HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-06/20/2007
James F. King, President
Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President
Peggy A. Dickerson
Dave Bergen
Bob Ghosio, Jr.
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
R[C[IV~D p.t
IF '3?J 19141
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
6:30 PM
a~C1.l?~"J',
$oulLuU Tv;," Clerk
Present were: James King, President
Jill Doherty, Vice President
Peggy Dickerson, Trustee
Dave Bergen, Trustee
Bob Ghosio, Trustee
Lori Montefusco, Assistant Town Attorney
Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, July 11,2007 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, July 24, 2007 at 6:30 PM
WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM
TRUSTEE KING: Good evening everyone, I'm Jim King. I'm the
chairman. I have the pleasure of having the chairmanship of this
Board. I would like to introduce the rest of the Board to you. To
my far left is Dave Bergen; next to him is Peg Dickerson; Jill
Doherty is the vice-chair; myself; Lauren Standish is our office
manager; Bob Ghosio, another trustee; and our legal advisor, Lori
Montefusco. Wayne Galante is our court reporter.
If you have anything to say please come to the microphone and
identify yourself so he can get everything on the record. And Jack
McGreevy is here from the Conservation Advisory Council. They go
out and do a lot of site inspections and look at the same projects
we look at and gave us their take on it and recommendations from
Board of Trustees
2
June 20, 2007
them.
So I need to set the date for the next field inspection. July
11. How does that look?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sounds good to me.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: The next meeting will be Tuesday, July 24,6:30, with
a work session at 5:30.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Did everyone read the minutes of February 14?
looked through them and found a couple of minor typos, is alii
found.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I already spoke to him about our voices. We
have a few switchovers.
TRUSTEE KING: Just minor stuff?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, minor stuff.
TRUSTEE KING: Do we have a motion to approve?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE KING: Monthly report: The Trustees monthly report for May,
2007, a check for $16,160.27 was forwarded the Supervisor's Office
for the General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE KING: Public Notices: Public notices are posted on the Town
Clerk's bulletin board for review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE KING: We have a number of state environmental quality
reviews. Resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully
described in Section VII, Public Hearings section of the Trustee
agenda, dated Wednesday, June 20,2007, are classified as Type II
Board of Trustees
3
June 20, 2007
actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations and are not subject
to further review under SEQRA.
There is quite a number of them.
Carriage Hill Association, Inc. - SCTM#99-4-4
Wickham Family, LLC c/o Barnaby Wickham - SCTM#110-8-32.7
Parnel Wickham - 110-8-33.1
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC - SCTM#15-9-8.1
Mark Hansen - SCTM#87-4-3
David Edelstein - SCTM#86-2-12.6
Mary DiGregorio - SCTM#136-1-37
Peri Hinden - SCTM#107-6-18
Theodore J. Bucci, Jr. - SCTM#71-2-10
William C. Goggins - SCTM#117 -10-14.1
William & Alice Lehmann - SCTM#31-17-17
Margaret McNamara - SCTM#87 -6-10
Neil & Roberta Simon - SCTM#71-2-11.3
Charles Brautigam - SCTM#110-7-5&6
Robert H. Dexter - SCTM#126-11-20
Indian Rock Realty, LLC (Brian Brille) - SCTM#18-3-30.4
Michael & Kathryn Russo - SCTM#90-4-22
Tom & Julia Fitzpatrick - SCTM#89-3-11.3
Donald Humans - SCTM#57-1-32
Vincent & Eileen Flaherty - SCTM#92-1-8
Susan Norris c/o Ed Sawicki - SCTM#115-9-4
Carol Witschieben & Janet Witschieben Larsen - SCTM#99-1-5
Dennis Katevatis - SCTM#35-4-28.25
Michael & Lisa Bunker - SCTM#70-5-46
Frederick Rapp - SCTM#80-3-15
Rosaria Forchelli - SCTM80-3-16
Jean Roter:( - SCTM#80-3-17
Elizabeth Wolff - SCTM#90-1-20
William & Joanne Turnbull- SCTM#52-1-1
Robert & Elizabeth Scripps -- SCTM#104-3-6
Jill & Carol Ridini - SCTM#110-7-4
Mattituck Park District - SCTM#126-6-17&18
Susan Souder - SCTM#128-6-8
Nancy Sue Mueller - SCTM#123-8-11.1
IV. RESOLUTIONS - OTHER: TRUSTEE KING:
1. Proclamation - E. Brownell Johnston
TRUSTEE KING: Before we get going into the meat of things, there
are a couple of people here I think are pretty special people;
Brownell Johnston is in the audience. Brownell, do you want to come
up here, please.
Board of Trustees
4
June 20, 2007
And I would like to recognize AI Krupski, the past president
of this Board is now a member of the town board.
Why don't you come up here, Brownell.
First of all, I apologize for this taking so long.
MR. JOHNSTON: It's fast. Your a Trustee now.
TRUSTEE KING: One of my many faults is I always put off what should
be done today, I put off 'til tomorrow. And if it wasn't for Jill
and Lauren you would probably still be looking for it. Anyway, I
would like to read it.
Whereas the Town Board of Trustees wishes to pay tribute to E.
Brownell Johnston for his accomplishments and lasting contributions
during his time as a legal advisor to the Board of Trustees.
And whereas Brownell became part of the team on August 1, 2002,
bringing with him a wealth of knowledge and experience.
Whereas Brownell has helped preserve the wetlands and shellfish
resources within the town and has spent countless hours working to
improve the town's wetland code and shellfish code with success.
Whereas right, wrong or legal, Brownell was a motivated, dedicated
professional, who provided countless hours of advice and assistance
in the Town of Southold in his role as legal advisor to the
Trustees.
Now, therefore, be it revolved, Southold Town Board of
Trustees hereby expresses their sincere gratitude to E. Brownell
Johnston for his commitment and dedication and extends their
sincere appreciation and warm wishes for continued personal and
professional success. It's signed by myself.
MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you, for letting me serve.
TRUSTEE KING: Brownell has dedicated I mean hundreds of hours
helping us out and I can't thank him enough, really.
Just one little comment. I first met him, he applied for a
dock permit and we went to the site and I think he had a stake out
in the water. We always like to see it staked, get some
measurements so we know what we are looking at. And we wanted to
know how far west of the stake. He jumps in the water with the
tape and goes out. And I said to myself, we have a live one here,
folks. And that was the start. And he got involved with us and
lead us through a lot of work on the wetlands, revisions and
everything else.
MR. JOHNSTON: And you've introduced me to a lot of good stuff.
Thank you, very much. And thank you for the opportunity to help
preserve the assets of Southold Town, and I think that is what we
are all about and I hope that the laws that we put in and
legislative agenda that you are still working on continues.
TRUSTEE KING: We try.
MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you, Brownell.
Board of Trustees
5
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Brownell, Jim wanted us to put that at the end of
the agenda.
MR. JOHNSTON: I was going to come back at nine and then come back
at midnight.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And then come back at two because it's going to be
a long one.
V. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, getting into the resolution of administrative
permits.
What we'll try and do tonight, folks is everybody has an agenda.
Rather than me sit here and read through all this stuff, we'll just
name it like number one, James and Judy Hayward, and you'll see
what we are all about. I think it might move things along.
And also, we have some postponements. So I don't want anybody
sitting here waiting for something to come up that has been
postponed.
Just on page nine:
Number 31, the application of Kinlin Rutherfurd Architects, PLLC,
on behalf of PETER BACCILE.
Number 32, the application of Swim King Pools on behalf of JOHN
FRANKIS.
Number 33, the application of Ronald Hansen on behalf of MARK
HANSEN.
Number 34, the application of Munley, Meade, Nielen & Re on behalf
of NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC.
TRUSTEE KING: Those have been postponed and we will not be looking
at those tonight.
TRUSTEE KING: Under resolution of administrative permits, Number
One, 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.
We went out there. We were supposed to meet them out there and
nobody home. Are they here tonight?
(No response.)
I think we'll have to table that and look at it again next month.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to table.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
Board of Trustees
6
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: Number two, BARBARA REITER requests an Administrative
Permit to install a post and rail fence along both sides of the
property down to approximately 15 feet landward of the high water
mark. located: 165 Westview Drive, Mattituck.
It's just a minor change to this. I looked at this myself.
And it's to put a fence along both property lines. And it says
here to approximately 15 feet landward of the high water mark. And
it should read is to the seaward property line marker, which is
much further landward than the 15 feet. I was looking, there was a
corner marker marking the property and that's where the fence
should stop. It's further landward than this.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does she have it marked on her application?
TRUSTEE KING: We'll just put that on the plan. She was there. I
don't think she is here tonight. (Perusing). We'll get it
straightened out. I could mark it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Seaward property corner marker. I'll stop by and
explain it.
MS. STANDISH: Down to the seaward property line?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, on both sides.
TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve that with the modification.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Number three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine we
can lump these all together.
That's the applications of, number three, EDMUND & CORIANDER
SMYTHE;
number four, the application of DEBORAH DOTY;
number five, the application of EDWARD JURZENIAlSllVER SANDS MOTEL,
INC.;
number six, the application of SILVER SANDS MOTEL, INC.;
number seven, the application of JOSEPH & BARBARA ISABELLA;
number eight, the application of MARK MELNICK;
and number nine, the application of Michael Irving on behalf of NEW
SUFFOLK PROPERTIES, LLC.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have the past consent of the Board to lump all
these together.
TRUSTEE KING: These are not public hearings. If there is anybody
here that has anything to say or any comment about any of these
administrative permits, please come to the microphone. We'll lump
these together and approve them all.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Three through nine?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Three through nine, yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Three through nine.
Board of Trustees
7
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: Being no public comment on them, I'll make a motion
on approve three through nine on the resolution of the
administrative permits.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
VI. RESOLUTIONS - MOORING/STAKE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: One through five are all replacements. They are,
Number one, the application of FREDERICK POLLERT;
number two, the application of ELLEN HUFE;
number three, the application of AMELIA SMULCHESKI & FRAN
SMULCHESKI;
number four, the application of JOAN FLECK;
and number five, the application of STEPHEN GERACI.
This Board has given prior consent to lump all these together as
well. So I'll make a motion to approve one through five as written
on the agenda.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
VII. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONSITRANSFERS:
TRUSTEE KING: Number one, MICHAEL & LISA BUNKER requests an
amendment to permit 1336 for the existing dock consisting of a 3x67
foot catwalk, 3'10" for 41 feet on the landward end, 6'5"x14'8"
floating dock, and three pilings. Located: 3392 Oaklawn Avenue,
Southold.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this? This is one
where there is really nothing left. It's really not enough left.
Nothing is functional, that I could tell. So that would be my
recommendation, that they apply for a new permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Agreed.
TRUSTEE KING: So we'll deny this. It's an amendment, they need to
come in and apply for a wetland permit.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Number two, PETER & ALETRA TAGlOS, JR., requests an
Amendment to Permit #5858 for the existing first floor deck at
entry door. Located: 545 Williamsburg Drive, Southold.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They're here. Do you have the certificate from
Board of Trustees
8
June 20, 2007
the Health Department?
MS. TAGIOS: Do you need the operating permit?
TRUSTEE KING: No, the certification from the Health Department for
the --
MS. TAGIOS: This is the operating permit I received from the Town
TRUSTEE KING: What we are looking for is the Health Department
certification.
MS. TAGIOS: I have the report. We have one more inspection with
them. I have been in contact.
TRUSTEE KING: It hasn't been certified yet?
MS. TAGIOS: It has not been finalized yet. They are waiting for a
final survey. Um, I don't know, did you guys also request a copy
of the flood certificate?
TRUSTEE KING: The only thing, I was interested in the certification
for the septic, the final.
MS. TAGIOS: Have the final survey to submit and tapping letter and
something else before they'll do their final inspection.
TRUSTEE KING: They'll be coming out to look at that.
MS. TAGIOS: I have to contact them. The water main was just put in
this week. We are waiting for the tapping to be done. The service
was put on and once the application is done they'll come out and do
their final inspection.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What we are concerned with is if we approve the
amendment to add the decking there without the final approval from
the Health Department, because it's right over it, we didn't want
to approve something that would not be right. So we are inclined
to wait for you to see that final inspection from the Health
Department. I don't know if the rest the board would like to table
this.
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to table it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For the decking.
MS. TAGIOS: There were two other items on the amendment. One of
them was the propane tank. Did you make a decision on that?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That needs to be moved and not just turned because
we feel that just turning it -- what was the measurement?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob and I -- I don't have the file in front of me.
The non-disturbance buffer goes how far? Because we measured it
and it was 27 feet on one end of the tank and the other end of the
tank was approximately 28 feet. I'm waiting to hear what the
non-disturbance buffer is.
TRUSTEE KING: 35 feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If it's 35 feet, the entire tank is in a
non-disturbance area.
TRUSTEE KING: I think what we need to look at is if there is any
other place on that property that tank can be installed. That's
what we need to be find out.
Board of Trustees
9
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can that be installed in a driveway area?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: A propane tank? No.
MS. TAGIOS: Mr. King, did you get to speak to Frank DiBenedetto?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MS. TAGIOS: Did he have any suggestions?
TRUSTEE KING: He said when he came to that area he said that area
was cleared and he assumed that was the proper place to put the
tank. It should not have been cleared because that is not a proper
place to put the tank.
MR. TAGIOS: When he came to the property he said that's the only
place WE could put it.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think he knew -- he didn't realize that was a
non-disturbance area. Was he aware of that?
MS. TAGIOS: We gave him a copy of the site plan. Every contractor
that we hired has a copy of the site plan. The problem he was
running into, I guess, is the septic, electrical wires, water
mains. The electrical is on the other side and the water is over
there as well, so really we don't know. I guess we are asking for
your suggestion on where you would like it moved to because it is
very limited space there.
TRUSTEE KING: That's the very problem I have with it. This was
technically a violation with the tank.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure.
MR. TAGIOS: He assured us it was not in the disturbance area at all
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We measured it out, and it is. The bottom line is
27,28 feet and the non-disturbance area is 35. It's not even
close. It's well outside.
MR. TAGIOS: That's what happens when you hire someone out here.
MS. TAGIOS: You also have erosion.
TRUSTEE KING: My feeling is there is no other place to put it. My
feeling is leave it and not disturb that area and do revegetation
to restore the area.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm uncomfortable with that because as a
non-disturbance buffer, that should have been something the
architect should have already thought of when planning this house,
that it was not going to fit.
TRUSTEE KING: There is requirements on the size of the tank,
requirements how far off the property line depending on the
capacity of the tank.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: Why don't we have the applicant step back so we can
make a record.
TRUSTEE KING: Sorry
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: What's the Board's pleasure?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, I think maybe -- we have to wait for the
Health Department on the decking. Or we would like to wait for the
Board of Trustees
10
June 20, 2007
Health Department on the decking.
So why don't we try to figure out --
TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we just table the whole thing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Table the whole thing and we'll work on it to see
if there is another location.
MR. TAGIOS: Fair enough.
MS. TAGIOS: Would you contact Frank from Van Hueser (sic) again?
Maybe you could coordinate with that with him.
MR. GHOSIO: If you want, I could talk with him.
MS. TAGIOS: That would be great. They are the ones who will move
the tank. You just have to let them know where you would like it
to be moved.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And he'll know the rules. Bob knows the rules,
too. And as soon as you get your Health Department final
certification, give it to us.
MS. TAGIOS: Do we have to reapply for the amendment?
TRUSTEE KING: No, we'll just table this.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Which means we'll just hold it off until we have
more information.
MS. TAGIOS: When we get the final from the Health Department, we
will just contact you and come back.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MS. TAGIOS: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Motion to table
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Three, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of JOHN
XIKIS requests an Amendment to Permit #6310 to excavate a trench
behind the existing bulkhead to allow installation in the excavated
area of one 1 0"x8" deadman pile for each of the existing fender
piles on the seaward side of the bulkhead. Behind the deadman
piles, install horizontallaylogs 10"x20' long extending the entire
length of the bulkhead. Install tie rods 3/4"x 12 feet through the
individual existing fender piles. Located: 55585 County Road 48,
Southold.
We all should have gone down there and looked at this. We
thought we knew what was going on there. I was there today with the
DEC. You remember looking off the bulkhead, there was like a six
or eight foot drop to the beach. It's about that much. The whole
beach has come back. Unbelievable. It's incredible. The beach is
about two-and-a-half feet below the top of the bulkhead now. That
whole area, that whole beach came in. All the stones out in front
of Xikis are all buried. You can't even see them. They are gone.
This is why it's been so quiet and nobody complained about losing
Board of Trustees
11
June 20, 2007
the beach. It's back.
TRUSTEEBERGEN:Upfueffi.
TRUSTEE KING: Like I said, I was there with DEC today. I couldn't
believe my eyes. They have approved what he wants to do here. As
far as trenching behind the bulkhead and putting in the new
deadmen, he has DEC approval for that now.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, last month I had asked if it was possible to
use helix screws here, so we were not digging out --
MR. FITZGERALD: Is this me?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, this is you. You are number three. We are
talking about -- have you been down there, Jim, recently?
MR. FITZGERALD: No.
TRUSTEE KING: The whole beach came back.
MR. FITZGERALD: I heard. I thought it was somebody else' beach.
TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was somebody else's beach when I went
there today.
MR. FITZGERALD: And it probably was.
TRUSTEE KING: It was incredible. Absolutely incredible.
MR. FITZGERALD: It's nature's way.
TRUSTEE KING: I was told today if you are patient, just wait, it
will fix itself.
Anyhow, I don't know what to do with the original permit we
issued. That's the problem I had. We issued a permit for a new
bulkhead, plastic sheathing and armored with stone. That work was
never done. They put some new piles in front of the existing
bulkhead and now they just want to put some new ties in to hold
that in place. So I don't know if we should just rescind the
original permit or what to do. They have not done what was
permitted, so.
What do you want to do?
MR. FITZGERALD: You had questions the last time we were here and I
have answers to those questions.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you want the question or will give us the
answers?
MR. FITZGERALD: I have the questions. The original permit says
wetland permit to replace existing timber bulkhead with vinyl
sheathing and replace rock armor in front of the bulkhead. Bla,
bla, bla, bla, bla. The answer to the question is no, he doesn't
intend to replace the bulkhead with vinyl sheathing. And no, he
doesn't intend to replace the rock armor in front of it. The rocks
that are on the property which were originally intended for that
will be removed to, as Jack Benny used to say, whence they came.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay.
MR. FITZGERALD: With regard to the helix anchors, the contractor is
not comfortable with that from the standpoint of his not having had
any experience with it and he thinks it would be more expensive and
Board of Trustees
12
June 20, 2007
he thinks the regular laylogs and tie rod thing would be more
suitable. And, well, the two piles for the neighbor, he said it
looks like indeed they are there and this contractor, who is not
the guy that put the piles in, said he will remove them.
TRUSTEE KING: This is the neighbor to the west?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Katzigeorgis.
TRUSTEE KING: There are some other issues there. I won't go into
it. Not concerning you.
MR. FITZGERALD: So it would seem, Jim, that the amendment would
turn out to be the whole permit now.
TRUSTEE KING: But it would -- you are not going to do the plastic,
you are not going to do the rock armoring, so why don't we just
rescind the original permit and just --
MR. FITZGERALD: That's what I'm saying.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And make this the permit.
MR. FITZGERALD: Make the permit we would like to walk away with is
simply what we are asking for the amendment for.
TRUSTEE KING: I think that's doable.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: That's doable.
TRUSTEE KING: I know, Dave, you are still uncomfortable with it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I'm uncomfortable with is what I alluded to
last month, is there is very little room between the bulkhead and
house and there is going to be a lot excavation and digging here to
put in these horizontallaylogs, et cetera, and whatever, and it
just seems like helix will be much better environmentally, and to
me it sounds like less work because all you are doing is going
straight in.
MR. FITZGERALD: But you and I are not going to do it. The guy that
will do it and be responsible for the usefulness of the work says
he would prefer to do it the old fashion way.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But there is other contractors out there that could
do it with helix. That's his choice to use that contractor. There
are other cOntractors around that might have a different opinion
than the contractor you are talking to. So I'm just, that's what
got me uncomfortable with this. It seems like a lot of extra work
in a very small area and I thought helix was the way to go. That
was, but if the rest of the board is comfortable with this.
TRUSTEE KING: My feeling is it's all behind the bulkhead, so there
with won't be disturbance seaward of the bulkhead from this work so
it won't have any effect on the environment there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll go with the board majority here.
TRUSTEE KING: So we could just rewrite a permit indicating what he
wants to do here now and rescind the original permit.
So that's, I think, the proper thing to do.
So I would make a motion to rescind the original permit number
6310, and we'll approve a new permit to excavate a trench behind
Board of Trustees
13
June 20, 2007
the existing bulkhead and so forth to reflect what is there.
MR. FITZGERALD: So may I just confirm that what you are talking
about approving is --
TRUSTEE KING: Is what is written here.
MR. FITZGERALD: As submitted.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.).
TRUSTEE KING: Seeing all this work is behind an existing bulkhead,
it would be, it's consistent with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, it's consistent.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What does CAC say?
TRUSTEE KING: It has support from CAC.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We all looked at it.
TRUSTEE KING: Case closed
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number four, Alpha Consulting on behalf of DENNIS
KATEVATIS requests an Amendment to Permit #5534 to add non-treated
decking over existing walkway landward of the bulkhead and within
the ten foot non-turf buffer, and to Transfer Permit #5534 from
Theodore Angell to Dennis Katevatis. Located: 305 Gull Pond Lane,
Greenport.
Now, the Board members were all out there. We took a look at
it and I believe what we came up with is that the transfer was okay
but we wanted to have you come in with an as-built for the second
bulkhead. And we would like to see the decking, the raw materials
is good decking, we would like to see a little more of a gap
between the boards so that that non-turf buffer is actually working
at that point.
MR. ANGELL: There is stone beneath that. It is pervious.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The problem is the decking material, the decking
board is so close together the water is just going to run off into
the creek. So if you spread it a little bit it will give it a
chance to get down into the stone. And that secondary bulkhead was
not a permitted structure.
MR. ANGELL: It's a retaining wall.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It was not part of the original permit, so we just
ask for you to come in with an as-built.
TRUSTEE KING: When was that second wall built?
MR. ANGELL: It was done at the same time as the bulkhead but there
was a tremendous crown going down to the original one. It was
basically --
TRUSTEE KING: You should have come in for an amendment to the
permit to approve that. Would of, should have, could have.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, there was also an issue, there was a double
Board of Trustees
14
June 20, 2007
jet ski float out front.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I was going to bring that up. There is a double
jet ski platform there and we did have questions on that in the
sense it's not a permitted, something that we permit on the dock
there.
MR. ANGELL: I'll advise him of that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That has to come out. As far as the CAC comments
on this, CAC resolved to support the application. LWRP has it down
as exempt.
So I would like to make a motion that we approve the transfer
part of this amendment as well as the rest of it except with the
stipulation that the decking be res paced , quarter inch, half inch
apart, whatever is suitable, and also come back with an as-built
permit for that retaining wall.
MR. ANGELL: Very good.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And that the double Sea Do slip come out with the
platforms.
And you would not actually get this until the as-built is put
in.
MR. ANGELL: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Five, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of NANCY SUE
MUELLER requests an Amendment to Permit #6535 to authorize the
inplace replacement of approximately 104 linear feet of timber
bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead and backfill with approximately 10
cubic yards clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source.
Located: 2300 Park Avenue, MaUituck.
Jim and I went out and looked at this. Is Rob here yet?
(No response.)
Is anybody here on number five?
(No response.)
The only question Jim and I have is was we wanted to see if
the bulkhead was going to be raised. In a previous permit, the
reason why this is an amendment is we gave them, in February, gave
them a permit for the groins. So they are amending that permit to
add the bulkhead but we want to make sure the bulkhead is not
raised in height because on that permit for the groins we have them
to be located no higher than one foot above existing beach grade
and the tops of the new groins are to be no higher than
three-and-a-half feet above the top of the existing bulkhead. So
if the existing bulkhead is raised then we have to raise this
three-and-a-half feet. That's the only problem we had with this.
The bulkhead, we assumed, they didn't put on the first permit
Board of Trustees
15
June 20, 2007
because it was fine but in that April storm it got blown out. So
we don't have a problem with it.
So I will make a motion to approve as submitted, and according
to the plans it's not being raised. If the bulkhead is to be
raised, we have to adjust that three-and-a-half feet.
TRUSTEE KING: And new elevation were taken on the groins because
they was DEC requirement. So they do have elevations. I'll second
it.
All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number six, Patricia Moore on behalf of MARY
DIGREGORIO requests an Amendment to Permit #6120 to commence the
fixed dock at the wetland line rather than the upper retaining wall
and install a pile and pulley system at the end of the fixed dock.
Located: 100 Oak Street, Cutchogue.
We all went out to look at this and. As I recall, the Board's
feeling was that we were not inclined to consider the pile and
pulley system.
Is there anyone here who wants to speak to this application?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We all went out, Pat, and the feeling of the
entire Board was not to permit the pile and pulley system, and that
the feelings were the same that, originally we wanted to stay
within the pier line and we didn't want any more going out any
further into the channel there, the waterway.
MS. MOORE: Well, we had two parts of it. The DEC wanted us to
start the dock at the wetland line.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We had no problem with that.
MS. MOORE: Is Mr. DiGregorio here? I didn't see him.
(No response.)
The dock does present a problem. That's why we were coming up
with an alternative design, since the water depth is somewhat of an
issue there. So we were trying to come up with something that
would work for him to have a small boat there and the DEC really
had no problem with any of it originally so we are kind of at a
point where you have cut us back but the DEC won't grant us
something that is so short. So a pile and pulley would at least
allow us to have the boat in a location where the DEC would
approve. That's the reason we came up with a pile and pulley.
Because the fixed dock is no longer than the tie line.
Remember, that the creek there or the bay there, cuts back.
It's on an angle. So you are penalizing him because you have
properties that are setback further, so there are docks that go out
further but when you do a tie line on a land mass that is behind
the other, it creates an artificial tie line. So that's something
Board of Trustees
16
June 20, 2007
we have to reconcile and we were trying to come up with a more
workable approach.
TRUSTEE KING: We talked about this a long time ago and we wanted to
maintain that pier line. That's the whole thing.
MS. MOORE: Exactly.
TRUSTEE KING: But you don't maintain it with pulley and stake
system.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: MOORE: That's what I'm saying. We have problem
with the changes the DEC made or that catwalk that we permitted but
we are not agreeing with the pile and pulley.
MS. MOORE: Right. I heard that. That's why I was explaining why we
are asking for the pile and pulley, to enable the boat to shift in
the depth of the water that would be agreeable with the DEC.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just trying to find LWRP, which was done
during the last permit process, but it's quite extensive talking
about the significant fish and wildlife habitats, the length of the
original dock proposal.
MS. MOORE: We cut that back. It's no different than having a
mooring. So a pile and a mooring really make no difference.
Actually it's less, probably, in circumference than a mooring that
would be required to keep a boat in place, so we tried to come up
with an approach that would compromise.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you want to compare it to a mooring, there is a
waiting list for that creek and they can go on a list.
MS. MOORE: He's also waterfront property. So we won't go there.
I'm just saying environmental affects. When you are comparing
environmental affects, a pile is generally not considered to have
significant environmental affect.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think the feeling of the Board is that we had
compromised and worked with you and given the original permit and
felt this was the extent that we would permit. So I would be
inclined to permit the change of the fixed dock at the wetland line
but not the pile and pulley system.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's three foot. That's two. (indicating.) I
understand that. I'm just looking at the depth. The depth looks
someplace place between one and two at the end of the dock
MS. MOORE: Right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the pile takes it out to three, but extend it
beyond the pier line. And, I mean, since it's a pile and line, it
is different than a mooring because it doesn't prevent anything
from going inside that. A mooring, the boat sits out here and a
boat can go inside and outside that mooring. So to me it's not the
same as a mooring.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Bob, I want to get the feeling of the Board
again. Was your feeling that it would be fine to move the fixed
dock to the wetland line but not agree with the pile and pulley?
Board of Trustees
17
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I agree with that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's where we are.
MS. MOORE: Okay, please note our objection and our request for the
pile and pulley and we'll accept that for purposes of having a
permit in hand so we can proceed, but we still object to the fact
that we are being penalized, being taken, that the tie line is
being artificially drawn based on the topography of the shoreline
there. So.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the request for an
amendment to permit 6120 to commence the fixed dock at the wetland
line rather than the upper retaining wall, and to not include the
installing of the pile and pulley system. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Pat, we'll need a revised plan for that, please.
To take your pile and proposed --
MS. MOORE: That's fine.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven, Patricia Moore on behalf of CAROL
WITSCHIEBEN & JANET WITSCHIEBEN LARSEN, requests an Amendment to
Permit #6436 to increase the size of the west side of dwelling from
18.4' to 20' within the setback; increase the size on the east
side of the dwelling from 26.4' to 29' within the setback; covered
entry area converted to living space except for entry approximately
three feet wide by 12 feet long; increase length of dwelling from
approximately 64 feet to 69 feet long; and relocate proposed
swimming pool to west side of property. Located: 1000 Sound Beach
Drive, Mattituck.
The whole board went out and looked at this. It looked like
it was just a modification of the house, basically changing it from
it was originally going to be a two-story to one-story with all the
additions going landward and the movement of the pool as per DEC
request.
The CAC went out and looked at it and had no comment on the
application, however states this is a prime example of
overdevelopment on the shoreline.
We looked at it. It's also consistent under LWRP so we didn't
have a problem with it, so I would entertain a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on
behalf of PHYLLIS SCHAFFER requests an Amendment to Permit #6522 to
Board of Trustees
18
June 20, 2007
construct a 4'x48' catwalk using grate style decking instead of the
approved 4'x23' fixed catwalk. located: 1725 Smith Drive North,
Southold.
This was a request for catwalk modification. We all went out
and looked at it. I think the general feeling of the Board was
it's extending out too far, more than we thought it was going to
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think the question was whether it was more than
one-third out across the waterway.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: John, the one question we had, I believe you were
looking at the dock, the float, what's the position of the float?
MR. COSTEllO: My name is John Costello, Costello Marine
Contracting. We are the agent for this application for Phyllis
Schaffer.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What is the current proposed location of the
float?
MR. COSTEllO: It was staked.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
MR. COSTEllO: There was a question on the other hearings that we
had, the stake being missed, and we put stakes out there three
different times. Some of them didn't survive through the winter
but it was restaked recently and --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We went out last week and we felt it was too far
out, and I'm asking --
TRUSTEE KING: It's out another five feet from the original. I'm
looking at what was approved here in March.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is from March, what I'm looking at -- I think
the plan we were looking at last Wednesday when we were in the
field, we saw the dock catwalk, the catwalk going straight out. So
I just want to make sure we are all looking at the same plans.
MR. COSTEllO: April 19, 2007 plans.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, that shows the "l."
MR. COSTEllO: That was the "l" shape and flow through decking.
TRUSTEE KING: It also shows five feet further seaward than what was
approved before. We measured from this line. On the outside of
that is 25 feet. We measured from the same line to the outside
post is 20 feet. So it was pushed out five more feet.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When you set the stake, did you happen to measure
the width of the creek?
MR. COSTEllO: We had a surveyor, Bob Fox, measure the width of the
channel way there and at low water to low water is slightly over
100 feet. And that's why we tried to regulate to meet the
approval. It's a narrow waterway.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And this plan shows it how far out?
MR. COSTEllO: 33 from low water.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Out a third.
MR. COSTEllO: We'll try. Why not.
Board of Trustees
19
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So it is one-third
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. Any reason if you pull it back a little bit
that the boat would not be able to get in there?
MR. COSTEllO: The only thing is I don't want to jeopardize the DEC
permit because we were playing around with three-and-a-half feet of
water, they were a little bit reluctant. All the boats in that
area are going to be quite small.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it's just at one-third.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: A boat, dock, everything, can't be more than a
third.
TRUSTEE KING: Am I right, John, that this dock is five feet further
out than what we showed in March, what we approved in March?
MR. COSTEllO: I don't believe so. At that time, I don't believe we
had Bob Fox's survey, so what we tried to do is, in order to meet
the objections of the DEC on the depth of water, we had to revise
it slightly, but I don't know if it was five feet. If you are
using a scale ruler, you know.
TRUSTEE KING: I scaled it off. It's five feet seaward.
MR. COSTEllO: I thought it was three-and-a-half but I'm not going
to contradict. We tried to minimize the structure, the four-foot
width, flow-through decking, the minimum-size piling. It's a creek
that has a lot of limitations on the size of the vessels.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Where does the channel run through that? It
doesn't run through the middle
MR. COSTEllO: It runs right out the middle. It's a dredged channel
but it has not been maintained for many years
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The docks on the other side are hugged up against
the shore, so we were just wondering if this can't be moved in
closer to the shore and still, you know, it's at three foot right
now. It looks, the boat would be at three-and-a-half feet depth.
We are wondering if we can move it in a little bit.
MR. COSTEllO: I'm sure it can be. I just don't want to jeopardize
the DEC permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand.
MR. COSTEllO: The DEC, I mean, one disapproval is all it takes.
TRUSTEE KING: Is this a seasonal float, John?
MR. COSTEllO: Yes. And the ramp, too. If we put the ramp on the
float.
TRUSTEE KING: It looks like a five foot grab to me but if it's
inside the one-third, with the boat, and meets the code, I think
that's the way we should leave it. Word the permit --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEEBERGEN:R~ht.
MR. COSTEllO: Could I make one additional comment?
TRUSTEE KING: Sure.
MR. COSTEllO: If the Board wishes, I think that there is a
Board of Trustees
20
June 20, 2007
possibility, without the ramp being too steep, because of the
elevation of the dock, that if we pull the ramp back from 16 foot
to 14 feet, that, you know, it would not affect walking down the
ramp. You know. That's one of the reasons we tried to do it. And
the ramp is wood and will have two handrails, so it will still
remain safe.
TRUSTEE KING: That was on the original plan was a 14 foot ramp.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On this is 32" by 16 foot. I think that's a
compromise.
TRUSTEE KING: The new one is open grate, is it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. That gets it back. I think that's a
compromise.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: John, did DEC know that you were amending to the
grate style decking?
MR. COSTEllO: Yes. I believe it was this Board that requested --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Was DEC aware you were going to be amending it
to --
MR. COSTEllO: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did they consider lowering their elevation?
TRUSTEE KING: They have five quarter decking on the plans.
MR. COSTEllO: Yes, we have gotten an amendment from DEC, I believe,
for the float.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did they also consider because it was grating
that the elevation was going to be able to be lowered? That's what
Jim is asking.
TRUSTEE KING: The plan shows five quarter decking. If this is
going to be open grate I would like to get the elevation down
lower. They have been approving them right along.
MR. COSTEllO: I don't believe it would be a problem. We'll go back
to them.
TRUSTEE KING: That would be my -- let's get this thing down to like
18 inches above grade, two feet. 18 inches would be fine. That
gets everything down nice, you know. We have had some good luck
with them.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: DEC is getting better with the grading.
TRUSTEE KING: They are recommending it now.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I can't see them having a problem, is what I'm
saying.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to make a motion, Jim, or do you want
me to?
TRUSTEE KING: You can do it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of Phyllis
Schaffer, request an Amendment to Permit #6522 to construct a
4'x48' catwalk with a 32"x14' ramp to be 18 inches above grade;
open grate catwalk.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
Board of Trustees
21
June 20,2007
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: And the structure including the boat is not to be
more than one-third of the way across the creek, with the boat, as
noted in the code.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. I just want to, I see that -- is Mrs. Bunker
here? Mr. Bunker? I see we already did yours. What we did is we
feel that there is not enough of the dock left so we ended up
denying your amendment and we request you to put a full permit
application in. We don't have a problem with the dock being there,
we just need to do a little further review.
TRUSTEE KING: Just apply for a permit for a dock.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Apply to us for a wetland permit. You can see
Lauren in the office and she will give you the paperwork and we'll
go through the steps and she will give you the deadlines and we'll
put it on the next meeting.
MR. BUNKER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Numbers ten through 17 are transfers of permits
and one-year extensions. Those are:
Number ten, the application of SALVATORE GRANFORT;
number 11, Gary Olsen on behalf of VINCENZO & MARGHERITA POSILLlCO;
number 12, the application of CAROL R. DENSON;
number 13, the application of RICHARD E. BONATI;
number 14, the application of LI SOUND OYSTER, LLC.;
number 15, the application of KEVIN BUCCINNA & FAITH BEISER;
number 16, Gary Olsen on behalf of the ESTATE OF EILEEN O. GOLDNER;
number 17, En-Consultants on behalf of PATRICIA GILCHRIST MANCINO.
We all have reviewed each one separately and I would like to
put all those together. Does CAC have any comments on extensions
or transfers, do you know?
MR. MCGREEVY: I don't have it as a matter of record.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. They are just simple transfers and
extensions. There are no changes to any of the permits or
anything.
I'll make a motion to approve numbers 10 through 17 as
requested.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As to number nine, DAVID LAVAN requests a Transfer
from Permit #251 to Robert Troccoli to David Lavan, as issued on
May 29, 1986, to replace three missing pilings and add two
additional pilings to make the dock more secure. Located: 710
Jockey Creek Drive, Southold.
Board of Trustees
22
June 20, 2007
It is supposed to read "transfer of permit to." And not
replace the three missing pilings.
So I'll approve the transfer to, and deny the request to
replace the three pilings and add two additional pilings.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off our regular hearings and
go on to our public hearings.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE KING: These are our public hearings. Please try and keep
your comments brief, when you comment, and we'll get right to the
point on things. I don't want to drag things along. And I don't
really want these things to turn into debates between the Board and
the applicant.
TRUSTEE KING: Number one, HENRY H. TRAENDL Y & BARBARA A.
CADWALLADER request a Wetland Permit to expand an existing beach
cabana and garage and construct a single-family dwelling with decks
and garage. Located: 13000 Rt. 25, East Marion.
MR. TRAENDL Y: I'm going to speak about the application we have made
and why we made it, et cetera.
Our application is to build a one-family dwelling on a
recognized lot and, frankly, retire there. The decision to proceed
was made based on a letter from research discussions, especially
including a walk through done by the Trustees and we attempted to
make every amendment possible to the original plans and we did, to
conform and comply with the suggestions made at that time.
We also met with the other agencies, which we understand we
fully have to deal with. Without approval from the Department of
Health or DEC, there will be no project, there will be no building
put in.
We have worked with professional engineers to mitigate any
potential problems with the sanitary systems, to suggest various
sites so we can perhaps move septic systems. I've spoken to
engineers regarding the well, the depth using, if necessary, water
treatment systems. We have met with and spoken with, at length,
the Suffolk County Department of Health. They have been quite
helpful and they have, frankly, given me some confidence that this
can be accomplished.
We also met with duty analysts in the DEC and listened to
Board of Trustees
23
June 20, 2007
their advice, and based on that our decision to proceed was made
and hence we are here. We went to the Building Department for the
denial. We are now at this stage.
I would like to speak about a few other things and I'll be as
brief as possible. One, is that the coastal erosion hazard area as
defined I believe by the DEC, that's the map that the Board of
Trustees uses, defines coastal erosion area as one in which the
erosion rate of one foot a year or more is demonstrated.
In fact, this property, which is recognized in 1947, grew
from, at that time, 170 feet in length to 197.9 feet. It's
actually increased almost 28 feet. So I think it is not a typical
coastal erosion area, much less a coastal erosion hazard area.
And I'll make one final point, and that is that the dwelling
we are proposing and the variance we are seeking is consistent with
other neighboring lots in the area. There is approximately 19
fully developed, as far as I could tell, lots in that area. And
this is not entirely inconsistent at all. In fact we believe it is
compatible, plus esthetically, in terms of sanitary, engineering,
well placing and so on. And that's why we are here.
TRUSTEE KING: I think the biggest problem we have is the sanitary
system that is proposed.
MR. TRAENDL Y: We got that message loud and clear. We understood
that you were quite helpful in suggesting to us how we might
accommodate the requirements, and we have gone ahead and spoken to
the two ultimately yea or nay agencies, the DEC as well as the
Department of Health, and we think that in the end we will succeed
in our applications.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll speak for myself, I don't know about the rest
the Board members, but I'm uncomfortable with how close it is.
It's only 65 feet from the high water mark. And I know it's a
challenge to figure out where to put it. It's just too close.
MR. TRAENDL Y: In discussing this with the Department of Health and
in reading the standards both health and wealth standards, the
current editions of them, we have noted and we have confirmed with
the Department of Health, that 65 foot separation from a well to a
septic is all right if it's in the shoreline area and is not
serviced by public water. And then of course the way it works is
you run into the depth of the well.
Well, the depth of the well, assuming the water quality is not
adequate to meet the standards, at that point, you can use a device
to improve the water quality and bring it up to the level of the
standards. So we believe that we can get through the Department of
Health using that particular approach.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So a device on the water system?
MR. TRAENDL Y: Yes, if the well -- and we have reason to believe
that the quality of the water will be okay as it is. But in other
Board of Trustees
24
June 20, 2007
words, that would be the remedial step.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So a device just coming from your well.
MR. TRAENDL Y: Yes, it would be a device used to treat the water if
the well depth was not great enough.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But we are not concerned with just your well. We
are concerned with the neighboring wells as well.
MR. TRAENDL Y: This is on the seaward side, as you well know. And on
that point, I believe the neighboring properties have their septics
-- I have very good reason to believe this -- their septic systems
are clearly on the seaward side and much closer than this one is.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand that. But did you discuss with the
Health Department alternatives systems?
MR. TRAENDL Y: Yes, and they felt what we were proposing could work.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But this is a normal system. So they are saying
that they feel that the way you are applying for it is approvable
to them, is what you are telling us
MR. TRAENDL Y: They said subject to variance, yes, that's what they
are --
TRUSTEE KING: Have you applied to DEC yet with this?
MR. TRAENDL Y: No, we have not applied yet. I thought -- I'm a
novice at this. I thought procedurally we would be better off
dealing with the local authorities and if we had to get a subject,
in fact, whether or not you, if you approve this on its face we
would still have to get all the other approvals
TRUSTEE KING: Sometimes, what I have been doing the last few years,
some people like it, some people don't, on these difficult
applications, I have been trying to do joint inspections with the
DEC so you are there, both regulating agencies are there, and you
don't get any mixed messages. We don't say yes you can do it and
you go to the DEC and they say no, you can't do it, or vice versa.
I would like to do something like that with this application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can I clarify, one thing. In the application it
says construct a single family dwelling with decks and garage. Is
that correct? Because I don't see anything on the plans.
MR. TRAENDL Y: It's not on the plans. We just wanted to reserve
that option, if it turned out it would be an option.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We would have to see it on the plans. In other
words, the garage is not currently on the plans. We would have to
see it on the plans in order to consider it as part of the
application. That's what we are saying.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just want to clarify that because if it is
something you are considering, it has to come off one or the other.
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to table this for a joint discussion.
That's my feeling.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree.
TRUSTEE KING: That's my recommendation.
Board of Trustees
25
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have no problem with that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would also like to see the Health Department
approve the septic first
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can you request that before we do another
inspection?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't know who moves faster, the Health Department
or the DEC. I think you should apply to the DEC and get something
going and we'll do a joint inspection with them. That would be my
suggestion.
Like I say, I think it saves you a lot of time and a lot of
frustration.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Traendly, the application as you presented
it is inconsistent with LWRP. Are there any recommendations from
them he might need to consider?
TRUSTEE KING: I think it's mostly because of the septic.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was just wondering if there is anything that
they are recommending.
TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing.) Direct or indirect discharge. It lists
the whole --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Setbacks and septic.
TRUSTEE KING: Mostly setbacks and septic system will be the
problem.
MR. TRAENDL Y: If I may ask a question, perhaps, in the form of
speaking to the standards for variance. Your setback to the
wetlands water line or high water mark, is 75 feet, I believe.
TRUSTEE KING: It's 100. 100 feet is our setback.
MR. TRAENDL Y: Okay, that's to what they call --
TRUSTEE KING: That's from the edge of the wetlands to, it would
probably be roughly here from just looking at this, right around
the bulkhead area, it looks like.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we said, yes, when we were out there
MR. TRAENDL Y: There no bulkhead there, but, from the adjoining
properties, but that's one of the areas where you can grant, the
Board of Trustees can grant a waiver of the setbacks.
TRUSTEE KING: Well, we don't necessarily waive the setback. What
we try and do is try and get as far away as we can. I mean, we are
looking at 65 feet and that's just a little over half of what the
setback should be. It was 97 feet, I would like at it differently.
That's just my personal feelings.
MR. TRAENDL Y: Are there any suggestions the board might have as to
how we might consider re-engineering this, because we certainly --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Like in the field, we asked you to see what other
systems are out there that are approvable by the Health Department
that would be more environmentally friendly. And, you know, if you
could explore that a little further.
MR. TRAENDL Y: That would certainly be one possible path. Could
Board of Trustees
26
June 20, 2007
that be recited in whatever your decision is this evening --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think what we are looking for is just to table
this application right now until we get more information and meet
with the DEC.
MR. TRAENDL Y: What about the Health Department?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If they want to meet with us, too, great. But we
haven't --
MR. TRAENDL Y: I wasn't sure. I thought the Health Department was
ultimately the most important --
TRUSTEE KING: They are important. If you want to pursue this you
should really contact both of those agencies and get going on it.
That's my suggestion.
MR. VALANTI: Excuse me, do you think I have say something? My name
is Brian Valanti.
In regard to from where the well is to the septic system, he
meets that. That's 100 foot apart. It's from where the 55 feet
from the shoreline, I think originally when you went out there to
view the site, it was 52 foot at that point. He set it back, the
house, to make it 55 feet because that's okay with the Health
Department. You don't need a variance for that part. The part is
if it was, he would need a variance regarding the well issue,
because it could be a shallow well, greater or less than 40 feet.
And if at that point, you know, he knows if it's exactly less than
40 feet, then he would need the water treatment system. That would
be required in a variance. Not for the 55-foot setback. That he
can go along without a variance from the Health Department. Just
to clarify that issue. So that's not a problem with them. It's
really a problem with the Board. And if you look at any other
system that could possibly go in there, you can't get any further
back than 55 feet. And that's really about it. Because I went
with Hank to that one health meeting and, you know, that's pretty
clear about that, about the 55-foot setback. He doesn't need a
variance. It's just he would need a variance to put the well in
and if so, it would only be a matter of water treatment.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And just so you understand, that just because the
Health Department or DEC approves something doesn't mean we are
going to automatically approve it. We have our concerns.
MR. VALANTI: I understand. I just wanted to clarify that.
MR. TRAENDL Y: There is just one other pleading. That is the
potential effect of adding another dwelling to the area, on the
wetlands themselves, assuming this really is a wetland area, even
that's, potentially, that's one of the issues with the DEC, the
zone it's in is an LZ zone. But it's not a typical LZ zone in that
it doesn't have the characteristics, doesn't have the marsh grass,
it's course sand on the bottom. I have gone through this with the
DEC. Perhaps that area should not be classified as such. It's
Board of Trustees
27
June 20, 2007
really tidal water of the harbor. So, that's a larger issue,
perhaps, but nonetheless it's a legitimate one. So the effect,
which I know you are very concerned with, of having a septic system
65 feet from the water, when you think about it, this represents
approximately a 5% increase in the number of dwellings in the
neighborhood, it has to be diminimus, arithmetically or otherwise.
That seems to me to be somewhat compelling.
TRUSTEE KING: Are you going to have to go to zoning on some of
these side yard setbacks?
MR. TRAENDL Y: Yes, but I don't think that should be a problem
because we are very much consistent with the adjoining properties
even. As a matter of fact, the setbacks are even greater.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's another thing we have been discussing
inter-office, is something like this, the zoning board might want
so see it first prior to the Trustees' approval.
MR. TRAENDL Y: I have no problem with that at all. We only require
a variance for the side yards and the volume. That's all. And I'm
very comfortable that we are actually, we need less of a variance
in terms of feet than the two adjoining properties.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think the feeling of the Board is to table this
and we can discuss it further.
MR. TRAENDL Y: Would you suggest that we move to the ZBA next and
then with the state and -- county and state agencies or--
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would move with DEC.
TRUSTEE KING: ASAP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You might want to work on that and visit the
Building Department and tell them your plans and see what the steps
they send you are.
MR. TRAENDL Y: We actually went to the Building Department. We are
ready to go to the ZBA right now.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can go ahead and start with them as well.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two, on page six, WILLIAM & ALICE LEHMANN
request a Wetland Permit to construct a two-car garage and install
gutters and drywells to contain the run-off. Located: 725 Rabbit
Lane, East Marion.
I looked at this and had no problems with it. It has all the stuff;
gutters, drywells, on the plan. And it's inconsistent under LWRP
because of the 100 foot setback, and there was a built-in pool
there which was much closer to the lake than the proposed garage,
which is no longer there. There is some sheds there. And we,
during construction, require hay bales. And there is a non-turf
Board of Trustees
28
June 20, 2007
buffer there already that is pretty well established. And they are
putting gutters, leaders and drywells, so that would make it, in my
mind, consistent with LWRP.
CAC supports the application and they want the Trustees to
consider whether or not the culvert pipe is problematic. There is
a culvert pipe that happens it go across this property from the
lake to the bay and it has been there for at least 50 years. At
one point it was not functional, however, I believe it's functional
now. They have a gate that was not functional for many years and
salt water intrusion was getting into the lake, which is part of
the reason why the phragmites started flourishing. Since then that
gate has been fixed and I don't see it problematic at all.
Is there anyone here to speak on this application?
MR. CUDDY: I am. I'm Charles Cuddy, speaking on behalf of Mr. and
Mrs. Lehmann. Thank you. I'm sure they wonder why I came since
you have done a better job than I'm going to do. I would just add
one or two things. We have permits from the DEC, both tidal and
freshwater wetlands. I would also like to make part of your
records, because this is somewhat unique, the Zoning Board of
Appeals determination.
As you indicated, we are going to put a garage, but we have
covenanted and also are putting in the deed that this parcel will
never be used for a dwelling. So there will be no septic system on
it. It's essentially joined with their parcel across the street.
So I think the Board of Appeals went through the LWRP and said this
mitigated all of that concern.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, Mr. Lehmann had told me that as well.
MR. KUTTY: So if I may, I would offer this up to the Board.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
MR. KUTTY: Because you have enunciated all of the concerns and have
set forth mitigation, I won't speak longer because I know you like
us to be brief. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. I do have one other comment. I did
ask Mr. Lehmann if he would consider moving it landward further and
his answer was that he placed it in such so he could get into the
driveway and park a car on the driveway. And Rabbit Lane is a very
narrow private road. And I agreed with him. If he puts it closer
to the road he would not be able to turn around
MR.CUDDY: And he could not really park any cars off the road.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. And his is other house is beyond that, so.
Are there any other comments?
(No response.)
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
Board of Trustees
29
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve the application of
William and Alice Lehmann as applied for.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Which is including gutters, leaders and drywells,
and I would like to add hay bales during construction and to
maintain the butter that is there.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, I apologize. We are going to go back to number
one. I would like to reopen number one. I didn't realize there
are a couple of people here have comments to make. And I have a
letter on the Traendly application. I would like to read the letter
into the record.
Board of Trustees, for the HENRY TRAENDL Y & BARBARA CADWALLADER
application.
The request for a wetland permit to expand an existing beach
cabana and garage and construct a single-family dwelling with decks
and garage. The cabana is a boat house and was used to store a few
boats. It remained dormant as long as we lived next door to it.
We do believe they have a fire hazard by not having the new
building less than 30 feet from our house. Signed, Edward T.
Burton, I think it is. The address is 12460 Main Road, East
Marion. So with that entered into the record.
MR. BURTON: Could I make a comment about the same thing?
TRUSTEE KING: Number one, yes.
MR. BURTON: My name is Tom Burton. I kind of object to the two
foot away from my parent's property.
TRUSTEE KING: That was one of the questions I asked whether they
need variances from the zoning board to put a house that close.
MR. BURTON: Two stories, we are living in Southold, not Manhattan.
TRUSTEE KING: That's a zoning board issue they'll have to address
MR. BURTON: And he claims he wants to live there, right? He has
been trying to sell this property for a couple of years, and he
can't. He wants to build so he could sell it. He used to own the
house next door to that and he bought that just so nobody would
build there at all. And the place has not been maintained for
quite a while, anyway.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. Are there any other comments on this
application?
(No response.)
Being none, I'll make a motion to table this hearing again.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Board of Trustees
30
June 20, 2007
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number three, NEIL & ROBERTA SIMON request a
Wetland Permit to renovate the existing landscape, including the
installation of a berm with boulders upland of the driveway,
maintenance on existing driveway, repair/replace existing stone and
CCA retaining walls with new stone retaining walls, add new stone
retaining wall, replace existing stepping stone walkways with
deeper stones and plantings, add new stepping stone walkways to
replace existing turf areas, replace most turf areas with garden
flower beds and stone walkways, and perform maintenance on existing
on-grade decks, walkways and patios. Located: 60 Harbor Lights
Drive, Southold.
The entire Board looked at this. We don't have any comments on
my notes except that the land meets the bulkhead. There is a
question -- I remember what it was. Do we want to make the land
lower than the bulkhead down by the water? I just remember I had a
comment. Was that Bob's comment?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, we talked about.
TRUSTEE KING: We talked about it. It should be lower than the edge
of the bulkhead, yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And to make sure when the landscaping comes down
to the bulkhead that it's lower than the bulkhead and doesn't meet
it at exactly the top of the bulkhead. That's the only comment.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Otherwise any runoff goes right in. If we make it
lower, it has someplace to go.
MR. SIMON: I'm Neil Simon. I'm the applicant for this permit.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did you have any problem with what we just said
as far as the landscaping going -- now it comes up to the top of
the bulkhead.
MR. SIMON: Yes, if so there is a runoff channel form so the run
water can't run over it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Just like six inches so the water doesn't run
over it.
MR. SIMON: That's not a problem.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are there any other comments?
MR. SIMON: I had a couple of comments. Just some observations of
the beneficial impacts that we think the project will have. One of
them is we believe that runoff from the property will be better
controlled. That's basically the reason for the boulders along the
facing of the slope on the landward side of the driveway.
Secondly, for our own maintenance purposes and for the
benefit, environmental benefit, virtually all of the turf that was
previously on the property is removed by the plan and is replaced
with lower maintenance flower beds. And the reference to
maintaining the at-grade walkway is basically replaces CCA decking
Board of Trustees
31
June 20,2007
on the walkways with trecks, synthetic material. Those are the
comments that I offer.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have field notes here that say that did we
want to get the dock amended? I think that's why I took this
picture, because we felt --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There was a permit for the dock but what we needed
to check to see is that the dock was built according to the specs.
Because it appeared when we walked out, that the dock is more than
one-third of the way across the waterway. So we were going to
check that to see, the office was going to check that to see if the
dock matched -- the configurations of the dock matched the
permitted dock.
MR. SIMON: Okay. And the dock structure was built by Costello
Marine probably ten years ago and they put the permits in place.
It's not been altered and it should match the permits that were
issued for that dock.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, there is a sticker on the side that says "Tom
Johnson Docks."
MR. SIMON: Tom Johnson did some maintenance on the float a couple
of years ago. But again, the structure was not altered.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We'll check that out.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Lauren, you were asked to do any checking of
that? Do we want to include anything with this approval, Jim or
just checking?
TRUSTEE KING: We can approve this and just make a note.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just want to make sure that it's getting
notated. Are there any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I just had a question. On the maintenance of the
decks and the walkways and patio, is that replacement of the decks
or is that actually maintenance?
MR. SIMON: The walkways that are referred to are flagstones set in
soil, and what the plan calls for, the flagstones stones are about
an inch-and-a-half thick. The plan calls for removing them all and
replacing them with stones that are about four inches thick so we
can grow plantable materials between them.
The reference to the decks, are at grade, they were originally
CCA plank walkways that are at grade that the plan calls for
replacing them with trecks. So they are basically maintenance of
what exists.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I guess my point was going to be if it's just
routine maintenance, was there going to be any chemicals involved.
But it doesn't sound like it.
MR. SIMON: No, absolutely not.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If there are no further comments from anyone in
the audience or Board members, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing. Do I have a second?
Board of Trustees
32
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the wetland permit
to request wetland and landscaping for Neil and Roberta Simon. Do I
have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Has most of this been done?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Well, yes, but a lot of the plantings have not
been done. It was kind of midstream, I believe.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just curious.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't remember that much being done.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is the one we found out and it's been done.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It was started. It's like midstream. The
consideration is the work was done before you came in for a
permit.
MR. SIMON: Yes, that's accurate. I hired a landscape contractor
locally and I thought he got the permit, and we stopped the job.
There are basically bales of stone on the property now. Some have
been set in place.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can approve it subject that he has to pay that
fee, before he gets his permit.
What we are talking about, when there is a violation, when
work has been started and there is a violation and it's been taken
care of, usually what we do is we have a fee structure of as
built. Meaning already built without a permit. So what we are
thinking is you fall into that category. So you would just have to
pay an additional fee before you get your permit.
MR. SIMON: I accept that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I made the motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. SIMON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number four, THEODORE BUCCI, JR., requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a 3'x12' hinged ramp and a 6'x20'
floating dock attached to the existing bulkhead. Located: 112
Windjammer Drive, Southold.
The Board did go out and look at this. Is there anybody here
to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. BUCCI: My name is Theodore J. Bucci. I'm the applicant. I know
you wanted to discuss some things about maybe changing it to a
marine nursery. I would just like to find out what you did discuss
and find out.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. I spoke to Pat Finnegan, the Town Attorney,
and she suggested that we to not go that way since there no
Board of Trustees
33
June 20, 2007
provision in the code for that right now. And she would rather not
head down that path. There are a lot of variables.
MR. BUCCI: Okay. And another thing there is about 22 floating
docks in that boat basin right now and every single one is within
15 feet of someone else's property line. And to have mine, since I
bought the property four years ago, where you could put a floating
dock there, I have been paying taxes on it like that, and to pull
the rug out from underneath us at this point, I think is not fair.
Even though the law says it's a 15-foot setback, there should be an
exception to this. I mean there is, like I said, 20 some odd
floating docks in there that would be exactly like mine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lori, did Pat discuss this with you at all? Did
we figure out --
MS. MONTEFUSCO: We discussed the use. (A comment was made off the
record.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The way it's written in the code, with the 15
foot, what are our options?
MS. MONTEFUSCO: Your options are to be consistent with the code or
there has to be some specific reason why you are not.
Unfortunately, the code doesn't speak to a different use as an
exception. And that's just the unfortunate, you know, fact of this
job for the applicant here, but the fact is if there is a setback
requirement, there is a setback requirement. So. It's really.
MR. BUCCI: May I also say something. We paid about five years ago,
$50,000 for this slip. Now, by changing the rules from when we
bought the property, you can't use it. It's pretty much worthless
because if you bring a boat in there with a bow, you know I have a
pontoon, which my make that easier, but for all intent and purposes
a bow boat pulled in there, you can't get off. No one would jump
off the bow of the boat trying to go get up on to the bulkhead.
Now, you know, the law may say. But what is right. What is
fair. And it's up to you to make a decision and I think you could
make a fair one where you just say let's make an exception and
allow this person to put a floating dock just like the 20-some odd
others.
And if I had known, I mean I had to put certificates out,
certified letters to notify everybody that I wanted to do something
and if I had that same courtesy where I was told my property would
be worthless, I would have made sure I put a floater in before you
changed the rules.
TRUSTEE KING: I think the 15 foot set off of property lines has
been in effect a long time. I sympathize with you. I understand
what you are saying.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Believe us, we are trying to work it out.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I mean, it's the opinion of the Trustees this was a
very good project what you wanted to do. The challenge is we have
Board of Trustees
34
June 20, 2007
a code. It's nothing that this group here created. We have a Town
Code and there has to be a 15-foot setback on each side of a piece
of property to accommodate a dock. And this doesn't have it. And
what you are asking for is for us to grant you an exception to the
Town Code, which we really don't have a tendency to do.
MR. BUCCI: I understand that. And I would say the tendency should
be there because there are 20-some odd floaters in there that were
given permits and use has been there where everybody is within 15
feet of someone else's property. This is not like it's a new boat
basin and it's not like we had all the room in the world. This is
what has been there for like 40 years. And it's very consistent
with what is in there and being used right now.
Excuse me, my neighbor who adjoins me. If you want to ask him
if he has a problem with that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you hang on for just a second. You're done with
your comments. Thank you. And we'll ask for others. I want to
make sure you had your opportunity to give comment.
MR. BUCCI: Sure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to
speak on this application?
MR. SIMON: Again, I'm Neil Simon. By coincidence tonight, we are,
I believe the contiguous adjacent property owner to Mr. Bucci's
property, and basically confirming what his comments are. It's
hard to see the project that he's proposing being nonconforming to
all of the other boat facilities within the canal. His misfortune,
his timing perhaps being the last one to put a float in. But it
would be completely conforming to the character, the spacing, that
exists today. That would be my comment for the Record. We have no
objection to it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Are there any other comments to be made
from the audience?
(No response.)
If not, just for the record, CAC did not make an inspection
therefore no recommendation could be made. LWRP found it
consistent. So with that, are there any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, I have one. I have to tell you, I think that
what Mr. Bucci wants to do is a great idea. What has not really
been brought out is what he's planning to use that dock to do,
which is to construct a dock so he could grow oysters underneath
and bring it out into the bay and set those seeds. I think that's
a great idea and I know that's a different use than what we would
normally call a dock.
I also know the code does say that docks, including the
vessel, should have a minimum clearance of 15 feet so as not to
interfere with the neighbors' access to the waters, which in this
case it wouldn't, unless the Trustees decided otherwise, for
Board of Trustees
35
June 20, 2007
navigational or other reasons. And I have to tell you, I see this
as a viable other reason.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So I'll support the application.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we should just make certain stipulations and
restrictions as far as the use of it that it should only be used
for active culture and there should be no vessels tied to this
float, strip it down so that it's pretty specific to what it's used
for and the size.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: His plan was to have a vessel there as well, a
pontoon vessel.
TRUSTEE KING: I wouldn't go with that. I say if we are going to
allow this, we should stipulate to a float for the raising of these
oysters and that's it. Don't put a boat on it so you are
practically bumping the next door neighbor.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's going to be a pontoon boat that will fit
right over the top, right?
MR. BUCCI: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mr. Bucci, I'm looking at the file here. I'm
looking for plans to describe the dock itself, the dimensions, the
materials, things like that
MR. BUCCI: That's, it has photos of it also has attached to it the
dimensions, 6x20.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Thank you. So it's a 6x20. There are no
pilings out at the end to support it at all.
MR. BUCCI: No, because it will be supported off the bottom so I
could slide right over it.
TRUSTEE KING: What holds it in place?
MR. BUCCI: The mooring. Just drop down an anchor at the bottom.
There is four I guess you call turnbuckles at the end to fasten
down.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the lumber itself is made of what?
MR. BUCCI: It's not -- well not CCA but the treated lumber that is
allowed now.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It says here pressure treated lumber.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our code still says no treated.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Our code says the decking cannot be treated lumber.
MR. BUCCI: Then I'll ask have to take that off and put the trecks
or whatever. Because the bottom is just the plastic floaters on
the bottom.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the width of the property?
MR. BUCCI: The width of the property is 15 feet by 50. From the
bulkhead out, it's 45 feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question we have, it's a 15-foot wide piece
property but the specs on the dock for a 20-foot wide float. So it
would extend farther.
Board of Trustees
36
June 20, 2007
MR. BUCCI: No, not 26 wide by 20 long.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. That was the question that was
proposed.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What's the total width of the pontoon?
MR. BUCCI: 14. And that slides right over.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we need a better description written?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The description that is here, that is provided,
it's a downloaded page from the Internet. It has all the specs on
it. It's just what we have to change from the specs that are on it
from pressure treated to using non-pressure treated wood
MR. BUCCI: Right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other questions from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: This means this description would have to be changed
to include the pontoon boats. This is an application for a 2x12
hinged ramp with a 6x20 float.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we talked about not having the ramp if he has
the pontoon boat. He said he didn't need the ramp.
TRUSTEE KING: My concern is you have 15 feet of property, you are
taking up 14 feet now instead of six.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have a problem with that, too.
TRUSTEE KING: Six foot float with a ramp down to it, in my mind, is
doable. When you start adding all this structure on either side,
is starting to push the envelope
MR. BUCCI: But it's a boat. The pontoon boat is not fixed to
anything. It's a boat. I mean, it's just like any other boat you
put into a dock or slip.
TRUSTEE KING: My boat doesn't go on both sides of the float. It
only goes on one side
MR. BUCCI: No, I don't think you understand. The pontoon will slip
right over. There is a space underneath it. You have the big huge
pontoons on the side. As you pull in, it slides right over it
TRUSTEE KING: I understand that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are, for example, we have the one-third rule
which we explained to you in the field. How that is written is, a
dock with a boat on it cannot be more than one-third across the
width of a channel, of the area, the creek. And so we do consider
a boat on structures when we approve them. So that's where Jim is
coming from
MR. BUCCI: I'm not following. You mean the length of the pontoon
boat?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, in this case it's the width. In this case.
MR. BUCCI: What I'm getting at is if I didn't have a floating dock
there and I put a 14-foot wide boat there, it wouldn't be a
problem?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That would be a problem still but you would need a
permit to do that.
Board of Trustees
37
June 20, 2007
MR. BUCCI: I'm just saying there is so many boats in there now with
six foot wide floaters and 12-foot wide boats.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He has a good point. He could dock a boat there
now and not need a permit to do that.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: You are making an exception for his specific use
and now he's asking to have what everyone else has but he's not
entitled to it by the code. If you wish to make an exception, you
can do that, but for specific reasons. The reasons that were
stated was because of the aqua culture.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What's the purpose -- I agree with Lori. You
came in to get the aqua culture structure and the boat is --
MR. BUCCI: The boat will used when we go out into the bay and but
the oysters at the bottom.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is a notation here from the environmental
technician. This facility will require an aqua culture permit from
the New York DEC.
MR. BUCCI: That's been applied for.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And from the Trustees.
Well, are there any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is it something we can close the hearing and
reserve decision for later and maybe look for more information? Or
-- I don't know.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't have a problem with the aqua culture
part of it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Without the pontoon you can't do what you are
trying to do with the aqua culture part, right?
MR. BUCCI: Right.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And that is part and parcel of how this dock is
designed.
MR. BUCCI: Correct. And another thing is the season is coming up
where these, the oyster spat has to be placed in the upweller
there. So I mean this is, if we put it off for another month or
two, it's useless
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What's the feeling of the Board? Do you want to
table this to get more information or would you like to move
forward with it tonight?
TRUSTEE KING: I'm uncomfortable with the size of the structure,
outside the size of the float. To make an exception and then --
it's really pushing the envelope. I want to get hit in the behind
down the road here. I know that's what is going to happen.
Let's table it and look into it some more. Is there any way
you could tie this boat in another place and just have the float
for your oysters?
MR. BUCCI: I mean, possibly -- yes, there is always another spot
to put it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We understand it's not convenient, but.
Board of Trustees
38
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He would still have to dock it there to load it.
TRUSTEE KING: That's just temporary. Nothing that will be there
all the time.
MR. BUCCI: I mean, I have, at some point I may have though get a
commercial, you know, go to Goldsmith's or something like that but
I thought I could, you know.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Bucci, let me ask you this. If we would
consider permitting simply the dock portion of this permit tonight
as opposed to tabling it for another month to consider the pontoon
boat --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The pontoon boat is not part of the application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what I'm saying. Then work on that
dilemma, problem, in the interim of wanting to start your season.
MR. BUCCI: Would the permit then include the ramp or not?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It could include the ramp but I don't see us
approving the pontoon boat because what Lori is saying here we are
making an exception.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm not saying we would. I'm saying the next
step is to look into the problem of what we already approved. But
if we table it, he'll leave tonight with nothing.
MR. BUCCI: What I was asking about the ramp is because if the
pontoon boat is not there then getting on to the floating dock
without a ramp would not really work either. So if the pontoon
boat was removed and docked somewhere else, then I would need a
ramp to get on to --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I understand.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The ramp is included in your application right
now.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. The application is only for a ramp and
floating dock.
TRUSTEE KING: 3x12 hinged ramp to 6x20 floating dock. That's what
this application is for.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
MR. BUCCI: If you approve it now, I'll dock the boat somewhere else
and come back at a later date.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anybody else raising oysters in that area?
Did you research this to make sure it's going to be a viable thing
to do there?
MR. BUCCI: Oh, yes.
TRUSTEE KING: There is a lot more to it than just throwing some
spat in.
MR. BUCCI: Absolutely. This is not something I haven't given
thought to.
TRUSTEE KING: We've seen these things come and go and with very
little success with some of them because of the location.
MR. BUCCI: Well, the location, that's a whole different thing with
Board of Trustees
39
June 20, 2007
the upweller. You go to the upwell and you move them out to a site
and there is a five acre site there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments from the Board?
(No response.)
If not, I would like to make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to make a motion to approve number
four as stated for a construction of a 3x12 foot hinged ramp, 6x20
float with the stipulation that new plans will be presented to us
that will show there is non-treated wood used in the construction
of this structure.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With the exception being that it's for aqua
culture.
TRUSTEE KING: Only to be used for an aqua culture project.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, with the stipulation it's being used for aqua
culture purposes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.) (TRUSTEE BERGEN, OPPOSED.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Opposed.
MR. BUCCI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: You made the motion to approve it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And it was voted on. All ayes. And I said nay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number five, the application of MARGARET MACNAMARA
requests a Wetland Permit for the existing bulkhead and to install
pavers along the bulkhead to minimize erosion of soil behind the
bulkhead. Located: 640 Takaposa Road, Southold.
Is there anybody here who would like to speak to this application?
MR. MCNAMARA: I'm Michael McNamara, the applicant.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, we went out and took a look at this. I think
we felt that rather than the pavers there, we would rather have a
non-turf buffer. The pavers, they are not pervious, really. And
that was pretty much it. It was a pretty simple project, aside
from the pavers.
MR. MCNAMARA: When you say non-turf buffer, what do you mean?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It has to be pervious material, for example, in
this particular case, we were looking at what, a ten foot non-turf
buffer along the breakwater. In other words, stone, plantings,
anything that wasn't non-turf. Something that can act as a filter
for runoff. The pavers wouldn't do that.
MR. MCNAMARA: There is a paver that is made for that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is?
MR. MCNAMARA: We were not planning on using that because it's very
Board of Trustees
40
June 20, 2007
expensive, but it's actually made so that grass can be grown
amongst it. It's used on commercial roadways, public roadways and
stuff like that.
The problem we have is we have been unable to grow anything in
that area because the salt water comes over the wall now. Since
the high water mark has been moved back, now whenever there is any
type of wind hits the bulkhead and comes over the top and it's
constantly flooded with salt water. Nothing grows there. We tried
Montauk daisies and zoysia grass, which grows anywhere, but not
there.
As you notice, my neighbor, both of us in that last storm we
lost quite a bit of soil. To the west had some major damage
because once it's unprotected it just washes away.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, it all got over-washed.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The LWRP found this to be exempt. And the CAC did
not make an inspection, so there is no recommendation made.
Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to
address this application?
(No response.)
Any comments or questions from the Board?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE KING: We just want something that is pervious there.
MR. MCNAMARA: How about that paver that is designed for that?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think I would have a problem with that.
would like to see what it looked like and how it works.
Is anyone familiar with it?
TRUSTEE KING: There is one in Orient in the driveway. As a matter
of fact, I just saw it today.
MR. MCNAMARA: Actually there is another one that is designed so the
corners are wide open, too, so there is drainage. Is that with a
your concerned with is for drainage of the sea water?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, mainly for runoff from the property itself.
It's not the sea water but runoff from the property itself.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What is running into the sea water is what we want
to try to filter.
MR. MCNAMARA: You want to prevent the rainwater from washing into
the bay?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. So if you use fertilizer on your grass, it
won't run off into the bay.
MR. MCNAMARA: It's zoysia, we don't fertilize it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, but we don't know ten years from now, you
don't know who is going to own the property.
MR. MCNAMARA: What if it was pitched away from the bulkhead?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You would have to grade the whole property to do
that.
MR. MCNAMARA: We have to grade it to put the pavers in anyway. You
Board of Trustees
41
June 20, 2007
have to remove it to put the base in.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If you are willing to use the pervious pavers --
MR. MCNAMARA: What's the requirement? How do you determine what is
enough porosity?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, we kind of do it by using common sense, I
suppose. You could have that calculated by an engineer. I don't
know if we need to get that far into it. I don't know, how does
the Board feel about the porous pavers?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a problem with those.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: As long as it's pervious.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't have a problem, as long as it's pervious
MR. MCNAMARA: Great.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If there are no other comments I would like to make
a motion we close this hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I make a motion to approve this application with
the stipulation that if pavers are used that they use the porous
type so we could establish a pervious buffer at the bulkhead.
MR. MCNAMARA: Does this include the application for the maintenance
permit too? Is that approved as well?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have that here. Oh, the existing bulkhead,
yes.
MR. MCNAMARA: Okay, great, thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. MCNAMARA: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number six, ROBERT H. DEXTER requests a Wetland
Permit to replace the upper and lower bulkheads using vinyl
sheathing. Located: 8380 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
MR. DEXTER: I'm Robert Dexter, owner of 8380 Peconic Bay
Boulevard.
I notice on here it says the upper and lower bulkheads. They
are only partial. I lost about 42 feet of the lower and about 30
feet, depending on when we start to dig, I might have to go a
little more of the upper. The rest of my bulkheads are wood. The
next door neighbor was totally wiped out, upper and lower, and the
neighbor to the west was also, his top bulkhead was also wiped
out. They are going with treated wood on their upper bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, on the retaining wall.
MR. DEXTER: I would like to have continuity there. It's easier to
match them up rather than go from wood to vinyl to wood again, on
the upper bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KING: You are actually just replacing west of that
Board of Trustees
42
June 20, 2007
platform.
MR. DEXTER: Yes, not all west but partially west of the platform,
yes.
TRUSTEE KING: So he's not working where that's in good shape. He's
only working on the damaged part.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have a problem with him doing the wood up
there.
TRUSTEE KING: So how do we word this?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's exempt, and what he said, with the upper
bulkhead being in wood and the lower bulkhead being in vinyl,
correct?
MR. DEXTER: Lower bulkhead is vinyl, correct.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Replace as needed, upper bulkhead, in wood.
Because he doesn't have to replace the whole thing now.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what I'm saying, it was just to replace the
upper and lower bulkheads, now we are taking everything so down the
road he would not need anything to fix this, he already has a
permit for it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I'm saying, keep it as it is. But
just because he noted he did vinyl sheathing, just note the upper
one.
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments on this application?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing then.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: It's exempt from LWRP. CAC voted to support the
application as written.
MR. MCGREEVY: That might be a mistake.
TRUSTEE KING: I think this is mis-written here, wth the condition
CCA lumber is used. I think they mean is "not" used. And 15 into
the non-turf buffer installed landward of the bulkhead.
On the upper bulkhead, didn't we talk about ten-foot
non-tu rf?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, to match the next door neighbor.
TRUSTEE KING: So I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the revision, the secondary retaining wall, that can be a
timber wall to match up with the neighbors, and there will be a ten
foot non-turf buffer behind that to match with the neighbors also.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. DEXTER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number seven, WILLIAM C. GOGGINS requests a
Board of Trustees
43
June 20, 2007
Wetland Permit to replace the existing timber groin with new
63feet low-profile vinyl groin, replace existing timber bulkhead
with 73 feet vinyl bulkhead, construct 4x3 foot steps and
install a 15-foot non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead.
Located: 1780 Jackson Street, New Suffolk.
MR. GOGGINS: Good evening. William Goggins, the applicant. How are
you?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Fine, thank you.
The whole Board looked at this. LWRP finds this exempt and
CAC supports the application with the condition of a 20-foot
non-turf buffer.
The whole Board looked at this and our comments, one of our
comments, starting with bulkhead, we felt that should be raised a
little bit, and slope the lawn and have a buffer. And we wanted to
have the elevations of that bulkhead.
MR. GOGGINS: Which I got. The elevations range from, at the
present time, they range from 22 inches to 24 inches. Right now we
have a lot of beach.
If we had measured it after the April storm --
TRUSTEE KING: Elevations she means by sea level elevation, not a
measurement.
MR. GOGGINS: Right. Well, it changes there substantially because
of the rip, the tide rip. As I was going to say, in April, if you
measured it, it would be 40 inches. So it changes there from
season to season. But I would be in agreement that the bulkhead
should be raised an additional 12 inches from where it currently
is. If that's what the Board wants.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, the reason we are asking for the
elevations is because when, if we approve the groin, what we have
been doing is any groins that we have been approving that exist, we
are requesting it be low profile, and we take a measurement from a
solid piece of ground which is within the bulkhead so we measure,
so it would say like the groin has to be three feet lower than the
top of the bulkhead. So if we don't know the height of the
bulkhead then it's kind of hard -- we could say we visually know it
but we want it down.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What we did is we measured two feet from
easterly at the water -- oh, two foot from the top of the groin,
easterly at the water pipe. So you know where that water pipe is,
that's where we measured it, two feet from that groin.
MR. GOGGINS: So from that point you want it to go 12 inches higher;
is that right?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are talking, Jim, going a foot higher on the
bulkhead?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. What's the neighbor's height to the east of you
MR. GOGGINS: Same.
Board of Trustees
44
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: Is it the same as what you have now or higher.
MR. GOGGINS: Same.
TRUSTEE KING: It's identical?
MR. GOGGINS: Yes. The properties were owned by families that were
related, and when they did the bulkhead, I think in 1978, '79, they
did it together and kept the same height.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would you have any objection to raising it by a
foot?
MR. GOGGINS: No.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our notes don't show what kind of buffer.
MR. GOGGINS: Well, as far as the buffer, I was here in September,
September 22, 2004, when you issued a permit, you issued a permit
for a five foot buffer. Um, and I had mistakenly believed that
since the construction was ongoing that the permit would continue.
But I was wrong. It expired even though we still didn't finish the
work. So I had to reapply. I'm not sure what has changed from
then until now. And I would not have a problem with a ten foot
buffer, like number five, McNamara, you issued for them, that would
be fine. But if that was the case I would like to extend the width
of the deck from six feet to ten feet.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, I did a joint inspection on this on March 28
with the DEC. Hamilton came out and I have my field notes. And he
wanted to make the groin 30 feet low profile, 30 feet long. And
the top of the groin was two feet below the top of the bulkhead.
Those are the notes I had when I was with him.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we raise the bulkhead by a foot it would be
three feet below.
TRUSTEE KING: Three feet below the top of the bulkhead, correct.
MR. GOGGINS: And cutting, that's cutting the groin in half.
TRUSTEE KING: 30 feet, yes.
MR. GOGGINS: I might take issue with that because --
TRUSTEE KING: Take it up with them
MR. GOGGINS: I know your decision needs to be consistent, I think,
with them, and we are kind of a on a peninsula there and I guess at
some point in '60s when they built these groins, they had an
engineer look at it and they determined it would keep the beach and
keep our properties, and it has ever since, and now to change that
dynamic, I think it could really adversely affect our property.
Mine and my neighbors Gilchrist's.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: When did they have a engineer look at it?
MR. GOGGINS: I didn't have an engineer look at it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: When they originally did. What year was it?
MR. GOGGINS: I believe it was in the '60s.
TRUSTEE KING: It was before he was born.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And I think the theories on that have changed a
bit and I think that's what we are leaning toward, what is
Board of Trustees
45
June 20, 2007
consistent with current policies and theories on that.
TRUSTEE KING: Almost all these groins we have been reconfiguring
are all low profile and they have all been shortened.
MR. GOGGINS: I understand the low profile part of it, I'm just
afraid if you shorten it too much it could have a serious adverse
impact.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You might even see a positive change.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was just looking at the original permit and
there is no buffer at all.
MR. GOGGINS: The original permit there was a five foot buffer.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think the Board is looking to make this a
ten-foot buffer.
Can you show me where it says five foot buffer? Because I'm
looking at our original permit from 2004 and it doesn't say
anything about a buffer.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let's just make it ten, regardless of what the
original permit said. The applicant already said he agrees to that
MR. GOGGINS: Yes. But I would like to orally amend my deck
application to make it instead of six feet wide, make it ten feet
wide.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We could add that to this, I think. The deck is
proposed for six foot wide going out all the way across.
TRUSTEE KING: That can serve as part of the non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what he's saying, if it's a ten foot
non-turf buffer can the deck be ten foot also to match the buffer.
MR. GOGGINS: Correct.
TRUSTEE KING: It's like sand underneath the whole width of it, and
the deck is untreated lumber.
MR. GOGGINS: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the spacing is not too close. We should come
up with what we want the spacing to be.
TRUSTEE KING: That's fine. We have done that before.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the non-turf buffer can be the ten foot deck.
So we are in agreement that the bulkhead should be raised a foot
and so it can be regraded and the deck can be ten feet
TRUSTEE KING: That would make the landward end of the groin three
feet below the top of the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Now, our notes on the groin, the Board
feels that 30 feet replacement, not the whole 65. So that's, do
you have any other comments on that?
TRUSTEE KING: That's consistent with what DEC said in the field.
MR. GOGGINS: Because right now the fill was to the low tide mark.
TRUSTEE KING: There is a big hole there, too. That's really not
functional.
MR. GOGGINS: Right now, yes, the storm wiped out part of it and I
haven't repaired it.
Board of Trustees
46
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 30 was here. We measured it to there. That's 45.
All right.
TRUSTEE KING: That would make it consistent with what they want
MR. GOGGINS: That's one of the things I needed to bring up.
Gilchrist, my neighbors, number 17 on the calendar tonight, by
raising my bulkhead one foot it would be inconsistent with their
bulkhead. So I would think you would want to raise their bulkhead
a foot, too. Also, they have a groin on their side that maintains
the beach, and I'm hoping that the length of our groins are
consistent.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What was the name that you had?
MR. GOGGINS: That's Patricia Gilchrist-Mancino, number 17. They
have a renewal application for En-Consultants.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 17 on my agenda is Frederick Rapp
MR. GOGGINS: 17 on the application for amendments, extensions and
transfers. They were smarter than I was. They renewed theirs
before the permit expired.
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants. If I could jump in. We
prepared the plans for Mr. Goggins and we did have the application
on tonight to extend Gilchrist, and I do just want to jump in on a
couple of things because I think the buffer you resolved. The
Board approved a ten foot, non-turf buffer on Gilchrist, so ten
foot there would be consistent along the length of the bulkhead.
There was no proposal nor approval by this Board or the DEC to
raise the Gilchrist bulkhead, though. So if there is going on be a
raising, that would sort of create a situation where we would have
to come back in for Gilchrist to amend the permit to raise that
bulkhead, otherwise you'll have a sudden drop in the grade at the
property line.
So I would just, you know, warn both you and Mr. Goggins,
presuming the DEC would allow that, we could do that, but I just
don't want a situation where you have the continuous bulkhead where
Mr. Goggins is going to be raising the bulkhead but the neighbor is
not. It should obviously both be one way or the other.
TRUSTEE KING: Just leave it alone. You don't have to. You are not
in any danger of flooding or anything like that. Leave it alone.
Keep it the same height
MR. GOGGINS: I just want to do whatever the Board is happy with.
TRUSTEE KING: I like keeping things simple if I can.
MR. HERMAN: The other question, Jim, out of curiosity, what was the
length on that groin; not what it is now but what was the length on
that plan?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Approximately 65.
MR. HERMAN: And you are saying 30 feet. First of all, that's two
feet shorter than Gilchrist, to answer Mr. Goggins' question. But
low water is way out beyond 30 feet, and I'm just curious if you
Board of Trustees
47
June 20, 2007
met with DEC, I mean, we have now been consistent for years on
these things where it is replaced only out to what is currently
functional and where low water is, and we submitted photographs
with the DEC application. We filed with the DEC for Mr. Goggins.
And out except for the last maybe ten feet or so, that beach is
stable there, and if you cut that groin back by 20 to 30 feet,
you've got a peninsula beach that will just wash right down to Mr.
Goggins' neighbors property. Which I'm sure they would be happy
with, but I mean that would be wildly inconsistent with what this
Board and the DEC has been approving now for years. I don't know
where that 30 foot would possible and up with that.
TRUSTEE KING: That's where that gap was.
MR. GOGGINS: According to the survey that was submitted, the
average low water mark is at the end of the groin.
MR. HERMAN: We measured out. I don't have your file, Bill, I
didn't know you were on.
TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right --
MR. GOGGINS: Now is the point about being on a peninsula, if you
stand on my bulkhead and look to the right, toward the west, the
beaches go all the way up to where my house would be. If we let
this thing go, we would lose the whole front yard.
MR. MCGREEVY: At the end of Fifth Street, too, the public access,
that the beach there possibly would be washed out if you shorten
that groin. You would lose sand at the end.
TRUSTEE KING: It shows a little drift from east to west. It would
tend to fill that in.
MR. MCGREEVY: From east to west. TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. GOGGINS: But when it comes the other way, it will wipe it out.
We see it all year long. You saw it Jim, back in 2004.
TRUSTEE KING: I seen that beach come and go. Exactly. I seen it
come and go. I was just saying earlier tonight, I was in Greenport
and there was a place there, it was a six foot drop off the
bulkhead. Now it's about two feet. People went screaming they are
going to lose all their property, and it came back.
MR. HERMAN: I guess my concern about it, Jim, where a groin
functions is in the intertidal zone, the littoral zone where sand
is littorally transported. If you cut the groin to 30 feet, that's
high water. You might as well get rid of the groin. It would
serve no, it would cease to function, really. You would have no
structure in the intertidal zone.
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't write down what time I was out there. I
can't remember what the tide was.
MR. HERMAN: It's often the case, based on visits, we are off by
five, even up to ten feet sometimes where there is a difference of
opinion as to what is functional where low tide is or whatever.
Board of Trustees
48
June 20, 2007
But this is off by 100%. It has to be something that is not, I
mean, Bill, I don't want to cause you to be delayed but in your own
interest it might be worth asking them to take another look at it
at low tide.
MR. GOGGINS: I'm in no rush. It's expensive.
TRUSTEE KING: We are trying to save you money.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to separate the application and go
ahead and approve the bulkhead part?
TRUSTEE KING: If he's in no rush, we can table it. We can take a
look at it. In the meantime you'll perhaps hear from DEC.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You've applied to DEC already?
MR. GOGGINS: Oh, yes.
TRUSTEE KING: I was out there in March. Usually we issue a permit
and we come out and I ride along, but this was the 28th of March.
This is long before we had an application in this office. I should
think you should have gotten something from them by now. I should
think.
MR. GOGGINS: It's been a while. But we have not pushed them.
Usually I do. But on my application --
MR. HERMAN: We have seen an abrupt lull in getting any response
become from DEC lately. I have probably a dozen and a half
applications that were deemed complete, January, February, there is
nothing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the feeling of the Board is to table this and
go take another look.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Specifically at high side, low tide?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Low tide?
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to go out at low tide.
MR. HERMAN: I think it's worth it.
MR. GOGGINS: Definitely.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion, there is no further comment,
I'll make a motion to table this application so we can go out and
look at the site again at low tide, with regard to the groin.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. GOGGINS: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number eight, Inter-Science Research Associates,
Inc., on behalf of INDIAN ROCK REALTY, LLC (BRIAN BRILLE) requests
a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x21 , wooden stairway on the face
of a 9' tall sound-front bluff and clear a 4x140 foot unsurfaced
trail within an existing wooded area. Located: 26659 Rt. 25, Orient.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. REINER: Brant Reiner, Inter-Science, on behalf of the
applicant. Actually here on behalf of, also on behalf of my
Board of Trustees
49
June 20, 2007
associate Scott DeBreiner who was called out of state on a family
emergency. So please excuse me if I don't know too much about the
application. I have been briefed. I do know that I have been out
to this site. I have inspected the location where the stairway is
proposed to go. It is a four foot wide by 21 foot long staircase
traversing the bluff at what we determined to be the least vertical
rise of the bluff over the subject property shoreline. The four
foot wide path is going to be approximately 140 feet long and that
will extend from the platform at the top of the stairway back to
the clearing, existing clearing on the subject property. When I
say clearing, they are native meadows. There is no mowing or
anything going on. It's a completely vacant site. The applicant
is proposing to use the staircase as soon as possible because he's
an avid wind surfer. There is no proposed other development on this
site at this time that we know of.
I have aerials and I have plans if we want to review those
things but he know that the Board is pressed for time tonight so
I'll do that only at your request.
The proposed location of the bulkhead, as I alluded to earlier
is, I understand it's about a nine foot rise where the bluff is at
that point where, from beach access to the top of the bluff. The
platform of the staircase is proposed to be comprised of
through-flow materials, which I'm sure the Board is familiar with
to allow sunlight to penetrate and allow vegetation to grow
underneath the platform.
The stairway itself, the stairs, are going to be constructed,
I believe, of a non-treated wood, probably a hardwood or a
composite of some sort.
The path is proposed to be un-surfaced. I understand it to be
either be a mowed maintained grass path or something of natural
vegetation that is mowed down. All site disturbance that will be
taking place during construction activity at the time the project
is complete will be completely revegetated with native vegetation,
grasses and shrubs. And I anticipate the construction will only
take, for the staircase to be one on two days, and the path to be
two to three days, keeping the construction activity at a minimum.
Short of that I'm here to answer any questions you may have,
to the best of my ability.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you. Just to add one more thing, sorry, I
forgot to mention this. The plans have been updated to show the
platform being constructed of the through-flow material, and I have
ten copies for the Board if you would like them.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What is the dimension of that platform
MR. REINER: It is 4x6. They call it a landing. It's a 4x6
landing.
TRUSTEE KING: 4x21 wooden stair with a landing.
Board of Trustees
50
June 20, 2007
MR. REINER: Yes, that's inclusive. 21 feet is inclusive.
TRUSTEE KING: Oh, that includes the platform. So 4x21 includes it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So it's really 4x17 foot stairway with a 4x6 foot
landing.
MR. REINER: Right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I was out there. I saw it. It's really a beautiful
spot.
MR. REINER: It's an absolutely gorgeous site.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have to tell you, I had to four wheel drive it
out there. It was pouring rain and I almost got stuck in the meadow
you are talking about. So it's a real nice spot.
The LWRP reports it is consistent. I would like to, of
course, suggest, as you already have, that you don't use any
treated wood on those stairs or that platform. The grating is a
great idea on the landing as well.
We wanted to know what you were going to do with the path
because it was not mentioned here in terms of what materials you
were going to use. But you just want to maintain, you want keep a
mowed path, leaving the vegetation there --
MR. REINER: Correct. As specified in the plans, it says
un-surfaced path. Again, I didn't speak directly with the
applicant but I think the intentions were just to mow grass or
native vegetation, is to keep it down. Like I said, at this time,
the applicant is an avid wind surfer and would just like to use it
to cart his wind board up and down the steps.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is also a possibility you would use wood
chips.
MR. REINER: If the Board would like to put in the resolution
whatever they would prefer I'll take that back to the applicant.
I'm sure he would be amenable to whatever your concerns are.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: CAC also took a look at this and CAC supports the
application with the condition that the posts have a 2x10x8 foot
support at the base, vertical to the earth. Do you want to address
that?
MR. MCGREEVY: It's a recommendation by the CAC. At the base of the
eight support pillars, vertical to the earth and parallel to the
beach, for erosion control.
MR. REINER: I'm sorry, if you could just specify a little more
where you are speaking of.
MR. MCGREEVY: Two inch by ten inch planks, eight foot long, at the
base of the eight supporting pillars, vertical to the earth and
parallel to the beach for erosion control.
MR. REINER: So they would be connecting underneath from piling to
piling along the bank, the bluff.
MR. MCGREEVY: Correct.
Board of Trustees
51
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Essentially just piering it.
MR. MCGREEVY: Correct.
TRUSTEE KING: Is it vegetated there now? What's there now?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's vegetated.
MR. REINER: It's a completely vegetated bluff. It's actually a
very, as far as bluffs go in this area, it's one of the more highly
vegetated of the bluffs. And I do have photographs. (Handing).
This is where the pathway is going to commence and go forward the
bluff. And the next one shows you a shot of the bluff. There was
supposed to be other photos out here. This is the bluff. And this
is the toe of the bluff and the top of the bluff, roughly, again,
it's nine fight rise. This is where the path commences with the
bluff. And this is a picture of the other bluff.
And as I discussed before, any site disturbance, especially on
the bluff face that will happen during construction activity well
will be re-planted with native vegetation, grasses and shrubs to
match the vegetation currently on the bluff there.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Sounds like a good plan.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments from the audience?
(No response.)
MR. REINER: If I may make one more comment, please. Regarding the
CAC requests, I would like to acknowledge that I don't know how the
DEC would respond to that proposed improvement of the bulkhead,
only because they would be concerned with the disturbance to the
vegetation on the bluff. I would be happy to propose it if the
Board would require it, but I believe that we may have to have
further discussion with the DEC. That would only prolong the
application. And if we would like the board to act on it tonight,
of course, and I just fear that, as you heard earlier, the issues
with the DEC are the responsiveness. It's six to nine months turn
around period and it's just not feasible for something as minor as
the requested improvements from the CAC.
TRUSTEE KING: You haven't heard anything from them yet on this?
MR. REINER: Actually, yes, my associate Scott DeBreiner had
discussed this application with an analyst who had requested the
through flow on the platform and there was also issues with the --
DEC normally requires a three-and-a-half foot rise from the face of
a bluff for staircases. And in this case we thought that the
visual impacts would be too great and we had the engineer design a
plan that is most esthetically pleasing and non-disturbing of the
bluff face. But the professional engineer ensures that the
staircase design is of sufficient quality to last on the site given
erosion, and I highly doubt erosion is an issue considering the
vegetation on the site right now.
So we anticipate the DEC will be issuing an approval shortly
but shortly is a relative term for the DEC.
Board of Trustees
52
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or questions from the Board?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make 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 we approve the
application of Inter-Science Research Associates on behalf of
Indian Rock Realty requesting a wetland permit -- and here is where
we'll make some changes -- to construct a 4x17 foot wooden stairway
on the face of a nine-foot tall sound-front bluff, with a 4x6
landing that will be made with a grating type material, and to
clear a 4x140 foot un-surfaced trail and maintain that as a mowed
path within an existing wooded area located 266559 Rt. 25, Orient
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And to replant any disturbance during construction
with native vegetation.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. REINER: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number nine. JMO Environmental Consulting on
behalf of ROBERT & ELIZABETH SCRIPPS requests a Wetland Permit to
demolish existing 376 square foot garage, construct new 528 square
foot two-car garage, construct additions to an existing
single-family dwelling (576 square feet) and construct a new porch
(122 square feet.) Located: 2745 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue.
Is there anyone here who would like to address this
application?
MR. JUST: Glenn Just, JMO Consulting as agent for the Scripps.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Good evening.
MR. JUST: If there are any questions from the Board or public or
CAC.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We have LWRP review with some requests for
gutters and down spouts and drywells and hay bales. Is that
something you had planned on?
Where is the distance of the septic from the wetlands?
MR. JUST: About 125 feet. If you see the septic tank itself is
located about 20 feet on the landward side of the house and the two
pools are located about halfway distance between Pine Tree Road and
the existing house. I could point them out.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I couldn't locate it. Yes.
MR. JUST: You don't have the new survey. Here's the 100 foot
setback. Here's the existing tank; existing pools, proposed
Board of Trustees
53
June 20, 2007
addition, proposed garage (indicating.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I couldn't find this. That's why.
MR. JUST: We just dug them up the other day. I don't know if you
saw it. There is actually space where they are exposed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The 13th, whenever that was.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You went on this. There was one we had the same
thing. It was two.
MR. JUST: Two openings we dug. I had an orange flag on this one,
orange flag on this one there. And there. When you went to the
site. Anywhere here is your hundred foot setback line.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All right. Are going to ask for a ten foot
buffer, landward of the concrete bulkhead. Is there anyone here
this evening that would like to --
MR. JUST: I think if you notice, the buffer well exceeds ten feet
there. The applicant's are not in favor of big lawn there. When
you walk the site it's almost all natural state.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. We do have a letter from a neighbor.
The neighbor's concern, from Anne and Bob McGowery, 2860 Pine Tree
Road.
As neighbors across the street from the property we have not
objected in the past to plans to enlarge the garage but in this
case we propose a minor change to the current relocation plan which
would benefit the neighborhood and people who walk or bike down our
street and ourselves. The positioning of the two-car garage 50
foot from the street on the left or northern side of the lot
dramatically blocks the view from the road of the creek which one
sees between the Scripps' and their neighbors to the north. This
nice view of the creek is last one that remains to the public of
this beautiful creek aside from the narrow right of way, which is a
driveway lined with trees.
Their thought or suggestion would be that the garage be on the
south side of the property. Is there any consideration for that?
MR. JUST: We had addressed that but if you look at the
configuration of the sanitary system, it would become a major
problem with that. But it doesn't show on the original plains. I
don't know if shows on the ones that were sent to you or not.
MR. DIDIMINICO: Good evening. My name is Jeff DiDiminico. I
actually have the property next door to the side where they are
suggesting the garage. And consistent with that letter, I guess is
what my question was for coming here this evening, was there an
alternative location that would be consistent with the rest of the
neighborhood relative to the street view, if you will, where it
seems or appears to me that most of the garages appear on the upper
left-hand side or I guess that would be the north portion, very
consistent with the neighbor across the street.
Board of Trustees
54
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The problem that has been mentioned is where
that garage, if they alternated it to the south, will be going
where the septic is right now. And the issue of the garage is
really not in our jurisdiction. As much as we understand the
concerns, it's really not within our area of jurisdiction.
MR. DIDIMINICO: Is there a consideration perhaps removing it, not
consistent with that letter, but moving it closer to the street
whereby it's not on the closest property line closest to.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That has to be determined about the Building
Department.
MR. JUST: Actually if you look at the plans, it's laid out for a
very minimum from what is required by the Zoning Board. I would be
happy to bring it back to the applicant but I think a lot of these
questions are out of your jurisdiction, with all due respect.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are right.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I started to mention before, the inconsistencies
from LWRP are the distance of the residence, which is from the
concrete bulkhead 90 feet, but also their concerns are the gutters,
the drywells and the hay bales be required, and the requirement of
non-turf buffer. But as you said, knowing the property, it's
pretty much left as it is.
MR. JUST: To be honest, I discussed it with the applicant when I
met with them. They have no problems with leaders and gutters and
hay bales. I just neglected to put them on the plan. I would be
more than has happy to them have them in the plan. But we
discussed it and they would be agreeable to it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If there are no other concerns or comments from
anyone else, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve this application
for a wetland permit, as stated with the addition of the gutters
and drywells and hay bale line on the plans. The ten foot non-turf
buffer at this point, I don't see it necessary, because the area we
are speaking about is pretty much left natural anyway. And that
would deem this application consistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number ten, Proper-T Permit Services, Inc., on
behalf of SUSAN SOUDER requests a Wetland Permit to demolish
existing one-story wood frame house; remove 7.5'x14.7' extension on
northeast side; add 8.8x12.1' extension at northeast corner; remove
Board of Trustees
55
June 20, 2007
7.5'x7.5'slate patio on northeast side. In revised footprint,
construct full poured concrete basement; construct two-story wood
frame house within revised footprint. Abandon existing waste
disposal system and construct new waste disposal system at a
distance greater than 100 feet from the seaward face of the
bulkhead. Located: 3470 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
Jim and I looked at this. LWRP finds this inconsistent due to
the hundred foot setback, and CAC supports the application with the
condition the dwelling is in line with the adjacent dwellings on
the seaward side, a ten foot non-turf buffer be installed and there
is no expansion of the footprint.
Jim and I went out and looked at this and we had some comments
as well.
Is there anyone here on behalf of this application?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Jim Fitzgerald for Mrs. Souder. You recall
we had a permit to make certain renovations to this building and I
think it is expiring now, and during that period of time nothing
was done, and the owners decided that the way to go is with a full
basement in the house and the condition of the existing structure
and its design indicated that it would be better to demolish the
house and rebuild it, in the same footprint, so that what they are
proposing now is in effect the same house that would have been
there, except that now it has a full basement under it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. I don't think you ever did get a permit.
It was never finalized.
MR. FITZGERALD: Sorry?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: A permit was never finalized. So there is no
permit.
MR. FITZGERALD: We were having discussions about the design and I
think it was just a matter of the drywells and gutters not
appearing on the plan.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We would like to see the house since it's being
demolished, moved back in line with the houses. On your survey
here you show the ones where the one house is but we don't see
where the other one is. I believe that one was forward of this,
wasn't it?
MR. FITZGERALD: This, I'm not sure that this is the current
location of this house. But go ahead with what you were saying.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What we would want to see and it probably requires
us to table this, we want to see, unless you have a survey that
shows the dwellings on either side, because we would like to see
the house moved back to be in line with the dwellings on either side.
MR. FITZGERALD: That sounds reasonable. The seaward side of this
house on a line drawn between the seaward side of this house and
the seaward side of this house.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's exactly what I said.
Board of Trustees
56
June 20, 2007
MR. FITZGERALD: I just want to be sure I'm hearing what you are
saying and vice versa.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes
MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, that sounds like a good idea.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. And we want a ten foot non-turf buffer.
MR. FITZGERALD: That's above the second bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes
MR. FITZGERALD: That's to prevent stuff from getting behind the
first bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any other comments?
(No response.)
All right, hearing no other comments, I'll make a motion to close
the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to reserve decision, Jim, until we get
to see this on the survey, do you think, or, I mean, I think we
were satisfied if it was moved back in line.
TRUSTEE KING: We could approve it based on seeing the new set of
plans and survey showing the house behind the line drawn between
the new neighboring houses, sure.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve Proper-T Permit
Services on behalf of Susan Souder for a wetland permit to demolish
existing one-story wood frame house; to remove 7.5'x14.7' extension
on the northeast side; add 8.8'x12.1' extension on the northeast
corner; remove 7.5'x7.5' slate patio on northeast side. In revised
footprint, construct full poured concrete basement; construct
two-story wood frame house within revised footprint and abandon
existing waste disposal system and construct new waste disposal
system at a distance greater than 100 feet from the seaward face of
the bulkhead. With the condition that we receive a new survey
showing the existing houses on either side and this house is moved
back to be in line with the seaward edges of those houses.
Did I say that fair enough? And that would make it consistent
with the local LWRP. And of course on the plan there is drywells,
gutters, leaders and hay bales during construction. We want a ten
foot non-turf buffer and the hay bales can be at that ten foot line
during construction.
MR. FITZGERALD: That would be to keep the stuff from getting into
the non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, because it won't be non-turf at that point
in time.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you.
Board of Trustees
57
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That makes it all consistent with LWRP. Second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MS. STANDISH: Mr. Fitzgerald, can you get that notarized.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Number 11, Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., on
behalf of MATTITUCK PARK DISTRICT requests a Wetland Permit to
repair/reconstruct the existing timber groin inkind and in place.
Located: Veterans Memorial Park, Mattituck.
Is there anybody here to comment on this application?
MR. HALL: My name is Dan Hall, Land Use Ecological Services, for
the Mattituck Park District who is proposing to reconstruct two
existing timber groins at their Veterans Memorial Park in
Mattituck, on the corner of Peconic Boulevard and Bay Ave.
TRUSTEE KING: LWRP has it exempt. CAC supports the application
with the condition the jetties are reconstructed low profile and
shortened to the low water mark.
Jill and I went out and looked at this, took some measurements
ourselves. I think it probably comes pretty close to what the CAC
recommends.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On one side, maybe not the other.
TRUSTEE KING: We looked at the east jetty. The groin, make it 75
feet long from the cement wall, low profile. And the west jetty
make it 100 feet seaward of the existing bulkhead there.
MR. HALL: Where you are trying to end it, at low water, because the
day I was there, I have photographs, that's, the line it ends now
is at low water.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Basically it's measured out to where it becomes
non-functional, so that non-functional seaward end we are not --
MR. HALL: That was just damaged, that's why they are proposing to
reconstruct it, otherwise they would not have an application. It
was damaged during the April storm of this year. I mean there had
been deteriorated but it was removed, from at that storm, that's
why they are proposing to reconstruct it.
TRUSTEE KING: We want these in plastic, too. I think it says
inkind.
MR. HALL: Vinyl?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. There is remnants of an old, may have been part
of an old groin halfway down the beach.
MR. HALL: Yes, it's further landward of the high water mark.
TRUSTEE KING: Just get that removed and out of there. It serves
absolutely no purpose. While they are doing work there, just get
it out.
MR. HALL: That makes sense, yes.
Board of Trustees
58
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: That's what we decided out in the field.
MR. HALL: So the east bulkhead, 75 foot long, and west bulkhead,
100 feet long.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 75 feet from the cement wall. There is no reason
to even touch what is landward of the cement wall, because that's
all buried in and there is grass and bushes around that.
MR. HALL: Which --
TRUSTEE KING: That's the east wall. There is a concrete wall.
MR. HALL: 75 foot seaward of the concrete wall?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the west side we measured from the existing
bulkhead. 100 feet from that. Seaward of that.
MR. HALL: And the west bulkhead you measured, just a functional
part of the bulkhead, 100 feet, right now.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: And we need revised plans indicating those lengths.
MR. HALL: And as you have been approving these timber groins as to
low profile, that's in reference to what elevation from the low
water mark?
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't take a measurement from that wall.
TRUSTEE KING: It's almost at the present elevation at the landward
end. And follow the profile.
MR. HALL: Of what it's at now?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, of what the cement wall is and what the
bulkhead is on the west side. Follow that.
TRUSTEE KING: Start that and follow the beach elevation down.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll need new surveys, so if you could mark that
on the survey, that elevation.
MR. HALL: No plans or new surveys?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: New plans.
TRUSTEE KING: Because I don't know what --
MR. HALL: That's per existing elevation then, right?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, we have plenty of beach here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The elevation is at the landward end there. You
know, we are talking about the elevation of the cement wall.
MR. HALL: Yes, it should go straight out. It's in regard to
elevation.
TRUSTEE KING: Have they gone to DEC on this yet?
MR. HALL: We submitted an emergency application. They have been
trying to work on this before the true summer season set in but we
never heard anything back from DEC, any comments from them.
TRUSTEE KING: I haven't seen this with them.
Any questions or any comments?
(No response.)
Board of Trustees
59
June 20, 2007
Any other comments?
(No response.)
No comments from the Board?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with
the modifications we talked about and seeing a new set of plans.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 12, Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., on
behalf of CARRIAGE HILL ASSOCIATES, INC., requests a Wetland Permit
to reconstruct the existing 200 foot steel bulkhead using vinyl
sheathing immediately landward and adjacent to the existing
bulkhead. A 30 foot new bulkhead return is proposed at the west end
and an 18 foot bulkhead return is proposed at the east end and both
returns are proposed to be constructed utilizing vinyl sheathing.
Approximately 70 cubic yards of clean fill from an upland source is
proposed behind the reconstructed bulkhead and bulkhead return at
the east end. Approximately 8,225 square feet of area is proposed
to be dredged to a depth of (4.0) below MLW and 1,300 cubic yards
of dredged material is proposed to be removed by clamshell dredge
or equivalent. Dredged material to be placed on site (landward of
bulkhead) to dry then removed off site. Located: 775 Naugles Drive,
Mattituck.
The whole Board looked at this. The LWRP finds this exempt.
And the CAC supports to reconstruct existing 200 foot steel
bulkhead using vinyl sheathing. They support the application.
Is there anyone here on behalf of this application?
MR. HALL: Yes, my name is Dan Hall, Land Use, for Carriage Hill.
Just a note, that the bulkhead is going to be reconstructed
landward of the existing steel sheathing. It's just easier.
TRUSTEE KING: Is this Carriage Hill Associates, are they the
openers of the property?
MR. HALL: They own the property and are leasing it out. They own
the property.
TRUSTEE KING: It's in the name of Carriage Hill Associates?
MR. HALL: As far as I'm aware, yes, it is.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On our tax rolls it has a different name. Do you
know when Carriage Hill --
MR. HALL: They owned it for a little while. Hold on a second.
(Perusing.) If I could grab the application, authorization forms.
Board of Trustees
60
June 20, 2007
Is the name Carl Lizza.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Philomena Lizza.
MR. HALL: They signed it. He's the owner of Carriage Hill Associates.
TRUSTEE KING: Philomena is, according to our tax records, Philomena
is the owner the property.
MR. HALL: Right, they are a principal of Carriage Hill.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So, Lori, should this application be in the name
of Philomena Lizza since that's what our tax rolls show? It
doesn't show Carriage Hill. Does it matter?
MS. MONTEFUSCO: That's fine
MR. HALL: Is it true you would like to have a meeting at the site
with the DEC?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, because DEC owns property on either side of this
property. I know there are plans down the road for shoreline
restoration there and possible removal of that steel bulkhead with
the DEC.
MR. HALL: On the adjacent property.
TRUSTEE KING: They own the property west of it.
MR. HALL: The bulkhead does extend to the northwest. It ends
there.
TRUSTEE KING: I did a lot of research on all those properties on
that part of Mattituck Creek when the state was considering buying
up the properties.
MR. HALL: They made offers.
TRUSTEE KING: I think what we need to see here, we need to see the
deed with the meets and bounds on this piece of property. And we
need to see it surveyed showing those meets and bounds, because I
have a lot of questions on the property.
MR. HALL: Regarding the survey that was done?
TRUSTEE KING: Regarding the ownership of the land. If you read the
deed, there is quite a bit of description in there on the meets and
bounds. I also believe there is a 3D-foot right of way through
there that should be indicated.
MR. HALL: I believe part of that is shown on the plan. About
halfway back from the water.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. Okay. But the meets and bounds, I would like
to see that staked out.
MR. HALL: You want it staked in the field. I didn't know that.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, yes. Show it matching that description.
MR. HALL: So you mean you want a hard copy, a paper copy of the
survey, new surveyor just --
TRUSTEE KING: It doesn't have to be re-surveyed but I want to see
the meets and bounds of the deed staked in the field.
MR. HALL: Yes, I understand.
TRUSTEE KING: That's important
MR. HALL: Okay. You want that done obviously prior to the DEC
Board of Trustees
61
June 20, 2007
meeting?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. HAll: It makes sense.
TRUSTEE KING: And I know they are going to be, as an adjoining
neighbor and a regulating agency, I think they should be at these,
do the joint inspection with them.
MR. HAll: That would be fine. I could arrange that. The Board's
schedule is pretty flexible on that, or, just when I contact them
I'll get a couple of dates so all parties can be present.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm flexible.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we are pretty flexible. Our next field
inspection is July 11. You know, so you can mention that as one of
the dates.
MR. HAll: I think it would be more dependent on the state being
available.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, just throwing it out there. Are there any
other comments?
MS. MillER: My name is luv Miller and I live next to Peterson's
Marina, and my house is right there on the driveway that leads to
the Peterson's Marina. And this piece of property has been used as
a storage area now for a while, because they are not using it for
fishing anymore. Because of the boat. However they do use it on
occasion. And what I want to know is what is the planned use after
they reconstruct, you know, the bulkhead. Because in the past it's
very troublesome for the community. Not only for me, but for other
people in the community. They use refrigeration trucks that run
all night long and it's, the prevailing wind is west, so the sound
is very loud. And when they do arrive to pick up the clams, they
come at midnight, past midnight, and they have, the trailers have
many lights and they shine the lights into the house, you know,
because it naturally reflects and it's very disturbing for the
community and, you know, I'm very concerned they'll start to, you
know, destroy the area now. Especially now since the DEC came a
couple of days ago and put new fences and it really, they are
really working hard to pick the community, the area up and clean it
up, and they are rebuilding that little house there where the tanks
used to be. Anyhow, it's very distressing, you know, not only for
me but for other neighbors.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm very familiar with the area. I worked very
closely with the DEC on the Peterson renovation working over there
getting the boats out. And right now the zoning on that piece, I
believe, is Marine II. And that's the most liberal zoning we have
in the marine district.
I don't know what their intentions for the property are. They
came to us a few years back with a proposal for an aqua culture
facility there. It never flew. So I really don't know what they
Board of Trustees
62
June 20, 2007
want now. I know that have a clam boat tied up there for surf
clamming. Surf clamming was a boom and bust type of thing. It
went crazy then got shutdown. Right now they have 100 bushel a
week quota now so you won't see a lot of the traffic of trucks
throughout the summer. What will happen later in the year, I don't
MS. MillER: The boat came in about month, maybe five, six weeks
ago. And the truck arrived, and it was about 12:30 at night. And
of course it's so dark I can't see exactly what went on, but the
truck took a long time, I believe they knocked some wires down that
go to my house because I didn't have cable the next day, and
anyhow, which is really not significant, and they were there for a
while. And then the truck left. So. And, now, it's the
refrigeration going, so I don't -- it didn't look like it was a
very large boat, but, you know. My house looks right over the
beginning of the inlet there.
TRUSTEE KING: There are two boats tied there right now.
MS. MillER: It was not one of those boats. It was another boat
that came in.
MR. NAVARETTA: My name is Robert Navaretta. There is two boats
there now. They have others that come in and out. They load real
fast at night, trailers are coming in and I guess they fill these
trucks up. You should see the operation that goes on. Sometimes
3:00 in the morning the over the road trucks will come in, they
can't find the place, they are out there idling, smoke coming out
of the stacks, and it's very commercial type deal going on out
there. Then like you say, they stop. Then a few weeks go by and
they start up again. Sometimes three boats, sometimes two boats.
And we see this all the time. And with the refrigerator going,
they are on continuously and the noise is right in the house. We
can't even have conversations sometimes.
TRUSTEE KING: That's a permitted use of the property under the
zoning and the reason they have the engines running, the
compressors running is for the refrigeration because they are
mandated under the shellfish laws to have shellfish under
refrigeration.
MR. NAVARETTA: I just want to mention one other thing. They come
down and start these boats up, all different times. And talk about
smoke stack industry, the whole diesel is sitting in there, they
smoke up the whole neighborhood. You know. It's really old boats
they use. And, you know, the operation goes on and off. Like you
say, they get an order, they fill the trailers up with clams and
truck them out of there and it's whenever they feel like doing it
MS. MillER: And the middle of the night, for some reason.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll take some more comments, please.
MR. VAGOS: Good evening. My name is Gregory Vagos. I live exactly
across the street from Mrs. Miller and I just want to stress
Board of Trustees
63
June 20, 2007
exactly the same issues that they are facing that I'm faced with.
We can't sleep at night. The noise that they do, they make
consisting. And I do have about 18, 20 signatures from other
neighbors that I could submit at the next meeting. I left it
home. That they all is, they sign the petition with addresses, the
names and everything, that this is really an ongoing problem that
we are faced with this property.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We appreciate your concerns and comments but
unfortunately there is nothing we can do with that as this is zoned
Marine II and under that zoning this is an allowed operation
MS. MONTEFUSCO: And currently the Town Code has no noise ordnance.
MR. VAGOS: They should work at set hours, not at midnight, not at
3:00 in the morning.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's something you may have to take up with the
zoning board or town board. It's not under our jurisdiction
because it's zoned Marine II and allowable.
MR. VAGOS: Where we should complain for that?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The Town Board.
MR. VAGOS: Thank you, very much.
MR. LOMAGA: Hi, I'm George Lomaga. I just would like to support
what is being said. I'm representing Captain Kidd's Civic
Association in that area. Jim, you know the history of the area,
right?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. LOMAGA: We eliminated the tanks and what you have to the east
and what you have to the west, just doesn't match what is there. I
know what you are saying, I know it's not the right place. But I
would like to go on record, it just doesn't belong. And I think we
need to sort of keep organizing and, I hate to say it, but just
eliminate it. So if you could help us, we appreciate it. Thank
you
TRUSTEE KING: That whole area from where the Carry Tank Farm was
all the way in was zoned Marine II which is the most liberal form
of zoning, but then the town bought where the Carry Tanks were, and
then the DEC bought that corner piece of property. I think they
tried to buy this piece of property and they were refused, then
they moved ahead and they bought the Peterson Marina. There was
another small piece of property belonging to Cavalieri and they
bought that. Then they bought the Lone Star property. So it's all
either town or state property now and you have this now Marine II
is sandwiched in between. So things have changed over time where
it was all industry, and now it's --
MR. LOMAGA: Yes. We are saying things are changing, and I think the
direction we are looking for is the future. And we may not be
there but it certainly doesn't fit in.
TRUSTEE KING: We understand that but currently it's zoned for this.
Board of Trustees
64
June 20, 2007
MR. LOMAGA: Things can change though. Thanks.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And other comments?
(No response.)
At this time I would like to table this application so we can
do a joint inspection with DEC and also take another look at the
property with the meets and bounds staked out on the property.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number 13, David Corwin on behalf of CHARLES
BRAUTIGAM requests a Wetland Permit to replace 196 linear feet of
CCA bulkhead in same location using CCA piles, CCA wales, and vinyl
sheathing, and replace 200 cubic yards lost fill with clean sand
from upland location. Located: 675 West Road, Cutchogue.
MR. CORWIN: I have no comments but if have you any questions I'll
try to answer them.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Anyone else here this evening who would like to
speak to this application?
(No response.)
The full Board went out and looked at your bulkhead
replacement. We would like to see it brought back. We notice
there is an original bulkhead behind the one that you are
requesting to repair. So we would like to see it brought back to
that original bulkhead on the west side.
We would also like the jog taken out on the east end to meet
with the neighbor's -- to match up with your neighbor. And I
believe the Board had some questions about the decking to the west
of the beach house.
Most of that is gone. Is the request to replace that?
MR. CORWIN: Yes, it was.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think the question is whether that structure
is necessary to be replaced.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there an opportunity to downsize the deck from
the proposed plan.
MR. CORWIN: There is always an opportunity if you insist.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I believe that was the feeling of the Board of
Trustees was that the bulkheading could be replaced, backed up to
the original, without the decking on the west side of the beach
house and that the job be matched up on the east side of the
bulkhead.
Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We didn't say eliminate all the decking, we just
said --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, just this.
Board of Trustees
65
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You said west of the beach house. But there is
decking here.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Well, that's to be determined.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It would help me in clarifying, that property
really runs, that beach really runs north to south, not east to
west. So I'm a little confused now also.
So at the east end we want to take that jog out and then have
the bulkhead moved down so that it would be, in my opinion, we
wanted it so that bulkhead matched the neighbor's property to the
east. I didn't know we were looking to match the entire bulkhead
structure back to the old bulkhead. I thought what our goal was,
was to match that one so there was not a jog there and it was
consistent going down the beach
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Was it as obvious on both sides, Jim, of the
existing? Because here you can see the existing is right behind,
it's set right behind this bulkhead here.
TRUSTEE KING: It wasn't that far. It was like a foot or so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It might have been a foot bump out or something
when they did that
TRUSTEE KING: Because you could see the bottom of the original
bulkhead still there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, okay.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So if he removes the jog will that have to be on
an angle?
TRUSTEE KING: It's such a long distance, you won't see it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I thought, the intention is move the
jog and just a straight line from there to the other end.
MR. CORWIN: So remove the jog to the east which will make a
stronger structure without that little jog and build to the
original location to the west.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Correct.
MR. CORWIN: And you want to scale back the deck a little.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's the feeling, I believe, from the Board.
Because this is a tremendous amount of decking. (Indicating.) That
was my understanding from the conversation, even though this is not
here, my thought was that this is not --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought you were saying this (indicating.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are confused. Were you talking --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is the jog (indicating.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. And then the question was, this is the part
where the erosion was. And they would like to keep that up to
about here (indicating.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That would be consistent with what you are
saying. Keep the deck up to what is existing but not replace
beyond that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I thought we were talking about.
Board of Trustees
66
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Everyone can clarify because there were
conversations
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Make sure you draw it in to the plan.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What about if we keep it to the 27 and not
replace the last 23. Is that what I'm looking at?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, about right there.
MR. CORWIN: I think that will work.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is that what everyone is toward?
MR. CORWIN: I put that jog there for the fill, to show the fill to
the DEC.
TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing). That would work.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So replace the decking from the stairs 27 feet
to the west and not replace any of the decking the last 23 feet.
MR. CORWIN: The last 23 feet we won't replace the deck. In other
words, way to the west
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That could be replanted, if that last 23 feet
you want to replant with American Beach grass, native species.
MR. CORWIN: It will be native vegetation that is there now.
MR. MCGREEVY: Would it be practical, Jim, that the timber wale be
non-CCA or should it stay as CCA, to cut down on the amount of CCA
timber.
TRUSTEE KING: We have been allowing it in walers. It's something
we have been discussing. What else can we use?
MR. MCGREEVY: It seems to be high enough like deck planking maybe,
we could put it in the same category. I don't know if it's
practical, if we could cut down on the amount of CCA that is being used.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, the code right now allows for CCA. So what
you are asking is, on behalf of the committee, would the applicant
consider using non-CCA for the waler. Is that what you are asking?
MR. MCGREEVY: If that would work, that would be a good idea. It's
a recommendation to cut down on the amount of CCA.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Corwin, would you consider that?
MR. CORWIN: No, we have to have CCA otherwise it won't last. There
is just nothing else we can get.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's within the water. It will be under water.
MR. CORWIN: It will be out of water.
MR. MCGREEVY: That's why I thought it could be put into the
category of deck planking where we don't allow CCA, if it's
practical from a construction point of view.
MR. CORWIN: The only thing it could get is southern pine or maybe
fir and the life expectances would be ten years at most.
MR. MCGREEVY: How about oak?
MR. CORWIN: Okay is even less. Oak doesn't last long at all
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, our code allows for CCA. It was a request
for the applicant and the applicant said no, so I suggest we move
forward with CCA.
Board of Trustees
67
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And Jack, it still, at this point, is under
review and discussion at this point. But for this evening's permit
I think we'll --
MR. MCGREEVY: It was just a recommendation. I'll try again.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Is the old CCA sheathing going to be removed?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The old structure is it to be removed, right?
MR. CORWIN: Yes, it has to be removed to go back in the same place,
yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. Do I
have a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the wetland permit
for Charles Brautigam for the replacement of their bulkhead with
the additions that removal of the jog, backing it up to the
position of the previous bulkhead and only replacing 27 feet of the
decking west of the staircase but not replacing it beyond that to
the 23 foot.
TRUSTEE KING: It would be 12x27 deck on the west side.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It would be a 12x27 deck. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we would want new plans showing --
MR. CORWIN: I'll make a no project drawing, yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you, Mr. Corwin.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 14, David Corwin on behalf of DAVID
EDELSTEIN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x16 foot ramp,
4x46 foot catwalk, 4x12 foot access stairs and one (1) eight-inch
diameter mooring pile. Located: 4145 Wells Road, Peconic.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application.
MR. CORWIN: My name is David Corwin. And again, I have no comments
but I'll try to answer any questions.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I went out and looked at this today. Just so we
know, the CAC supports the application under the condition that
vinyl is used as possible, fiberglass grid material on the decking
should be used and the dock should not expand past the adjacent
docks. And seeing it staked out, it does not expand beyond the
dock that is adjacent.
LWRP found it inconsistent for several reasons. Primarily
Richmond Creek is in a critical environment habitat area, so they
did not want to see that, the LWRP does not want to see additional
docks in the critical habitat area. They are also concerned about
Board of Trustees
68
June 20, 2007
the vegetation that might be destroyed during either the
construction or with the use of the dock there -- bear with me.
Provide public use to coastal water, assure the public has access
to the waters and it doesn't obstruct navigable waters. Adverse
impact of construction of a dock on marine habitat are well
documented.
So this was, again, it was staked out with stairs, a ramp and
going to stairs going down at the seaward end. It did not extend
beyond the other dock that is next door to it.
Is there an opportunity in looking at this if one moved toward
the direction of the dock of the next door neighbor; I'm looking
north, south, east and west and it's not depicted on here, so
(perusing.) Ah. Thank you. Toward the northwest direction where
there is a dock there. The neighbor has a dock.
So you understand --
MR. CORWIN: I think that's the southeast though.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There we go. Okay, why don't you step you step up
so I could show you so we know which way we are talking. I think
we are exactly correct. But we are talking toward the property
line of the Hallocks.
MR. CORWIN: There is nothing this way there is a dock here. I
originally showed it in the middle and the DEC wanted it moved over
there because it's less wetland, so that's why we ended up there
and the DEC approved it there.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you have the DEC permit?
MR. CORWIN: Yes, I included it when I made the application.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, I looked where it was staked and I thought if
it was moved over a little bit toward the Mitchell property there
would be less vegetation it would be crossing, so it would do less
harm to the vegetation. It sounds like that's exactly what the DEC
asked you to do, to move it over to an area where it's crossing
less vegetation. Is a that what are telling me?
MR. CORWIN: Well, I did move it from the original, urn, if I move it
again, maybe four or five feet, there is a little less vegetation,
we are talking a foot or two, that you would gain. And I left it
there because that's what the DEC had approved back 74 feet off the
property line and that's I measured and that's what I staked.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Interesting. Because what I thought was the same
thing as you, and that would help mitigate the inconsistency with
the LWRP to move it to a location where it's going over less
wetlands. So that's what I was trying to do here. Interesting.
MR. CORWIN: Can I make a proposal to you?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MR. CORWIN: That rather than CCA posts, we use four-inch locust
post and we use open grate.
TRUSTEE KING: You are reading my mind.
Board of Trustees
69
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, yes. I think that would be excellent.
MR. MCGREEVY: Can we include the non-CCA on the cross pieces underneath
the decking?
MR. CORWIN: Well, there again there IS really no substitute for
treated lumber there.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Corwin, can I ask you a question. This is an
empty lot?
MR. CORWIN: Yes, correct.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So the purpose of the dock is for the owners --
MR. CORWIN: Future use for their recreation.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I went out and inspected it today as well and the
seaward stake, that's the seaward end of the stairs --
MR. CORWIN: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What is the need for the piling to be 40 feet out
from there?
MR. CORWIN: The idea is of course to pull put a pulley out there
and moor a boat. Originally we wanted a floating dock. The DEC
said no because there is enough water. If there is something that
is allowed in there. I guess on the other side of the creek, with
the stairs that are really going nowhere and the pulley pile.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the width of the creek in there?
MR. CORWIN: I don't have the answer to that.
TRUSTEE KING: Approximately 500 feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So that would not be more than one-third.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, there is plenty of room there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have a profile drawing? We don't seem to
have one in the packet.
MR. CORWIN: (Handing).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience that wants to
comment on this application?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE KING: You are saying you could redesign this to use locust
post and an open-grate catwalk.
MR. CORWIN: Yes, it's what I'm offering.
TRUSTEE KING: Can we get it down to like 18 inches above grade,
between a foot and 18 inches? I know DEC approved, they just
approved two in Mattituck. As a matter of fact they went from
plank catwalk to open grate and lowered it.
MR. CORWIN: I certainly have no objection. My only problem is the
last time I proposed that to the United States Army Corps of
Engineers, they said the height had to be the same, the height had
to equal the width. In other words four feet, in a case like this,
and I said well, open grate, and they said yes, even if it's open grate, so.
TRUSTEE KING: We've had pretty good luck getting these things down
low with the open-grate system.
MS. MOORE: I just had one rejected because --
Board of Trustees
70
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: From the Corps? I guess we'll have to reeducate them.
MS. MOORE: Yes, please.
MR. MCGREEVY: Jim, by lowering the level would that also improve
public access along the beach or would that be a separate issue?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's a lot of access going along there
anyway.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a marsh. There is really no public access
along there and it won't interfere with navigation.
TRUSTEE KING: To me it's more aesthetics, it's not as obvious. When
you look cross the wetland you don't even see these things. And
the vegetation grows, even at that low level. Those are my
thoughts.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have a concern with the application for a dock
without a residence there and my other hesitation is the fish and
wildlife habitat area, so I'm very hesitant to approve this
application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anything in the code prohibiting a dock
on a vacant piece of land without a building on it?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just wanted to know for my information.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, we get back to the question of if the
applicant is willing to use the open-grated decking and they are
willing to drop it down to 18 inches above grade.
TRUSTEE KING: That's the whole idea of the open-grate system is to
get these things down low.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because right now it's three-and-a-half feet. It's
just an idea. Any other comments from the Board?
(No response.)
If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
David Corwin on behalf of David Edelstein with the amendment that
there will be the use of locust posts in the construction and the
use of open-grated decking in the construction. And that was it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: And what's the distance above grade?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: As depicted in here, three-and-a-half feet. I had
asked I him if he would drop it to 18 and did not get a positive response.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We could add if there was an opportunity to drop
it, we could entertain that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's as per the DEC permit also. And with those
mitigations of the use of locust posts and open-grated decking that
would mitigate the inconsistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
Board of Trustees
71
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Nay, due to the reasons I already mentioned.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Nay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Nay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It is denied.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, we'll take a five-minute break.
(After a short recess, these proceedings continue as follows.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 15, Patricia Moore on behalf of MICHAEL &
KATHRYN RUSSO requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing
structure and connect to new additions and new garage, relocate hot
tub and alterations to existing basement. Located: 775 Oakwood
Drive, Southold.
Is there anybody here who would like to address this
application?
MS. MOORE: Pat Moore. I'm here. I know you are familiar with this
application so I address any issues that you want otherwise we are
bringing the plans into conformity with the permit, so I think you
have all the documentation.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, basically we have all seen the property, and
you are right. The LWRP indicates that the proposal is located in
the FEMA flood zone. I have seen you done what you need to
mitigate that. It also find it inconsistent because of its
distance, it's within 100 feet of the wetlands.
CAC report, did not make an inspection therefore no comment
was made.
Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to
address this application?
MS. MOORE: I have Mr. and Mrs. Russo here but we are here to really
answer any questions you may have, rather than prolong this night.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The only question we really have is the drywells,
gutters and putting hay bales.
TRUSTEE KING: Hay bales are already in place.
MS. MOORE: Hay bales are in place. The drywells are as part the
DEC permit as well and I thought it was part of your original
permit. If not --
TRUSTEE KING: It probably was.
MS. MOORE: I think everything was the same as your original permit,
so. We actually had the option of extending the permit we had or
coming in and submitting this one. So we were within two months
difference.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The permit from 2005?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
Board of Trustees
72
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It didn't address drywells or gutters. We'll just
add it here.
MS. MOORE: That's fine.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Comments or questions from the Board?
(No response.)
MS. MOORE: My client tells me they already have plans for that
anyway.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would lake to make a motion we close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion we approve this
application with the stipulations that we add drywells and gutters
to catch the runoff.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number 16, Patricia Moore on behalf of PERI HINDEN
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x115 foot fixed dock,
3x24 foot ramp and 6x20 foot floating dock. Located: 1255 Woodcliff
Drive, Mattituck.
MS. MOORE: Pat Moore. I'm here. Mr. Hinden is here to help answer
any questions, and we actually have the neighbor here. We were out
in the hallway working on it. We had plenty of time to talk about
it and there were a couple of revisions or suggestions that were
discussed in the hallway and I can either give them to you now or
wait until you have comment. It's up to you. Which would you
prefer?
TRUSTEE KING: Jill and I looked at this. We had some suggestions
and some questions. What is on your mind?
MS. MOORE: What we talked about, and I know Mr. King is very
familiar with this area, the tides and the winds that are here we
felt that there should have been included the piles to tie up the
boat so we actually, I had Bob Fox add some piles to the drawing,
which I actually, I drew it on a drawing and I'll have it redone,
but we have, out in the hallway, Bob Fox gave me a set of piles
that we actually revised so I have one, eight-inch pile is which is
the one at the end of the float and then four tie off piles which
are 12 inches in diameter and I have identified the location of
them by numbering them one through five, so I have that for the
Board. I have additional copies I just drew out, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have a lot.
MS. MOORE: A lot of other changes, okay. We also have one pile, I
forgot to mention, between our proposed dock and the neighbor's
Board of Trustees
73
June 20, 2007
dock. They have a boat on the south side of their dock which we
are trying to, we placed our dock in such a way so that we don't
have interference between the two boats and it was suggested
perhaps we would possibly need an eight inch pile between those
boats just to keep them off set it each other. I also included
that.
Those are our suggestions from our meeting out in the hallway,
otherwise we'll listen to your proposal.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, because that has nothing to do with
ours.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you have anymore copies?
MS. MOORE: Yes, I actually have one here. One for your side and
one for your side.
If you would like a little more explanation, we have the
proposed dock in this location because it is 15 feet from each
property line. We had Bob Fox, you could see the property lines as
shown on the survey, on the marine survey, and we are equidistant
between the two lines so as to conform.
We also placed the dock in a location where it appears that an
older dock may have been and it's also at the location of the
shortest distance over the wetlands. So the purpose behind this
placement was with all of those points and all those issues in
mind.
TRUSTEE KING: We felt that the dock should be moved further to the
south. As a matter of fact, there is two old posts there that
looks like the beginnings of something some time ago. About 20
feet to the south, at the starting point.
MS. MOORE: I don't see those posts, sorry.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't see them on here, but they are there.
MS. MOORE: The only problem with that is, as you can see -- we
really have no problem with the flexibility where the dock begins.
Our concern was really where it begins doesn't really change where
it ends. So if you move it to the south where we are actually
crossing more wetlands, but if that's a preferential spot by the
Board, we can certainly consider it.
The end spot where the float and the dock ends is pretty much
the same because it's like a triangle there, so if we start the
dock at one end we are pretty much at the same spot at the other.
The problem we have is we should keep the parallel position
with the dock to the north of us because the boats obviously you
don't want to have interference between the two docks. They are
the only ones that are really affected in this area. So depending
on what position you ask us to take, we just have to make sure that
we are parallel. As can you see. And that's why Bob Fox put the
second boat in on the neighbor's -- the neighbor has a ten-foot
right of way. Their dock is at the end of that right of way. They
Board of Trustees
74
June 20, 2007
don't really have that flexibility there.
TRUSTEE KING: This is to the north.
MS. MOORE: To the north is the dock existing that was approved in
2000 by this Board, so we positioned ourselves in such a way so we
would have a safe distance and have as minimal interference.
TRUSTEE KING: But there is nothing to the south until you get to
that dock, set of floats that goes out there quite a ways.
MS. MOORE: Right, Browers Woods Association is association land to
the south of us. They don't have anything, but you can also see
that the water depth, well, it's pretty much the same. That's not
too bad.
TRUSTEE KING: My thought were if we moved this whole structure over
it gives you a lot more room between the two docks.
MS. MOORE: If I could approach the Board, you can see where this
line is here, it extends out. Okay, legally, technically, we
should be keeping inside of this space. Okay, so if you start the
dock here, to the south, you have to angle it within our water
space. You are not supposed to cross --
TRUSTEE KING: You are confusing me now. Because you explained to
us a long time ago how to extend property lines into the water.
There is a formula which you educated us about.
MS. MOORE: Yes, but I have opposite property lines here. I have
one property line going this way and the other property line going
the other way. They are converging.
TRUSTEE KING: But they go perpendicular to the channel. That's the
way these are supposed to be extended, according to you.
MS. MOORE: No, I think we educated you was on a cove.
TRUSTEE KING: It was a peninsula and running as a channel out in
front. Because I did lot of research on this on how to extend
property lines out into the water and it's supposed to be
perpendicular to the channel. And if you did that then this
property line can be changed direction to the south more.
MS. MOORE: We have no problem with that it's just Browers Woods may
have an issue because they are going to be looking -- look at a tax
map. If you look at a tax map you can see that you have opposite
property lines. This map doesn't show you but the tax map, you can
see, the property lines of the Browers Woods and beach access at
opposite ends of our property. So if you were to, if Browers Woods
were to ever ask for a community dock, they would, they either
would have to go parallel to everyone else or they would have to go
within their property limits. Based on your code, you say 15 feet
off the neighbor's property. So we can work with this Board but
you will have to come up with a kind of consistent angle of all the
docks. We kept to the same angle as the dock to the north of us
because he kind of sets the tone of the angle of the docks. If you
want to change our angle then we could go further south but then
Board of Trustees
75
June 20, 2007
everybody to the south of us will go at a different angle from
their property line.
TRUSTEE KING: Like I said, the research I have done on these, I
know this is for years, everybody just extended them out whatever
angle they are on land.
MS. MOORE: And it created a problem at the end. Exactly.
TRUSTEE KING: Correct, I spoke to surveyors about this and each one
of these lines were extended to be perpendicular to the channel,
and that means everybody is parallel to each other and it gives you
a lot more room.
MS. MOORE: Except that I don't know that we are parallel to the
existing dock to the north. Am I not getting it? If you go
straight, you have to draw it on this map, but if we change the
angle I would extend into Browers Woods.
TRUSTEE KING: You would keep the dock the same. It's the property
line that changes to the south.
MS. MOORE: I mean, it doesn't affect us and we have no objection to
that but I think Browers Woods might have an issue. And you have a
town access to the south of it, so. As long as you are consistent
we'll have no problem, but you have to kind of look at the, to the
property to the south of this piece.
TRUSTEE KING: It's something we'll have to --like I said, I did a
lot of research.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have other issues.
MS. MOORE: Tell me the about the other issues because, again, we
are flexible in our position but I have to worry about the property
owners to the south.
TRUSTEE KING: I have been trying to do some things with DEC where
we kind of know what everybody is going to approve. I worked with
Rob Herman on this. What we are looking at is 4x4s through the
marsh, instead of eight inch piles, and we go to eight inch piles
once we are out in the water on the main part of the Mattituck
Creek, when you get up into these little extensions, up-creeks and
smaller creeks, we want to see six inch piles in the water
MS. MOORE: Holding the dock up you are saying?
TRUSTEE KING: That would be a significant downsizing on this.
MS. MOORE: Could you repeat that. It's four inches in the marsh area
and once you reached past the marsh --
TRUSTEE KING: Then we go with the eight inch. But that's in the
main part of the creek.
MS. MOORE: I think we had eight inch proposed here, in the marsh
area as well, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we would like to see the 4x4s put in by hand,
not by machine.
MS. MOORE: Mr. Costello, do you do this?
MR. COSTEllO: Yes.
Board of Trustees
76
June 20, 2007
MS. MOORE: There are only a few dock builders out here. If
everybody is willing to do it.
TRUSTEE KING: And eight inch piles holding the float in place.
MS. MOORE: Yes, we had that. We had eight inch piles for the
float. We had eight inch in the end of the float. Then we
definitely needed more significant to hold the boat in place
because of the tide and the winds over there.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't agree with the tie off piles in that area.
MR. MCGREEVY: Would a lower catwalk be applicable, Jim, in this
case?
TRUSTEE KING: And the starting point, we would like to see it
further seaward than it is now. There is no reason to start it right up on
the bank there.
MS. MOORE: What being seaward?
TRUSTEE KING: I mean the landward end of the dock. Move the
landward end toward the water.
MS. MOORE: We are starting at the wetland edge.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There two posts that exist there now and I think
they were basically at the mean, where it's marked mean high. We
want you to start the dock there
MS. MOORE: Down at, go up and then across, because you'll have to
-- I think the elevation is changed over there. That's why I
think he started it where he did. Because you have a drop off at
the end.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, where we are talking -- it's not that much where
we are talking about.
MS. MOORE: Sorry, did you guys say the same thing or did you
contradict each other?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We want you to move the landward end of the dock
seaward.
MS. MOORE: Okay. By how much? Where would you like it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was kind of hard, we couldn't do a measurement
because of the way, it wasn't staked, but if you come up here.
MS. MOORE: Well, we have it starting at the wetland boundary. Bob
Fox identified the wetland boundary.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right about here. At the seaward end of the
remains of the dock, there was two posts. So basically where those
two posts started there. And also --
MS. MOORE: Some of this is flooded. It doesn't make any sense.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you mark it wrong on here?
MS. MOORE: I think over here.
TRUSTEE KING: I think if you look at the two old posts they are
pretty much in the right spot. There is two 6x6's.
MS. MOORE: Which is the old remains of the dock.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it's further to the south.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think it's more on this end. And also the
Board of Trustees
77
June 20, 2007
seaward end, we felt that needs to be in line with the docks along
here. This is going on much further.
MS. MOORE: That will be a problem unless we shift the location
because again, it depends on where we are going to end the dock.
Where we have it right now offsets the boat that is there. So it
would be giving both property owners room for a boat there so you
don't have interference between the bow and the stern of the boat.
So if you are talking about moving the whole structure down and
parallel to the existing dock, then as long as we maintain the
water depth which is, the problem is you have to maintain
three-and-a-half feet. So the water depth changes as you go
further south. It actually, three-and-a-half feet, takes you out a
little bit further out. Not quite what you suggested but not quite
what we have. We have the float, the center of the float is at
three-and-a-half feet. That's what I think it was designed as, to
keep the float at mid point.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It shows four-and-a-half here.
MS. MOORE: No. Three-and-a-half. The float right now, where it is
now is between 3.1 and four-point-something. It's less than 4.6.
So 4.1. So in between is the three-and-a-half
TRUSTEE KING: It's actually deeper here to the south. I don't
agree with the tie off piles at all.
MS. MOORE: We need to have some form of tie off piles.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why do you feel you need pie off piles?
MS. MOORE: Because of the boat he has and wind and the tides there.
TRUSTEE KING: There is two boats to this dock now and there is no
tie off piles and they seem to be floating okay.
MS. MOORE: Remember, the boat is on the south side of that dock.
On the northerly dock, the boat is on the south side, not on the
north side. We were keeping our boat on the north side to keep it
away from the neighbor. Sorry, the opposite. South side. Sorry,
sorry, sorry. We were making everything the opposite of what the
neighbor had. He's there and that's in place. We have to work
around that.
TRUSTEE KING: There is a boat on either side.
MS. MOORE: They have a larger boat. Their primary boat is the one
on our neighbor's north side. The smaller boat is on the south
side. Our boat, our larger boat is going to be on the north side,
keeping it away from them. Now, maybe if we move it further to the
south you can keep it on the south side and that might be easier.
You tell me. Practically. Can you keep a boat there without tie
up piles?
MR. HINDEN: The south side is where you have to be.
MS. MOORE: So if we move the whole structure further to the south
then there is, then we should be okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't see the need for pilings.
Board of Trustees
78
June 20, 2007
MS. MOORE: Okay, I have to figure out where you want me to put this
thing. Started where the old 6x6s are, and go parallel to the dock
to the north of us?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Parallel to it.
MS. MOORE: Parallel to it. Okay
TRUSTEE KING: And stake the seaward end of the float. And if you
look to the south, that other dock that is there, just keep that,
maintain that line.
MS. MOORE: I just don't know where the water depth is. I have to
keep three-and-a-half feet. That's mandatory. So I don't have
that one in here on this dock.
TRUSTEE KING: Why is that mandatory?
MS. MOORE: Well, DEC will require us and my client has a boat that
needs three-and-a-half feet. So that's, you have a very deep
channel. That's the value of this property is the deep channel and
the water depth that we have. So there is really not much
difference between three-and-a-half in this area. So it's very
close. It's within a foot or two of. But you can't tell you where
the tie line is because the dock is so far to the south of us. I
can't tell. It's not showing up on this at all, so.
TRUSTEE KING: Will it show on an aerial?
MS. MOORE: Do you have an aerial?
TRUSTEE KING: No, you can --
MS. MOORE: I thought you had one there. No, Bob Fox will provide
one for us.
TRUSTEE KING: Just so we could see.
MS. MOORE: That's fine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we could make those changes and get it
restaked.
MS. MOORE: No problem. We'll get Bob Fox here late another night.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We want to make sure the seaward end of the float
is staked.
MS. MOORE: That's what we have. We have the seaward end of the
float is staked. That's what he always stakes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to table this, Jim?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MS. MOORE: Yes, we'll table it, obviously. So we'll start the
whole thing.
TRUSTEE KING: Have you applied to DEC on this?
MS. MOORE: No, we are waiting for whatever modifications you come
up with and then we'll --
TRUSTEE KING: Okay.
MS. MOORE: Okay, back to the drawing board.
TRUSTEE KING: I make a motion to table the application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Board of Trustees
79
June 20, 2007
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lori, the next three are all in a row. Can we open
them all at once and if we do, do we have three separate
resolutions to approve or do we approve them all in one.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: You can approve them as one as long as everyone has
an opportunity to speak on each one.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. All right, we'll open the next three all at
once. 17,18,19, as they are all together. They are all
En-Consultants on behalf of;
number 17, FREDERICK RAPP, requests a
Wetland Permit to construct approximately 40 linear feet of vinyl
bulkhead in place of existing timber bulkhead and backfill with
approximately 25 cubic yards clean sand to be trucked in from an
upland source. Located: 355 Lake Drive, Southold and;
number 18, ROSARIA FORCHELLI requests a Wetland Permit to construct
approximately 40 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing
timber bulkhead and backfill with approximately 25 cubic yards
clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Located: 405
Lake Drive, Southold, and;
number 19, JEAN ROTERT, requests a Wetland Permit to construct
approximately 60 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing
timber bulkhead and backfill with approximately 25 cubic yards
clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Located: 475
Lake Drive, Southold.
I'll just go over the LWRP. They are all exempt from LWRP.
And CAC there was no recommendation made. (Perusing.) CAC, no
recommendation made on any of them.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of these three
applications?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants, on behalf of all three. The
standard application is replacing the existing timber bulkheads in
place with vinyl ten foot non-turf buffer adjacent to them. Very
straight forward, all three, they can all be done at once as part
of the same work.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the plans you show 15 foot non-turf buffer.
MR. HERMAN: It should be ten. They are all pretty small yards in
the back. There may be a wider area shown as backfill but they
actually depict ten foot non-turf buffer. For all three. All three
are ten foot non-turf buffers.
TRUSTEE KING: The adjacent on the water looking to your right,
wasn't there a wider buffer there? I think we had in mind keeping
that buffer the same all the way across. That just popped into my
head. Maybe I'm wrong.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I recall an adjacent buffer also.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We marked in our field notes we wanted a 15-foot
Board of Trustees
80
June 20, 2007
non-turf buffer.
MR. HERMAN: If it's consistent with what ties through.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We measured from the neighbor. That's how we came
up with that.
MR. HERMAN: I don't think anyone is maintaining lawns down in that
area, if I recall correctly, anyway.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have a picture of somebody doing that.
MR. HERMAN: Well, Rapp is vacant, so I know that is natural.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's natural.
What materials do you plan on using?
MR. HERMAN: Vinyl for the sheathing with the treated structural
supports.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Treated with CCA?
MR. HERMAN: CCA treated except for the lowest wale, which is
creosote.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why not just CCA? Why creosote?
MR. HERMAN: That has just been the way some of the contractors have
-- we have been proposing that for a number of years. The Board
has approved it. If is there are three wales, the lowest wale
that's always under water has been treated with creosote. I mean
if there is a prohibition in the code -- is that under the latest
275?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. HERMAN: Well, that will make that easy. Sorry, I was not aware
of it.
TRUSTEE KING: I was not sure we reviewed it. And it's in there.
MR. HERMAN: Okay. So all wales will be CCA. I just have to modify
the plans to reflect that. Sorry about that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments?
(No response.)
Comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: Other than that, perfectly straight forward.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With the prior consent of the Board I would like
to vote all three of these at once instead of doing them
separately.
So I'll make a motion to close all three hearings.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve number 17,18,19,
with the submission of new plans showing that no creosote will be
used and with 15 foot non-turf buffer on all three properties.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Board of Trustees
81
June 20, 2007
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number 20, En-Consultants on behalf of ELIZABETH
WOLFF requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 107
linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing timber bulkhead;
backfill with approximately 25 cubic yards clean sand to be trucked
in from an upland source, and construct a 4x4 foot timber deck and
4x11 foot stairs to beach. Located: 200 West lake Drive, Southold.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants on behalf of Elizabeth
Wolff. Very similar application to the three prior; standard
inplace replacement of all the bulkheading that is there; replacing
timber with vinyl; proposing ten foot non-turf buffer. Here again
we had the lowest wale proposed to be creosote treated. And then
the construction of a platform and stairs to the beach in place of
the previously existing platform and stair combination which was
there prior to April 15 but gone since.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have a field note here, Rob, to move a pipe in
the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There was of a pipe sticking out of the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Apparently there was a pipe sticking out of the
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I remember it, but it wasn't a drain.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are you familiar with the pipe?
MR. HERMAN: I'm looking at the photos to see if I could see it.
It's not a drainage pipe, Dave?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No.
MR. HERMAN: What is it?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We didn't know. It's a pipe coming out of the
bulkhead.
MR. HERMAN: It will have to be cut to replace the bulkhead, so if
it is actually leaching anything, they will just plug it. It's
pretty standard.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was sticking out three or four feet.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We wanted the bulkhead to be in line with the
neighbor, also.
MR. HERMAN: What do you mean bulkhead in line with the neighbor?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So the neighboring -- and I'm sorry, I don't know
which direction it is, but so the neighbor, the proposed bulkhead
and the neighbor's bulkhead, there would be no jog.
MR. HERMAN: No, this is not only a previously existing structure
but it's actually a permanent structure by the Trustees as it is
and the applicant, we already have a DEC permit for it just to
replace it exactly as it is. To move it back you would have to
excavate that whole area out, shift the whole wall landward, you
Board of Trustees
82
June 20, 2007
then have to extend the groins landward. I don't see a reason for
it. That's a lot of extra work and disturbance. It's only a two
foot jog and three foot jog on either side. I can't represent that
the applicant will would agree to that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought we saw the original location behind
that.
MR. HERMAN: Permit 5435 was issued to Joseph and Catherine Barbado
(sic) in 2001. Wetland permit for the existing bulkhead is
depicted on the survey dated January 16, 2002, and that permit was
transferred to Elizabeth Wolff when she purchased the property.
And she is very, very anxious to move on this. We already got a DEC
permit.
TRUSTEE KING: That must have been an existing bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Existing bulkhead, 2001.
TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing). That was the deal, they are selling the
property so they come in and get permits for what is there. So
this was a bulkhead that was bumped out years ago, now it's a
permitted structure because they came in and got a permit for it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What is your concern? Do you still think it
should be backed up?
TRUSTEE KING: It's not that huge a deal.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob had pointed out that I did not see in the
field, the groins are there and to pull it back would mean a
reconstruction of the groins, which I think would be a lot. So,
I'm willing to forego that suggestion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What do you think, Jim?
TRUSTEE KING: It's not that huge a deal.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seeing no one else to speak to this, I'll make a
motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the request for a
Wetland Permit to replace bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead and with a
ten foot buffer. What is the Board's feeling on a buffer? We
talked about 20. Rob offered a ten. Any comments?
TRUSTEE KING: Take the middle road.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: 15, Rob?
MR. HERMAN: Yes. And I would like the Board to try to reach some
sort of standard with this because it's been a moving target. If
the Board could try to formalize the buffers as to what, I don't
know if there is a formula you want to use, but you were going with
ten so we started proposing ten and now it's changing to 15 or 20
and I'm not sure exactly what the rationale is. This is not a real
big yard in the back.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We could get a percentage but I'll tell you the
Board of Trustees
83
June 20, 2007
rational. We are hearing more and more that the distance we are
giving to buffers is quite minimal to what is being recommended. So
that's the consideration it appears we are floundering, but as Jim
says, we could up come up with a formula for the percentage of the
yard would make sense
MR. HERMAN: I know buffers, when you have new construction it's a
lot different story. But these are all, typically, they are
maintenance of existing bulkheads and it's pretty easy to sell to
the clients establishing a ten foot non-turf buffer but as it
starts to creep up, you are talking 15 or 20 feet of a yard that's
barely over 60 feet wide, you are talking about people kind of
losing almost 35% of their yard just to replace a bulkhead that is
a legal structure. Technically he we would not have to be even be
here tonight if not for the proposal for the platform and stairs
for the inplace replacement of a permitted structure we don't need
a permit. So I would like at least on this if the Board would
consider holding to the ten feet because I think it's, I think it's
an adequate buffer for this yard size, given the setback of the
house
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What's the feeling of the Board; ten, 15?
TRUSTEE KING: Ten is there now.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We'll go with a ten foot buffer and we'll work
on a formula.
MR. HERMAN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll reiterate my motion to approve the
application for the bulkhead replacement with ten foot buffer,
removing of the pipe.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 21, 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 here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants on behalf of Edward and
Christine Volini. And Sean Mulligan, architect, is here again.
Hopefully we'll have a lot shorter discussion than we had a month
ago.
We had talked about whether the proposed house which Sean and
I were advocating the benefits to the Board to move the house
Board of Trustees
84
June 20, 2007
landward of where the existing house is. There is some
considerable discussion about moving the house back further and one
of the things we had left with is the Board sort of challenged us
to check your estimations of where, at what setback from the bluff
crest would the house be in line with the adjacent structures, and
the Board was, I would say, right on the nose.
So I'm handing up the revised surveys with the cover letter
that actuality shows the proposed house and appurtenances relocated
to a setback of 100 feet from the bluff crest, which would put it
smack in line with the adjoining houses which the Board had
discussed.
The applicants spent a good deal of time discussing the
Board's comments and what occurred at the last hearing and the
applicants were willing, in light of the discussions and what Sean
and I discussed with them, to move it.
We would still, as part of the request for the Wetland Permit,
look to, despite the relocation of the house, would still
proactively agree to plant out a 15-foot native vegetation,
non-turf buffer behind the crest of the bluff and we would still
need the Board's permission, obviously, I'm sure you would be happy
to give it at this point, to demolish the existing dwelling, remove
the other associated improvements and then whatever construction
activities, you know, disturbance within your regulated area, would
be associated with the construction of the new house that is now
located outside of your jurisdiction.
There are a couple of drywells that would have to be right
within that 100 foot setback, but almost 100 feet back from the
crest of the bluff.
So I trust the Board will find this to be a substantial
improvement to what was previously proposed in line with what we
discussed, and as we discussed last month, this will also have the
project fall in line with the crest of bluff setback and in
alignment with the adjoining houses under your code. So.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else here who would like to speak
on behalf of this application?
(No response.)
If not, in the review of the notes, this was found inconsistent
under LWRP and one of the reasons was because of it being within
100 feet from the top of the bluff. As at matter of fact, that was
sole reason for the inconsistency. So your proposed movement of
the house to that 100 foot line would bring it into consistency
under LWRP.
CAC did vote to support the application with the condition of
a non-turf buffer and you have a non-turf buffer of 15 foot here on
the plans. We would also ask for the inclusion of drywells and gutters.
MR. HERMAN: Those are all on the plan.
Board of Trustees
85
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We saw the two drywells. There was only two within
the 100 foot boundary. The rest are outside of our jurisdiction.
We would ask still for hay bales.
MR. HERMAN: They are shown.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Right, thank you. I see that. Because of the
taking down of the demolishing of the house. And I also had a note
last time, just as a point of information for the applicant, that
there was some bulkhead damage in April that would probably be a
good idea for them to look at for taking care of before that
collapses in a major storm.
MR. HERMAN: I think Sean was discussing that with the applicants.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Great. Are there any comments from the Board?
MR. MCGREEVY: Would there be any consideration for LWRP pertaining
to the pervious or impervious driveway? Would that come into the
picture for LWRP?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's out of Trustees' jurisdiction. It's out of
our jurisdiction. I was looking to see if it's --
MR. HERMAN: It's proposed to be pervious.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. I have not gotten to that yet. It's
proposed to be pervious.
Being no other comments from the Board, I make a motion to
close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
En-Consultants on behalf of the Volini's as per the plans submitted
and dated June 20,2007. In those plans that would address the
setbacks so as to bring the project into consistency with LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. HERMAN: Bob, you had something right on the tip of your tongue.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I was going to say, my son would have said, awesome
dude.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I want to see that in the minutes.
MR. HERMAN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: En-Consultants on behalf of JAIME & NANCY
SANTIAGO, requests a Wetland Permit to demolish and remove an
existing two-and-a-half story dwelling and appurtenances, including
a tennis court, and construct in new, landward location a
two-story, one-family dwelling with attached porch, patio, deck,
pergola and other associated appurtenances, including an inground
swimming pool; install a drainage system of drywells with
incorporated concrete retaining wall; erect a fence; install a fish
Board of Trustees
86
June 20, 2007
pond; and truck in approximately 26 cubic yards clean sand fill to
be incorporated into cut and fill operations required to achieve
proposed grades. Located: 3745 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
This is inconsistent with LWRP, the reason being the distance. And
I don't have anything from CAC. Yes, I do. Sorry. CAC supports
the application with condition hay bales placed during demolition
and construction activities, pervious driveway is installed, the
bluff protected, all runoff contained on the property, efforts made
to protect the large old healthy and mature trees as practicable
and catch basin installed to contain the overflow of the fish
pond. That's the CAC comments.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants,
Jaime and Nancy Santiago. Jaime and Nancy are both are here. James
Zizzi, the contractor, is here.
I'll try to keep this short. We spoke a lot about this project
in the field when we went with Mr. Santiago and Juan Carlos from
James Zizzi's office. Similar in spirit to the prior application,
we had given you a survey at this site that added the locations of
the existing dwellings on either side of the property. Not only
will the new construction be set landward of the existing house,
all of the structural areas associated with the dwelling and the
dwelling in particular will be set actually landward of the bluff
line if you are connecting the points of the adjacent houses.
The new house would be served by a Suffolk County Health
Department conforming sanitary system located landward of the
Trustees' jurisdiction. There is a drainage system of drywells
proposed as per usual for the dwelling but also here there will be
accessory drainage proposed in the, I guess it would be the
southeasterly corner of the property that will mirror what the
Board has previously approved for the Parks property. That was
designed by James Deerkowski, an engineer. I just handed up to
Lauren one legal size color print of the engineer's plans which,
forgive me, Jill, are still going to test your eyes. But I blew
that up in black and white. What that does is, really, the
proposed topography reflected on that engineering plan is actually
shown on the Ingegno, now Nathan Corwin survey. But that plan
details what we ultimately show in the application as the amount of
fill that needs to be brought in. And, Jill, if you could read it,
I think we are at 20-some odd yards of fill after the cut and fill
operations and the excavation for the dwelling. It's very minimal
amount of fill that needs to be brought in. In addition with the
cut and fill source that will flatten out the grade as we looked at
in the field. Again, that grade is designed to match up with the
Parks property. I think the Board got a good look at that in the
field.
Board of Trustees
87
June 20, 2007
In terms of the consistency with the LWRP, I think here,
given, well, in addition to being consistent with this Board's code
in terms of the alignment with the neighboring dwellings, I think
we did look at a little bit of a different situation here given the
topography between the location of the proposed house and the
roadway.
You have this entire area of the proposed construction which
is previously developed, it's clear, it's maintained, and all the
activity will continue to occur in that area, with the exception of
setting a native planted non-turf buffer adjacent to the crest of
bluff. So we'll get back some vegetation there. But we really are
pushing the house back to the maximum extent reasonable here
because if we had to continue farther back, you would have to bring
in an incredible volume of fill to bring up the elevation of the
property between the proposed house and the road. And you would
have to clear a lot of trees and other mature vegetation that
exists there now.
So given the site constraints and given the consistency with
the locations of the neighboring dwellings I think what we are
proposing here, much in the spirit of our original argument on the
Volini application last month, is really an improvement to what is
there in terms of the sanitary treatment, in terms of the drainage,
in terms of setting up a non-turf buffer, and in terms of getting
the house not only back from the existing but back behind the
neighboring dwellings.
There was an issue that Mr. Santiago had brought to the
Board's attention during the field inspection as well, concerning
that southerly corner to the property where there are a number of
trees, and I handed up some black and white photographs, showing
where those trees are in danger of collapse and pulling the top of
the bluff with it. I think what the Santiago's would like to do
and if we can incorporate it into the application, as a temporary
stop gap, as a prophylactic measure really against that happening,
would be to cut those trees down just above the root base, leave
the root balls in tact, then we would probably have to come back in
subsequently, I know Jim had mentioned briefly in the field, due to
the precipice at the top of the bluff, actually come in with a plan
to shave that back and get a more natural angle of repose at the
top. There might be some sort of terracing needed, and then tie
that in to the non-turf buffer.
We are really not prepared to treat that now nor were we
prepared to treat it as part of this application. I think some of
that area got worse after the April 15 storm, and I think frankly
the Santiago's were waiting to see how the Parks project flushed
out next door. And actually I think it turned out pretty nicely,
what we saw in the field, sort of an amazing turn around there.
Board of Trustees
88
June 20, 2007
So I think the Santiago's would like to speak with Peter
Sterling and speak with us some more about doing something in that
area but just between now and that time to prevent those trees from
getting pulled over, they are eventually going to be have to be
lost with any sort of resloping of that bluff crest anyway.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm thinking maybe they can just stay there until
you come in with a full plan. Because the construction debris will
not go near those particular trees.
MR. HERMAN: It's not a concern for construction. The concern is
just the fact that so much of those root balls are now exposed that
if you had some sort of additional storm event and those get pulled
down, instead of us being able to in a controlled fashion, reshape
the top of that bluff, they are going to pull avulsively at the
crest and the same thing will happen as happened next door to the
parks and that's what I think they are looking avoid.
In other words, those trees, to do it, Jim was mentioning in
the field, the trees will be lost. The vegetation will be
replanted there but those particular, that particular stand of
black locusts that are right on the edge, they are going to be
lost. So the question is can we do something to prevent that from
happening and in an uncontrolled fashion that might create more of
a mess up there and could threaten to undermine what Parks just
accomplished.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I know you said you need to speak with other
people to figure out a plan. What is your timetable?
MR. HERMAN: I think Mr. Santiago is fairly anxious for the bluff
restoration at the top.
MR. SANTIAGO: I think we learned a lot from the Parks. I only
wanted to just expose that because those roots, there a couple of
trees there that the roots are just, there is three, four feet of
roots that are exposed. And when we went through the experience
with the parks when I was a contract vendee, you know, it took
many, many months of further erosion and I'm just, I said it to
Rob, I said not to get it interfered with what we are trying to do
for the house, but somewhere along the line that should be looked
at because I'm going to end up with a bluff problem while we are
going through this construction. So we are not looking to get rid
of trees. It's getting rid of those trees that somebody can say to
me they will create a bluff problem in the future. And I have seen
them from the last nor'easter that we had, more dirt is coming
out.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't have a problem with what you are
suggesting, cutting them down and leave the root ball to help
maintain, but my thought would be when it appears someone does a
planting plan that some replacement of the trees and it's not all
just groomed.
Board of Trustees
89
June 20, 2007
MR. HERMAN: The trees, I don't think I'm misrepresenting it, those
trees don't really do much to obscure view. Their foliage is
limited and there is no low foliage. I mean a lot of times we'll
try to -- a lot of times people, well, how can I cut all the trees
down for some other purpose, and I don't think that's the case
here. Because they really are--
MR. SANTIAGO: I have nephews. I'm more concerned about losing the
stairs and they just spent a lot of time and energy to fix it,
thank God, because I almost walked away from the deal, and we just
want to make sure we protect the bluff
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments?
MR. MCGREEVY: Jill, the topography on the north side of the
property slopes to the north. Would that be changed detrimental to
that property owner on the north boundary line of the Santiago
property?
MR. HERMAN: It's actually being lowered on the north side. So the
opposite, if anything.
MR. MCGREEVY: So the drainage would be more positive.
MR. HERMAN: In other words, the only place where it's being raised
is where it's currently lower than the neighbor to the south and
it's being raised to match.
MR. MCGREEVY: Has it changed the plans for the pond that is
anticipated?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The pond is on the north side.
MR. MCGREEVY: Is that still in the picture?
MR. HERMAN: Yes. You talking about the proposed fish pond.
MR. MCGREEVY: Yes.
MR. HERMAN: Yes. That would be all in the newly set elevation on
the side of the house.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: CAC had asked if there was a drainage issue with
that pond.
MR. MCGREEVY: That would have been the case, Dave, with the present
topography. With them changing the level of the ground there, it
doesn't cause a problem.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, great.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comment?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve En-Consultants on
behalf of Jaime and Nancy Santiago for a Wetland Permit to demolish
and remove an existing two-and-a-half story dwelling and
appurtenances including a tennis court and construct in new,
landward location a two-story, one-family dwelling with attached
Board of Trustees
90
June 20, 2007
porch, patio, deck, pergola and other associated appurtenances,
including an inground swimming pool; install a drainage system of
drywells with incorporated concrete retaining wall; erect a fence;
install a fish pond; and truck in approximately 26 cubic yards
clean sand fill to be incorporated into the cut and fill operations
required to achieve proposed grades as depicted on the plans dated
received April 25, 2007.
MR. HERMAN: Jill, do you want to make the site plan date the one I
gave you in the field and I can give Lauren additional copies?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
MR. HERMAN: The date was May 22.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: May 22. Okay. As depicted on the site plan of
May 22, which includes gutters, leaders, drywells; and a line of
hay bales; 15 foot, non-turf buffer. I think staked hay bales
during construction, 15-foot non-turf buffer. That would bring it
into consistency see with LWRP.
MR. HERMAN: Jill, sorry, I will have to give you your revised plan
to show the 15-foot, non-turf buffer because actually it doesn't
show that now.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It shows it to on these plans.
MR. HERMAN: Is it? This got omitted from, when they added the
houses. Let me just give you one that shows both. I thought we
had it but I was looking at it and it wasn't there. So I'll just
need to give you a revised plans that show that buffer and I want
the plans to show the adjoining houses.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right.
MR. HERMAN: That's not a big deal.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I'm just trying to think how I want to word
the trees that you wanted to cut to grade. The trees that are
marked along the bluff line that the roots are showing down the
bluff can be cut to grade.
MR. HERMAN: Do you want to just arrange to have a Trustee
inspection with the contractor before the work is done.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was going to volunteer. I can do that since I'm
right there.
MR. HERMAN: That way no one has any problems.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I was just saying with inspection. So
we'll have Trustee Bergen can inspect before that happens. And
also I would like to see an application applied for in the next
three months for the planting, replanting of the bluff.
Did I miss anything?
(No response.)
That's it. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
Board of Trustees
91
June 20, 2007
MR. ZIZZI: Jim Zizzi, for the applicant. On your approval of the
Parks wall, retaining wall, that is parallel to the bluff, I
believe there was a perpendicular wall also that was approved with
it. And it was, I believe dependent on this application. Will
that wall now be subject to removal so there is a continuous level
plain between the two properties? And I don't know if have you some
type of reverter to take that away from that application. Because
I understood we brought in this application so you could see how
they were planning this that you wanted a parallel, another
perpendicular wall to the bluff.
MR. HERMAN: What Jim is referring to, there was a wall approved on
the Parks application that was put in, as we understood it, as a
contingency, if Santiago didn't do this. If he didn't have an
engineer come in. It should be one wall that shared.
MR. ZIZZI: And it's going to cause a problem logistically, and I
think we were all aware of the fact it was going to be removed but
they were required to put it there because their plans shows it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Parks has to ask for an amendment to the permit, I
guess. Right? That was part of their permit that was granted to
Parks. So, help me out Lori, would they now have to come in and
request an amendment to their permit?
MS. MONTEFUSCO: They have to come in and request a permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Or they could just elect not to build the wall.
MR. ZIZZI: Because the idea was for us to contiguously have that
wall.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They can elect not to build the wall.
MR. ZIZZI: Because we are just looking for some guidance how to
eliminate it. Okay. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: En-Consultants on behalf of WILLIAM & JOANNE
TURNBULL requests a Wetland Permit to partially demolish an
existing one-story, one-family dwelling for the purpose of
renovating and constructing a two-story, one-family dwelling
wherein proposed expansion of the existing dwelling shall be
situated partially upon and partially beyond existing foundation
walls and all seaward expansion shall occur over and in place of
the existing wood deck; construct 1 Ox13 foot addition to existing
deck; construct 20x37 foot inground swimming pool, masonry pool
patio, and 8x12 foot shed; and install a new sanitary system,
public water service line, drainage system of drywells, pool
drywell, outside shower, and pool enclosing fence. Located: 54005
North Road, Southold.
This is up by town beach. Is there anyone here who would like
to address this application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman on behalf of the applicants, the
Turnbull's. Also Mel Gonzalez, the project architect is here.
Board of Trustees
92
June 20, 2007
I need to review a little bit of the history of this application.
Some of the Board members have seen this before in a slightly
different version but didn't formally speak to it.
In September of '05, we had come before the Board with a
proposed expansion of the deck that is seaward of the existing
dwelling. At that time the Board's jurisdiction was limited to 100
feet from Long Island Sound. We had come in with a proposed
expansion of 14-and-a-half feet by 19 feet, and part of that
expansion was seaward of the coastal erosion line.
The Turnbull's agreed pursuant to the Board's request to cut
that back to 14-and-a-half by 12-and-a-half feet so that it was
entirely landward of the coastal erosion boundary. The rest of the
project is very similar to what you see now but was out of your
jurisdiction, and that original project would have added northerly
and easterly expansions to the existing dwelling, plus the pool and
accessory shed that are shown on the current plan.
After receiving the Board's approval for the deck which was in
part an approval and in part a non-jurisdiction determination, and
a non-jurisdiction determination from the DEC, and a permit from
the Health Department, a couple of things happened. The code
changed and increased the Board's jurisdiction to 100 feet from
crest of bluffs and the Turnbull's also worked with Mil Gonzalez to
revamp the design of this thing in a way that would create a
slightly smaller house in terms not from what is existing but from
what had been originally proposed to a reduction of the easterly
expansion.
But the primarily difference, instead of being just a pure
addition to the existing house, it became a partial reconstruction
of the existing dwelling over the existing footprint but also
continuing out beyond that footprint.
So you would have one entirely new dwelling as opposed to just
additions to an existing dwelling. As part of that redesign, the
size of the deck expansion shrank again a little bit from the 14.5
x12.5 that had been approved by the Board to 13x1 O. And again, the
overall footprint of what would have been the resultant dwelling is
a little bit smaller than what the Board did not have to review
last time.
In terms of overall project, the seaward expansion of the
dwell would occur entirely over the existing deck footprint and the
rest of the expansion that is over virgin ground, if you will, is
either in line or landward of the existing house or over the
existing foundation. So the only seaward expansion is really just
replacing deck with dwelling.
You'll of course get an inconsistency determination pursuant
to LWRP because we don't meet the 100 foot setback with the
proposed work. 100 foot setback here actually puts you on the
Board of Trustees
93
June 20, 2007
highway, so we can't possibly meet that setback here. We are
constrained not only by the bluff but of course by lot size, the
proximity of the existing house to North Highway and also the
existing topography of the site where you have that pretty sharp
slope running from the existing house down toward the highway.
So what we had proposed as part of the original project, of
course, is an upgraded sanitary system that is located up on the
highway side of the house proposing a drainage system of drywells
to capture and recharge roof runoff and of course there is a pool
drywell proposed to catch pool backwash.
After your field inspection we spoke briefly in terms of
trying to mitigate this a little bit more in terms of what we might
be able to do in terms of a rotation, perhaps, of the proposed
swimming pool, and some sort of modification to some of the
existing deck area. I think more importantly what you are trying
to do is establish some sort of non-turf buffer adjacent to the
bluff crest.
What I asked, I assume the Board saw the stakes for the
swimming pool. What we asked Mel Gonzalez to do, since we spoke to
the field, and Mel, if you could bring up your drawings, we asked
him to actually plot out on a site plan where the existing line of
clearing ends, where the lawn is relative to where the existing
vegetation is so that we could try to plot out where we could
establish additional plantings and additional non-turf buffer, in
addition to the vegetation that exists.
So in effect we are looking for some more guidance from the
Board just in light of that sketch, what its thoughts might be in
terms of a partial rotation of the pool. Obviously we are
constrained. Right now the pool so proposed in a way that would
conform to zoning and of course the Turnbull's, they would like the
pool here in a constrained lot, but also don't want it right on top
of the highway.
So we could, given that the tightest bluff setback is over on
the westerly side of the proposed pool, I think that's what Jill
had pointed out when we spoke briefly about it, was that if that
pool be shifted to some degree on that southerly end back to the
east, you would increase where the setback is currently the
narrowest and I think that's the area where we could actually
maximize a non-turf buffer in place of what is existing lawn.
I think the overall sell here is that you are, I mean with the
addition of the, exception of the pool just as an additional
accessory, in terms of the house you are not getting a tremendous
difference from what is there relative to what is already covered
by structure. And if we could get rid of a little bit of that
structure that is closer to the crest of the bluff, which we talked
about in the field, and get a decent non-turf buffer established
Board of Trustees
94
June 20, 2007
and improve the drainage capability of the site and septic
treatment, et cetera, we would probably get an overall improvement
to the ecological condition of the site without any real drastic
change in the developed nature of the site.
Obviously, this is not a site where we really can move the
house back nor do I think it would be desirable to move the house,
you know, on to the highway. And it terms of the seaward
expansion, we are over existing footprint and we are willing to try
to work some mitigation to make that an approvable trade.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, you were right, LWRP did find it inconsistent
for the very reasons you mentioned. CAC did not see it so they
didn't make any recommendation on this.
You addressed, you already addressed the concerns we spoke
about in the field with the field inspection. Are there any
comments, any other comments from the audience? Any comment or
questions from the Board?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Rob, you had spoken about putting on the
neighboring structure, dwelling. My recollection is that this
house already exists ahead of, seaward of the house to the east.
But I don't -- that would be one of my concerns that, as it is
already, it's ahead of the east, the house to the east, and the
proposal is to go more seaward.
MR. HERMAN: The only reason I didn't look at that here, Peggy, is
only because it's not, in those other applications we were really
proposing a complete demolition and abandonment of the existing
structures in favor of entirely new dwellings that were
substantially larger and had room to some extent to move back. I
mean in terms of any viewshed coming from the east, one thing we
did do, we have never, the adjacent owners have been noticed now,
twice. We did actually move, we tightened up the easterly
expansion of what, again, the portions that you see that are
outside the scope of the existing foundation had been proposed as
additions. They are not proposed just as expansion with a new
house. The easterly expansion you were talking about was cut back
away from the property line. I think we had a ten or
ten-and-a-half foot setback that had been proposed that now ranges
from 12.5 to 14 feet.
Bill, I don't know if you have spoken to the neighbor about
it. I don't know if the Board received any. We have not gotten any
comments from.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I know standing in front of the existing house
as it is, that it was protruding out further.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Were you going to cut back the existing deck that
you talked about?
MR. HERMAN: That was one of the things we discussed with the
Turnbull's and trying to line this up a bit. We talked about,
Board of Trustees
95
June 20, 2007
first of all, this is an easy section to narrow up right here.
Because you want to just lay the pathway here. But maybe coming
back so you are in line, again, this was out here. It came back
here, now it's back here. Perhaps run a line across and you know
even have a partial rounding or something of this so that you keep
this same lineup there, and that would get rid of this section of
deck here where we could establish this as a non-turf buffer and
get some more plantings in here and cut back some of this square
footage from the bluff.
And this obviously is a legally pre-existing structure that
they would be willing to try to do some shaving on in exchange for
allowing this bay window step out here. This sectiOn of the bay
window. So I mean what we could do is, Mel could draft something
that would show some sort of reconfiguration of that outer area.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Would this decking here, is this necessary, is
it a living area?
MR. GONZALEZ: This is a roofed over area right now.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is like a corner patio.
MR. HERMAN: Yes, same here.
MR. GONZALEZ: I have the drawings and elevations if the Board is
interested in seeing it. I don't know if it's necessary.
MR. HERMAN: I think we would be agreeable doing something along
those lines. We just wanted, before we changed something formally,
just wanted to make sure the Board was still thinking along the
same lines as what was mentioned in the field in terms of that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What would a non-turf buffer be in terms of the
crest of the bluff?
MR. HERMAN: It would almost have to vary, Bob. Because if you look
at the drawing --
MR. GONZALEZ: If I may. I had the opportunity to go out there this
weekend on Sunday and I took some field measurements and as you can
see on the photographs, they are designated on the site plan, A,B,C
and D, the direction of the photos. You'll see that the stakes are
indicated on the site plan. Stake number one is approximately
right on the line of the edge of the established plantings. Stake
number two is approximately 13 feet from the edge of the
plantings. Stake number three is approximately 17 feet and the
fourth stake is roughly about 20'4" perpendicular to the bluff and
on a slight angle heading easterly, approximately 28'2". This is a
sketch of my field notes based on what we have projected on this
particular site plan.
So stake one, two, three and four as such, is being, this
being the corner of the building, right here. This is a reference
point, and what I have done is indicated the limits of the
established plantings along the edge of the bluff. So this way we
can give you an idea as far as the non-turf buffer what you are
Board of Trustees
96
June 20, 2007
looking to see in that particular area.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So in some areas it's almost 30 feet into the
non-turf buffer.
MR. HERMAN: You almost have to split the difference. Where you
have 20 feet, you could have a 10 foot buffer. You give up 50%.
Where it's 13 feet, you have six feet. I mean you can't lose all
of the lawn.
MR. GONZALEZ: That's the idea you had discussed out in the field,
that being the possibility, not necessarily the shifting of the
pool but perhaps the combination of both, perhaps shifting and
rotating ever so slightly. We have to be cognizant of the fact
that at the moment we are in the required setback in the front and
I know the Turnbull's are opposed to bringing it too close to North
Road, so what we would like to is kind of ease that off a little
bit so we can create this non-turf buffer without necessarily
encroaching too dramatically into the front yard setback.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Would the Board the want to see this restaked and
go out and take another look at it, showing the pool rotated?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know if we need to go out and look at it
again. I would like to see it --
MR. HERMAN: We would have to give you some revised plans.
MR. GONZALEZ: I could certainly show that on the plan. I think what
we are here to establish is some sort of guideline or some sort of
direction as to the depth of that non-turf buffer so that this way
I can indicate something so that we are not kind of guessing at
what you would we would like to see.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have no problem with the pool.
MR. GONZALEZ: This is what we were talking about as far as the
field notes as it relates to that.
TRUSTEE KING: Rob, can we get the cesspools out of our
jurisdiction?
MR. HERMAN: I don't think so unless they put them in the road,
Jim. That was part of the problem. It's close. We may be able to
get them shifted farther.
TRUSTEE KING: If we could tuck them in.
MR. HERMAN: It's the same elevation out to a distance about six or
seven feet from the road. We have to stay almost that far from the
roadway under the Health Department code but we might be able to
extend that waste line and actually push that system farther
south.
Again, originally, this may have been an oversight concentrating on
everything else but originally, with DEC and you guys out of it, it
was never really an issue. But that is something else we could
definitely offer to improve the overall mitigation here.
I would have to talk to John Ehlers. But I don't think that's
a problem.
Board of Trustees
97
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we should probably table this and get the
revised plans.
TRUSTEE KING: Are we going to try and tip that pool a little bit?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what he's saying, rotate that a little bit
MR. HERMAN: And what is interesting, Jim, is I think the Health
Department would not modify their approval until we had received
the modified approval from you all. So the window is wide open to
change that septic and ask them for their okay so that we can get
an approval from you for that, I think they would sign off on it. I
don't see any other constraints because it's public water up here;
it neighbors on public water. I think we could probably do it.
TRUSTEE KING: That would be helpful.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Basically we talked about shifting the pool and
making the non-disturbance buffer wider, and septic out of our
jurisdiction. And I would like to see the existing wood deck cut
back as far as you can.
MR. HERMAN: Yes. I think the Turnbull's are most reluctant to do
away with much of that deck. Let me see if I could work with them
and get Mel to get you something that you could agree to. I think
the rest of the stuff there is not a problem.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, if you could come up --
MR. HERMAN: Maybe we could do enough with the buffer to minimize
the deck. Let us come up with something and we'll hold it off to
July. But I'll have the stuff submitted to you prior to your field
inspections in July, so if you find it agreeable we'll know that,
keep all these folks home, and if not, you can let me know and we
can try to discuss it ahead of time. Sounds good. Thank you
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Comments or questions?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to table this application to next month.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KI NG: 24, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of TOM &
JULIA FITZPATRICK requests a Wetland Permit to clear and maintain a
4x55 foot mowed footpath through the high marsh area leading to a
4x16 foot ramp up to a 4x26 foot fixed dock section with a 32"x20'
seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6x20 foot seasonal floating dock
secured by two (2) two-pile eight inch diameter pilings, and
construct a canoe and kayak storage rack. Located: 1030 Clearview
Road, Southold.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this
application?
CAC did not make an inspection. LWRP found this inconsistent
because under New York State Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat.
Board of Trustees
98
June 20, 2007
It was quite a long narrative.
Okay, John, explain to us what we are doing here.
MR. COSTEllO: Well, my name is John Costello, of Costello Marine
Contracting. We are the agent for the application of Tom and Julia
Fitzpatrick.
We originally made the application similar to this with a
structure at the same point. It was advised by this Board that we
continue over the wetland and extend a catwalk approximately 125
feet further inland after Mr. King and Mr. Hamilton met on site.
They want the structure to be exactly this size. It was staked on
site and they will allow the wetland to, a path through the wetland
to be walked and the Fitzpatrick's did not want to mow or cut the
wetlands for the 125 feet so we angled it back to a 55 foot area to
the shortest portion so that we could maintain the shortest way.
In order to provide for the kayak and canoe that they own, we
asked to install four locust posts and some frame so they could
elevate the canoe and kayak and leave it out there so they didn't
have to drag it through the wetlands. We have a letter from the
does. We don't have the DEC permit. We have a letter from the DEC
saying that if we design it this way, the technical staff, which I
believe is Mr. Hamilton, will approve the project.
TRUSTEE KING: So we never issued a permit for anything here?
thought we issued a permit for the catwalk, for the dock.
MR. COSTEllO: No, you talked about it. You said you would issue a
permit but we had to modify the permit and when we did modify the
drawing, we came back to get the permit, and then it was modified
by yourself and Mr. Hamilton again. That's why we are here.
TRUSTEE KING: I thought we voted on a permit for this, I'm sure we
did.
MR. COSTEllO: It was verbally approved that we get the drawings to
you. But the only thing that altered was instead of walking
through the entire high marsh and maintaining a cut pathway through
the marsh, we minimized it to a 55 foot --
TRUSTEE KING: I know we voted on it (Perusing).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was it voted subject to plans being submitted?
MR. COSTEllO: Yes, you did.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Submit plans with catwalk ten foot landward of
marsh.
TRUSTEE KING: Because I met with you out there.
MR. COSTEllO: You AND Mr. Hamilton met with me. We staked it but
instead of what was recommended by yourself and Mr. Hamilton, the
Board met in a work session and said we should apply and make a
submittal showing the catwalk all the way inland. Yourself and Mr.
Hamilton said you would like to shorten that. So it was up to me
having the proper drawings submitted. That was all.
TRUSTEE KING: John, couldn't you put the rack for the kayak there
Board of Trustees
99
June 20, 2007
on the catwalk? Wouldn't that be easier if it was on the side of
the catwalk?
MR. COSTEllO: It's just getting out where the tide comes up all the
time. That's all. We are trying to get it just inboard of the
tide. It's four posts that will be dug in.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: As opposed to digging into the marsh, attach it
to the side of the catwalk. We have seen multiple times --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Hang it on the pilings of the catwalk.
MR. COSTEllO: Why I would be hesitant to do that is the number of
pilings that we are trying to use in the dock, we are not trying to
use, you know, four-pile dock. It's a four-foot wide. We are just
trying to use the two pilings. We are trying to minimize the
structure. That's all. You are putting a lot on it. There is,
you know, 4x4s and six-inch piling. It's a minimum size.
And, again, the locust post, the only shading or whatever is
going to be --
TRUSTEE KING: I thought it would be more convenient to have the
rack on the side of the catwalk.
MR. COSTEllO: You have to get it through the piling then. You have
to take it off. You have to take the boat off, go back to the ramp
and then run it, and walk it up that way. I mean it's just a
design. Do you see where it's located? What I recommend that it
be located. Just inboard of the ramp way. So you are right
there. You walk it up the ramp.
We tried to, design wise, minimize the structure. That's all.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What was suggested, as I recall, was people who
walked through the marsh to get to the catwalk.
TRUSTEE KING: Bob, I think the argument, this would do less damage
than putting in a catwalk.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I disagreed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I disagreed with it also.
TRUSTEE KING: Is this going to be decked over catwalk or open
grate?
MR. COSTEllO: It's going to be open. Well, it's going to have two
timbers. There is a cross-section of it. It's just two timbers on
four locust posts. It's open.
TRUSTEE KING: You are showing two-inch decking.
MR. COSTEllO: It's going to be five quarter. It will be
untreated.
TRUSTEE KING: I thought we talked about open grated. I don't know
why I'm losing it here. It must be the hour.
MR. COSTEllO: It was mentioned and I believe I talked the Board out
of it. You wanted all untreated material, as much as possible.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: (Perusing.) We have never permitted mowing of
the marsh. I don't see how it improves anything when you walk
across something to begin with. And I would rather see the kayak
Board of Trustees
100
June 20, 2007
rack somehow how implemented on the catwalk because we have seen
many, multiple times, seen them and it would eliminate having to
disturb any of the marsh area. That's my feeling.
MR. COSTEllO: I intend to minimize it. We are not going jet it
in. We are going to dig it in.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: When you have an option of something that has
been done, we have seen it, it's not in the marsh.
MR. COSTEllO: You have to walk over it. But if I can't get the
permit. I'm trying to minimize it and trying to minimize the
structure.
You are right, Peg, I agree with you. I have an approval from
the DEC as recently as a couple of weeks ago for 475 foot, four
foot wide catwalk over the wetland so you don't walk through it.
But that's neither here nor there. It's an approval. They gave it
to us.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I know what you are saying.
MR. COSTEllO: But if you want, we'll try it. If it doesn't work,
we'll be back. You know.
MR. MCGREEVY: Did the DEC knock the catwalk going over the
marshland
MR. COSTEllO: Well, it was advised it would have less impact by
walking and mowing it than by adding a bunch of structure to it.
MR. MCGREEVY: What you just said contradicted --
MR. COSTEllO: It's different people in the DEC. It's not a
regulation. But that's okay. It's different applications. I have
been denied because a dock doesn't have four foot of water and
gotten approval last week of one in 2.6 feet of water.
MR. MCGREEVY: So that's the stumbling block with the DEC.
MR. COSTEllO: It's not a stumbling block. The owner is agreeing to
build a minimum structure. If it doesn't work we'll have to come
back and go back to both agencies.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would rather see the catwalk go all the way.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: At this point that's not what the application is
for.
MR. COSTEllO: I'm afraid the DEC will deny it. The other thing is
I asked the last meeting, at that, asked -- forget the catwalk, the
entire catwalk, for the Trustees, but I'll have to go to the DEC,
which is less than what this approves but it allows me to go to the
DEC and say, how about it.
You know, I can't -- but it is less structure, so it has less
impact.
MR. MCGREEVY: Jim, on this original, I would not say the original,
but I did the inspection a while back on this property and I spoke
with the owner. Now, the CAC thought it would be less of an
environmental impact by having that straight run of the catwalk
going out over the marshland and in speaking to the owner at the
Board of Trustees
101
June 20, 2007
time, he was all for it. Even though it was additional expense, he
was all for that instead of walking through the marsh. And the CAC
thought that would be the best way to go.
TRUSTEE KING: Right now that's history.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Now we have a different application in front of
us.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You could close the hearing and think it over,
Peg.
TRUSTEE KING: We have to move on. We'll close the hearing.
MR. COSTEllO: If you want, I'll read a brief letter from the DEC
into the record, if you don't mind.
TRUSTEE KING: Go ahead.
MR. COSTEllO: Department technical staff has reviewed the above
reference application for a tidal wetland permit to install a
catwalk, ramp, float and piling, and has the following comment.
The project is not approvable as proposed as it bisects the large
high marsh area. The department will approve a catwalk ramping up
beginning at the landward edge of the intertidal marsh and
proceeding over the intertidal marsh to a ramp and float as
proposed. To access the dock we will authorize a 4x55 foot mowed
foot path in the same location as the portion of the catwalk that
will be eliminated. We have enclosed a copy of the site plan
indicating what will be approved.
I mean, but that is an office that is Darlene Jipino (sic) who
is in the office. Not the technical staff. That's why the drawing
was resubmitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Seeing what he said, I would be inclined to approve
that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we close the hearing, reserve decision
and maybe get a copy of that letter and talk to the DEC about it
and tell them our concerns over it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's a terrible precedent, to mow.
MR. COSTEllO: Can I make a suggestion before you close the
hearing. We won't mow the marsh. Approve what the DEC will
approve, and we won't go mowing marsh but we'll walk through that
55 foot area instead of the 195 foot area. At least, then we can
try to get, persuade the DEC to go that way.
MR. MCGREEVY: Using that other example you gave as the precedent.
MR. COSTEllO: At least I have a portion that is built and usable
and we can do whatever later. But if we are told no, at least we
have a usable spot for the boat.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So you are talking about amending the permit
application to remove the requested 4x55 foot mowed foot path.
MR. COSTEllO: Just the mowed. The path will be there. That's
where they'll try to minimize walking through the wetland. But we
won't mow it.
Board of Trustees
102
June 20, 2007
MR. MCGREEVY: Would the owner be amenable later to the additional
expense in extending that?
MR. COSTEllO: I believe so. He said at one time, yes.
MR. MCGREEVY: I got had a impression, too.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would be amenable to that with the canoe and
kayak storage rack not being a separate structure, but with them as
suggested, because we have seen them in the field just on PVC pipes
on the side, sitting on PVC pipes.
MR. COSTEllO: I'll relocate the kayak rack on the ramp area so you
don't have to -- so you get it on to the dock.
TRUSTEE KING: What do we do about the inconsistency?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think by changing that saying no mow and moving
the rack.
TRUSTEE KING: All right. I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
I'll make a motion to approve the application of Tom and Julia
Fitzpatrick. Clear and maintain the 4x55 foot path through the
high marsh area leading to a 4x16 foot ramp up to a 4x26 foot fixed
dock section with 32"x20' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6x20 foot
seasonal floating dock secured by two -- can we just make two
eight-inch piles?
MR. COSTEllO: I would rather personally, I need the two pile. Only
because I can't get in there with a barge to put in a very, very
long piling that would stay or they'll be pulled out each year by
the ice.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm fine with it.
TRUSTEE KING: All right, stay with it. (2) two-pile, eight-inch
pilings; construct canoe and kayak storage rack on the sides of the
fixed catwalk. There will be no mowing of the access path in the
marsh.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
MR. COSTEllO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 25, Costello Marine, Costello Marine
Contracting on behalf of VINCENT & EilEEN FLAHERTY requests a
Wetland Permit to remove and replace inlike/inplace existing 42' of
bulkhead, 6x11 foot ramp, 12x14 foot fixed dock, 32"x8' seasonal
aluminum ramp and 6x20 foot seasonal floating dock. located: 177
Inlet Way, Southold.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. COSTEllO: My name is John Costello, we are the agents for the
applicant, Vincent and Eileen Flaherty..
Board of Trustees
103
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE BERGEN: CAC did not make an inspection. Therefore there is
no recommendation from them. It was found inconsistent under the
lWRP, number one, because located in critical environmental area,
that being Cedar Beach Creek; materials to construct a dock include
the use of CCA; and the applicant has not demonstrated the
following standards construction had been met and they listed all
12 standards. So.
We went out and looked at this. And with the dock had a
question regarding, is this a total remove and replace;
specifically are all the pilings going to be taken out and all new
pilings put back in?
MR. COSTEllO: No, we are going to reuse all the existing pilings
that are there in the dock. We'll reframe it. The framing is bad,
but we are going to re-frame it and re-deck it and the pipes that
are on securing the float in position are going to be replaced with
new pipes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The reason I asked is because the unusual size of
the deck out there. If they were, all the pilings were going to be
removed, I would recommend reducing the size of that deck. I would
not make that recommendation with the reuse of these pilings
because it will be do less environmental damage to leave all these
pilings in than it would be to remove all those and shoot new ones
all in. The material for the decking is going to be untreated
lumber?
MR. COSTEllO: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. That will address the lWRP consistency
MR. COSTEllO: And the existing bulkhead, which is basically CCA, is
going to be vinyl.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. You are ahead of me. That was my next
question.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In other words it's not inlike replacement. It's
inkind replacement using vinyl. The ramp currently was aluminum, I
believe.
MR. COSTEllO: Yes, they have the ramp on site now.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The ramp was off to the side there. They'll just
replace that with the exact same?
MR. COSTEllO: No, they'll re-use the same ramp.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Great. Is there anybody else who would like to
comment on this application?
(No response.)
Any comments from the Board on this application?
(No response.)
If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
Board of Trustees
104
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Costello Marine on behalf of Vincent and Eileen Flaherty with the
stipulation being none treated lumber used for the decking
replacement that is being done and that there will be vinyl used in
the bulkheading. In doing so this will mitigate the inconsistency
and bring it into consistency tee with the lWRP.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll combine 26 and 27, since they are actions
immediately next door to each other.
Number 26 is the WICKHAM FAMilY, llC C/O BARNABY WICKHAM
requests a Wetland Permit to construct 105 feet of rock revetment consisting
of 1-1 1/2 ton rock on 25-50 hard course stone foundation and filter cloth base.
located: 5005 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk.
And number 27, PARNEl WICKHAM requests a Wetland Permit to
construct 125 feet of rock revetment consisting of 1-1 1/2 ton rock
on 25-50 pound hard course stone foundation and filter cloth base.
located: 4299 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk. Both of these
applicants being represented by Costello Marine Contracting.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak to either of
these applications?
MR. COSTEllO: Yes, my name is John Costello. We represent both
Wickham applications.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I believe the Board has looked at both of these
a couple of times over the last month or two.
Is there anyone else here who would like to speak for or
against this application?
(No response.)
John, the thing we have been asking for and as the Peconic Estuary
program suggests is plantings between the seaward side of some,
after the rock revetment is put in, put some beach grass
interspersed between some of the rocks just to try to get some
started to hopefully reduce the amount of the removal of sand from
wave action.
MR. COSTEllO: We'll that. We do that anyway as part of this
because we had some very good luck with it, American Beach grass.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That was the only suggestion from our field
notes. CAC supports the application with the condition a master
plan is created for the entire area. Both of these applications
are consistent with lWRP.
Jack, did you want to comment on your CAC recommendation?
MR. MCGREEVY: That was a proposal by I think Don Wilder who
inspected that property. I wasn't on this site so that was his
Board of Trustees
105
June 20, 2007
suggestion that a master plan be put together since they were
adjacent properties.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I see, a master plan of the two. Which they
will be, correct, John?
MR. COSTEllO: Yes, it will be consistent and in line. And they
adjoin one other property that already has a small rock revetment.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: John, I needed some clarification because I was
confused when I looked at this property. I understand Parnel
Wickham's property, there are three Wickham properties there
together. You have Parnel's in the middle, then there is one to
the north and one to the south. And I thought this was Parnel's
and the one to the north is being done. But it looks like here
this is Parnel's and one to the south is being done.
MR. COSTEllO: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What about the one to the north that also, the
Wickham's have not said anything about that? Because that one was
eroded even worse than the other two.
MR. COSTEllO: They haven't approach me.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I wanted to clarify that, because I was confused.
I thought it was the Parnel's and the property to the north.
MR. COSTEllO: It joins the south existing rock revetment.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It will join Suter's.
MR. COSTEllO: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve both applications
for rock revetment for the Wickham family, Parnel and Barnaby
Wickham with the stipulation that plantings be put in between the
revetment rocks in both applications.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 28, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf
of DONALD HYMANS requests a Wetland Permit to excavate eight to
nine feet back from face of existing bulkhead, remove existing
tie-rods and T&G bulkhead sheathing; install new C-loc 4500 vinyl
sheathing inplace to replace existing; install new tie rods
inlike/inplace; construct ten feet of new bulkhead extension to
existing west bulkhead return; backfill excavation and regrade
area. located: 1050 Blue Marlin Drive, Southold.
This is exempt from lWRP. And CAC did not make an
inspection. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this
application?
Board of Trustees
106
June 20, 2007
MR. COSTEllO: Again, my name is still John Costello. We are agents
for the applicant. The bulkhead replacement will be exactly the
same position and is going to be vinyl and we are, the only
difference is we are extending the west return an additional ten
feet because it seems to be washing out on that one end.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You have on the plans a set of stairs but it's not
in the description.
MR. COSTEllO: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the width of the stairs proposed?
MR. COSTEllO: It will be less than four feet in width on the
stairway. So they'll be a handrail on one side.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. looking at the picture, in the notes it
says 15 foot non-turf buffer, but it's all, it's got a buffer
already. It's all vegetated, isn't it?
MR. COSTEllO: Yes, it is. It's all vegetated. But when we are
done there, we will be excavating, you know, whatever we excavate
will probably just remain in that same vegetated state.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. So we just want that maintained.
Is there any other comment?
(No response.)
From the Board? (No response.)
Make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Motion to approve Costello Marine Contracting on
behalf of Donald Hymans for a Wetland Permit to excavate eight to
nine foot back from face of existing bulkhead, remove existing tie
rods and T&G bulkhead sheathing; install new C-loc 4500 vinyl
sheathing in place to replace existing; install new tie rods
inlike/inplace; construct ten foot of new bulkhead extension to
existing west bulkhead return; backfill excavation and regrade
area; also set of stairs that will be less than four feet in width
and the area disturbed will be replanted and a 15-foot non-turf
buffer will be maintained.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
MR. COSTEllO: There is stairs on the existing bulkhead. It will be
the same steps.
MS. STANDISH: Can you give us a new plan showing the buffer so we
could stamp it?
MR. COSTEllO: Anything we disturb we'll replant with beach grass,
probably. But the photograph shows it's, one end of it is --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It shows the area of excavation that says eight to
nine feet, and we want 15. If you could just draw ON the plans a
Board of Trustees
107
June 20, 2007
15-foot buffer and get that back to us.
MR. COSTELLO: It will probably be about a 12-foot buffer but we
will be backing sand and fill on the edge of the vegetation and
we'll revegetate it. There is no lawn.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We just want that drawn on the plan. As soon as
we get that in, we'll stamp that. Just so it's on there. Thank
you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number 29, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of
JILL & CAROL RIDINI requests a Wetland Permit to construct 155 foot
of new bulkhead immediately in front of existing; remove existing
stairway to beach, repair as needed, and reinstall after new
bulkhead construction is completed; construct 10.10.25 foot
extension to existing wooden deck; remove existing wing retaining
wall and construct 43 feet of new eight foot high retaining wall
and 150 feet of new five foot high retaining wall; revegetate areas
behind walls with Cape American Beachgrass planted 12 inches on
center; repair existing stairway up bank as needed, inplace;
install concrete catch basin at top of bank on southwest corner of
property; construct a 3x104 foot fixed dock with stairways to
beach; and install two ten-inch diameter mooring pilings. located:
805 West Road, Cutchogue.
Is there anybody here to comment on this application?
MR. COSTEllO: My name is John Costello, we are the agents for Jill
and Carol Ridini on this application.
TRUSTEE KING: CAC supports the application to construct new
bulkhead stairs and deck and retaining wall. It did not support the
application to construct 3x1 04 foot fixed dock with stairways to
beach and install two ten-inch diameter mooring piles.
lWRP found this inconsistent. The proposed dock is located in
Cutchogue Harbor which is in the New York State Designated
Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Quite a bit of -- 2004
aerial shows within the Cutchogue Harbor Significant Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Area, seven of the 57 waterfront parcels, 12%
contain docks. See attached aerial. I'll just read some of this.
Proposed action is for private recreational use and will not
support a pattern of development that enhances community character
nor preserves public open space. Additionally, the applicant does
not propose sufficient mitigative design and construction best
management practices that will minimize adverse effect of the
action on the environment. Scenic viewshed of use of public water
or lands to the greatest extent possible. The use of the dock must
be identified, installation of the proposed dock introduce boat
traffic in areas of shallow water depths which could lead to the
following negative impacts, impacts to submerged aquatic
vegetation, contamination of field discharge, suspension of bottom
Board of Trustees
108
June 20, 2007
sediments and turbidity, physical loss of marine habitat. The
proposed action will result in a physical loss of ecological
components. Maybe we should talk about the bulkhead first.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: John, this application had a retaining wall
bulkhead so to speak in the middle of the bluff.
MR. COSTEllO: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a very well vegetated bluff and the Board
looked at that and wondered what is the need for this, because it
looks like it's very heavily vegetated, there are no erosion issues
there, and we didn't see, we questioned the need for this
additional structure and this additional secondary bulkhead.
MR. COSTEllO: Well, they just wanted to terrace it because by
terracing it, you can actually utilize the area better if it's
terraced. As you could see, the vegetation on this bluff, it is
not eroded. The only spots it's eroded is through the collapse of
the main lower bulkhead. But, if you do terrace it, it certainly
gives you more utilization of the property. That's all.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because there is a wall up on top of the bluff, as
I recall.
MR. COSTEllO: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So there is a wall there that acts as a retaining
wall, then you have the bulkhead.
MR. COSTEllO: They wanted to replace the upper one, basically.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll just say, while Jim is looking over that,
that I have no problem with the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KING: This sheathing is going in front of the bulkhead,
John?
MR. COSTEllO: Yes, we'll take the piling off and put the sheathing
and it will be elevated by two inches. That's all. And we are
going to use vinyl for the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would not be inclined to approve a dock in
this area. The lWRP has many reasons listed but, the pristine
shoreline in this area, the wildlife habitat.
MR. COSTEllO: It's not pristine because there is a dock right next
door.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There are two docks there, and we have come a
long way and changes are being made.
MR. COSTEllO: But it's not pristine.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If you look to the east it is. Anyway, so the
bulkhead is something I have no problem with and would have no
problem approving. But the dock and mooring pilings, I would.
MR. COSTEllO: If I could show you one thing. I can't give you this
because it's the only copy that I have. But there was a dock on
this site. It was three foot. It was a duplicate of the
neighboring dock. It was three foot by 104 feet. It is not there
now.
Board of Trustees
109
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And that was 1967.
MR. COSTEllO: It was. The good old days. But it was, and it's a
duplicate and he said, you know, I would like to have a dock. And
we also told him that it was going to be, how easy it was going to
be to get it. But there was one there on that property.
TRUSTEE KING: It's history.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to comment on the dock. With all due
respect to Mr. Terry, who did the lWRP evaluation, that's one
person, and his opinion of how the lWRP matches this site. I also
went out and looked at that and I agree there are two docks there,
already, immediately to the south. This dock does not extend out
beyond either of those docks, so it is not a hazard to navigation.
This dock includes the use of steps so that the public would be
able to continue along the beach. This dock is, there is no eel
grass, there will not be in harm, in my opinion, to the marine
environment out there. It's not going to be a hazard to navigation
because it doesn't stick out as far as the other docks. And there
is a history of docks in this area. From myself self, personally,
I think that this dock is okay, as long as we are using non-treated
lumber and using best management practices in installing the dock.
So that's my opinion on this dock.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I want to comment on that because it's something
that has come up many times before and we say it with houses and we
say it with docks, that because there is a dock there, the next
person should get a dock, and then the next person down this
pristine beach says well there is a dock to my right and now I
deserve a dock. And what ends up happening is it's a domino
effect. And a pristine beach that had two docks from the 1960s
when we didn't know as much as we do now, now as migrated to the
extent that there are those of us that don't feel that's what we
want in the year 2007. So I don't think that saying because there
are other docks existing that that should justify another dock.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just use that as one of multiple factors that I
discussed there.
MR. COSTEllO: I would like just somebody to come up and tell me the
detriment of docks. Because it does have a growth column. I mean
there are some detriments, and I could name some of them, but
everybody pretends they are a real bad thing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's not so much the individual. It's the
culmination and the cumulative effect. And that's where we are
right now. We are at a point where we can say we feel that it
needs to stop somewhere and someone has to say this is the time.
And it's not the one piling and it's not your past dock or the next
dock. It's the culmination of it that eventually at some point
when do you say no more. And that culmination docks will make a
change.
Board of Trustees
110
June 20, 2007
MR. COSTEllO: I don't want to get into an argument but there used
to be a lot more docks when they had less ways to travel. There
was a lot more boating and that way when you had to bring in ships
and whatnot but, you know, those days are dead. Now there is just
too much money, and people want and people want. That's more of
the problem.
TRUSTEE KING: I agree with Peg. There are few docks here. It's a
pretty open spot. It can't keep going on and just keep building.
MR. COSTEllO: In the meantime I'll see if I could, in the meantime
I think it's more important that the bulkheads get done because
they are rotted. I mean, I hate to see a hurricane or a storm do
damage.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree with that.
TRUSTEE KING: The proposed middle wall, I don't think there is any
need for it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was my point.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we should just concentrate on the replacement
of the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would the applicant be willing to amend this
application to take the dock out of it and the middle retaining
wall and then could come back and reapply as amendments later or,
-- it would have to be a full application for a dock, but what
I'm saying, in order to get some of this through, separate it out.
MR. COSTEllO: I'm a big believer you make applications on anything
at any time. Whether it gets turned down or not. I'm sure. But
personally, I think it's important, the only one that is really
important if a storm or hurricane hits, is the low wall is
important because there are structures there which they certainly
don't want to lose, and I'll just have to speak to the owner but
I'm sure he would do that. But I would like to get an approval of
the lower wall. I don't believe anybody on the Board -- anybody
that saw the site, knows that that needs to be replaced. And I'll
submit the drawing showing such.
MR. MCGREEVY: Jim, can I interject something on the part of the CAC
here. I didn't do the inspection on that property, but I notice
that the CAC has at the bottom of that first paragraph, supporting
the application for the fixed dock. I don't think that was our
intent. See where it says"support."
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then it says they don't support.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim already read it and it says they don't
support the dock.
MR. MCGREEVY: I don't have it on mine. Sorry, I missed the page
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It says support and then not support.
MR. MCGREEVY: I'm missing the big print. I didn't see it. Sorry
about that.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
Board of Trustees
111
June 20, 2007
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Costello Marine on behalf of Jill and Carol Ridini to construct 155
feet of new bulkhead immediately in front of existing, remove
existing stairway to beach, repair as needed and reinstall after
new bulkhead construction is completed. That's all we are
approving tonight.
I'll make a motion to deny without prejudice the dock
construction, the secondary retaining walls --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Wait a minute. If we deny without prejudice can
they come back and put in the same application? I thought we were
just going to separate with his permission, to separate --
TRUSTEE KING: You want to just do the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's it. And just leave it at that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The bulkhead, the stairway to beach. Why would we
not -- I'm trying to remember the.
There is 1 Ox1 0.25 foot extension --
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's needed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It looks like that's just for the dock, so they
can add that on to the dock application. See the shaded area.
TRUSTEE KING: That was to gain access to the dock.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought it was just a deck next to the building,
adjacent to the building that is there.
MR. COSTEllO: It was an extension of the existing deck. That's
all.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. I don't see it as being part of the dock.
MR. COSTEllO: Well, what happened was the original dock was more to
the center of the property. There is an association that owns -- I
know the hearing is closed. There was an association that owns the
property and they moved it away from that property, public
property.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We saw that.
MR. COSTEllO: That's all. That's the only reason for that deck.
don't think it makes any difference whether that deck is there or
not.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, if it doesn't make any difference to the applicant --
MR. COSTEllO: We may be back, but in the meantime.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you want me to reread it. Just to make sure we
are clear?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of Jill and
Carol Ridini request a Wetland Permit to conduct 155 feet of new
bulkhead immediately in front of the existing; remove existing
stairway to beach; repair as needed and reinstall after new
Board of Trustees
112
June 20, 2007
bulkhead is completed.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
MR. COSTEllO: And I'll submit the drawing.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: Why wouldn't you deny the remainder of that
application?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It was withdrawn.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: It was formally withdrawn on the record? I didn't
hear that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We asked him if he wanted to separate it out and
he said yes.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: What does that mean, separate it out. That means
it's still existing. It should be dead. Either you are going to
kill it now, deny it, or else he should withdraw it and reapply.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I thought was going to be done.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we'll reopen the hearing and you can formally
withdraw the application for.
TRUSTEE KING: I make a motion to reopen this hearing on number 29.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: John, do you want to withdraw after the construction
is completed, that following language in there?
MR. COSTEllO: Okay. As the application for the Ridini's I would
like to withdraw the two upper retaining walls and the dock from
that application and the 10x10 deck that is going to be extended,
and only leave the bulkhead, lower bulkhead as this application.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. That sounds right.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Sounds good.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: And I'll make a motion to approve the bulkhead replacement.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: last but not least. Number 30, Costello Marine
Contracting on behalf of SUSAN NORRIS C/O ED SAWICKI requests a
Wetland Permit to remove and replace inkind/inplace 82 feet of
existing bulkhead. located: 2790 New Suffolk Avenue, New Suffolk.
In an effort to expedite this a little bit, the lWRP finds
this to be exempt. The CAC supports the application with the
condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer. The Board was out there.
Board of Trustees
113
June 20, 2007
We all saw it. We agree with the non-turf buffer. The only
question I have here is how are you going to get the equipment in
there and what is going to happen to the vegetation?
MR. COSTEllO: If it's a non-turf buffer, that vegetation is gone
and I have to put a backing system in anyway.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think getting the equipment in there.
MR. COSTEllO: There a grass roadway that goes right up alongside
those trees.
TRUSTEE KING: What are they going to do with the side piece there?
MR. COSTEllO: There is a grass roadway that goes right alongside
those trees. When we visited the site we just drove there. You
drive right up to it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: On the other side of the trees?
MR. COSTEllO: No, this side of it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So all those trees have to come out to do the work?
MR. COSTEllO: Yes. Well, they are pine and they are tired and a
couple of them are a little on the diseased side.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is a note here that says only corner, no need
front buffered already.
MR. COSTELLO: It has a pine tree buffer right now.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are you going to replace?
MR. COSTEllO: I'm sure it will be replaced. I don't know if it's
the same kind of trees but it will be a non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to approve this
application to remove and replace inkind and inplace 82 feet of
existing bulkhead with the stipulation to reestablish a 15-foot
non-turf buffer along the length of the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
MR. COSTEllO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion we close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
RECEIVeD ""~
II. 30 /1#[
~{l?f"''J~,
S~"l:,dd Tv.m Clerk