mean this property is bulkheaded, so that argument
doesn't go too far here because the shoreline is stabilized.
But we get clients who are willing to do this and you are
taking a grossly nonconforming situation and you are getting rid of
the nonconforming structure, adding drainage, adding a buffer,
adding septic, and I think the town should be in a place, LWRP or
no LWRP, where people are rewarded for doing this. And what is
going to happen, and I can guarantee you this as a consultant, is
if the Trustees and the zoning board and planning powers that be
start to formalize policies where if you have the where with all to
knock down a pre-existing nonconforming structure, to create a site
plan like this that improves the current conditions is not good
enough. We are going to punish you for having the financial where
with all to do that and we are going to force you to be 100 feet
away from the bluff. It that becomes the norm in this town then
all these kinds of folks are going to come to us and say I don't
want to do that. I'll move back 30 or 40 or 50 feet.
Here we are doubling the setback. But I didn't spend seven figures
and pay the town "X" dollars in taxes. And you don't I don't
usually argue economics in this room. But we are not going to do
that to completely lose the situation that we have purchased. And
what you are going to start seeing are the homeowners coming in and
just renovating the existing structure and then they'll build just
as big a structure behind it. They get their building permit, they
can come here, and this board has never denied some body's right to
expand on the landward side. And I think the end result is you'll
have a house that looks just like this, only with all of this still
on it, 20 feet from the bluff (indicating.) And I think that is the
wrong way for the town to go. And I'm not saying that purely from
the perspective of weill have to champion my client's rights
because that's what they are paying me to do. I'm seeing something
similar in the Town of Shelter Island where they are really
fighting against these new McMansions, but the folks that we dealt
with are just trying to renovate an existing structure, but if they
Board of Trustees
66
May 16, 2007
go more than 50% of the floor area, and there is a setback or
something that does not conform, they have to get a special permit,
they have to go to the zoning board, they have to go through this
very extended process, and it's become easier on Shelter Island to
just to knock down the house and build a much, much bigger house,
maybe five feet farther from the road.
So there too, it's a little bit of a different substance than
here, but what is happening is as these different laws are coming
up at different times, you are creating, almost unintentionally, an
inducement for what Jim has called in the past game playing. How
do we strategize to kind of get the loopholes in the code? How do
we beat the board? And I think if the Board sets a precedent where
saying well we appreciate this effort, but it's really not good
enough, you'll change the way applications start going through
offices like ours.
Now, I don't know if that's a good enough argument to change
your mind. You may have specific reasons on this, but I think the
town needs to be careful with what it is doing with its zoning code
and especially with this LWRP. Because there is something wrong
with the fact that, you know, 80% of the applications that come
before this Board are inconsistent. I mean I'm not going to get
into my LWRP thing again, but if you have application where there
is a structure within your jurisdiction, it's inconsistent. So
therefore this Board doesn't really need to exist, according to
LWRP. That doesn't seem to be a good way to go either.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, I think the comments that you made have a lot
of validity to them and I would encourage the same comments to be
made to the code committee.
We are trying to work with the current codes that are in place
and we are also trying to work with the LWRP and trying to find
ways to mitigate projects to help bring inconsistent projects into
consistency, which you heard us do over and over again tonight.
But we do have to respect the intent of the LWRP and the
intent of the people that develop these policies to try to bring
structures, when we have the opportunity to bring a structure back,
to bring it back. And a perfect example is when a house is being
razed completely, that provides us with an opportunity to then move
that house back, and if we do not move it back, to meet, to bring a
project into consistency with LWRP, we are opening ourselves up to
a great deal of criticism in doing so.
I think that in this particular case, and other people up here
can make their own personal comments, I greatly appreciate the fact
that you moved the structure back. And where you had moved it back
to, it also brought it in line with the two houses on either side,
I would be right there with you. But it's still is forward of that
line, if we draw a line between those two houses, which is also
Board of Trustees
67
May 16, 2007
part of our code that says we'll try to bring new structures back
to that point.
So not only do we have LWRP telling us this, we also have part
of our code telling us to bring the structure back to that point
location. So that was the reason why this, the group the other day
worked to bring the house back, and it so happened when we brought
it in line, then we put a tape measure out to the bluff, it came to
approximately 100 feet. Plus or minus a few feet.
MR. HERMAN: Right. I think my only counterpoint to that is not as
far in front of those houses as it could remain should the Volini's
decide to reconsider the entire design here. Because I know they
are very determined to, I mean they are willing to give up the
location of the existing house, but they are very determined to not
move it 100 feet back from the crest of the bluff. And I know we
have to make this same argument to the zoning board, and I realize
for that purpose we also will have to make the same argument to the
LWRP.
So the only thing I would ask of the trustees is to -- and I
hope that you would, you know, make your decision based on what the
five of you believe is the right thing to do here, not what you
believe Mark Terry wants to see or the zoning board wants to see.
And I hear what you are saying in terms of the alignment.
I think, again, it's a case where we are trying to, trying and
I think succeeding in improving a bad situation. Dramatically. In
terms of mitigation, the LWRP, I did discuss this with Sean and we
discussed it with our client and I think they would be willing to
double the size of the proposed buffer, or almost double it. Bring
it to a 25 foot planted buffer to the crest of the bluff where you
are starting to actually recapture some area, not only area that is
lawn but you would be recapturing area is that is currently
developed and replacing that with native vegetation.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just one rebuttal then I want to see if anybody
else from the floor wants to make comments. You say what Mark
Terry wants to see done. In fairness to Mark Terry, it's the LWRP.
It's not Mark Terry. It's the Town of Southold's LWRP.
MR. HERMAN: My apologies. I shouldn't say that. I say Mark because
he's become such a figurehead for the LWRP. It is no disrespect to
Mark. Not at all. He's doing a yeoman's job in what he's doing and
I shouldn't phrase it that way.
MR. CORCORAN: Is it really the LWRP that is driving this, the
alterations suggested in this project or is it really what the
zoning code requires and what the Trustees code requires?
MR. HERMAN: I think it's all of the above.
MR. CORCORAN: I think a lot of what you said, sort of your parade
of horribles, in large part is true. I think one slightly false
premise is that this Board would have to approve this same house
Board of Trustees
68
May 16, 2007
tucked right behind the existing house. I think this Board can
decide it doesn't want to do that. So it's not necessarily a fate
accompli that you can take this new big house and cram it right
behind the existing house. I think it's by no means certain you
could do that and that's the alternative here.
MR. HERMAN: And I agree. And I think I was careful in my phrasing
in saying it's been this Board's practice historically to approve
those kinds of expansions as opposed, for example, to trying to toe
the line and go out to the sides or go up. In my experience with
this Board, the expansions go toward the landward side.
MR. CORCORAN: To approve landward additions, but not to approve
entirely new big structures behind smaller existing structures with
a back door to that end result.
MR. HERMAN: Well, also, in fairness to what we are both saying,
this Board has only had jurisdiction in this area for about a year
or a year-and-change.
MR. CORCORAN: To decide what its policy is going to be.
MR. HERMAN: Right. So when I'm making the statements I'm making,
I'm reflecting back to when the Board is dealing with tidal
wetlands setbacks, which for decades has really been this Board's
concern. It was my understanding under the prior Board when this
Board took an active interest in expanding their jurisdiction up to
100 feet, not just from wetlands but from bluffs, which in some
cases has doubled or tripled its jurisdiction, that a lot of that
was driven by the prior Board's determination to control what had
been uncontrolled clearing of redeveloped lots or most in
particular developed lots where you could get previously a
non-jurisdiction letter from this Board and then go out -- and Jim,
correct me if I'm wrong -- to go out and clear cut the bluff, which
would then ultimately cause a landslide that would fall into this
Board's jurisdiction. I mean that may be irrelevant. But I'm
just, most of the history we have is really this Board's interest
in setback from wetlands. This is new territory for all of us,
including the Board's. And I know the Board took this on for a
reason, and my understanding at the time from the public
conversations, anyway, was that it was to really try to control
what was previously out of control clearing and development of
vacant lands. Not so much to try to get people -- think of it this
way. If all the applications that came into in Board for new
houses on bluffs were more than 100 feet away, we would not be
here. I mean, yes, we would need a permit to get rid of the old
house, but --
MR. CORCORAN: That's true. You could say that of every kind of
application, though.
MR. HERMAN: That's right. But the point is that in this way the
Board has an ability to control and make sure there is drainage and
Board of Trustees
69
May 16, 2007
make sure there is septic and make sure there is a non-turf buffer
because if we didn't have to come before this Board, we would not
have to do anything. That's all.
TRUSTEE KING: If we had gone out and drew a line between the house
to the south and the house to the north and put this house at 60
feet or 70 feet, we probably would have said okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was the point I was making after we moved it
back.
TRUSTEE KING: It could have been 65 or 80, standing there looking.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In this case we get the added bonus of inconsistent
with LWRP.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments from other members of
the audience?
MR. MULLIGAN: I would like to maybe say something. My name is Sean
Mulligan. I'm working with Mr. and Mrs. Volini on the design of
their house. I think a lot of Rob's comments were right on the
mark.
First of all, if you don't mind, I'll maybe just enlighten you
to the design process that led us to this actual point. When
Christine and Ed Volini purchased their property, they fell in love
with the site. You know, the area, and even the house. It's, you
know, it needs work, it needs love, but it's been there a long
time. And his initial impression was to basically enlarge the house
that was there in its existing proximity to the bluff.
My gut feeling was as, you know, a quasi environmentalist and
just doing a lot of waterfront houses, I'm a believer in creating a
buffer, a distance, between the house. And my suggestion to him
was, well, yes, we can enlarge in existing footprint here, go up,
extend it landward, but in the big scheme of things that may not be
the best route. If you can financially commit to taking the hit on
increasing the construction cost and time of this project by a
substantial amount, I think you'll doing yourself a favor and the
environment a favor by increasing that buffer.
So I mean I think it was pretty thoughtfully and
sympathetically developed where even the house that is being
proposed, the existing footprint is about 1,700 square feet. We
are not building a huge house. It's only about, actually 2,350
square foot footprint on there. So it's about 500 square feet
bigger than what is there right now. But we increased the buffer
area by 3,500 square feet in addition to what is shown on the plan,
about a 1,500 square foot non-turf buffer, which we would be
willing to increase. But, again, I think it's a substantial
improvement from the existing conditions that were there.
Now, I know it's being, you know touted as a house that is
being razed. That is something that is still really up for
determination. There is really no reason why, technically, we
Board of Trustees
70
May 16, 2007
couldn't work off an existing first floor elevation or, you know,
keep existing walls intact on the house. But I think it's a great
opportunity for the Board to be able to, or the town to be able to
recoup literally thousands of feet of area, distance, from the top
of that bluff where in another proposal if we were just coming in
and increasing it by 500 square feet, you would not have that
opportunity. And so I think that really needs to be taken into
consideration and looked at more positively.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is this proposed structure a single-story or
two-story?
MR. MULLIGAN: It's actually a two-story home, which conforms in
side yard setbacks and lot coverage.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So basically we are going, what is existing is
roughly a thousand or 1,100 square-foot house to --
MR. MULLIGAN: It's actually bigger than that, actually. It's
actually 1,700 square-foot footprint existing.
MR. HERMAN: Some of the existing structure is disguised in the rear
MR. MULLIGAN: Right. And the proposed is about 2,357, I think, to
be exact.
MR. HERMAN: If it helps, this is existing conditions.
MR. CORCORAN: Has this Board dealt with this situation before, this
new rule of not being closer than the neighboring houses; have you
applied that rule?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We just did earlier tonight with an application
where there was a gentleman, Esposito, in Greenport. Where it was
a discussion you might recall of moving five feet back or ten feet
back and that was because if he demolished the house completely,
that would bring it line with the adjoining, neighboring houses.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You know, what it is for me, I think I said this
when we were out in the field. To a certain extent I feel the
Trustees' hands are somewhat what tied, because this is clearly
what the town board wants. They want us to follow the LWRP. It's
come up in several conversations and at several times. Here was a
situation where we could meet those requirements as well as feel
like we are doing what we normally would do, which is move the
house in line with the neighbors, and in fact if we did this, it's
out of our jurisdiction all together. There is enough property
there to do it and still have a fairly decent buffer to the road,
have your buffer to the bluff, and also have a substantial yard.
So I think that was the thought process behind how I was
approaching it. It was not a situation where if we did it you end
up with ten foot of frontage to the road. You know what I'm
saying? So it was a good opportunity for us to avoid having the
discussion as to whether or not we are going up against the LWRP.
So that was the reasoning behind my thinking.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On Esposito we wanted to move him back even
Board of Trustees
71
May 16, 2007
further but we knew he would be too close to the road. That's why
we came up with ten feet on there. So we look at the whole land.
Like Bob just said, we felt there was plenty of room.
MR. MULLIGAN: I understand where the Board is coming from and I
hate to compare different projects but I do a lot of work down in
the Town of Southampton and they have addressed for a long time now
exactly the conditions that you guys are talking about and Rob was
stating with, you know, holding this line at the hundred foot
setback regardless of whether or not there is a pre-existing
structure. You know, typically, always, really, if there is a
pre-existing nonconforming structure, and they want that setback
that is required but there is already an existing structure there,
they are willing to go basically go to the negotiation table and
just say, look, we realize that you could expand this house. What
this client is proposed to do is take on a considerable amount of
financial cost to better a situation, and it really is a better
situation. I mean, I know, because I had this conversation with my
client. If the Board doesn't look favorably upon this, it would be
his feeling that he will renovate the house that is there right now
and not improve the site at all. Or look to expand the existing
house, maybe not to the same degree that is proposed, but it
doesn't make it a better site. This makes it a phenomenally better
project from an environmental standpoint, and if that's really the
reason and purpose of the Board, to look at it objectively like
that, again, I think this is really a good proposal.
MR. HERMAN: I think one other comment I want to make, in terms of,
you can't necessarily achieve the house that is designed, but the
way that the 275 is written now, is a landward expansion of the
existing house that didn't exceed 25% of the footprint of the exist
house could get an Administrative Permit.
So, I mean, if they decide to just renovate what is there in a
way that would not require the Trustees' approval, improve the
inside of it, put on new siding, re-roof it, new windows, new
doors, and then expand the house landward 25%, we could come in
here and get basically when the code has established as an as of
right administrative review.
So it's, again, I think, we don't want to spend all night on
this, if it's not the Board's inclination to approve this, I think
we have to ask it to be tabled and Sean can go back to the client
and see what they want to do. Because they are going to have two
choices, either comply with the request to move the house back an
additional 50 feet, which I don't know, you had your computation
seemed kind of convoluted. If it's going to meet the 100 foot
setback, the house needs to be moved back another 50 feet. Either
they can do that or decide to junk the project and come in,
withdraw the application and come in with a different design. And
Board of Trustees
72
May 16, 2007
I, you know, in this case, I don't know what this client is going
to want to do. So it's, that's, we may just have to do that; table
it and go back and see what they want to do with it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: One item I don't want to lose in this whole
conversation, when we did go down to the bulkhead we noticed there
was structural damage to the bulkhead that probably occurred in
this April storm, like many properties along there, and I wanted to
have you bring it to your client's attention that they might want
to do something about that soon before the bulkhead is
compromised. I believe the whalers were pretty much all knocked
out of there.
MR. HERMAN: Thank you, Dave.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I want to say, we do, all of us, appreciate what
you put into this project and you moved it back. And although it
seems to you we are punishing you, we are not. We are trying to do
the best we can and it's not --
MR. HERMAN: I understand that, Jill. And I know it comes cross
and, as I said, it's hard to do this. I mean I have a good
relationship with your Board and it's, you know, it's nice since we
are almost in an antagonistic position by professional nature, so
the things that Sean and I are saying, don't at all misconstrue as
waving of a pipe threat, like if you don't approve this, this is
what we are going to do. It's just with certain clients, it is
their mindset to say we are not going to do that. We are now going
no look for a loophole. And that's what, I think what did you call
it, the parage of horribles. And I'm hearing it more and more and
the reason I'm bringing the LWRP and zoning board into it is
because the town now basically has three bodies within it all of
whom have regulations one way or the other to try to push these
houses 100 feet away. And it's, I just don't want to see an
evolution in the town where you have to create this chess match
with homeowners who figure out when they buy these properties not
how they are going to improve it but how they are going to beat the
boards.
Because it's not -- it's going to make life here contentious
for everyone and I think Sean's point, the end result of this
proposal, which is a proactive, voluntarily proposal to improve the
condition of this site, begins to be told routinely -- and not just
by this Board. I mean I'm hearing you that your other
consideration is the alignment of the neighboring houses, which may
actually distinguish this application for you from others, and I
appreciate that. But I am just saying for the public consumption,
for the town attorney's consumption, that there is this pretty
clear movement that I don't think is a secret, but between the
planning board and ZBA, to start saying all the knockdowns got to
go back. And it may just create a situation where, that produces
Board of Trustees
73
May 16, 2007
an end result which is really the opposite of what you are really
trying to do.
MR. MULLIGAN: Right. Because if the client decides just to work
within the 25% expansion, you get something worse than what we are
proposing.
MR. CORCORAN: It's clearly being said by the ZBA on a routine
basis. I suspect even if you were to clear this hurdle, you have a
much higher hurdle with the ZBA.
MR. HERMAN: That's why I mention the other boards. That's why I
say that.
MR. MULLIGAN: Or even worse case scenario, the house doesn't get
enlarged, it just gets repainted and none of these issues get
addressed.
MR. HERMAN: The septic doesn't great addressed, drainage doesn't
get addressed.
MR. WILDER: We are talking here, they already made a financial
commitment to tear the house down and move a new one. Moving the
new one 50 feet is no more expense. What do you lose moving it 50
feet; the view or what? What is lost? What is lost moving it 50
feet? The financial commitment is already there.
MR. MULLIGAN: Quite honestly, it's a good point. I appreciate
that. And if I were speaking before the board I might not even be
proposing the same scenario, I mean if it were my house. But being
it's my client's house, what he loses is the desire to improve this
site and he will keep it in this poor condition, environmentally,
into the future.
MR. HERMAN: What's lost or the perception of what is lost is an as
of right condition that they are spending more money than most of
us can comprehend on this home. And the farther you go back, the
farther you are from the water, and you lose that majestic view
over the water and I mean, I don't think that's a secret. I mean
if you had the precise view, you know, the existing house is 20
feet. So if you moved it 80 feet away, a lot of the mindset is you
are losing what you spent that money on.
MR. WILDER: Okay
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could make a recommendation that we table this
application to give the applicant the opportunity to speak with his
client and for us also to relay some of this information to the
code committee as they are in discussions about this as it is. It's
a recommendation I'm making to the Board.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is this going to go before the ZBA?
MR. HERMAN: It will, eventually. We have gone through the DEC and
have application -- in my practice as a professional, I tend to
get all of my environmental -- I try and see if I could get all my
environmental approvals in place before I start dealing with the
zoning code, because in my experience in all towns, now this may be
Board of Trustees
74
May 16, 2007
changing here, but in all towns, zoning boards don't want to see
applications that have not gone through the trustees, the
conservation board in Southampton, for example, they don't want to
see it. Because they don't want to grant a zoning variance for
something that they can't get environmental approval for.
MR. CORCORAN: That tenor has changed here. I think we are still
working to try and find a solution for that. But the zoning board
is expressing a desire not to be strong on it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think we should wait to see what the ZBA says.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We'll, we've got the application before us. So if
you want to table it.
MR. HERMAN: I would have to discuss it with my client.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have a couple of choices here. We can table the
application or we can vote on the application as submitted, without
any changes.
MR. CORCORAN: I think the applicant is asking you adjourn it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's why I recommended tabling it a couple of
minutes ago.
MR. HERMAN: If they want to do a roll call and find out if we are
going to get three votes, that's fine. Otherwise I would like to
table it and ask the client. I'm quite serious. If the individual
board members are actually inclined to approve this, I would like
to walk out of here with an approval. If they are not comfortable
with it and it would likely fail then we need to have the
opportunity to relay that to our client. I would actually like to
know that.
Can the Board state a position, for the record, what they
would vote on this proposal?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm not comfortable doing that.
MR. CORCORAN: That would be the Board's decision. I think you've
gotten the message.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I say we should table it.
TRUSTEE KING: Rob, can you accurately draw a line between those two
neighboring houses to see what the setback is?
MR. HERMAN: We can get pretty close, Jim. The surveyor we are
using, I think we can use an aerial program. I think it can be
done. The problem is he may not be able to run the bluff line, so
you may not be getting to see what you want to see. If the bluff
is not even, you may not get an accurate picture. But he could run
the houses.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't you do that and see what the footage you
come up with? You might come up with 25 feet instead of 31 feet.
MR. HERMAN: That gives us something to work with, at least, to see
if we could verify that portion of what the Board's position is.
That's fine
TRUSTEE KING: This is a little unusual, too, in that the
Board of Trustees
75
May 16,2007
neighboring houses are setback quite a bit -- if the neighboring
houses were 25 or 30 feet seaward we would have drawn a line and
said, here, here is the line. This is an unusual situation.
MR. HERMAN: I'm hearing that pretty clearly and I am actually
happen to know in a way that that is the major thrust at least
behind this Board's position irrespective of the others because I
know that the Board has done that before with wetland setbacks. So
you know, I don't begrudge you that at all.
TRUSTEE KING: It's not the hundred feet so much in my mind.
MR. HERMAN: Sounds to me the hundred feet is almost incidental.
TRUSTEE KING: It is. Basically.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to make a motion to table this
application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: It's tabled.
MR. HERMAN: Sorry about that one.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We had discussed at the last month's meeting, the
opportunity was there to re-vote on Chicco. The reason there were
two votes made could have been because of the problem that was
brought to us with the planning board. Once we realize that
problem was nonexistent, the opportunity was there for the
individuals that voted no, to amend their vote. And so last month
we decided no, we would leave it just the way it was, but now there
has been reconsideration to that and so tonight there was going to
be a resolution presented to allow the opportunity for a re-vote to
see if everybody wanted to the keep their votes the same or amend
their votes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So let's just re-vote it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there a resolution to be read?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. 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.
How do we do this, just make a motion to approve?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, we already had the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: We had a public hearing on it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We discussed LWRP concerns, CAC concerns.
MR. CORCORAN: You are not doing to the anything to the permit,
correct?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, it's the same.
MR. CORCORAN: So amend the record, move to amend the record to
Board of Trustees
76
May 16, 2007
reflect the votes of the members.
TRUSTEE KING: There was a discrepancy in the wetland delineation.
It was corrected. And since it was corrected, it would change my
vote. I vote yes on this now.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I would make a motion to amend the record to
reflect the vote of four and, again, I need help, because Peggy is
not here tonight. What does that go down as. Absent?
TRUSTEE KING: Absent.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We never had that, had a vote when someone is not
here.
MR. CORCORAN: I mean you could make that vote. Really it just sort
of supplements the record from the prior vote. The prior vote
still exists. That's what approved the permit. Unless you want to
get into, which I don't think you want to get into, a game of
revoking and restarting.
TRUSTEE KING: No, I want to keep it as simple as we can.
MR. CORCORAN: I would just supplement the record that your vote
would be yes, based on the information today. Peggy is not
available, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So moved.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Peggy indicated she would have said yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But she is not here.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Just to say it so it's in the record.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand. We have a motion then to approve the
resolution.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What do we have to do with O'Neil?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let's move on to the next one
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: O'Neil. I believe O'Neil is an extension.
MS. STANDISH: Yes, it expires tomorrow.
TRUSTEE KING: So we have a request for an extension, THOMAS O'NEIL,
1420 Smith Drive South, in Southold. One year extension to
reconstruct construct a dock, reconstruct a wall, a proposed geo
whip launching ramp, a little bit of dredging and some rip-rap.
He's been held up by DEC for lack of inspection, I guess.
It's going to expire tomorrow. So there is no changes to it. It's
just he has been held up. It's not his fault. I'll make a motion
to approve the extension.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: We are all done. Motion to close the meeting.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
Board of Trustees
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
77
May 16, 2007
r ". "." ,..Lf. "
.'I~,.J o~-~
c;!J'I, r~t;:1( .....y
~ .J
"
$'h; \:;"Id 1"0;0 Clerk
RECEIVED 'fdd
/01,"15 1M
NOV 2 7 2007
<!;} -Atlfl ~/ :!4
.foutbold TO\'/n' C{;r\ - -"
h::. ..nr~.!)
s~, 'J T" '