HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-08/22/2007
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::CCiVED ,~
3:S~~
6:00 PM
o
..~e~
VVednesday,August22,2007
Present were: James King, President
Jill Doherty, Vice President
Peggy Dickerson, Trustee
Dave Bergen, Trustee
Bob Ghosio, Trustee
Kieran Corcoran, Assistant Town Attorney
Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Thursday, September 13, 2007 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: VVednesday, September 19, 2007 at 6:00 PM
VVORKSESSION: 5:30 PM
TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone, welcome to our August
meeting. My name is Jim King. I happen to have the honor of being
the chairman of this Board, for those that don't know me. And for
those who have been here on occasion, that's old news.
I would like to introduce the rest of the folks here. To my
far left is Dave Bergen, Trustee Bergen; to his right is Peggy
Dickerson; next to me, to my left, Jill Doherty, she is the
vice-chair; myself; Lauren Standish is our office manager; Bob
Ghosio is another trustee and Assistant Town Attorney Kieran
Corcoran is our counsel tonight. VVayne Galante, our reporter, down
Board of Trustees
2
August 22, 2007
here, keeps track of everything everybody says. If you have any
comment to make, please come up to the mic and identify yourself so
he could get everything on the record.
We have with us a new member of the CAC sitting in tonight
along with Don Wilder, a regular member. The CAC is the
Conservation Advisory Council. They go out and do a lot of the same
site inspections we do and they give us their input and suggestions
on determinations that are made environmentally.
With that, I guess we'll get going. There are a number of
postponements. We don't want to have anybody sitting here tonight
thinking something is going to come up and it's been postponed.
On page three, number seven, the application of DEBRA
LACHANCE, has been postponed.
Page four, number 16, the application of PETER & ALETRA
TAGlOS, JR., has been postponed.
Number 17, the application of MARIA KATSIGEORGIS, has been
postponed.
Under Coastal Erosion and Wetland Permits, number two, the
application of MISSY DIACK, has been postponed.
Number ten, the application of DEBRA LACHANCE, has been
postponed.
Number 20, the application of JIM & EILEEN KASSCHAU, has been
postponed.
Number 3D, the application of ROSE L. MILAZZO REVOCABLE TRUST,
has been postponed.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim, 21 on page seven, the "postponed" word went
on page eight.
TRUSTEE KING: Number 21, the application of JOHN INGRILLI, has been
postponed.
Number 31, the application of CARRIAGE HILL ASSOCIATES, has
been postponed.
32, the application of JOHN FRANKIS, is postponed.
34, the application of NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC, has
been postponed.
And number 33, the application of HENRY H. TRAENDL Y & BARBARA
CADWALLADER, has been postponed.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Could I ask why number two is postponed?
Did I fail to do something?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Two on what page?
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): On page six. Wetlands.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, that was not.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was number two on page five is postponed.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Sorry.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll postpone it if you want.
Let's do the next field inspection, September 12, eight
Board of Trustees
3
August 22, 2007
o'clock in the morning.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim, that's four days after school starts.
would rather not be out four days after school starts, and we do
have the 13th open. Dave is not sure about his schedule so, I
don't know. I would like to put in a request to do it on the 13th,
but.
TRUSTEE KING: Doesn't matter to me.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If it's a school holiday for us, I have no problem
with the 13th. If it's not a school holiday, I would have a
problem, I would only be able to be with you part of the day.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would be able to be there the whole day.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's fine. I can be with you as much as I can
that day if it's not a school holiday. That way it meets Peggy's
schedule. That's fine.
TRUSTEE KING: That's Thursday the 13th.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll have to play it by ear also because the kids
are off that day. So I'll see what I can do.
TRUSTEE KING: This is one of the benefits of being unemployed. I
can do any day. It doesn't make a difference.
TRUSTEE DiCKERSON: Sorry to throw a monkey wrench into it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hopefully it's a day off for me.
TRUSTEE KING: Next regular meeting, Wednesday the 19th at six
o'clock. Work session at 5:30.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That, I cannot make. I notified everybody about a
week ago that I'm out of town on the 19th and 20th. It can't be
changed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The problem with both, now we are falling into the
holiday. It's better we keep it with the 19th.
TRUSTEE KING: Stay with the 19th.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's fine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We tried to switch it around.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any motions on that?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the inspection day
for Thursday the 13th, and set the public hearing work session for
5:30. Public hearing for six o'clock on September 19.
is there a second?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody read the April minutes?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I read them. I submitted a couple of, I think
it was one minor change to Lauren to let Wayne know about.
TRUSTEE KING: I found one typo on page two.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I read them, I didn't have a problem with them.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to make a motion to approve the minutes
of April 18.
Board of Trustees
4
August 22, 2007
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
J. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE KING: The Trustees Monthly report for July 2007. A check
for $7,788.56 was forwarded to the Supervisor's office for the
general fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE KING: Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's
bulletin board for review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE KING: We have a number of state environmental quality
reviews.
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold
hereby finds that the following applications more fully described
in Section VII, public hearings section, of the Trustee agenda
dated Wednesday, August 22,2007, are classified as Type II actions
pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations and are not subject to
further review under SEQRA.
PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR., & SUSAN DANOWSKI-SCTM#138-1-14.1
BUD HOLMAN-SCTM#123-7-8
DAVID M. WIRTZ-SCTM#37-4-13
MICHAEL JUDGE-SCTM#83-2-11.14
ROBERT G. BOMBARA- SCTM#54-4-19
RONALD STRITZLER-SCTM#94-1-14
JOAN YORK-SCTM#123-5-29
MICHAEL & DENISE CHUISANO-SCTM#15-3-17
JOSEPH & NORA FLOTTERON-SCTM#118-2-14.1
MISSY DIACK-SCTM#58-2-11
JENNIFER B. GOULD-SCTM#31-13-3
WICKHAM BUNGALOW EAST, LLC-SCTM#110-8-32.1
PAULA DIDONATO & JUDY TEEVAN-SCTM#56-5-26
GEORGE & NANCY ROSENFELD-SCTM#88-5-35
PHILIP G. MILOT-SCTM#123-5-26
DEBRA LACHANCE-SCTM#52-2-26
LEO & VIRGINIA ALESSI-SCTM#92-1-3
PECONIC LANDING AT SOUTHOLD, INC.-SCTM#35-1-25
AL SAFER-SCTM#98-5-2
AL STRAZZA-SCTM#117 -1-16
Board of Trustees
5
August 22, 2007
ROBERT LEHNERT-SCTM#111-13-1
ROBERT LEHNERT-PECONIC BAY BLVD., CUTCHOGUE
STEVE & LINDA FIGARI-SCTM#117-6-33
JIM & EILEEN KASSCHAU-SCTM#118-1-1.2
JAN JUNGBLUT-SCTM#70-6-20
JILL & CAROL RIDINI-SCTM#110-7-4
LAURA A. WEIL-SCTM#26-1-20.1
PAT VARDARO-SCTM#35-5-22
MICHAEL BUNKER-SCTM#70-5-46
TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a motion?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: We'll get into our resolutions and administrative
permits.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll do number one.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, what we try and do, we really have a lot more
work to do than we have had in the past. We are trying to get a
little more efficient on running these meetings so everyone is not
here until 12:00 or 1 :00 in the morning.
So what we are doing is, on a lot of these resolutions and
administrative permits, most of them are pretty simple. If there
is a complete agreement on them and there is not a problem, we kind
of lump them all together and approve them all at once. Any1hing
that there are questions about, we set aside and vote on it.
That's the process of what we are doing. That's what we were
talking about before. Do you want to do one, Peg?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. JOSEPH & SHERRI MELCHIONE requests an
Administrative Permit to remove dead shrubs, dead oak tree, and
replace with native plants, prune existing plantings and to replace
the shingles, siding and insulation on the existing dwelling and
replace the garage door. Located: 3575 Wells Road, Peconic.
I don't know if anyone is here this evening. I went down and
did an inspection. He's doing a lot of removal of dead shrubs,
trees, pruning, et cetera. I just wanted to make sure that I'm
looking at a planting plan he's got here now. Most of it is
removal. A lot of it is removal landward of the dwelling.
I would like to approve this with a request for some tree
replacement because he's removing quite a few of the older cedars.
This was also in the same area that we have already given a
Board of Trustees
6
August 22, 2007
permit. It's a recently purchased home and in a past permit there
was a stipulation of a ten-foot buffer, and I just want to make
sure that when this permit is, when this resolution is given and
the permit is given, that we have a replacement of the same number
of trees and also that the ten-foot buffer is maintained behind the
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What kind of trees do you want, and how many?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's a small cluster of dead trees. I'll say I
want a minimum of half dozen native cedars. There is nobody here
to mention this to.
So I'll approve this with replanting of native cedar trees and
ten-foot buffer along that bulkhead which, again, is already on a
previous permit but I want to make sure that it's done.
So I'll make a motion to approve the Administrative Permit to
remove shrubs and pruning with the stipulation that removed plants
or removed cedars be replaced, half dozen of those, and also the
ten-foot buffer is maintained behind the existing bulkhead for
Joseph and Sherri Melchione.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We'll jump, so you can follow us here, to number
four, Claus Hertel, then we'll come back to numbers two and three.
Number four, CLAUS HERTEL requests an Administrative Permit to
replant area of cleared land in a non-disturbance buffer and a
One-Year Extension to Permit #6211, as issued on September 21,
2005. Located: 305 Cedar Point Drive, Southold.
We went out and looked at this. There had been a violation
issued for clearing, and that has been taken care of in court. So
what he's looking for is an Administrative Permit to re-plant the
cleared land, which we thought was fine. And he has indicated the
cedar, bayberry, will be used, and it's shown on the survey
depicted where those are, and that's fine.
Now, is Mr. Hertel here tonight?
MR. HERTEL: I'm here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We also wanted, as per the -- now, this gets into
the transfer of the permit or, excuse me, the extension, one-year
extension of the permit. The permit itself was for building a
dwelling arid putting in a fence, and a split rail fence installed
landward side of the 50-foot buffer. So, by extending this we are
assuming this is so you can build the house and put in the fence
and do the work as depicted on the permit that was issued on
September 21, 2005.
Board of Trustees
7
August 22, 2007
MR. HERTEL: Let me explain a little bit about the genesis of the
permits. I purchased the land because I own the house next to that
lot and I own the other lot next to my house. I purchased the land
because the developer who purchased the property wanted to build a
big house there, so I wanted to preserve the integrity of the
land.
At this point, I have no intention to build but maybe in the
future, two years, five years, I don't know at this point, I may
want to build a cottage there. That's the only reason I'm
requesting an extension of permits.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are saying you don't want to build your house
in the next year?
MR. HERTEL: I may.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's why you want the extension of the permit,
because you want the opportunity to build a house next year. So
included in that is the split rail fence to be installed. That's
in permit #6211.
MR. HERTEL: Oh, there was?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MR. HERTEL: Only assuming the house is built, correct?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's all part of the same permit.
TRUSTEE KING: Not really. The fence request is put in for that
piece of property and the other two pieces of property also.
Building permits were applied for. And one of the conditions were
to delineate that buffer zone with a split rail fence so there is
no mistaking where clearing can and can't take place.
In your situation, clearing took place in the buffer zone. If
the fence had been there, it would not have happened. Our feeling
is let's get the fence in place, get the line delineated, end of
problem.
MR. HERTEL: My intention is really to build, to put a fence at the
edged of the property by the road. And the reason I want to, I
don't want to have the fence is because I want to plant cedars
there basically to delineate the non-clearing or non-disturbance
zone from the rest of the property. Because as I mentioned, I own
the other two properties and I don't want a fence to run through
the middle of one of the pieces of land that I own. It kind of
ruins the integrity of the whole --
TRUSTEE KING: The whole idea was to delineate that non-disturbance
area.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can he request an amendment to use cedar trees
instead of a fence and inspect it afterwards?
MR. HERTEL: That would be my fence.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a problem with that. If you would
rather plant a row of cedar trees along that line, the same line
the fence is going to be on --
Board of Trustees
8
August 22, 2007
MR. HERTEL: I would prefer to do that.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a huge problem with that concept.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you want to step up for a second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the cedar trees are maintained.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we are talking about is along this line you
have delineated with number one to represent the vegetation, which
are cedars, that you'll just continue that with cedars all along
that line.
MR. HERTEL: There will be cedars here and cedars here as well
(indicating.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What Mr. Hertel depicted is on his survey, is
already listed, there are already present notations there will be
cedar trees there. And what I just went over with him is there will
be a cedar tree line, heavily vegetated cedar tree line that acts
the same as a fence.
TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we just say it can be either a split rail
fence or line of cedar trees delineating the buffer zone.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What will you have for spacing between the trees?
TRUSTEE KING: Enough for a deer to go through?
MR. HERTEL: Enough for a rabbit to go through.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 2'6".
MR. HERTEL: They'll grow in time.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Cedar trees grow rather thick, so if they are 15
feet apart, you are talking seven-and-a-half feet on either side to
grow. Over the years they'll grow in. So I have no problem with
every 15 feet
MR. HERTEL: That's pretty much what I'm thinking, between ten and
15 feet. Why don't we say 12-and-a-half feet.
TRUSTEE KING: 15 is fine.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let's go with every 15 feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And they are to be maintained, so if they die off,
they'll be replanted right away.
MR. HERTEL: Yes, it will be done in the next two to three weeks.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to put a time when they should be planted
and in place? And we can go out and look. 60 days, 90 days?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What are you comfortable with?
MR. HERTEL: I'm happy with 60 days.
TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we do that.
TRUSTEE KING: The main reason, the main thing we want to see is the
buffer zone.
MR. HERTEL: I'm all for maintaining the integrity of the whole
area.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, what I would like to do for this, number
four, Mr. Hertel, is to grant the One-Year Extension to permit
#6211 and to approve an Administrative Permit to replant the
disturbed area as depicted on the survey that was submitted on July
Board of Trustees
9
August 22, 2007
31,2007. And we will include on that non-disturbance line where
he currently has item number one listed, for cedar trees and cedar
trees well be planted long that line every 15 feet and we'll be out
to inspect the area in 60 days to make sure the work done.
MR. HERTEL: Sure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I make that a motion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you
MR. HERTEL: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: So the rest of the items, that would be number two,
the application of the SOUTHOLD PARK DISTRICT;
number three, the application of ANNE SOWINSKI;
number five, the application of WALTER WILM;
number six, the application of LILLIAN BALL;
number eight, the application of CHARLOTTE DICKERSON;
and number nine, the application of INA HASDAY, I'll make a motion
to approve those as it's written.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
SOUTH OLD PARK DISTRICT requests an Administrative Permit to replace the
existing post and rail fence and chain link fence with new stone columns with chain
fence in same place. Located: 40 Town Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM#64-1-1 0.1
ANNE SOWINSKI requests an Administrative Permit to abandon the existing
existing dwelling. Located: 825 West Lake Dr., Southold. SCTM#90-1-26.1
WALTER WILM requests an Administrative Permit to replace 198'+/- of 60" high
stockade fence along north property line with the same or similar type fencing.
Located: 4605 Stillwater Ave., Cutchogue. SCTM#137-3-5
LILLIAN BALL requests an Administrative Permit to install three (3) solar collectors
for solar thermal on side of garage. Located: 2045 Lake Dr., Southold. SCTM#59-
5-4
Allan Dickerson on behalf of CHARLOTTE DICKERSON requests an
Administrative Permit to demolish the existing storage shed and rebuild beyond
100' from the top of the bluff. Located: 4630 Blue Horizon Bluffs, Peconic.
SCTM#74-1-35.51
Robert Stromski on behalf of INA HASDAY requests an Administrative Permit for
roof replacement and interior alterations to the existing dwelling, upgrade the
Board of Trustees
10
August 22, 2007
sanitary system, and install a drywell for stormwater management. Located: 100
McDonald Crossing, Laurel. SCTM#145-4-15
v. RESOLUTIONS-MOORING/STAKE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: We have two mooring permit requests.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number one, JOSEPH GROHOSKI requests an
Onshore/Offshore Stake in West Creek for a 12-foot boat.
West Creek is a creek we don't allow anymore moorings or
stakes. Mr. Grohoski had a stake there for 50 years. He still has
it, still uses it. He's 87 -years old and recently we had sent the
bay constable out to get rid of all the illegal boats that have
been just plopped in the marsh and everything and we discussed it
and we said that Mr. Grohoski can have this stake for a 12-foot
boat. So I make a motion --
TRUSTEE KI NG: What about are we going to move it closer to the
public land or leave it the way it is? I think there was some talk
about moving it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. I didn't see that. I'll make a motion to
approve an Onshore/Offshore stake for Joseph Grohoski in West Creek
at the public boat ramp to be, the stake to be moved over there,
and this permit will not be transferable. So, in other words, when
he's done with the stake, it becomes void.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Number two, MICHAEL MARSCHEAN requests a Mooring
Permit in West Creek for a 34-foot sailboat.
Are there any questions on number two?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have number two. This is a sailboat that sits at
the edge of the channel there. Mr. Marschean owns the property the
little dock is on and so I had suggested to him to apply for a
mooring permit. He has. We looked into it and according to chapter
9622, a boat cannot be moored there because it is within a channel,
right on the edge of the channel.
So I make a motion to deny this application for Michael
Marschean for a mooring permit in West Creek in the Kimogener Point
area.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I go back on that?
Board of Trustees
11
August 22, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You have to make a motion to reopen.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not a public hearing so, I rescind the
previous motion I just did and I'll make a new motion to deny the
application for Michael Marschean for a mooring in West Creek for a
34-foot sailboat and that the boat be removed within ten days,
because the boat is there now and it should be removed and give him
ten days to remove it. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is that more of a code enforcement issue? Is that
something he should be issued a violation rather than that being
part of a resolution for a mooring request?
MR. CORCORAN: Yes, I think once you make -- you could make a
motion as a Board requesting enforcement action on this. And you
can all decide that you are, together, and vote, that you are going
to send a letter demanding compliance within ten days, if you want
to do that. I think you should probably separate the two. Since
you have not rescinded, there is no motion to rescind your first
motion, leave that in tact and you should all decide what course
you want take in enforcement.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The boat has been there for a couple of years and
he's agreed to move it. But as we experienced with that other
sailboat on the beach, today is the day, since May. So I don't
want this to be there until, you know. I want to give a time limit
where he must remove this boat. He's willing, he said he was going
to get it out of there right away.
TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we just send him a letter saying he has ten
days or two weeks to move it out of the channel.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If that's a better way to do it, that's fine.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Leave the motion in place. We already denied.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lauren can add that sentence to the resolution
letter?
MR. CORCORAN: No, you just all agree upon it. You don't have to
make a formal motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, thank you.
VI. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS:
TRUSTEE KING: Correct me if I'm wrong, on applications for
amendments extensions and transfers, we'll do one, four, five, six,
seven, ten, eleven, twelve and fifteen. We'll approve those all in
one shot because there was nothing there that was --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there somebody who would like to speak against
one of these applications?
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): I would like information about number seven.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could step up to the microphone and
Board of Trustees
12
August 22, 2007
introduce yourself.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll take seven out. Just hang on for a second.
We'll approve:
Number one, JOSEPH & GRACE FINORA;
number four, HUGH SWITZER;
number five, RALPH PANELLA;
number six, STEVE & LINDA FIGARI:
Number ten, JOSEPH GElS;
number eleven, BART & PAT JOHNSON;
number twelve, STEVEN & ANDREA KOL YER;
number fifteen, JAMI FRIEDMAN.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make that motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Now we can go back to number two. PETER DROUZAS
requests an Amendment to Permit #6386 to include 800 cubic yards of
dirt along the front of the property. Located: 54120 County Road
48, Southold.
I know there was some questions from a neighbor the last
meeting we had that if the property is filled there will be runoff
problems.
Is there anybody here on this application?
(No response.)
We asked Mr. Drouzas to stake out the elevations. To me it was not
really clear what was what. I know most of the fill will be out of
our jurisdiction. I wish there was somebody here to go over some
of the details with us. It's the one area where that one stone
wall comes down and the rest in the corner.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I see the file? (Perusing.) And the stone wall
is in our jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE KING: Right. This is the area they had staked out. They
had those rebars, the little red flag, green flag. I don't know
which was which. I would almost prefer to table this and have
these people meet us there and show us exactly what is going on.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would suggest we have someone from the Building
Department be at that inspection as well. Because the whole reason
I understand they have to bring this much fill in is you have to
have a certain percentage of the basement covered so it's not
counted as a first floor. In other words, it will be first floor,
second floor, third floor. If they bring the fill in, that would
be a basement.
TRUSTEE KING: We questioned it and I never got a chance -- I forgot
all about asking them -- about what the minimum first floor
elevation is. They have first floor elevation at 14 feet. I don't
Board of Trustees
13
August 22, 2007
know what the flood zone is here, what the requirements are.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We'll meet with the Building Department. That
was a great idea.
TRUSTEE KING: I think there is too many unanswered questions here
to go ahead now.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Absolutely.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to table this to next month.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Number Three, AL STRAZZA requests an Amendment to
Permit #5132 to add 2'x6" cross bracings to the front and sides of
the existing pilings. Located: 1180 Grathwohl Road, New Suffolk.
This was a dock that had some ice damage in the storm that we
had, I think it was in February. I forget now. What it did was
lifted and actually sheared the end of the dock partially off. So
he's requesting to put some cross bracing in to strengthen it.
My feeling is it should just be the last, the seaward bay, in
other words the end of the dock can be cross braced and the last
bay going out can be cross braced. But I think it's unnecessary to
put all the cross bracing on the inshore part of it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree.
TRUSTEE KING: Comments?
MR. STRAZZA: AI Strazza. I gave you pictures with the permit
showing why that won't work. Just like for years I have been
telling you the 4x4s were not going to work. Time has shown that
the 4x4s don't work. First they rose, then they broke.
TRUSTEE KING: This was really an unusual storm event with that
ice. It was tremendous damage in other places, not just you. And
if you look at pictures it's only the last bay that took the brunt
of it. If that was cross braced, I don't think that would happen
MR. STRAZZA: And if it happens again, what would I do? The dock
builder is beginning to think this is the goose that laid the
golden egg, this dock.
TRUSTEE KING: Personally, I don't think the cross bracing is
necessary as you go landward. The last bay needs it, yes. I would
not even object to a third piling being put in on the seaward end.
We do that in a lot of docks. A lot of docks are two-pile bays
until it goes out.
MR. STRAZZA: DEC wouldn't allow it.
TRUSTEE KING: Are they going to allow the cross bracing?
MR. STRAZZA: That would not be a problem. That would almost be
considered normal maintenance to prevent redamage. I'm not going
anywhere in the water. I'm not going to hurt anything.
Now, when I had the six inches in there, nothing happened. As
Board of Trustees
14
August 22, 2007
soon as I took the six inches out and put the four inches, like you
people all agreed --
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think that's necessarily true. It seems to
me, years ago when it was 6x6s, the whole end was up like that like
a rocket launcher.
MR. STRAZZA: That's when it lifted. That's when I made page one of
The Times.
TRUSTEE KING: So that's my recommendation: Last bay to be cross
braced.
MR. STRAZZA: So I'll leave the last bay off and if it breaks again
I'll put the braces in the last bay as well?
TRUSTEE KING: I'm talking about the seaward end.
MR. STRAZZA: I understand.
TRUSTEE KING: Just that last bay is to be cross braced.
MR. STRAZZA: And if it breaks at that point next year or the year
after, at that point --
TRUSTEE KING: Come back.
MR. STRAZZA: Fix it again and come back again.
TRUSTEE KING: Because like I said, that was a very unusual event.
That doesn't happen all the time.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are we on the same page? He's saying go ahead and
cross brace the seaward end.
MR. STRAZZA: Everything but the one that is not in the water. I
had no intention of doing that anyway.
TRUSTEE KING: Just the end one. You have three bays marked off to
be cross braced. We want to only see one. You actually have four.
MR. STRAZZA: That won't work, Jim. Look at the picture. It's not
going to work. And if your town engineer does the calculations
you'll see that won't work either.
TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing).
MR. STRAZZA: You have to brace at least the ones that broke so
there is some --
TRUSTEE KING: So do here, the end and the other side.
MR. STRAZZA: Do you have the pictures, Jim?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. We are looking at them.
MR. STRAZZA: I want to put cross bracings up to where the posts
broke. So if you look at where the posts broke --
TRUSTEE KING: This was just such an unusual event. It froze
uptight and blew about 60 miles-per-hour. And it actually sheared
the dock. It was not because of the ice rising with the tide. It
was the sheering effect.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you agree with that? That it was the sheering
effect of the ice being blown through that broke this. It was not
the ice lifting it up.
MR. STRAZZA: That's not what happened. It broke because the 4x4s
were not strong enough.
Board of Trustees
15
August 22, 2007
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are saying the same thing.
MR. STRAZZA: Not really. I did some engineering calculations.
am a PE, so I know something about this.
TRUSTEE KING: This dock has been very controversial from the getgo.
MR. STRAZZA: You got that right. I was forced to Todd take the
6x6s out and put the 4x4s in. I did that. I don't want to keep
having to repair this.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can I see your pictures just to make sure they are
the same as what we have here.
MR. STRAZZA: I think so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could see your pictures I'll make the
comparisons to see if we are talking about the same pictures.
MR. STRAZZA: (Handing).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's the same as we have, and this is the same.
This one I didn't see. This is the same. So what we are saying is
this section here be crossed.
MR. STRAZZA: I understand.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And you are asking also --
MR. STRAZZA: This one and this one. And if you notice, that one is
broken. I replaced that one.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. I just want to make sure that your pictures
are the same as ours.
MR. STRAZZA: What I'm saying is you need at least one, two, three.
And then it probably won't happen again. Because then they'll hold
each other.
TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing.) If this is supported enough you won't get
the stressing on that either. What happened is the dock broke from
the end inland. It did this. (Indicating.)
MR. STRAZZA: But it broke primarily because of the crushing. The
4x4 basically wasn't strong enough.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think 6x6 would have withstood that ice.
MR. STRAZZA: Maybe. I don't know. If I retained the calculations
I would be able to tell you. Right now I can't.
TRUSTEE KING: Alii know, all the damage I saw from that ice
storm. They had about 15 boats in Mount Sinai Harbor that went en
masse up on to the beach from that storm. Moorings, everything
moved.
MR. STRAZZA: If it happened once there is no reason it ain't going
to happen again. Alii want to do is brace the ones that broke.
If I do that, then each one of them will have support from the
other. And I'll have the stresses moving into the 2x6s and holding
it back. The only problem running there is the rigidity might bust
it.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it's an unnecessary structure to add more.
My motion was for the last bay only to be cross braced.
MR. STRAZZA: You are just telling me to do one section?
Board of Trustees
16
August 22, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: The last bay.
MR. STRAZZA: It's going to break, Jim.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second Jim's motion.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. STRAZZA: What are you telling me you want me to do?
TRUSTEE KING: The last bay, seaward end, can be cross braced.
MR. STRAZZA: If it breaks again, will the town pay the dock builder
this time?
TRUSTEE KING: You can come back and say I told you so.
MR. STRAZZA: I already told you that once before. You didn't
believe me.
All right, doing it this way isn't going to work again.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven, Suffolk Environmental on behalf of
AL SAFER requests an Amendment to Permit #6458 to relocate the pool
to the southwest side of the dwelling, construct associated stone
terracing landward of the pool and remove the previously approved
decking on the landward side of the dwelling.
Located: 1295 Robinson Lane, Peconic.
I would ask if there is somebody here that has some concerns
or wants to speak against this?
MS. POSEL: Nancy Pose I. We are the adjacent property owner to the
west of this property.
One of the owners is also a pool designer and he has done a
blueprint and a letter with some concerns that we have, which we
would like to share with members of the Trustees.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We'll accept it. All letters were to have been
submitted prior to the meeting, but we'll go ahead and take a look
at it.
Just so everyone knows, written material is always required
prior to the meeting. But we'll certainly accept it and consider
it.
MS. POSEL: This is a surnrner situation and we are not farniliar with
all of the procedures that we should be following in this
instance.
We particularly want to draw your attention to the wetlands
pond on our property, which we want to be sure that we can preserve
the health of this pond. The plan that we have received from
Suffolk Environmental shows a pool on the beach side and we are
wondering why this pool was moved from the rear of the house to the
beach side. We don't see any properties on this bay that have
pools on the beach side. And the previous owner had a pool in the
back and we got considerable disturbance from noise, from people
using that pool.
Now, this pool is much closer to our bedrooms and we are very
Board of Trustees
17
August 22, 2007
concerned about the noise. We are concerned about drainage. This
plan does not show any drywells. We don't see any fencing noted
here. Another problem is that we wonder if they anticipate using
this pool at night and if that means lights.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could hold on for a second. I know you said
you are a summer resident. You don't understand the process here.
This is not a public hearing. The public hearing happened with the
original application for the permit for the house. That is when we
took public comments. It was an open hearing and we had a public
hearing. For amendments, as you saw with some of the others, we
don't usually take comments. This is not a public hearing.
What we looked at with this one is does it meet the setbacks
set by Chapter 275, which says pools must be at least 50 feet back
from the wetlands or the bluff. And this pool is setback 50 feet
from the top of the bulkhead. It does have a drywell associated
with it, so it does meet the Town Code as far as locating this pool
here. It's actually farther away from that wetland area that your
survey depicted than it was when it was originally proposed.
So now regarding lighting or sound from the pool, the town
doesn't have a sound ordinance so we don't consider that when we
are considering whether to grant a permit for whether it's a house
or pool or septic system or any of the things we normally give
permits for.
So, again, this is not a public hearing to accept public
comment. I've accepted your letter, I have. And I'm hearing you.
And what I heard in particular what you are interested in, from our
perspective, was the setback, was it far enough to meet 275
guidelines. And it does meet 275 guidelines as far as setbacks
go. It does have a drywell associated with it.
MS. POSEL: That's not on here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking at the survey. There is a drywell on
the survey that will address the runoff. That has to be done by
law. Not only with runoff from the pool but runoff from the
house. That's in the current drainage code the Town Code is
passing, that all property owners are responsible for drainage from
their property. The property owner, the applicant, does know
already through the process they have already gone through already
that they have to take care of that.
MS. POSEN: Thank you, very much.
MR. LOHM: Mr. Bergen, may I try to alleviate her concern about the
sound.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could make it brief.
MR. LOHM: The noisy part of the pool, the filter pump, will also be
located farther from the westerly adjacent property than originally
approved and Mr. Safer does plan to enclose them in a sound proof
enclosure.
Board of Trustees
18
August 22, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: I have one question. Why did they move the pool from
where it was to the new location?
MR. LOHM: Esthetic concerns, I'm presuming. He liked it better.
His architect came up with the idea and they moved it. And again,
like Mr. Bergen said, it does meet all the required setbacks.
MR. CORCORAN: Did this project go before the ZBA?
MR. LOHM: No, it's not required to.
MR. CORCORAN: Did I hear somebody say 50 feet from the bulkhead?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: 50 feet from our boundary is the minimum setback.
That's our minimum setback. It's beyond that.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there a zoning code.
MR. CORCORAN: 75 on all structures, I believe, on the bay. If there is a
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, that's where the 50 foot is measured. Not
from -- on the plan it has 100 feet from the wetland boundary.
What I measured was from the bulkhead. It's 50 feet from the
bulkhead.
MR. LOHM: The original permit was set from high water mark and the
wetland line.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This pool doesn't extend forward of the footprint
from the house deck that we already approved.
TRUSTEE KING: My question was does the zoning have a 75-foot
setback FOR the pool like it does for a house.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That I don't know.
MR. CORCORAN: This Board doesn't need to concern itself with it but
I'll check with the zoning office just to make sure.
MR. LOHM: If he does, I don't believe he does, but when he goes for
the amended permit to construct this, the building department will
most certainly direct him from the ZBA.
MR. CORCORAN: It would be nice to know what we are all doing at the
same time, but we are working on that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there are no other comments, I would like to
make a motion to approve number seven, Suffolk Environmental on
behalf of AI Safer.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We'll do eight and nine together.
Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of JOSEPH MANZI
requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #6213, as issued on
September 21, 2005. Located: 405 Cedar Beach Drive, Southold.
And number nine, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of
ROCKHALL DEVELOPMENT CORP., C/O JOSEPH MANZI requests a One-Year
Extension to Permit #6212 as issued on September 21,2005. Located:
355 Cedar Point Drive, Southold.
Board of Trustees
19
August 22, 2007
The Board looked at these, reviewed these files and again I
believe the only condition would be a split rail fence.
Do we want to --
TRUSTEE KING: I would almost like to do the same thing we did with
the other applicant, make it a split rail fence or a line of cedar
trees 15-foot center.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And give him that choice.
TRUSTEE KING: I think that makes the three properties in uniformity
with each other.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here to comment?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to approve Suffolk Environmental Consulting
to request a One-Year Extension to permit #6213 and also a One-Year
Extension to permit #6212, with the condition that the split rail
fence or a row of Cedars 15-foot on center. With that condition,
do I have a second?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: That's 15 foot on center. Do you want to put a time
limit on that?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Within 60 days.
TRUSTEE KING: He was granted 60 days.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: 60 days.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: 60 days from the time of the extension.
TRUSTEE KING: From the date of the extension.
MR. HERTEL: Those two lots are pretty much jungle. I don't think
it makes sense to plant within 60 days. There is trees there now.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If it's cleared and it's delineated and goes
beyond that.
MR. HERTEL: I think it should be 60 days beyond clearance of the
land.
TRUSTEE KING: We don't want to do that. We are just afraid of, we
have seen this so many times. Quite frankly, I'm really just tired
of seeing it. People coming in, clear down into that, then come
for a re-planting plan. It's a clear violation. Why don't we just
stop it to begin with. Either put a split rail fence along the line
or plant a row of cedar trees along the line. It's his choice.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we do 60 days. If they have a problem
with it, they can come in and we'll give an extension.
MR. HERTEL: 60 days from today? Or, because the deadline is not
clear to me. It's all jungle.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's an extension as of the 21st. 60 days from
September 21.
TRUSTEE KING: When does it expire?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The 21 st. 60 days from September 21.
Board of Trustees
20
August 22, 2007
TRUSTEE BERGEN: When you think about it, you don't want to plant
beyond that anyhow how. You are into the winter season. You want
plant in the Fall.
MR. HERTEL: What I'm saying is those two lots are completely
covered with brush.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We understand what you are saying. What we are
trying to prevent if when they decide to come and clear it, that
line is already delineated.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We want the line there. I'll add to that that
the Cedars be planted within 60 days from September 21, or split
rail fence installed. Do I have a second on that?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are up to number 13.
TRUSTEE KING: Number 13, Patrice Keitt on behalf of PARADISE POINT
ASSOCIATION requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #6209 as issued
on September 21,2005, and amended on July 24,2007. Located: Basin
Road, Southold.
This is a very controversial dock. We have been going around
and around for years with it. It's a simple extension for the
permit that was issued and amended. I'll make a motion to approve
the extension.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(FOUR TRUSTEES IN FAVOR.) (TRUSTEE BERGEN ABSTAINS.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Note for the record that I abstain.
TRUSTEE KING: Let the record reflect Trustee Bergen abstained.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 14, GEORGE & MARINA SEEGER requests a
Transfer of Permit #411 from AI and Olga Brandsema to George and
Marina Seeger, as issued on June 12, 1967. Located: 930 Jockey
Creek Drive, Southold.
Are the applicants here?
(No response.)
I went out and looked at this. What I found when I looked at
the permit itself, what is there now, because the permit was
granted in 1967, and the structure that is there now doesn't match
the description of the permit number 411 dated June 12, 1967. Yet,
what is there now does conform with our -- nothing exceeds our
guidelines under 275. So I make a motion to approve this transfer
with the condition that they come in and obtain an amendment to the
dock and catwalk and small deck to match what is presently there
today.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we put a time limit on that; 60 days?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll be fine with 60 days from today.
Board of Trustees
21
August 22, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: To come in and ask for an amendment?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, so that what is on the permit matches what is
there on the location now.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that your motion?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
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.)
COASTAL EROSION AND WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Number one, under Coastal Erosion and Wetland
Permits. Young & Young on behalf of ROBERT G. BOMBARA requests a
Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a
single-family dwelling, detached garage, pool and associated water
supply and sewage disposal system. Located: 1725 North Sea Drive,
Southold.
There is a little history on this. There was an application
before us before. It was denied under Coastal Erosion. The entire
project is seaward of the coastal erosion line. And it was denied
under Wetlands application also, without prejudice. And they are
coming back now with another application and I think it's going to
be a long review. We'll need a lot of information on this. It's a
very sensitive area. We are going to ask our environmental
technician to do a write up on it and I think we also need to get
some more expert opinion, perhaps, from DEC, somebody in the
coastal engineer, somebody will have to take a look and give us
some guidance on this whole thing, exactly where the beach is.
There is a lot of interpretation here, as to what I could see, in
the description. So we'll start with gathering the information.
Go ahead.
MR. DANOWSKI: My name is Pete Danowski. I'm an attorney
representing Mr. and Mrs. Bombara, who are here this evening. I
will in a few minutes ask that Mr. Bombara be allowed to speak to
just explain the underlying acts that led to his purchase of this
property and his desires.
I would say as well that I have heard and read a few comments
Board of Trustees
22
August 22, 2007
from the immediate neighbors. I certainly respect their opinions
and have had a brief time tonight to chat with a few of them and
perhaps those conversations will lead to some more meaningful
conversations after tonight. And we'll certainly let you know if
that is the end result of those conversations.
I would say, as the president has stated here, there was an
earlier denial without prejudice. An appeal has been filed to the
town board. That appeal has been held in abeyance as we proceed to
the reapplications that we filed before this Board. I recognize
this Board has met out at the site to examine the site. We had the
firm of Young & Young stake the site showing the three alternate
locations we now suggest. We color coded the flag so there is some
attempt to try to have some clarity when you went there. Not that
that was totally successful.
In simplest of terms, we have tried to move the location of
the house back as far as possible and also reduce in size to some
degree the house. We have also an alternate plan number three.
We've taken the pool location and removed it from the area between
the Sound frontage and the home itself and moved it to the eastern
side of the house. These also have recognized, as you have made
conditions in the past or made suggestions, we have agreed with at
least one alternative and we do with all three, to build the house
on poles so the house would not be sitting absolutely on the
surface. We also connected the garage so it's not a separate
building. We also have to be mindful of the Suffolk County Health
Department regulations with regard to location of septic system.
So their location is depicted on the plans, and the house location
is as close to the road as it could be located, on all of the
plans.
Mr. President did say something that's totally accurate.
There has been a lot of comments made about interpretations or
meanings of some of the words both in the Town Code and in the
state legislation that preceded the Town Code.
Certainly it's our position, as we have established it on the
site plans and surveys, that the physiographic change has been
located by Douglas Adams of the firm of Young & Young. He's a
qualified engineer who has located that physiographic change.
By definition, the beach area is defined as a 1 DO-foot
distance from the physiographic change. That is noted on each of
these plans and you'll note varying degrees of distance beyond the
1 DO-foot distance. I think there was also a request made and
certainly it's been on all of the plans that we locate the high and
low tides and clearly, for tidal wetlands purposes or any other
purpose, each of the plans shows a location of the structure to be
well beyond the 1 DO-foot setback distance.
Board of Trustees
23
August 22, 2007
Also, all of the plans comply with zoning regulations as far
as the building envelope and that building envelope has been
depicted on each of the plans. So we think, on behalf of the
Bombara's, we have done everything possible to relocate the house,
to resize the structure, to deal with the structure being placed on
poles and to relocate the possible swimming pool and still be
mindful of the Suffolk County Department of Health Department
regulations.
Having said that, I would also ask to repeat something that
was done by reference the last time, so the record is totally
complete, without having to reiterate all the comments from the
last hearing. That is, I would ask you to incorporate by reference
the total record from the prior hearing. That would include the
prior granting of coastal zone erosion permits for the neighboring
properties along the same stretch of road. I make note of it
because on many of those instances there are comments such as no
tidal wetlands jurisdiction, house is setback beyond 100 feet.
There are comments certainly on the Betsch case that are well taken
and I would note the attorney from Twomey Latham, Ms. Palumbo, who
represented the Betsch people, did an excellent job of presenting
the law on that question. That same law applies to this particular
applicant. The same cases that were found are applicable. The
same positions are applicable, that you may recognize that you have
the ability to regulate this activity but that does not mean that
you are prohibited from granting a permit. Albeit, if you did
that, I think it would be an inverse condemnation taking away my
client's property rights in that regard.
So having said that, I would wait, in a few moments, comments
from the public, with regard to this application. My client only
wishes to be treated as others have been and granted a coastal zone
erosion permit, subject to reasonable conditions. We will
certainly revegetate areas, we'll certainly listen to types of
construction comments and we would like to reach an agreement on
where to locate the building and how to build it.
Having said that, I would ask at this time to be allowed to
bring Mr. Bombara up to make comment about his decision to purchase
this property, if I may.
TRUSTEE KING: Before you do that. Just one comment I would like to
make. The cases you talked about, those were additions, not new
constructions.
MR. DANOWSKI: I certainly understand that, but the same conditions
take place with regard to regulated areas. When we talked about
the Susan Tasker (sic) case which was cited as, often cited, as one
of the earlier decisions in this case, and that was made part of
the brief, I certainly understand the position. But it's our
Board of Trustees
24
August 22, 2007
position once you go beyond the beach area and once you go beyond
that distance, by definition, 100 feet from the physiographic
change, then you are entitled to and we have a right to a building
within that area beyond the hundred feet. That is our position.
MR. CORCORAN: I think that is a point that there is some
clarification. I think that's what Mr. King was speaking to when he
opened this hearing. One thing you stated which is totally correct
is that the beach extends 100 feet from the marked change and
physiographic territory, but the definition goes on to read where
there is no dune or bluff landward of that beach. So this is what
we are concerned about. Does the beach end at that 100 feet or is
there either more beach or dune beyond that 100 feet. I think
that's what the Trustees are grappling with and will want some
expert opinion about.
MR. DANOWSKI: And I have reason to say that I don't blame them for
grappling with it or waiting for some further information from
experts in that regard.
MR. CORCORAN: Because if it's a dune or it's beach, there is
nothing in this law that allows a house to be built from scratch in
that area
MR. DANOWSKI: I think you'll have some debate on that as to
regulated areas and non-regulated areas. The same argument you had
on major and minor with regard to existing structures where you say
well you are building more than 25%. It doesn't prohibit you from
doing that. It just makes you ask for permission because it's
regulated. And I'm suggesting to you, you can build in the area.
But there is no sense two attorneys debating about that tonight
MR. CORCORAN: I disagree, but I'll be happy to talk to you about
it.
MR. DANOWSKI: I'll be happy to talk to you about it as well. If I
could call Mr. Bombara, with your permission.
TRUSTEE KING: Try and keep it brief. We are not going to move on
this tonight. We have a lot of information, so we'll just get a
feel for it and we'll move on.
MR. BOMBARA: Thank you. Good evening. I want to tell you how we
got to this particular point. My wife and I are both near
retirement age. We always spent a lot of time on the North Fork.
We are looking for a place to build and ultimately for a final
retirement home. We entered into a contract which was subject to
being able to build a certain square footage house. The first thing
I did is I called the Town of Southold Building Department and gave
them the block, lot, address, told them exactly where it was. I
told them what my contract read and said if I was able to build on
this lot and I was told yes. If I was told no, we would certainly
not be here today. I'm certainly not a fool to spend the kind of
money that I did to buy a piece of land that you can't do anything
Board of Trustees
25
August 22, 2007
with. So I just want to let you know, this is how we got here and,
to be honest with you, if I was not given that information by the
Town of Southold Building Department, we would not be here
tonight. Thank you.
MR. CORCORAN: For clarification, our Building Department doesn't
and is not authorized to give letters of build ability on property,
to avoid this sort of exactly he said she said debate we often get
post hoc.
MR. DANOWSKI: I think it was part of the record the last time but I
think I have to establish and I'll make the comment rather than
call Mr. Bombara up again. He closed on this property and paid
$1.1 million for this particular parcel. And the other comment
that he might have made last time, I think, as well, that I might
have repeated, is that when he visited the site and looked to the
left and right, there were buildings under construction. Albeit,
they were renovation projects. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak in opposition to this
project?
MS. MURRAY: Hi, I'm Ann Murray, I'm with the Land Use Committee of
the North Fork Environmental Council and I was curious to know why
since the coastal erosion hazard permit was previously denied why
it's being reheard again. Can anybody answer that?
MR. CORCORAN: There is a new proposal and a new plan and every
application deserves to be heard.
MS. MURRAY: Okay, because it kind of defies logic for me to
consider it again if it's already been denied under that.
In any case, I think granting this, which it appears you are
not going to do tonight, it would be inconsistent with the LWRP,
which has been the law in the town since 2004. Not only that, if
you are truly stewards of the land, consideration of your earlier
rejection and the CAC refusal to conduct a full review because of
the coastal erosion hazard line, and the LWRP inconsistency, should
prevent you from permitting the destruction of this fragile sand
dune, which is also in a significant environmental area. I mean
this is a beach, this is a sand dawn, I'm sure you have all been
there. We don't build on sand dunes in Southold Town. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else?
MS. AMPER: My name is Julie Amper, I'm also on the Land Use
Committee. I too urge the Board of Trustees to deny a wetland
permit and re-confirm their earlier decision of November 15, 2006,
to deny a coastal erosion permit on this property. One of the key
issues I think impacting on this decision was touched on by Trustee
Dickerson at that November 15 meeting. She said, and I quote, you
mention things, permits, buildings that have been done in the past
and one of the things we are always doing is looking ahead and not
looking back. Always reviewing and revising how we see things and
Board of Trustees
26
August 22, 2007
taking into consideration so much new information, scientific, et
cetera. And we as a Board have been working very seriously
revising our code.
I applaud this and agree with it. We cannot make a policy of
allowing nearby pre-existing construction to legitimatize new
construction that has been found to be non-compliant. This is sort
of the but-Johnny-did-it-so-why-can't-I defense, which we know what
our parents say to that. To do so makes a complete mockery of the
environmental review process from the coastal erosion hazard
authorization and the CAC to Southold Town code and the LWRP. All
over Southold are examples of buildings that do not conform to
current codes, that could not and should not be built today. They
exist only because they were build before we knew any better,
before we had scientific information available to us, information
that as we acquired it, we wisely made part of our Town Code. Who
today would use lead paint on his home just because it was used
next door at some time or other in the distant past? Who, if he
could find it, would use DDT or Chlordane as a pest control?
Whenever we have discovered threats to our health and to our
environment, we have acted imposing bans and enacting laws. To
ignore such threats would be unconscionable. Since much of the
prime waterfront real estate has been developed in Southold Town,
most of the remaining waterfront parcels may well be non-compliant
and will face insurmountable regulatory difficulty.
I urge the Trustees to stand fast in the face of overwhelming
evidence against granting these permits. New knowledge triumph
trumps past mistakes and previous building in a contested area in
no way justifies the compounding of the felony. We can not make
real environmental threats disappear simply by conjuring up
mitigating circumstances that strain any rational interpretation of
the code. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. Anybody else? Yes, sir.
MR. ROSAKIS: Good evening. My name is Tom Rosakis, I'm a member of
the Kenneys Beach Civic Association and I wrote a letter to you
which I would like to place in the record and just read two
sentences of it if I might. It's actually an E-mail that I -- may
I approach the president?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I can confirm we did receive it.
MR. ROSAKIS: Thank you. Basically, the letter states: I agree
with Ann Murray. I don't know why we are here since the permit
was, the coastal erosion hazard permit was denied, and we don't see
any substantive changes to this application. I just will quote
from your resolution; your revised resolution. The project, my
sentence here, the project in any form remains as stated in your
revised resolution of December, 2006, quote, seaward of the coastal
erosion hazard area, end quote, is prohibited as per chapter 111 of
Board of Trustees
27
August 22, 2007
the Town Code, in quotes, inconsistent with the local waterfront
revitalization program. No amount of redesign of the project can
change these conditions. This application should not be
considered. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you: Anybody else?
MR. BETSCH: One more, please, if you don't mind. My name is John
Betsch, I live at 2325 North See Drive. I'm vice-president of the
Kenneys Beach Civic Association but tonight I'm here as a resident
of North See Drive.
Before I begin, I just want to take exception to Mr.
Danowski's comment about my property in that I had an existing
structure in place and my approval had to do with the 25%
requirement. I understand that it was disapproved for the coastal
erosion permit on November 15 and the wetland permit on December
13. The information as presented in this new application is
generally the same as has been in previous applications with the
exception now there are three proposals. Having appeared before
this Board numerous times, I want to be sure that the Trustees'
determination is simply based on correct and proper information and
a decision is based on consistent and equal applications of other
people who have appeared before this Board. For example, when I
look at the new applications I do not see any coastal erosion
hazard line drawn on any of the three proposals. Which was a
requirement. The submitted survey indicates a lot size of 24,879
square feet, however the town assessor's office, which I believe is
an official record, states the property is 19,100 square feet, and
increase which he shows of 5,779 square feet. Approximately 6,000
square feet. To say that the property has grown approximately
6,000 square feet seems to be a little bit of fuzzy logic
considering the ongoing suit going with Goldsmith Inlet and the
loss of beach all along that area.
And finally, with the notoriety of recent pool accidents I'm
sure that the applicant would want to have inplace significant
safety measures to do with a pool and I'm not sure whether fencing
is allowed in beach areas.
Finally, I heard Scott Russell say it's becoming necessary to
legislate good manners. I realize legislating is not within the
authority of this Board, but common sense is. While Southold does
not have a pyramid law in place, as Southampton does, it's
important to consider the effect of a structure like this on the
quality and character of the neighborhood. We do not want another
hotel Reydon in place, which the Trustees did approve some time in
the past. That Hotel Reydon, if you are familiar with it, down on
Reydon Drive, which had an effect on both the quality of life and
Board of Trustees
28
August 22, 2007
for the people living on Reydon Drive, and it was also very
detrimental to their property values in that it is now overwhelming
and looks more like a yacht club from Disneyland versus all the
other houses in place. And I just appreciate your time. Thank
you, very much.
TRUSTEE KING: We had asked for the coastal erosion to be put on the
surveys. I would also like to find out what the required first
floor elevation is in that zone also. I think they have it down
here as 17 feet on the plans. I don't know what the minimum is
that is required by law. I think we need to know that. Anybody
else?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, as was stated by, and I can't remember the
name of the gentleman, I apologize for that, when we addressed this
before -- previously, we addressed this in one hearing under
coastal erosion and a month later a hearing for the wetland permit
and it's been stated many times by people in their statements
tonight it was denied under coastal erosion. People said why are
we here again tonight. I know for myself, and I'm only speaking
for myself up here, it's been denied under coastal erosion, it's
clearly brand new construction. It's clearly proposed to be
seaward of coastal erosion. For myself, I agree. I think it
should continue to be denied under coastal erosion. So we can do
what we want to as far as having a environmental technician look at
the area and having DEC look at the area and any other engineers to
look at the area --
TRUSTEE KING: Under the wetland policy.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. But for myself, personally, we are going
through a lot of time and effort on something that I think we
should just deny under coastal erosion again.
MR. CORCORAN: You really need to be certain what natural protective
feature the proposed activity -- the activity being proposed is
in. Because it makes a difference under the law. It's a tortured
law, but it matters if it's a dune area, it matters if it's a beach
area or it matters if it's just any other area behind the line.
You can get a permit for certain construction if it's not in a
particular natural protective feature. If it is in a particular
natural protective feature, I would argue -- counsel might disagree
-- you can't do anything. So it makes a difference where it is.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand.
MR. CORCORAN: So your decision should be precise when you make it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I appreciate that and, as I said, I'm happy to
hear, that we are going to, under the wetland permit, ask for some
professional advice.
MR. CORCORAN: And I don't want to predict any outcome you are going
to make, but whatever outcome you make you want it to be solid and
principled.
Board of Trustees
29
August 22, 2007
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: We have three letters here. I'm not going to read
them in. I'll just say who they are from. Mr. Rosakis; I don't
know if he's still here or not. We have the letter in the file on
the record. There is a letter from Ed Booth and there is a letter
from Irene Vitti. These three letters are here. They are in here,
just to let you know.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would also like to state, along with Dave, I
happen to agree. I have an issue, you know, with it having come up
again under coastal erosion. I think we made the proper decision
the first time around. But I'll address the question that came up
tonight, one of the folks just spoke, as to why we would even
consider the application.
It's my belief that, you know, a person has every right to put
in as many applications as they want. If he wants to put in an
application every month for it, as annoying as that might be, he's
got every right to do that. So we are encumbered to consider it.
We can deny it, approve it, what have you. I think everybody has a
right to bring an application in.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else?
(No response.)
I'm make a motion to table this application, then.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. CORCORAN: As well as both on 275 and 111, right?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Patricia Moore on behalf of RONALD
STRITZLER requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to
cut back the vertical slope of the bluff to a more natural angle,
cut back the trees overhanging the bluff edge to ground level and
plant between the lawn area and the bluff edge. Continue planting
bluff with existing vegetation, complete terracing and backfill,
and plant area. Add terracing to strategic locations based on site
conditions using wood and plastic sheet pilings. Located: 3055
Soundview Avenue, Mattituck.
MS. DIACK: What happened to number two, Missy Diack?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was tabled. That was postponed. They felt
they didn't notify all the neighbors properly and they wanted to
make sure that was done. That's why it was postponed. We mentioned
in the beginning it was postponed. So, sorry, for any confusion.
TRUSTEE KING: Ma'am, it was at your request, I guess, or your
agent's request.
MS. DIACK: Not my request.
Board of Trustees
30
August 22, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: It's not that there was a huge problem or anything
like that with us.
MS. DIACK: It's okay, I just know all my neighbors got the letter.
TRUSTEE KING: Not that we are trying to hold you up or anything.
TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Pat Moore on behalf of RONALD
STRITZLER. I went and looked at this. It's a pretty extensive
report.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have all been at the site many times.
MS. MOORE: Once in the dark, so I won't count that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Once in the dark, yes.
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to make a couple of suggestions, Pat.
MS. MOORE: Sure. That's fine. We are here to listen.
TRUSTEE KING: You have a buffer along the top of the bluff.
MS. MOORE: The ten-foot wide natural.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, make that 15 feet. It will be a little more
effective.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What did we ask her to do?
MS. MOORE: You didn't ask me anything.
TRUSTEE KING: That property really slopes very steeply down to the
northwest. If that buffer was, instead of stopping it along the
top of the bluff, if that kind of followed up to the south along
that west property line, that would buffer the neighbor's
property. Just kind of continue that up and bring it along the
property line.
MS. MOORE: Yes, because there is some erosion the neighbor is
having.
TRUSTEE KING: That would help a lot.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. It's a good suggestion. Do you want the
15 feet to carry over or -- that's kind of no man's land, so I
mean, I was just going to angle it back. Whatever naturally occurs
there. It's a very natural slope.
TRUSTEE KING: Can you come up here?
MS. MOORE: Yes. I'm drawing it on my map as you are speaking.
TRUSTEE KING: If you kind of carry it up around like that
(indicating.) Go up at least 50,60 feet. Something like that.
That would be effective. That would help. I think I read in there
they'll use plastic, lumber for the terracing.
MS. MOORE: That's what was requested.
TRUSTEE KING: That's when I, that was my suggestion. Then I read it
in the report.
MS. MOORE: Glad we are all on the same page. Anything else?
TRUSTEE KING: There has been a lot of tree trimming and vegetation
trimming that has been dumped over the bluff. Have them clean that
up.
MS. MOORE: I know when we noticed that, we asked, whoever the
Board of Trustees
31
August 22, 2007
landscaper is --
TRUSTEE KING: It should be removed. I think that was in the
suggestions in the report. It was actually a pretty thorough
report.
MS. MOORE: We were so pleased with them, with the report.
TRUSTEE KING: It was good. I guess the CAC did not review the new
things. Because we tabled it because there was no detailed plans
available. That's changed.
MR. WILDER: That was previous.
TRUSTEE KING: You have a new one. I'm sorry. CAC supports the
application with the condition the buffer is increased to 20 feet.
MS. MOORE: Well, we'll stick to the 15.
TRUSTEE KING: We compromised.
MS. MOORE: I think the report suggested ten. That's why we used
ten. But 15 is fine.
TRUSTEE KING: Because there is plenty of room for it. It's not
like they don't have a lot of lawn. And it's consistent with LWRP.
The project follows the plan of a certified coastal engineer from
the Natural Resources Conservation Services.
Does anybody have any comments?
(Negative response.)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application. It
was found to be consistent.
MS. MOORE: Thank you. And the buffer --
TRUSTEE KING: Increasing the buffer doesn't hurt anything.
Increase the buffer from ten to 15 and to extend along the property
line on the western side of the property.
MS. MOORE: It's approximately 30, 40, to follow -- I would say to
follow the topography.
TRUSTEE KING: Let's make it 50 feet landward from the top of the
bluff.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. It's heavily vegetated over there.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm talking about the lawn area. Just put that 15 buffer
right along the edge of the lawn area there.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Just draw in the 15 foot buffer.
MS. MOORE: If I could draw it in. It's very expensive for the
client to have -- this was a very expensive survey, so.
TRUSTEE KING: How about if I draw it in. I'll scale it off and do
it accurately.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. And then fax me the permit with just that section
of the map. That's fine.
Board of Trustees
32
August 22, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: I'll do it Friday when I'm in the office, scale it
off.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to approve the application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number one, under Wetland Permits, MICHAEL & DENISE
CHUISANO request a Wetland Permit to construct a deck at the top of
the bank and wood stairs for beach access. Located: 1525 Soundview
Road, Orient.
CAC supports the application with the condition a licensed
engineer prepares the plans for the stairs and plans for erosion
control along the bluff are considered. The LWRP coordinator has
found this inconsistent with policy number six, protecting and
restoring tidal and freshwater wetlands, states that the following
standards are required for all operations within the jurisdiction
of the Trustees. And it's cites our code 275-11; platforms
associated with stairs may not be larger than 32 square feet, and
the one that is being requested is 12x12 or 144 square feet.
Also it's requiring a revegetation plan, if we approve it,
requiring the existing vegetation on the bluff is protected during
construction, and they are requiring a non-turf buffer landward of
the bluff to protect the bluff from erosion.
Furthermore, I will say that I did find out that also 275-11
does state that no stairs with access -- there should be no stairs
built on a bluff when there is access to a property owned by an
association directly next door to said property. And in this
particular case, there just happens to be an association right of
way right next to this man's property.
So, is there anybody here who would like too speak on this
proposal; on this application? Any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: Are they a member of the property owners association,
do you know?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Don't know.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe, according to the LWRP report --
MR. CHUISANO: I'm Michael Chuisano. Yes, we are a member of the
association.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Our code is specific about that. The right of way
is right next to your property.
MR. CHUISANO: Well, I guess that's it. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments; comments from the Board?
(No response.)
Board of Trustees
33
August 22, 2007
I would make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would make a motion we deny this application
based on code 275 which says that if the property is located next
to a right of way owned by an association and the property owner is
a member of the association, he's not permitted to build an access
on the bluff.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second that motion.
MR. CORCORAN: May I suggest that you also resolve that the
application is inconsistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. As stated before, the application is labeled
as inconsistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number two, DAVID WIRTZ requests a Wetland Permit
to remove 158 linear feet of existing bulkhead and reconstruct in
same location using vinyl sheathing. Located: 245 Pine Place, East
Marion.
The CAC supports the application with a condition that a
drywell is installed to contain the pool backwash. LWRP has found
this application to be exempt from LWRP.
Is there anybody here like to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. WIRTZ: I'm David Wirtz. When I redid the pool, I did have a
backwash, drywell put in.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think the only questions that I had, really, were
that there were some things that were in the yard there that I
could not, I don't think there were permits for. One of them was
the flagpole. There is no permit on the flagpole, right? I have a
flagpole, the pool itself and the fences that are within the
jurisdiction.
MR. WIRTZ: Sorry, on the fences?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The fences as well.
MR. WIRTZ: What about the fences?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They are not permitted. I don't have any permits
saying they could be there.
MR. WIRTZ: When I redid the pool, I had them re-do the fences. I
don't remember anymore exactly what I did. But I think it was part
of the permit process for getting the pool redone. I know I had
someone come in because I had pieces of the bulkhead where they had
to he stick the fence out so kids can't come around the side of the
bulkhead. We redid the fence as part of that permit process, I
Board of Trustees
34
August 22, 2007
thought.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Could be a separate file, Bob.
MR. WIRTZ: The flagpole, honestly, has been there since I bought
the house. I didn't know better. I didn't know I had to have a
permit. Honestly, I don't remember anymore what happened to the
pool. It's been about eight years or so.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The only permit I have expired was a wetland permit
to remove basically the same thing as what was here. And the only
condition there at the time was a ten-foot, non-turf buffer.
MR. WIRTZ: Right. I remember that. That's the one I managed to
let expire. But I'm with quite sure --
TRUSTEE KING: If it's that old it may be in another file. Because
we didn't --
MR. WIRTZ: I'm pretty sure I needed some kind of building permit or
something to re-do the pool. I mean, I have to check.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Don't get me wrong. It's not that we necessarily
have an issue with it. I just want to make sure since it's there,
we've seen it, we put it in.
MR. WIRTZ: Fair enough. I don't have any problem with it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments? Any questions or comments from
the Board?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are all these things you mentioned on the current
survey?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. Actually, wait a second. The fences are not
on the survey. Not both of them. And the flagpole is not on the
survey. Everything else is.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can't we just include the fences and the
flagpole?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have an issue with that. I think that's
fine.
MR. WIRTZ: I think the flagpole will go down when the bulkhead is
redone anyway. The whole area will have to be dug out. I think
the flagpole may be history anyway.
TRUSTEE KING: If you intend to put it back up, we'll include it in
the permit.
MR. WIRTZ: I like the flagpole, actually.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll just put it in the permit.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion
we close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion that we approve this
application with the addition of the flagpole which we'll need to
have drawn into the survey as well as the two chainlink fences that
are on the property lines. And LWRP has already shown this is
Board of Trustees
35
August 22, 2007
exempt.
MR. CORCORAN: Although, you are adding stuff that might not
necessarily be exempt. The fences, you just might want to find it
to be consistent.
TRUSTEE KING: It may be a permit in place.
MR. WIRTZ: I know it was inspected after I redid the fences because
the inspector did come in and say, your fence, even though the
existing fence was not adequate, because of the pool, so he did
come back. There has to be something in the file someplace that
that was done.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Either way, I'll make a motion to approve the
application, including the flagpole and fences, noting that the
LWRP is currently showing it as exempt. However, I would also find
if it's not exempt because of the addition of the flag pole and the
fences, that because of all the mitigations involved with this,
that we would find the application consistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: Because the fence is a -- you have the fence because
of the pool.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's required for the pool.
MR. CORCORAN: It's previously permitted and it's a legal
requirement.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Hold on. Is there a question in the audience?
MR. STRAZZA: I would like to reopen my amendment. I just went and
checked my dock. What you suggested ain't going to work. I don't
know why you changed your agreement that we made when we did this.
TRUSTEE KING: How about if we meet out in the field next field
inspection. We'll all look it at it.
MR. STRAZZA: Either that or have Jimmy Richter look at it and have
him make the decision. I'll go by that. But it's going to break
again.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll see you out there next month.
MR. STRAZZA: When is that?
TRUSTEE KING: September 13. Thursday. That's our next field
inspection day.
MR. STRAZZA: I don't know if I'll be in town.
TRUSTEE KING: The dock will still be there.
MR. STRAZZA: Right now you won't see what you'll see when the
winter is here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have to move on. We can discuss this at the
field inspection.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll move ahead with number three, ROBERT
Board of Trustees
36
August 22, 2007
LEHNERT requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace the
existing 100-foot wood bulkhead with a vinyl bulkhead. Located:
Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue.
I looked at this. It follows an emergency permit that we
permitted back in April. CAC supports the application with the
condition of a plan to stabilize the bluff, and it is exempt from
our LWRP review. I don't have any problems with this.
I do have a few things I want to let the Board know. As you go
down the steps, I'm going to request a ten-foot buffer, but
actually to the right of the stairs or to the south of the stairs,
there is sort of a platform planking piece that is just for light
-- tubing and kids tubes and that kind of stuff. On the left side
of the stairs is just a sandy non-turf area where again there is a
lot of children's toys, et cetera.
So when I looked at it, as far as the CAC's comments, to me
the bluff has stabilized itself. It was all vegetated down to that
point, from my inspection.
Would you like to comment on that, Don?
MR. WILDER: I think it's going to collapse if they don't remove it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Which one?
MR. WILDER: Both properties. Which one are we on now? The boat
property?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Lehnert on Nassau Point Road. Number three.
MR. LEHNERT: The right of way. The next hearing is contiguous to
this one.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. I did have a question about the pilings
that are in front of the bulkhead.
MR. LEHNERT: Those were for an old beach house that was there
before we owned it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are they coming out?
MR. LEHNERT: Yes, they can come out. Not a problem.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So I would make a request that, there is six of
them, I believe, six pilings seaward of the bulkhead. And there is
new steps, they were just replaced.
MR. LEHNERT: They were replaced.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That were there on the permit. Okay. So is
there anyone else who would like to speak to this application?
(No response.)
If not, 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 Mr. Robert
Lehnert's request for a Wetland Permit to remove and replace the
existing bulkhead with the stipulation -- I'm going to say the
ten-foot buffer is existing. It simply has removable --
Board of Trustees
37
August 22, 2007
MR. LEHNERT: It's the bluff, right.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But the six pilings be removed seaward of the
bulkhead.
MR. LEHNERT: Not a problem.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: North of that, Mr. Lehnert is requesting to
remove and replace 100 foot of existing bulkhead with vinyl
bulkhead.
MR. LEHNERT: That's actually 25 feet. There was a typo somewhere.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And when the emergency repair permit was
granted, Dave Bergen actually mentioned the cement slabs that are
there. Are they going to be removed?
MR. LEHNERT: I would like to break them up and use them as fill
rather than remove them, if I can.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You are not requesting the stairs to be replaced
at this point?
MR. LEHNERT: Not right now. Because what is happening is, that's
Nassau Point Property Owners property. The two neighbors are
willing to pay for the bulkhead at this time and we'll leave the
stairs up to the property owners association. So we are just
looking to do the bulkhead right now.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just questioning it because they are a mess.
MR. LEHNERT: We'll take the part of that away that is completely
broken and trashed.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC supports the application with the submission
of plan to stabilize the bluff and also it is exempt from LWRP.
Does the Board have a problem with cement blocks being used for
fill?
TRUSTEE KING: Behind the bulkhead?
MR. LEHNERT: Yes, we want to just break them up into smaller pieces
and use them as fill instead of trying to get them out of there.
TRUSTEE KING: I think that's against the code.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think so, too
TRUSTEE KING: I think the code specifically states no debris to be
used or demolition material to be used as fill.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just have a comment. It's up to the applicant.
Did he include the stairs in this application, even though you are
not redoing it now then you'll have the permit for stairs.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Even if it's under Mr. Lehnert's name?
MR. CORCORAN: You can do that. Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we would just need the stairs on the plans. If
you don't want to include them now, just saving you from coming in
for another permit process.
Board of Trustees
38
August 22, 2007
MR. LEHNERT: I was just trying to break it up because of who is
paying for everything.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Whatever is easier for you. If you want to
include --
MR. LEHNERT: Let's leave the stairs off for now. We'll come back
for that. That's not a problem.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. I'll make a motion to close the hearing if
there is no other comments.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the request by
Robert Lehnert to replace the existing 25-foot wood bulkhead with
vinyl bulkhead. And with the stipulation -- the removal of the
cement blocks with this permit, does it have to be removed in order
for him to do the bulkhead?
MR. LEHNERT: Yes, the whole thing has to come out before I do the
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Remove cement blocks with clean fill and a
ten-foot, non-turf buffer. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
SECRETARY STANDISH: Both properties, non-turf buffer?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: MICHAEL BUNKER requests a Wetland Permit to
repair the existing 41-foot section of existing dock as required.
Construct new 3x32 foot catwalk on offshore end with a 32"x14'
seasonal
aluminum ramp onto a 6x20 foot seasonal floating dock
secured by two ten-inch diameter by 30 foot pilings. Located: 3392
Oaklawn Avenue, Southold.
This application was found inconsistent under the LWRP and
I'll try to go through this rapidly.
One, the materials proposed for the dock have not been
specified. The applicant has not demonstrated the construction and
operational standards have been met as stated under 275. The
proposed action could impede the public use of navigation of
boats. Proposed dock structure extends beyond the minimum
necessary for navigable waters. And that's it.
As far as the CAC reviewed this. They revolved to support the
application with the condition a drainage plan is submitted for
runoff on the property and a ten-foot, non-turf buffer is installed
Board of Trustees
39
August 22, 2007
on the property.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. BUNKER: Michael Bunker. You got the thing, the new plans from
Costello Marine. That's what you are referring to?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have plans here dated August 1.
MR. BUNKER: These are July 31,2007.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: These are August 1, 2007, so.
MR. BUNKER: So the problem with these -- and we spent $2,500 to
have these made. So what is the problem? It's a dock builder --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I haven't listed any problems yet. What I stated
is LWRP's evaluation of it and the CAC evaluation of it. So right
now I'm soliciting comments.
MR. BUNKER: You want me to comment on the materials?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, it's just if you have any comments to make
regarding the application.
MR. BUNKER: It's just the dock has been there for 28 years. It
gets torn up every winter. I purchased it four years ago and this
is the first time I decided to get it redone professionally. So we
applied for an amendment and it was denied last month. So we, I
guess, professionally had the plans redone and now we are here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Were there any other individuals who would
like to comment on this application?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The Board did go out and look at it and we had two
questions right now. First, it was not staked, or we could not see
any stakes at the seaward end of the float, and we have to see it
staked at the seaward end of the float.
MR. BUNKER: I went out there last Wednesday. There is the
preexisting piling that secured the floating dock that was there
before. So I assume that is a good enough stake
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, we didn't see it staked. That was just a
previous structure out there. We didn't know that signified
anything to us. What we normally ask for when these applications
come before us, is the seaward end, the most seaward end of the
structu re
when there is a float, pilings, catwalk, whatever, dock,
that that is staked. And this one was not staked. We also wanted
to see on the survey the docks on either side. Again, because what
we are trying to make sure is to see if your dock is going to
extend, as the LWRP set stated here, whether your dock is going to
distend beyond your neighbors' docks and if so, why.
MR. BUNKER: In all honesty, I don't mind if it's a little shorter,
to make you happy. We just want a dock there.
Board of Trustees
40
August 22, 2007
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any suggestions from the Board or comments from the
Board?
TRUSTEE KING: We just need to see it staked at the seaward end and
two adjoining docks shown on the survey.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I would like to do then is table this to give
the applicant the opportunity to stake the seaward end of it and
then to show on the survey the two adjacent property owners' docks
and so that we can look at it, in our next field inspection, go out
there and look at it.
MR. BUNKER: The next field inspection is the 13th?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, which is a Thursday. Then it will be on the
agenda for the next Board meeting.
MR. BUNKER: That's all you need is those two things. All right,
thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Given that (perusing) yes, the soundings show
th ree-and-a-half feet of water at the end of that float. That's
approximately 50 feet out.
So I would like to make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
MR. BUNKER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number six, PHILIP G. MilOT requests a Wetland
Permit to repair/replace the existing bulkhead. located: 4185 Camp
Mineola Road, Mattituck.
CAC tabled the application until a detailed plan is submitted
and recent repairs have been made on the bulkhead using treated
lumber. We have plans, detailed plans here. And the lWRP finds it
to be exempt.
I went out there and it's an inkind/inplace replacement and,
um, I didn't have any problem with it. Is there anyone here to
comment on this application?
MR. MilOT: I am. I'm Phil Milot.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there a buffer?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a very nice buffer. No lawn at all. It's
all pebbles, all in the front. At the northeast corner it's only
ten feet between the bulkhead and the deck, so it's all pebbles and
all going on to the side of the house. So in this I would permit I
would recommend the buffer would be maintained. Which I think you
would want to do that.
MR. MilOT: The background to this is the most recent storm did a
lot of damage to my neighbor's bulkhead, and my bulkhead was built
at the same time. During the conversation with the neighbor, he
indicated that should look for a permit, an historical permit, to
Board of Trustees
41
August 22, 2007
have done that in the past. That bulkhead was damaged by Hurricane
Gloria initially. So I went to the Trustees to see if there was a
permit on that bulkhead back in 1984, and there was not. So what
I'm doing is I'm applying for an application to repair the bulkhead
when and as needed, really, because my neighbor's bulkhead, as I
mentioned was damaged in this past storm, and the neighbor on the
westerly side replaced his entire bulkhead last year. So I can't
be far behind.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: Was this storm damage?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's existing. It's been existing for years and
he's just trying to permit the structure.
MR. MilOT: I'm just anticipating that the next storm it's gone.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There are some minor repairs needed, like he just
stated.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I understand. I'm just saying, the wording is
confusing.
TRUSTEE KING: This was put in before permits were required by the
Trustees.
MR. MilOT: So when I learned there was not any permit on it, that's
why I'm going through this.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application for
Philip Milot, 4185 Camp Mineola Road, for a bulkhead, and I make
the motion also that the Board finds the lWRP to be exempt because
its inkind/inplace replacement.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: What's the material of the bulkhead now?
MR. MilOT: This is 20-years old.
TRUSTEE KING: It's probably CCA.
MR. MilOT: Whatever you want me to put in is fine.
TRUSTEE KING: At the time you come in to replace the bulkhead, it
will have to be vinyl.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Put that in now. Because he's not coming back in.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll revise my motion to approve inplace using
vinyl.
MR. MilOT: Is the vinyl the black material?
TRUSTEE KING: It's usual gray in color. I think they make tan.
MR. MilOT: Is that the one that goes--
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. MilOT: My neighbor to the west has that and the storm takes the
top right off. The neighbor to my east repaired his with, it's a
black mooring type.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Currently, the code says you can't use treated
Board of Trustees
42
August 22, 2007
lumber. So you won't be able to use treated lumber.
MR. MilOT: Can I use the plastic wood that my neighbor used?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we are saying.
MR. MilOT: That's fine.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The non-turf buffer to remain the way it is. The
whole yard is non-turf. I should have included that in there.
TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, Ronald Hansen on behalf of MARK HANSEN
requests a Wetland Permit to replace the existing 82 linear feet of
timber bulkhead inplace using vinyl sheathing and a nine foot
return extension. located: 680 Private Road #2, Southold.
We looked at this, I don't think anybody had a problem. It's
a straight forward replacement.
What did we have as a buffer on there?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Ten-foot return.
TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing.) We want to see a 15-foot non-turf buffer
along the bulkhead.
MR. HANSEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comment from the audience?
(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 a
15-foot, non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: lWRP, it's exempt. And CAC --
MR. HANSEN: I'm in the DEC right now.
TRUSTEE KING: This is from June. Anything after June on this?
MR. HANSEN: They made no recommendation at this time.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's the CAC he's referring to, not the DEC.
TRUSTEE KING: We closed the hearing already, I'll make a motion to
approve the application with a 15-foot, non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
MR. HANSEN: Can I see you for a minute. Right now this is the
plans we have. This is all washed out (indicating.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on, Jim. Don't go anywhere.
MR. HANSEN: I'll have it 83 feet instead of 75 feet long and
instead of 21.6 feet long this way, I have a cut out like this
here. I'll leave the existing.
Board of Trustees
43
August 22, 2007
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What you are asking for could have been applied for
now, tonight, and we could have done something. We have now not
approved this but we approved this. So you have to come back now
for an amendment for this. Just stand by.
(Perusing.)
You need to come back to us for an amendment.
MR. HANSEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number eight, Young & Young on behalf of PETER
DANOWSKI, JR., & SUSAN DANOWSKI requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a new 6x20 foot wood float, new 4x12 wood ramp, new
wetlands plantings, new 3x4 foot flagstone, dredging approximately
94 cubic yards to 2.5 foot below mean low water, and restoration of
disturbed areas with native plants and grasses. Located: 1625
Monsell Lane, Cutchogue.
The LWRP finds this inconsistent. It's the 100 foot issue.
They have a lot of other comments here. I'll just run through this
briefly.
MR. DANOWSKI: I think Mr. Terry and I had a brief, friendly
conversation in which he said don't take this personally but almost
every dock application will find inconsistent and that it's, aside
from Fishers Island and some marina areas we can't comply with a
request and have to have a negative report. Whether I agree with
that or not, it doesn't matter. He has his report. It's
advisory. III be asking for a permit despite that report.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It touches on all aspects of your application, the
dredging, it finds it inconsistent with the dredging, with the dock
construction, you know, just the normal not using turbidity screen,
mentioned to use that. And silt fence and activities during
construction would destroy the area of vegetation. And it goes on
further to describe -- it's a pretty lengthy report.
The CAC supports the application with the condition the dock
and the vessel do not exceed more than one-third across the width
of the creek. Best management practices are followed in the
construction of the dock and all disturbed areas are revegetated.
The LWRP, going back to the LWRP report, they also mentioned
to further the above policy, for policy six, it recommended the
Board require fiberglass grating decking on the structures to minimize
shading from the dock constructed to the greatest extent
possible. We talked about that in the field.
The other thing we talked about in the field is downsizing the
structure, to have just a catwalk and maybe a set of stairs.
MR. DANOWSKI: I think at the end of the conversation tonight I
think what was understood by myself was that we hold in abeyance
the decision from this Board until perhaps there be an on site
inspection by the DEC and hear about their recommendations or
Board of Trustees
44
August 22, 2007
issuance of a permit. And I recognize that at the end of the
conversation I wanted to have the hearing because we did advertise
it. We did notify my neighbors. I did get a call from Jacqueline
Monsell (sic), she said she had no objection and from Joe DePinto
in the back who has no objection. So I have no not heard any
objections from any neighbors.
I also remind the Board, and I'll be taking this up it the
DEC, that I own the land on the water and certainly as a condition
of any permit that might issue, I would agree that any dredging and
excavation take place on my own property and not in trustees' owned
waters. I also already agreed to any conditions regarding
specifications and fiberglass, open weaved, any material, I
certainly have no objection to that.
I would also note, because I know there is a concern, as there
should be, about navigability, and certainly I don't want to
interfere with anyone's rights beyond me. That's the reason I
suggested putting the improvements exactly where I have, where it's
sheltered and not out in the middle of the narrow sort of tributary
area.
I would note there are in fact a certain permitted dock
structures beyond me. I think the Stoutenberg dock has a permit,
Gary Garoski's dock has a permit, and the Monsell's, I believe, had
a permitted dock, although it may be falling into the water.
So all of those people have every right to what they have and
I don't intend to interfere with them, and I support them. They
are my neighbors. So, the thought here was to locate the
improvements within my property and I will certainly take into
consideration the comments made at the field. I'll first try to
overcome whatever issues are raised by the DEC, then bring them
back to your attention.
I did ask for a pre-application conference with Mr. Hamilton.
I know he's extremely busy out here and in other places, and I'm
sure at some point he may visit the site, but we have filed the
application after that request for a pre-application conference,
and hopefully they will be coming back to address some of the very
same issues you are considering.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Thank you. Is there any other comments
from anybody else?
(No response.)
Any other comments from the Board? What I'm hearing is
Mr. Danowski wants to table this.
TRUSTEE KING: My thoughts were open-grate, low profile set of
stairs at the end. Maybe a rack on the sides for the kayaks.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what LWRP said.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mark actually put that in his recommendations
MR. DANOWSKI: Thank you. After, I'll get a copy of whatever
Board of Trustees
45
August 22, 2007
reports you have and I'll address them in the future. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mr. Danowski, you can get a copy of the LWRP report
from our office if you like, or the Planning Department, either
one.
MR. DANOWSKI: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You're welcome.
TRUSTEE KING: Number nine Young & Young on behalf of MICHAEL
JUDGE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new 85x4 foot wide beach
access stairway with platforms. Located: 13007 Oregon Road,
Cutchogue.
I went and looked at this. I couldn't -- supposedly it was
staked. I couldn't find any stakes. Was there any kind of access
path staked out on the way down from the bluff to the house?
MR. WOLPERT: Not an access path, no. We staked the top of the
proposed stairway as well as the bottom.
TRUSTEE KING: I couldn't find it. I would like to see where the
pathway is going to go. It's really very heavily vegetated in
there. We had trouble just walking through there. I would like to
see it staked out where the pathway is going. And make sure where
the platform is going to go is staked and the seaward end of the
stairs is staked. I didn't see anything. I couldn't find it.
MR. WOLPERT: My name is Thomas Wolpert, I'm an engineer with Young
& Young, representing the applicant, Michael Judge.
TRUSTEE KING: I never saw the stakes. I don't think it's going to
be a huge problem. The access path is really -- it's quite a
distance from the house to the bluff. Well over a hundred feet.
What size are these platforms coming down where the little jogs
are? Looks like maybe 4X8?
MR. WOLPERT: About that. Yes, 4x6, 4x8. Depending which platform
you are talking about.
TRUSTEE KING: There's two going down the bluff, and then the steps
there at the end. We really need to see it staked out a little
better and I'll go back out next month.
MR. WOLPERT: September 13th is the date?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you could clarify the size of the size of the
platforms. Just call Lauren and she will write it in the file.
MR. WOLPERT: Not a problem.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to table this application until
next month so we can go out and look at it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
Board of Trustees
46
August 22, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: It's not that it's problematic, I just want to make
sure everything is okay.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number eleven, Ian Crowley on behalf of PAT
VARDARO requests a Wetland Permit to remove 70 feet of existing
timber bulkhead and replace inplace with new vinyl seawall. Dredge
40 cubic yards from no further than 10 feet seaward of new wall to
restore existing depth of-4 ALW. Install 4x6 foot cantilevered
platform and 16 foot aluminum gangway to access existing 5x40 foot
floating dock. Located: 1210 Wiggins Lane, Greenport.
The Board went out, we all looked at this. It's consistent
with LWRP, and CAC supports this application.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak for this
application?
MR. CROWLEY: It's fairly straight forward. The only thing we are
adding the cantilevered platform for access to the floats. The
floats, I believe, are permitted there. I know we have the DEC
permit. I didn't check with your office. It should be under
Suero, not under Vardaro.
SECRETARY STANDISH: (Perusing.)
TRUSTEE KING: What are we going to do if is there no permit for
that 40 foot?
MR. CROWLEY: The DEC permit is on the plans.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is he asking for replacement of the float also?
TRUSTEE KING: The stairs are existing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not part of this application.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In other words, the application does not include
replacement of that float.
MR. CROWLEY: Not that I know of yet. I don't know how it's worded
on my plans.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It says remove 70 foot of existing timber
bulkhead, replace inplace with new vinyl seawall. Dredge 40 cubic
yards from no further than 10 foot seaward of new wall to restore
existing depth of-4 ALW. Install4x6 cantilevered platform and 16
foot aluminum gangway to access existing 5x40 floating dock.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I interpret this as you are just installing a
platform and gangway to the existing dock, and that's not being
replaced.
MR. CROWLEY: That's not part of the plans right now. If it's
permitted, I would like to have it worded that way. If he decides
to replace it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can stipulate that we are not --
TRUSTEE KING: There is an existing 20-foot float that we don't know
if it's permitted or not, on the one permit.
Board of Trustees
47
August 22, 2007
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You could stipulate --
TRUSTEE KING: And if we approve the bulkhead, platform, to access
the float, does that kind of legalize the float.
MR. CORCORAN: Nice argument, yes. You'll want to either add that
float to this application
MR. CROWLEY: Or --
TRUSTEE KING: It's quite a bit larger than code permits. It's five
by40.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Or delete it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Or could we make it conditional upon when they
elect to repair or replace that float, that it's brought into
compliance with current code.
TRUSTEE KING: You'll really need to know if there is a permit on it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: With the access we are saying it is.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that. What I'm trying to say is not
forced to be changed now but put it on notice they must be willing
to repair or replace. At that point it's got to be brought into
code.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When and if the float is ever replaced.
TRUSTEE KING: This resolution does not approve 5x40 float, it only
approves --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we approve the size float with the
condition that he can leave there and once he replaces it --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you want to set this aside for a little while?
MR. CORCORAN: Set it aside for a few minutes and see what Lauren
can learn.
TRUSTEE KING: Lauren will check now to see if it's permitted.
MR. CROWLEY: If it's not permitted I would just re-draw it with
6x20. I originally drew this for somebody who died. They sold the
property.
TRUSTEE KING: Did he die when he saw your bill?
MR. CROWLEY: I didn't want to do too much leg work before we got it
going.
TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we just adjourn this for ten minutes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I just make a comment. Instead of a 6x20
float, he has it five feet already. Instead of making it wider and
going out and going out to the end there, why don't we make it
5x30. Whatever the square footage works out. You know. Because
it's at that end. Instead of making that.
SPEAKER: The terminal is on the other side, as it turns
out, so I can't access it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You could only go to 5X25.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So can we --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: How about considering what Dave said.
Conditional with when the float is in need of repair that the float
then must become consistent with existing code. So it's there. We
Board of Trustees
48
August 22, 2007
are saying it's there but if it needs to be replaced, it needs to
be replaced with 5x25 or 6x20.
MR. CROWLEY: So even if it was permitted, he could not replace it
5x40.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Not under current code, no. It's a pre-existing
stru ctu re.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, you won't get back what you got. Do you
want us to consider this or do you want --
TRUSTEE KING: There is a question if it was permitted, was the
permit transferred to the new owner? Because if it wasn't, it's
dead.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do we have to do research here before we move
forward on this?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you want, we can separate the application and
approve the bulkhead and leave the rest off, and then table that
section of it.
MR. CROWLEY: Okay
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And at least you have the bulkhead done and you
could move forward with that, and we'll do some research.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Bulkhead and dredging.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you have of a site for the dredge material?
MR. CROWLEY: It's to be used as backfill. This has all been
approved by the DEC.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is the Board okay with that, separating out the
bulkhead and dredging?
(Board members respond in the affirmative.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve Ian Crowley on
behalf of Pat Vardaro; request a wetland permit to remove 70 feet
of existing timber bulkhead and replace inplace with new vinyl
seawall, dredge 40 cubic yards from no further than 10 feet seaward
of new wall to restore existing depth of-4 ALW. We want a non-turf
buffer of 20 feet because there is a large area there that seems to
be cleared already.
MR. CROWLEY: That's fine.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is consistent with LWRP and is approved
also by CAC. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have to do a resolution to table the other
pa rt?
Board of Trustees
49
August 22, 2007
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do I need to make a motion to table the second
part?
MR. CORCORAN: What you would do is make a motion to hold that
portion of the hearing open pertaining to the cantilevered platform
and access way to existing floating dock.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to hold open Ian Crowley's
request for Pat Vardaro's wetland permit for a cantilevered
platform and 16 foot aluminum gangway to access existing 5x25
float. I make that motion to hold it open.
MR. CROWLEY: I'm confused.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We just approved the bulkhead and dredging. And
that's it. We are just keeping this other part open.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
MR. CROWLEY: It's his decision whether to leave it alone. It's his
decision. Not mine.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 12, Peter Heard on behalf of LEO & VIRGINIA
ALESSI requests a Wetland Permit to repair the foundation under the
existing dwelling and to remove and reconstruct the existing deck.
Located: 1700 Cedar Point Drive, East, Southold.
This was evaluated under LWRP and found to be exempt. CAC did
not give an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made.
Is there anybody here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. HEARD: Peter Heard.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any comments that you have, first off?
MR. HEARD: It's pretty straight forward. There is a crack in the
foundation. If you have the print in front of you, at the location
of the helical piling HP-3, that's the worst part, and it sunk
there and it is not so bad as you go out toward the end of the
deck, so we are basically proposing to remove the decking as
existing and install seven helical pilings around the perimeter of
the foundation. And it's pretty straight forward. It's limited
excavation, and it will stabilize. It will also raise up the
existing foundation as it has sunk and will stabilize the rest of
the portion of the foundation to be, to have the pilings
installed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I went out and looked at this, note, in the rain,
and the only thing I went over with the applicants at the time, who
were nice enough to let me inside out of the rain, that they would
agree to put a drywell. I have noted here on the plans, underneath
the deck to collect the roof runoff from the roof from that
direction. And I marked it here in the plans. But what I would
Board of Trustees
50
August 22, 2007
appreciate, if you could come up and look at it and see if it's
okay with you. And if so, just initial it.
MR. HEARD: (Perusing.) Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Are there any comments from the Board on
this?
(Negative response.)
If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the request of Peter
Heard on behalf of the Alessi's with the one amendment as has been
noted on the plans with the drywelllocated on the southeast corner
of the house under what is presently a deck.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we find it to be exempt from LWRP.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And it is exempt under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 13, Gluckman Mayner Architects on behalf of
lAURA A. WEll, requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit
to construct a 168 square foot addition to the landward side of the
existing dwelling, remove existing porch and construct a new porch,
construct new deck and steps on the seaward side of the dwelling
and covered by a trellis, extend a portion of the second floor over
an existing one-story mass, and CMU access well to be removed and
filled on landward side. Located: 2760 Village Lane, Orient.
LWRP finds this inconsistent for the distance of 100 feet and
they say the following best management practices are recommended to
meet policy five, establish a non-turf buffer, non-disturbance
buffer landward of the wetland boundary, gutters, leaders and
drywells to contain roof runoff.
CAC supports the application with the condition drywells and
gutters are installed to contain roof runoff.
We met Mrs. Weil on the site. We've been there a couple of
times and we had her reduce the project so the extension would not
be any further seaward than the existing structure. The stairs are
still on the plans. Did you submit new plans yet?
MS. WElL: No.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. We determined with that being done it would
make this consistent with LWRP, and of course drywells and gutters
to be placed also.
Is there anyone here to speak on this also?
MR. GLUCKMAN: I'm Richard Gluckman, I'm here with Gluckman Mayner
Architects.
Board of Trustees
51
August 22, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe in the field, the new exterior steps
that you have on the plan that are seaward, we asked for them not
to be placed there. To remove them to be in line with the existing
structure. They are not to go further out.
MR. GLUCKMAN: To the edge of the garage structure that's to the
north?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are talking on the seaward side of the
addition, the new deck. The garage is on the roadside.
MR. GLUCKMAN: Can I come up and see what you are talking about?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, please, come up. We had said to take all this
off, this whole section off and just do the steps in here. And
that's what we requested in the field.
MR. GLUCKMAN: The reason we left them on there is the we are
proposing on the porch that is adjacent to, that we would replace
the windows with sliding glass doors and we felt if there would be
a sliding door there it would make more sense to have a stair that
you could step down onto.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. We discussed that in the field and I
believe it was noted you could still do the sliding doors but
according to the Building Code you would have to probably put some
kind of railing right there so those doors would not be usable for
access doors, but for view. So you can have full glass there. But
we wanted to reduce the structure since it is so close to the
water.
MR. GLUCKMAN: Would it be acceptable to -- we are not intending to
put footings under those steps that extend toward the water and
that we would suggest we cantilever the structure close to the
steps out in that direction. We would not be putting foundation in
there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The problem with that is this is in the coastal
erosion area and no new construction in that coastal erosion area
so actually I don't even see the coastal erosion line on here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's here (indicating.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How many sliding doors were you planning to put in
there?
MR. GLUCKMAN: The width of the porch, which is 30 feet. It would
extend across the entire porch.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So how many sliding doors is that?
MR. GLUCKMAN: I believe it's three pairs of doors.
We would be making it so the water would percolate through the
structure. The deck.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My concern is that the structure that is there
already and to add more to that is not something I would agree
with. I don't have a problem with the deck, because it's in line
with the house.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we are all inclined -- and please stop me,
Board of Trustees
52
August 22, 2007
I'm going to speak for everyone -- that we don't, like Peggy just
said, we don't want to add all that structure there and we don't
want to see those stairs. We are okay with the deck because it's
inline with the house, but we just don't want to see the extension
of the stairs on that side. Like I said, you could keep the sliding
glass doors, I mean you would have to put whatever the Building
Department Code says that you would have to put there, but I think
we'll stick with that.
MR. GLUCKMAN: Even going to the line of the garage is not
acceptable?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The garage is on the other side.
MR. GLUCKMAN: The garage is that sort of 2'7" protrusion on the
toward the seaward side.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, we don't even want that, to go that further
out. We don't want it to go farther seaward than it is now. Even
though portion of it is further seaward, we don't want to extend
the other portion of the house further seaward.
As far as the other additions on the road side of the house, I
don't think we had a problem with any of that except for, you know,
maybe a dry well over in that corner and gutters and leaders.
MR. GLUCKMAN: I understand that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: I think you covered everything.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments from the audience?
(NO RESPONSE.)
Hearing none, I would like to make a motion to close the public
hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Gluckman Mayner Architects on behalf of Laura Weil and for a
wetland and coastal erosion permit to construct -- we need revised
plans -- to construct -- I'm trying to get the dimension of the
deck. Bear with me (perusing.) I don't see a dimension on the deck
itself.
MR. GLUCKMAN: The deck is seventeen feet, eight and three-quarters
percentage to the south of the house. The dimension of the stairs
beyond that seems to be missing. I believe it's seven feet.
TRUSTEE KING: See, this is higher. I believe this entire house is
outside the coastal erosion line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The only portion is this little deck, and that's
under the 25%.
And this is all bulkhead and sand. This is open beach. This is lawn
on this side. She has a fence here and it's lawn here. It's sandy
soil, but, it's behind the bulkhead. So I wouldn't consider that
Board of Trustees
53
August 22, 2007
beach.
MR. CORCORAN: Then you can do the 25% but you have to make the
findings from Chapter 111. There are three findings you have to
make. You can make them when you do your resolutions but those
findings have to be incorporated.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And what are the findings?
MR. CORCORAN: That it's not a major addition; you have to find that
111-9(a), (b) and (c), that the permit can only be issued if you
find it is reasonable and necessary considering reasonable
alternatives to the proposed activity and the extend to which the
proposed activity requires a shoreline location. It's not likely to
cause measurable increase in erosion and prevent if possible or
minimize effects on natural protective features.
So, essentially, is it reasonable what they are proposing in scale
and size, which I think you are finding. Is it going to cause
further erosion. I didn't hear anything about that. And is it going
to cause any damage to a natural protective feature, such as a
beach, or dune or bluff.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, it's not.
MR. CORCORAN: Then you can issue a permit to your specifications.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. I just want to measure the dimension of the
deck. (Measuring.) 17x14.
MR. GLUCKMAN: 17' 8 and 3/4 out. I think the 14 you mentioned is
easUwest.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. GLUCKMAN: And then the steps would extend seven feet to the
south.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. And we are not including that. We are
including the steps -- oh, on the south. Yes. Do you want them all
along the 14 foot?
MR. GLUCKMAN: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we need the steps going all along? You know, he
wants to do a gradual down. I don't think we need all that
structure either.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Did we close the public hearing?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we did. I make a motion we open the public
hearing again. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The public hearing is open again.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I see what you are saying. You are saying just
give the staircase off the deck. It is in the coastal erosion area.
That width is 14 feet. (indicating.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What Peggy is saying, to make the deck even with
the existing house, so it would be like a 15x14 deck instead of
17'8"x14. There is less structure and you are evening it out with
the house. Here you are extending. And then just make it 13 feet.
Board of Trustees
54
August 22, 2007
So it's 13x14, and just square off the house and then having these
steps go down like that. (indicating.)
(A conversation is held off the record.)
Okay, I think I got it. I'll make a motion to close the public
hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I will make a motion to approve Gluckman Mayner
Architects on behalf of Laura Weil as amended as follows: To
approve a 78x14 foot deck on the seaward side to go no further out
than the existing house with a 14x5 foot stairs on the south side
of that deck and to approve an enclosure with deck on the east side
of the house, which is the road side, which would be approximately
14x29 feet, which would be partial enclosure and partial deck, and
with changing this application the way we did, I find it to be
consistent with LWRP. Drywells are to be placed to contain roof
runoff, gutters, leaders and drywells. And I think that covers it.
And it includes an extension of the portion of the second one-story
structure. Access well to be removed and filled on landward-- on
the east side. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And this would be all in accordance with your
plans, so we would need new plans showing all that and if you can
just do the dimensions on it and show the drywells.
MR. CORCORAN: Do you need a motion also for the coastal erosion
permit?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm sorry. Yes. I make a motion --
MR. CORCORAN: You could just say for all those same reasons you
find the application to be consistent with the LWRP, based on all
those mitigating factors and the revisions to the plans requested
and you find it meets the criteria of 111-9. You can incorporate
what I just said, if you like.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I will make a motion, what Kieran just said, for
coastal erosion.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And again, new plans.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 14. Agnieszka Golding on behalf of MARK &
PATRICIA LAMPL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new roof
pitch over the existing second-floor area, new two-car attached
garage, new second-floor deck on waterfront, in place of existing
Board of Trustees
55
August 22, 2007
concrete block chimney. Located: 910 The Strand, East Marion.
The CAC supports this application with the condition of a
pervious driveway. CAC questions the presence of a chainlink fence.
However, I'll say there is a pool on the property, so it's probably
what the fence is about. LWRP is showing it as exempt because the
additions to the existing dwelling is constituting less than 25% of
the original structure. However LWRP coordinator does recommend
establishing a non-turf, non-disturbance buffer landward of the
bluff and requiring gutters and drywells to contain roof runoff. I
have been to the property and I'll open this up to the floor if
anyone has any comments to make on the application.
MR. LAMPL: I'm the owner of the property and I have the architect
here, Frank Notaro and the Friends of Pebble Beach Association is
here to support me if there are any questions.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is a letter that we received on August 22. It
comes from Wickham Bressler Gordon and Giasa PC. Ladies and
gentlemen, I'm writing to you on behalf of Ms. Nacia Kartzonis the
owner of lot 126, adjacent to applicant's property to the west. We
ask that you disapprove the request for an extension of the house
further into the setback area at a distance of 86 feet from the top
of the bluff. This involves construction of a second story deck as
well as stoops and steps seaward of the existing residence. The
proposal is for a huge increase in the size of the proposed house,
approximately double that which is there now, referring to the west
elevation before and after. The footprint submitted does not
include the setback computation for the 18 inches of roof area and
overhang which will extend beyond the footprint of the building.
Given the concerns of bluff stabilization and the soil and water
report, no basis has been shown to allow the expansion closer to
the bluff be allowed. If the applicant needs additional living
space, there are areas on the front side of the house which would
accommodate it. They have just decided to build a house which is
too big for a small lot. We therefore ask that you deny the
application based on adverse impact and lack of any showing of need
or basis for the variance. That's it.
MR. NOTARO: My name is Frank Notaro. We are the architects. We just
went to zoning. We sent a letter to zoning reducing the roof
overhang, so that it complies. Basically what we are doing is just
putting a new roof on the existing structure. It has a side
entrance right now. There was an objection to a proposed side
entrance. You have to really look at the drawings. And then we are
proposing a one-story, two-car garage roadside, which is consistent
with many of the homes in that neighborhood. So it is not a
substantial change. The reason we are here is because we are within
100 feet of the bluff and we are requesting approval to go ahead
Board of Trustees
56
August 22, 2007
with this project.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When I went out to the site I verified the
measurements on the survey and the measurements are correct. The 86
feet from the top of the bluff to the existing house, puts really
the only part of the project that's going on in the back of the
house. The stuff in the front is not even in our jurisdiction. It's
outside of 100 feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is the pool existing right now?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The pool is existing. The only question that really
comes up as far as what is currently there, is whether or not there
is the outdoor shower is already permitted someplace.
MR. NOTARO: If I may address that. We were issued a letter at the
zoning meeting from the zoning board, from Suffolk County. We had
not seen that letter prior to the meeting. It addressed certain
recommendations for that site. One was to revegetate under the
existing stair going down the bluff. There were a number of issues.
What we immediately did is we read it and we had a telephone
conference with the Lampl's and they, number one, agreed to remove
the shower. The shower is fed by a hose, above ground. There were
comments about the backwash for the pool. There is a catch basin.
They went through all the approvals on the pool a couple of years
ago.
As far as the irrigation system, I'll give you copy of the letter
that we gave to zoning. It addressed everyone of those items. And
we would like, our client would like a copy of some forms regarding
homes on the bluff that they mentioned in the letter, and we stated
that all in this letter.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The only part of the project that is in our
jurisdiction really is the back side. Essentially what they are
doing is taking down the chimney and putting up the second floor,
extending out a little of the deck. But nothing really out of the
realm of -- you know. The only other issue I had is the dumping of
lawn cuttings and stuff on the bluff. That we can't do. That we
need to stop. But and the establishment of the non-turf buffer as
part of the project and of course drywells and gutters, which I
figure you'll do anyway. Are there any other comments from the
audience?
MR. BIVONA: My name is Anthony Bivona, I'm the present president of
the Pebble Beach Lot Owners Association, and we support this permit
for reasons that we require in our C&R's that every home have a
garage and this is the only house of 108 houses in Pebble Beach
that does not have a garage. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response.)
Seeing as how all questions seem to be answered, I'll make a motion
to close the hearing.
Board of Trustees
57
August 22, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
written, noting that it is exempt from the LWRP, so we find it to
be exempt.
TRUSTEE KING: Hold on a second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there a drywell for the house?
MR. NOTARO: We will, when we submit it to the building department
-- they require it.
TRUSTEE KING: Where is it going to go? I want to just put it on the
survey.
MR. NOTARO: I have not done the calculation.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can do it subject to receiving it.
TRUSTEE KING: When you get everything done, give us a new plan
showing the buffer along the top of the bluff and the location of
the drywells for the roof runoff.
MR. NOTARO: You'll have it tomorrow.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Go ahead, Bob.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I make first the motion to approve the application
with the stipulations that we have 15-foot non-turf buffer along
the top of the bluff, that it also includes gutters, leaders and
drywells, which will be put on the plans that Mr. Notaro will
submit to the office tomorrow. And that's it. Everything else is
fine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we find it exempt under LWRP?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We did.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number 15, Bill Gorman-North Fork Permits on
behalf of GEORGE & NANCY ROSENFELD requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 4.6x16.5 foot addition to the existing dwelling
covering the existing second-floor deck. Located: 160 Rambler Road
Ext., Southold.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application?
We have a review from LWRP, which I'll go into in a minute. And the
CAC also has some recommendations. So, would anyone like to speak?
MR. GORMAN: I would like to hear your recommendations.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. CAC would like a ten-foot non-turf buffer,
drywells, gutters, installed to contain roof runoff. LWRP, the
inconsistency is due to the house being 72 feet away from the
wetlands, the existing home, and that a non-turf, non-disturbance
buffer be established landward on the wetland boundary also. And
also requires gutters to drywells to contain roof runoff.
Board of Trustees
58
August 22, 2007
This is an existing home. Most of the addition, the whole board
looked at this-- most of the additions are going within the
footprint, and our field notes simply comply with LWRP and CAC.
This Board did not discuss the buffer but I did have some
reservations about the lawn going right up to the wetlands and I
would say probably the 10-foot buffer would come in line with the
few cedars that are there and then the mowing went beyond that. So
I would request anything beyond those cedars, ten-foot buffer,
would not be mowed. Either let it grow back naturally or--
MR. GORMAN: So a ten-foot buffer beyond the cedar trees. Just let
it go.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. Either cedar trees to the wetland area or
from the phragmites landward.
MR. GORMAN: Okay.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments from the Board?
(No response.)
Any other comments from the audience?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the wetland permit
for George and Nancy Rosenfeld to construct their addition to the
existing dwelling, covering the existing second-floor deck and with
the addition of drywells and gutters and the ten-foot buffer, which
will make this consistent with our LWRP. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: I have a request for a break, so we'll take a break
for five minutes.
(After a short recess, these proceedings continue as follows.)
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.
This is one that Jill and I looked at initially. We had some
concerns about the dock being so close to the neighbors. We want
it a little further to the south. We need to see it staked out,
the seaward end of the float to be staked.
Any anything want to add, Pat? It's a different design, new design
from what was originally proposed.
MS. MOORE: Right. Based on the recommendations that you and Jill
Board of Trustees
59
August 22, 2007
provided as to the location of where we should start the dock, we
started it, and the dock, the float can either go straight out or
it can go on an "L." I don't know why Bob Fox put a little bit of
an angle.
TRUSTEE KING: I think he did that for the water depth, to maintain
deeper water.
MS. MOORE: That would make sense. That was the only conclusion I
could come to. I can stake this. If you had a different design in
mind, I didn't want us spending the money to stake it as it is.
Every staking, it's about a $200 bill, so I try to avoid the number
of times I do it.
In redesigning the dock, it actually changed the dimensions of it.
It shrunk it a bit because the location was pushed out further.
So.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you know how big a boat? We said it was a big
boat he was bringing in. Do you know the length?
MS. MOORE: I could find out. I think it's over 30 feet, so.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just looking. We have 20. You have about 21
feet from the corner of the float to this boat that is on the south
side of the neighbor's float. Which is not a lot and if you have a
40-foot boat you might start crowding the envelope here as far as
the neighbor goes as far as navigation.
MS. MOORE: My only concern is if I made it straight, he worried
about a tie line and I, you know, so I angled it back. And we
shouldn't really have a problem because, you know, we can keep the
boat, the back end of the boat out toward the channel. But if you
want to us move it over, I'm just concerned about moving it too far
over into Browers Woods. As it is, where we had it originally was
precisely halfway, exactly midway on our property.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just wondering if it was better straight out with
the boat just tied on the south side. That leaves you more room
for the neighbors.
MS. MOORE: Here I have the drawing. I can give you both drawings.
I was concerned that this might be, you know, this was not going to
be --
TRUSTEE KING: We'll have to look at it. Personally, I like this
design. If you throw a 50-foot boat on there, I think you'll have
a problem with the neighbor.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This alternative is, I know you are looking for
the depth but I would not want to see it go further out.
MS. MOORE: Exactly. So I didn't think that was a good alternative.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So, if you bring it all back.
TRUSTEE KING: There is a dock to the south, too. Have her stake the
outer corners of this float as this was presented and that will
give us a good idea.
MS. MOORE: That's the one I thought was better. That's fine. The
Board of Trustees
60
August 22, 2007
outer both ends or do you want --
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, because it's on an angle.
MS. MOORE: Put an "X" on it and I'll give it to Bob Fox.
TRUSTEE KING: And we'll look at it next month.
MS. MOORE: That's fine.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other questions on this one?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MS. MOORE: Thank you
TRUSTEE KING: And you'll get me a copy of that paperwork?
MS. MOORE: I'll drop it off tomorrow.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
MS. MOORE: It's not being used against my client, is it?
TRUSTEE KING: I wouldn't.
MS. MOORE: Is the DEC trying to use it for any reason?
TRUSTEE KING: No, I'm just looking at a lot of these properties.
We might have to charge more because the whole thing is on our
property now.
MS. MOORE: No, it was deeded over. Sorry, you owe us.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 17, Patricia Moore on behalf of JAN JUNGBLUT
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x48 foot timber dock, 3.5
feet above grade, 2.5x18 foot ramp and a 6x20 foot floating dock,
install eight inch piles and two 10-inch anchor piles. Located:
3295 Pine Neck Road, Southold.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and was found inconsistent.
It was found inconsistent with the concern that it was, as
depicted, it was too close to the property lines on either side.
It also would interfere with the neighbor's access to the water.
CAC resolved to support the application with the condition the
project is staked, the dock and vessel don't exceed more than
one-third across the width of the creek, and appropriate materials
are used.
We went out and looked at this application and we had some
concerns about it, because it was such a narrow piece of property
as it is. It's a pie-shaped lot going down, so the apex of the lot
is toward the water. And this had been looked at previously, there
was an application in the past for a dock here and we found in the
files the application, was dated June 1, 1994, that is basically,
I'm looking at the diagrams of it, and it's close to the same as
what has been applied for and at that time it was denied by the
Board of Trustees for boater safety reasons, and they felt
Board of Trustees
61
August 22, 2007
reasonable access could be made with a stake and pulley assembly
into the creek.
So is there anybody here to speak on behalf of the
application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. I delivered and you should have in your file a
reconfiguration. After we had met, my client met with the neighbor
Mr. Birnham, and Mr. Birnham had no objection to having the float
go over the property line into his waterfront. Mr. Birnham will
not be effected whatsoever because he has quite a large bit of
waterfront.
And so the proposal would be to change the angle of the float
which would -- essentially, the boat that he has there now, my
client has there now on a mooring, is in approximately the same
location as the location of where this float with the boat would
be. So it was a good alternative and certainly the property
owners, both property owners, my client and Mr. Birnham were in
agreement on that. So we submitted that to the Board and you
should have it in your file at this point.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have this submitted, date stamped August 20, a
letter from yourself, Patricia Moore saying Mr. Birnham consents to
the placement of an "L" float extending to the west, and then you
attach to that a diagram where you show that "L" shaped at the end
of really the catwalk, looks like the catwalk comes down on to what
is then the floating dock.
And there is also a letter here from Charles Birnham saying as
adjacent property owner adjacent to the west side, I consent to
allow be Mr. Jungblut to relocate his proposed dock so it extends
to a westerly direction, crossing the extension of my property line
in Jockey Creek. That's not dated but I'm assuming it's recent.
MS. MOORE: It was the same date. I waited until we had that in
writing from him.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sorry, and on the plans he also signed and
consented to it, and that's dated 8/19/07.
MS. MOORE: That's the date.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So it appears from these plans that the float, the
float, as the new proposal shows, will not extend further than the
Warner and Taylor dock.
MS. MOORE: Right. It doesn't extend further.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And it will be approximately 2.7, between 2.7 and
3.2 two feet of depth.
MS. MOORE: Correct. Which will meet the DEC standards.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, the question would be still, it's still the
set off on the east side so the Warner-Taylor property, it's still
within 15 feet of that property line, and in our code we ask for
any docks to be at least, structure, to be at least 15 feet from
either property line.
Board of Trustees
62
August 22, 2007
MS. MOORE: I understand that. But you have pre-existing size
properties and this gentleman, the Warner-Taylor dock and
structures and the boat itself, does not conform with your
regulations. So we are trying to accommodate with a neighbor who
exceeds their waterfront and we are trying to allocate fairly the
waterfront of both properties, so --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because I remember what we suggested out in the
field was to see if Warner and Taylor's would possibly change their
"T" to a straight float, you know, and that way one person could
leave their boat at one dock and the other person leave the boat at
the other. And I know he's a sailboater and that's more
difficult. But our problem still is the setbacks on either side of
the property are much less than 15 feet. And this is where I need
help, Jim. As you extend those property lines out into the water,
it becomes even narrower. Do you follow what I'm saying?
TRUSTEE KING: If the channel is there, they are supposed to be
perpendicular to the channel.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right.
TRUSTEE KING: He has a mooring now, right?
MS. MOORE: Obviously we would abandon the mooring.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: He has access with a mooring or as per this 1975
request he would have access with a stake and pulley system.
MS. MOORE: I just want to place on the record, Mr. Jungblut is here
and maybe he could place the reason why he needs to have access.
MR. JUNGBLUT: My name is Jan Jungblut. First of all, the original,
when you had the stake and pulley system, that was in our
application, that was never put in. We had originally applied for a
mooring. Since that time, my wife had suffered an injury and it's
very difficult for her to climb from a dinghy on to the boat. So
one of the reasons we wanted it on a dock is to let her have use of
the boat.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Before I ask for comments from the
Board, are there any other members of the audience who want to
comment on this application?
(No response.)
Seeing none, comments from the Board on this?
TRUSTEE KING: I think it's too tight.
MS. MOORE: Well, it's really -- think about the application I had
right before. You had a right of way of ten feet, and the person
had a dock at the end of the tenOfoot right of way. You have a lot
of those situations in the town and it should not penalize, just
look back at the Hinden application, the one we just had before, it
has the adjacent property has a narrow, ten-foot strip of property
and they have a dock on it. The reason that it's tight is because
actually the waterfront is quite generous over here in Jockey
Creek, and we have an unobstructed area to the west where Mr.
Board of Trustees
63
August 22, 2007
Birnham has agreed to have us put the float. If we had to angle
the float even -- or, not the float, excuse me, the dock, out even
more on an angle toward Birnham, Mr. Birnham has no objection
because he has about 200 or 300 feet, correct, Mr. Birnham's
waterfront is about two or 300 feet in width and he has stairs and
access at pretty much at the far end of this property.
So we are trying to accommodate, we are trying to make it
fair. This is the way the property was designed and it's obvious
from the most of the properties here on Jockey Creek that they were
designed early on to give everybody waterfront access. So we've
tried to come back, based on your comments, we have tried to come
back with an alternative, um, we can't assure ourselves that Warner
and Taylor are willing to make any changes. We have Mr. Birnham
that is certainly agreeable and that is something that we came to
you with. If you want us to move it over some more toward Birnham,
we have his consent. So.
TRUSTEE KING: The previous Board reviewed the application and
denied this.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, that's what I entered into the record, that in
1994 they denied it and instead recommended a stake and pulley
system
MR. JUNGBLUT: Excuse me. That application was from the previous
homeowner. That was not our application.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But it was the same location.
MR. JUNGBLUT: Same property, yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we understand that.
MS. MOORE: Can you tell when the Warner-Taylor dock was issued,
when that permit was issued? Because that's the one that is
creating all the problems.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't have that in the file here.
MS. MOORE: I would ask for that to be included in the record and
I'll research it and I'll add it to your record. Because that
piece property is creating all the problems.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I guess I don't follow you with that as to how that
property is creating problems. I see the problem is that this is a
very narrow piece of property. Like I said, it's a pie-shaped lot
with the apex going down there. So the Jungblut's have access to
the water. They do have access, whether it's a stake and pulley
system or a mooring. So the access is there.
What you are asking for is a dock and the dock, the dock
setback is still, I understand have you taken care of, these are my
words, you have taken care of the Birnham side of this, but the
Warner-Taylor is still very close to their property line. It
doesn't meet the setbacks as per 275 code of there being 15 feet
there.
MS. MOORE: That is a recommendation. There are circumstances where
Board of Trustees
64
August 22, 2007
you have to deviate from the 15 feet depending on the circumstances
and what is fair or what is already existing conditions. So I'm
suggesting to you that given this property that I wish I had -- we
probably have ten feet on the one side.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have one inch equals 20.
MS. MOORE: I have one inch equals 30 on mine.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is one inch on equals 20 and this says one
inch equals 20.
MS. MOORE: Are we looking at the same map?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is 20. This is 30.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry. One inch equals 30 on that. So that is
about half-inch down there. About 15 feet. Let me look at the
wetland boundary, it's a little bit more. Looks like it might be
17 feet at the wetland boundary and mean high water, approximately
15 feet. That's the total piece of property width.
MS. MOORE: The problem we have is I have a client who has handicap
issues. She can't get to her boat anymore. So, as far as getting
access to the water, she doesn't have access to the water anymore.
We are trying to come up with some alternative that will work and
we are willing to listen, if you wanted us to move it over, we can
move it over. It's just the mooring doesn't work and the pulley
system, she still has to get, the dock still has to give her access
to the --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Where is the boat now?
MS. MOORE: Actually right where the float is.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is it a Grady White?
MS. MOORE: Right, it's moored right in front. If you recall, the
boat where it is presently is about where the float is proposed.
So as far as taking up room or space, you already have the boat
there and it's taking up the same space that our float does. So.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What's the extent of your disability?
MS. JUNGBLUT: I have to have my left leg reconstructed. I have no
kneecap and I have very little muscle strength left in that leg.
And I'm on disability.
MS. MOORE: You are on disability?
MS. JUNGBLUT: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from the Board? I'm looking for
some feelings from the Board on this.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think it's too tight but I'm willing to table it
and try to come up with some creative solution if we can. I think
it's too tight the way it is now, though. I don't know what
alternatives there are out there.
MS. MOORE: I guess my question is what part of it is too tight? If
where the boat is now is where the float is, then it's taking up no
more space than what is already taken up. The catwalk itself is
not taking up any space, it's --
Board of Trustees
65
August 22, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's taking up space.
MS. MOORE: Well, I mean, it's inplace there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm also measuring from the proposed new plan, the
float, to next door, again, is also 15 feet, so.
MS. MOORE: But the issue is the proximity of boats to each other
and, as I said, if we stake where the float is, you'll find that
it's where the boat is now.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not just the boat. It's the structure, too.
The proximity the structures next to each other, not just the
boat.
MS. MOORE: It's going over marsh, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The only thing I might suggest, I'm sympathetic to
folks with disabilities. I have worked with the disabled in the
past. Rather than maybe jump to a snap judgment, maybe we can
table this for the moment, see if we can go back out and come up
with some kind of alternative and figure something out rather than
just say no at this point.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what my suggestion was, to table it and
think about it.
MS. MOORE: Fine, we are happy to entertain whatever creative
solutions we come up with.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We're not guaranteeing we can come up with
something, but we'll try.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we could close the hearing and reserve decision,
or we could table this. What's the preference of the Board?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Kieran, what do you suggest?
MR. CORCORAN: If you are going to do alternatives, I would keep the
hearing open.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we keep the hearing open.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then I'll make a motion to table this application
of Jungblut on 3295 Pine Neck Road, Southold.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Opposed?
(NONE OPPOSED.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we want the seaward end staked?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Pat, why don't you go ahead with your new
plan and stake the seaward end of the float.
MS. MOORE: That's fine.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The next field inspection, I don't know if you were
here earlier, it's the 13th.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any chance we can get the neighbor there the day
that we come, too?
MS. MOORE: Which one?
Board of Trustees
66
August 22, 2007
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As we are looking at the water, on the right-hand
side.
MR. JUNGBLUT: Do you want him to come here?
MS. MOORE: No, if he could be present during the inspection on the
13th.
MR. JUNGBLUT: No, he's in the military, he's in the Naval Reserve.
He's in Washington until April or something. He comes back on the
weekend, so I can have him write you something if you want.
MS. MOORE: Do you want him to consider the float relocation?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to see what his opinion is on this and
see, perhaps is there something he's welling to do to help you.
MR. JUNGBLUT: If I see him this weekend or next weekend and have
him agree to waive the layout.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just show him what you plan on doing and have him
submit his comments to us in writing. He can E-mail them.
MR. JUNGBLUT: Hopefully I'll see him this weekend or next weekend.
MS. MOORE: Any time before the next meeting. Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 18, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf
of PECONIC LANDING AT SOUTHOLD INC., requests a Wetland Permit to
widen and improve an existing 6'-9' access path to a ten-foot
paved path for handicap access and construct a 20-foot gazebo.
Located: 1500 Brecknock Road, Greenport.
The CAC tabled the application because there was no stakes for
the gazebo. The construction plans for gazebo is not submitted and
location of a pervious path was not included.
The LWRP coordinator has found that this application is
inconsistent, suggesting that of course hay bales during
construction to protect the pond and the Sound, but furthermore its
inconsistent because distance of the proposed gazebo from the top
of the bluff to the pond is less than 100 feet.
Okay. I'll say that I did look at it. As a matter of fact we
have all been out there at one time or another. We did
pre-inspection as well on this. While I was out there I did take a
few measurements and I found that the distance from the high water
mark that day, which was last Saturday, to the top of the bluff was
35 feet. There were no stakes at the time as to where the gazebo
wanted to go.
MR. JUST: They put those picnic tables there and actually knocked
my stakes down when they put the benches there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's kind of what I figured. I did note that the
coastal erosion line is on that path. So that gazebo would be on
the water side of the coastal erosion line.
MR. JUST: I got a call from your office about that issue. I asked
the surveyor to locate it on the survey for me. When I looked at
the coastal hazard erosion may myself the scale was an inch to
Board of Trustees
67
August 22, 2007
200. I want to be really specific because we could play around
with the location of the gazebo. Hopefully we can get it landward
of that line.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That was really the big question was where the line
was. The map I saw up in the Planning Department shows it's
actually sitting on top of the pathway. So if it's inside, on the
seaward side of the coastal line, we'll have to talk about how we
do this and make it a removable structure. And the size, the 20
feet is too large.
MR. JUST: That's negotiable, too. To understand what the purpose
of the path and gazebo is, I imagine, right. Accessibility. To
get down there that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Absolutely. Are there any comments from the
audience? And questions, comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just have the same concern about the gazebo.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Should we table this until we figure out what the
coastal erosion line is?
MR. JUST: Most definitely.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to find out with the coastal erosion
line is. Get some stakes down there.
MR. JUST: I already asked the surveyor to put it on the survey for
me so we could determine where it is.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What I have written here is that, at least
according to the code, you are looking at 6x6 at that point, would
be acceptable. I realize that is kind of small for a gazebo and
really unrealistic if we are talking about folks with walkers or
wheelchairs. So I want to be considerate of that because I know
what the function here is. The only other thing I might suggest is
if maybe you could throw it on the plans is some stationary trash
receptacles.
MR. JUST: That was one of the reasons for the access road to get
the little pick-ups down there to pick up the debris.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's amazing how much blows into that little pond
off the Sound there.
TRUSTEE KING: The path is going to be paved?
MR. JUST: We would like to see it paved.
TRUSTEE KING: Can you show drainage for it?
MR. JUST: We can amend the plans to show that, sure.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would make the motion we table this until we get
a revised plan on it and figure out what the coastal erosion line is.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 19, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf
of JOSEPH & NORA FLOTTERON requests a Wetland Permit to construct
additions to an existing single-family dwelling, 304 square foot
Board of Trustees
68
August 22, 2007
porch, 899 square foot garage, remove portions of existing drive,
install new drive, add new retaining walls 140 linear feet, remove
existing brick walk 92 square feet and wood retaining walls 61
linear feet, remove decking 86 square feet, abandon and fill
existing sanitary system, install a new sanitary system, and
regrade property. Located: 595 Clearwater Lane, Cutchogue.
We all inspected this. The LWRP found it inconsistent. It's
within 100 feet. And they recommend to establish a minimum of 30
foot, non-disturbance buffer landward of the wetland boundary. Hay
bales during construction, gutters, leaders, drywells for roof
runoff. CAC supports the application with the condition of gutters
and drywells are installed to contain roof runoff, sanitary system
is located as far from the wetland as possible and drainage is
installed away from the wetlands.
We went out there, all of us, and it was not staked. But the
plans were, the survey was pretty thorough, so we understood where
it was going. Do you have drywells on here?
MR. JUST: Yes, there were.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And that was our comments in the field, too.
Drywells. Are there any comments?
MR. JUST: I have the applicant and his contractor and his architect
here as well. At this time we would like to know if we could
possibly modify the proposal. What the idea was to take the whole
structure and slide it back about other ten to eleven feet further
landward, putting it at a minimum of 50 feet setback instead of 39
feet setback to meet building code and zoning code. We
incorporated drywells into it and gutters. It will move the
sanitary system further back from where it is now, probably 125
feet. They want to abandon the existing septic system, pump it out
and the new one again will be about 120,125 feet landward. On
that proposal shows the septic tank right at the hundred feet. The
tank is a little further landward of that. I have copies, revised
copies of the plans if you would like to look at them now.
If you don't mind, Fred has a map if he could show you of the
overlay. If he could bring that up real quick. Because I only
have three copies.
MR. WEBER: Fred Weber, architect. Do you want a chance to look at
for a minute?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, please. (Perusing).
Do you still have to go to Zoning for the side yard portion of it?
MR. WEBER: No. We should not have to. The side yard setbacks are
a combined, I think, 35 feet. We have one side is 15. The other
side is 20.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I notice the other side is 15. The east side
portion of it is closer, the stairs and all that.
MR. WEBER: You are talking about right here? Sorry. That's, well,
Board of Trustees
69
August 22, 2007
that's a retaining wall and the stairs are in grade. They are not
really stairs down. The way the side works is this gets pushed
back into the hill.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So that's not, -- okay.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is this house coming down completely?
TRUSTEE KING: They are actually knocking the house down?
MR. WEBER: Yes, I guess so. Basically, um, we are trying to move
it back a little bit and get behind the zoning setbacks, which is a
required rear yard of 50 feet. The house profile would be exactly
the same. It would give us an opportunity to, you know, do work on
the foundation. The house was originally built and was renovated
once so we were a little concerned as we got into it that we might
find things that we needed to repair.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Where is the existing cesspool?
MR. WEBER: There are two small, existing cesspools. They are very
lightly highlighted here. They are small. Let's put it that way.
MR. JUST: Where is the location of the drywells?
MR. WEBER: There are three drywells. There was 1-A, which is just
to the, sort of off to the side here. There is another one in the
driveway and another one off the corner of the house, right here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: 1-B, 1-C. I see them.
MR. WEBER: If you could see, the way this is, that's the area where
the house retreats from, that area that is shaded in or dashed, I
guess.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What Peggy was just saying is basically if you are
going to take down the house, could you redesign it to make it fit
a little better so that the piece closest to the wetland would be
in line with this addition here.
Instead of this "L" it would be --
MR. WEBER: Say that again, now?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Move this section here and put it here. I don't
know if it's side yard setbacks.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It would be no farther than it is already.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: She is saying move this part even further back and
attach it to here.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Since you are moving the house.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you understand what we are saying?
MR. WEBER: Yes, I guess the more the house retreats back on the
site, number one, the angle of view, of the water becomes much
less. Right now on this side is a house which is more or less
abandoned, that will then become in their front yard. Obviously
that could change over time, but right now it's basically an
abandoned house.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Moving this back, where does it go in line with
that house, do you know?
MR. WEBER: It's not located on the survey.
Board of Trustees
70
August 22, 2007
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It would probably be more in line with it rather
than less. Same with either house on either side. It will be more
in line than less.
MR. WEBER: What you are saying is move the whole body of the house
back into here, then you would be looking at that house there. You
would also be much further back on the property, which is in a
sense shielded.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That would take it out of our jurisdiction, that's
for sure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just moving the house back as proposed is going to
help bring it into consistency with the LWRP, so I mean --
TRUSTEE KING: It could be left where it is, but if you are moving
it back 15 or ten feet, whatever it is, at least it's an
improvement of what is there. It's better than what is there now.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other questions from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a huge problem with it, with the
proposal the way it is. It's an improvement over what is there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any questions, any comments from the audience?
(No response.)
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
JMO Consulting on behalf of Joseph and Nora Flotteron as amended.
MR. WEBER: There is an amendment date. I think it's August 20.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As amended as per survey of August 20, which is
basically the same plan but it's reconstructing the house and
moving it back ten feet. Which would make it 50 feet back from the
wetland line. And this --
TRUSTEE KING: That puts the deck, if the house itself is a little
fu rther.
MR. WEBER: 50 feet, the existing house is 39. I'm sorry. Existing
deck is 39 feet.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what I'm looking at.
MR. WEBER: Right. And the proposed, well, the house moved back,
again, is 50 feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So the deck would be 50 feet back, correct?
MR. WEBER: Correct, the house would be further back. The house
would be another four feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve the application as
amended to reconstruct the house and deck as per plans dated August
20, which brings the whole structure 50 feet back from the wetland
line with the new sanitary system, which is out of our jurisdiction
and has leaders, gutters and drywells, and with these changes, hay
bales, during construction, and silt fence, and with these changes
Board of Trustees
71
August 22, 2007
I find this consistent with lWRP. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just looking where you are going to put the hay
bales, on the seaward side. You don't need them up on the side, do
you? Hay bales, do you need them up to the side?
MR. JUST: I don't really think so. Just straight across the whole
property.
TRUSTEE KING: Just across the seaward face of the property.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How about the elevation?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Elevation is six even.
TRUSTEE KING: Eight gives them plenty of room.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Elevation eight line. Go straight cross.
TRUSTEE KING: Elevation eight, go straight across.
MR. WEBER: Okay, we can do that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I want to make sure it's enough room for
construction.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. JUST: How about 30 feet from the wetland line back.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 30 feet from the wetland line back.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 22, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of
JENNIFER B. GOULD requests a Wetland Permit to construct 42 feet of
new bulkhead immediately in front of existing bulkhead using C-loc
vinyl sheathing. Construct two four-foot returns. Existing wood
platform and stairway will be removed then reinstalled after
construction of the new bulkhead. Revegetate existing slope where
disturbed. located: 1825 Truman's Path, East Marion.
CAC resolved to support the application with the condition
that the bulkhead replacement is a one-time bump out.
The lWRP coordinator has determined that this is inconsistent
with lWRP because the bulkhead, retaining walls, revetments and
gabions should only be inplace replacement of existing functional
bulkhead and they should not project the structure seaward of the
adjacent neighboring structures.
Now, I will say I was out there and I saw this and I know if
you don't, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, if you don't build in
front of this, you'll lose the house.
MR. COSTEllO: You could. What you'll be doing is you'll be
disturbing some polluted materials behind the existing creosoted
bulkhead. There are aeromatic hydrocarbons behind the bulkhead
that we would rather not have go out into the water, and I believe
that the, environmentally, this would be the most consistent way,
Board of Trustees
72
August 22, 2007
and it would be unable to excavate properly. We'll have to
excavate by hand, shovel by hand, in order to install helical screw
anchor piling into that -- it's a little bit of a steep bluff,
within a 20-foot reach of the house.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I went out there. There was storm damage there.
The only thing that I did suggest on my inspection was no CCA on
the platform and revegetate with native plantings.
MR. COSTEllO: We'll revegetate because we'll disturb some of the
vegetation by digging by hand. This bulkhead was built after one
of the hurricanes in the '50s. It was built by Ralph D. Preston.
I was part of that company, but not at that time. And it's just
old and deteriorated. So is the jetty, but the jetty is
functional. It has one hole in it that could be patched, but it's
not affecting the little drift to any major degree, so it's
irrelevant. The beach on both sides are both equal so, the only
thing is, on the reconstruction, the stairs right now, that the
stairs are reconstructed and held up with 4x4 posts. Probably on
the completion, where you have a stronger piling, you can just do
it counter-levered without intruding the two posts on to the
beach. That's all.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments from the audience?
(No response.)
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(No response.)
Pretty straight forward. In that case I'll make a motion to close
the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to approve the
application as written. And for the reasons that we previously
discussed concerning the possibility of collapsing the bluff all
together, we are putting the new bulkhead in front of the old one
in order to keep it so we won't lose the bluff. That would make it
consistent with lWRP. So I make a motion to approve that
application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 23, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of
PAULA DIDONATO & JUDY TEEVAN requests a wetland permit to remove
existing 4x4'8" cantilevered platform for existing floating
seasonal docks to allow construct of 1 06 feet of new bulkhead
immediately in front of existing bulkhead using C-loc 9900 vinyl
sheathing. Remove existing eight foot east return and construct a
Board of Trustees
73
August 22, 2007
20-foot return inplace. Reinstall cantilevered platform after
bulkhead construction. located: 325 Willow Point Road, Southold.
This was found inconsistent under the lWRP and the reason for
the inconsistency is because the proposed action projects seaward
of the existing wood bulkhead.
The CAC went out there and saw it and they resolved to support
the application with the condition existing buffer is enhanced to
increase the total width of the buffer to ten feet.
I have an extra set of plans here. Here is another plan, if
anybody would like to see it. Is there anybody here to speak on
behalf of this application?
MR. COSTEllO: My name is John Costello, I'm with Costello Marine
Contracting. Again, we are the applicant's agent, Paula Didonato
and Judy Teevan, and I'll try to answer any questions the Board may
have on this application.
In order to minimize the distance going out, we'll remove, we
have room to excavate so we can relieve some of the earthen
pressure and remove the older pilings to try to keep it to a
minimum. That's alii have.
TRUSTEE KING: John, I'm looking at the survey. It looks like that
bulkhead is well inside the property line, so even if you go out in
front, you are still on their property.
MR. COSTEllO: Yes. But we are still, it's not going to deviate,
it's not going extend out if we do remove the piling. It's less
fill.
TRUSTEE KING: It will still be inside their property line.
MR. COSTEllO: Yes. Now, one of the things, there was a little bit
of confusion on, I believe, was the return. At one time, the
distance of the return. The east return goes over the property
line. My son had discussions with the neighbor and they want to
know if they could leave the old in there and without excavating
it. He would rather not have his property disturbed any more than
possible. So the new return will be angled straight back and on
this gentleman's property so that it doesn't protrude across the
property line. That's where the confusion was.
TRUSTEE KING: So you are planning on keeping it within the property.
MR. COSTEllO: Right. We'll do it in two sections, an eight foot
section, then angle it and keep it within this property. Eight and
12. Instead of angling it to 20 the way it was. You'll see, we
tried to define that more clearly on, I believe it's page eight.
The last page, yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So as per the plan on sheet eight of eight is what
you are talking about.
MR. COSTEllO: Yes, there was confusion on it and we added that
page, to hopefully --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is also the support, apparently the tree
Board of Trustees
74
August 22, 2007
committee supports the application for the bulkhead to go in front
so as to help protect that willow tree that is there. They are
hoping that willow tree will remain there throughout this project
MR. COSTEllO: The owner of the property wants it to remain, too,
and we'll keep that tree there somehow.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There were two other conditions that we had. One,
there appeared to recently have been a roof runoff project done
where the runoff was going down slightly underground and exiting
right near the top of the bulkhead from the roof of the house and
so what we are looking for is, with this project, a drywell
installed to catch that roof runoff rather than the roof runoff
being sent down toward the bulkhead.
The second issue we have is that apparently there is a very
large drainage pipe at one end of the property, I guess the west
end of the property, that is handling the runoff from the road, and
as a result of this project, that pipe will have to be capped. In
other words, we are not going to give permission with the
installation of this bulkhead to include that runoff to be
continuing in that direction. So we realize that is going to
create an issue for the Highway Department and so that's an issue
that has to be addressed. And we'll bring that to the attention of
the Highway Department. If, I don't want to jump ahead here. If
the Board approves this project, it's going to create an issue for
the Highway Department. Just you need to about know as the
applicant that you don't have permission to redraw a hole and put
that pipe through there. It's not going to be any street pipe
running through there.
MR. COSTEllO: If that's the condition we certainly would not and
it's good that it is brought to the attention of the Highway
Department because this town and particularly the Trustees have
been trying to correct road runoff and this is an area that doesn't
need anymore pollution.
And the drywell, the owner will contain all the material
because we will be bringing in some clean fill so that hopefully
that the drywell would be functional.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As a said note I did speak to Peter Harris today
and talked to him about this particular site and at our next storm
water runoff meeting this will be the subject, not just this site,
but other sites like this, and I explained the situation here with
permitting this and that has been closed off. So he's aware of it
and we'll be discussing it in the near future.
MS. TEEVAN: Yes, my name is Judy Teevan, I'm one of the property
owners. I wanted to be, make a comment about the French drain that
is there. This was basically within the last couple of weeks, so
the Costello folks have not been involved in this at all, but we
had a new roof put on over one of the rooms and a skylight's lights
Board of Trustees
75
August 22, 2007
replaced, and the roofer made the recommendation because water was
coming into the Florida room that we have the French drain put in.
Which we didn't intend to do anything wrong, but that was put it.
What we did at this point is actually cut those pipes so we are not
draining that water any longer. So our hope would be if we could
avoid putting a drywell in because, one, we don't know how to do
that without probably disrupting the willow tree again, given the
layout of the yard, which I know you all saw.
So we basically made that French drain defunct at this point.
We could bring photos and whatever.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I appreciate what you have done but still it
has not revolved the runoff issue. In other words, what you are
doing now is the water is just running down and taking a leader to
the ground and it's that's it.
MS. TEEVAN: We basically restored the property as it has been
forever and ever and since we bought the house and before.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand. What we are trying to do, and you
may have heard it already in some applications tonight, is in order
to mitigate the effects of runoff from the roofs is that in every
project we are considering we are also directing people to put in
drywells to take care of the roof runoff. So what we are asking for
that one, that corner in particular, to make sure there is a
drywell for that. I know there was a note on here as to whether or
not, from the environmental technician, whether there was a drywell
for the pool backwash already. Is there one of those presently?
MS. TEEVAN: I'm not aware if there is.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The drywell doesn't have to go in that area.
know you are limited on your side. But wherever you can put it.
MS. TEEVAN: I have to definitely look into it. I don't know what
the regulations are in terms of how close to the property,
neighbors property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It could we be we are talking one drywell could
take care of the pool as well as the roof at the same time in that
back area.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You just have to pipe everything to that drywell.
MR. COSTEllO: let me assure Ms. Teevan, the excavated area of the
yard, the one area we were going to put in the proper backing
system, certainly will be where we would accommodate the roof
runoff and the backwash. There is no additional cost. It's one
piece of flexible pipe. It will cost me about $30.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. The first two-inch rain we get, the road is
going to flood and everyone is going to be calling up with a
problem.
MR. COSTEllO: You are right. And I think that the meeting on site
and try to coordinate it, or whatever it going to be done by the
Board of Trustees
76
August 22, 2007
Highway Department together prior to doing this job, I think would
be helpful. I certainly would not want to replace the bulkhead and
plug it up because I would hate to have one of the neighbors have
problems in their house, any of them.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hearing no other discussion, I'll make a motion to
close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Costello marine on behalf of Paula Didonato and Judy Teevan, at 325
Willow Point Road, with the conditions that it meets page eight of
eight of the plans dated stamped July 25, 2007, with regard to the
east return; that the drainage pipe from the public roadway that is
currently going through the bulkhead will be cut and cut off with
installation of the new bulkhead; that there will be a drywell
installed to handle the backwash from the pool as well as the roof
runoff on that back side of the house. That looks like everything.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: 24, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of
JilL & CAROL RIDINI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
10x10.25 foot extension to the existing wooden deck. Construct
3x104 foot fixed dock with cross over stairway to beach. Install
two 1Q-inch diameter mooring pilings. Remove existing wing
retaining wall. Construct 116 feet of new five-foot high
retaining wall. Backfill area behind retaining wall with clean
trucked in soil, approximately 50 cubic yards, and revegetate with
Cape American Beach grass 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. located: 805
West Road, Cutchogue.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this
application?
MR. COSTEllO: John Costello, Costello Marine. We are the agent for
Jill and Carol Ridini on this project. I'm sure the Board will
have questions and I'll do my best to try to attempt to answer
them.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. CAC supports the extension to the
deck using appropriate materials. CAC does not support the fixed
dock because there are no other docks in the area. CAC also
questions the need for a five-foot high retaining wall and the size
of the catch basin and whether or not it's appropriate to stop
Board of Trustees
77
August 22, 2007
erosion.
This is inconsistent with lWRP. It's quite an extensive
report. The proposed setback distance for the proposed wood deck to
the bulkhead is zero feet; the proposed new retaining wall to the
existing bulkhead is 12 feet; catch basin is undetermined feet from
the bulkhead.
The proposed dock is inconsistent with lWRP since the proposed
dock is located in Cutchogue Harbor, which is a New York State
designated significant fish and wildlife habitat area. It goes on
for three or four pages about the dock. Correspondingly, the lWRP
doesn't support the construction of private docks and recommends
alternatives which one being mentioned is the mooring of boats.
The entire Board looked at this and I believe the entire Board
had no problems with replacement of the bulkhead but there was
questioning on the need for the retaining wall. We felt that the
bluff area was fully revegetated. We also didn't -- so I'll just
say there were, I won't speak for the full Board. I'll just say
there were questions as to the other structure. Jim do you want to
speak to the retaining wall?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. I looked at that bluff. The previous owner
clear cut the whole bluff. That was the problem. There is no
vegetation there now. What was growing is stumps this big in
diameter was cut right off at ground level. That's what caused the
erosion problems there. It's really coming in nice. There is no
need for a retaining wall there.
MR. COSTEllO: The last application I believe we made, we were
talking about two smaller retaining walls in tiers. And we reduced
it to the one single one. And you will see that the material that
is on this bluff, basically, is a soft, sandy material. And the
previous owner did clear cut most of the larger vegetation off this
cliff. I don't know what the vegetation was. I had not seen the
site at that time. But they did replant it with some beach
grasses. And it's still steep. And by terracing it, dividing it
into half, terracing it and picking up a little bit of elevation,
you'll be able to revegetate it and keep the vegetation better.
If you looked at the site recently you'll see there has been
some vegetation, because of the soft soil, slipping and moving
toward the west. The property angles slightly and it's sandy
material and it does erode and it does erode down to the bulkhead.
But by terracing it, I think it would probably be much easier to
plant. It's behind an existing bulkhead and we had, I believe, we
got last meeting, the Board dropped the dock out of it, did not
want the two terracing in it and approved the bulkhead portion of
the project.
So by taking one of the terracings out and putting in a single
five-foot high terracing, the contour of that little cliff with
Board of Trustees
78
August 22, 2007
sand, it would just be easier to maintain. That's all. That
addresses only the retaining wall portion of the project. That's
all. And if you could see, it is the whole property runs down hill
to the west and there is, the only area there that is losing and
scouring out fill, and it's running over the bulkhead, is toward
the west end. You know, that's the reason for designing the
terracing in.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you know if there are gutters, leaders and
drywells on that house?
MR. COSTEllO: I believe the house has a drywell and we were going
to put in an additional one to try to cut the flow of water off
heading to the west. You know, try to accumulate some of it off
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is with the catch basin?
MR. COSTEllO: Yes. It's sandy material that will percolate the
water down if you let it. It's just that the slope of the cliff is
a little steep and the beach grass and rooting of the beach grass
is just sliding the material, the soft material is sliding down,
that's all. I could show you photographs but I believe they were
sent as part of the package.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What's the feeling for the dock retaining wall?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Why don't we start with the retaining wall. I have
no problem, excuse me, at the time I thought the vegetation would
take care of the issue. I didn't see a need for a retaining wall
there. Particularly with the installation of this catch basin will
help to keep any water from coming down there.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm not in favor the retaining wall. I think the
bluff is pretty stable and it's vegetated and there is a lot of big
stump areas that will have to be removed to build a wall. There is
a lot of stuff there now, it's in pretty good shape. I was all up
through there, it's tough to even get through it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: When we were there, it was quite thickly
vegetated already.
MR. COSTEllO: If you look at the photographs that were submitted,
some areas has patches of heavy vegetation and down near the
bulkhead you'll also see where the sand is moving down off that
bluff and killing the vegetation. So there is movement of sand.
That's the reason to try to advocate the terracing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What the applicant showed us when we were there, he
was particularly concerned from the, we'll call it the top of the
beach house that is this, gazebo, to the west.
MR. COSTEllO: That's the worse.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm wondering if there is an opportunity to just
consider a retaining wall for that part rather than all the way
along the property. Because I know Jim, what you looked at was on
the other side where we had the stumps and it could be the
vegetation will take care of that whole area. And this way it will
Board of Trustees
79
August 22, 2007
address the steepest part of the property.
TRUSTEE KING: There was a problem where the stairs are and behind
the little cabana. You know, that's something to think about.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is that something the applicant might think about?
MR. COSTEllO: I'm sure they would. let me just point out a couple
of things. It's probably in the photograph. With each of the
packages. You'll see, particularly on this photograph, there was
more fill up on this concrete wall. You are starting to see
footings exposed and whatnot. What's happening is this is
migrating down to the beach. It's migrating. It's soft sand. The
only thing, why to put the terracing in, any agree of terracing,
with the height, whether it's fight foot or whatnot, is to try to
cut this sharp slope. That's all.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are these photos dated here?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is when we first went out last winter.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There is lot more vegetation on both sides.
MR. COSTEllO: They have been planting it.
TRUSTEE KING: Nothing was planted. I walked through there.
MR. COSTEllO: This sand is moving down.
TRUSTEE KING: It looks a lot different now.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to propose then, that we only at this
time approve the retaining wall from that, I'll call it a beach
house or beach bungalow to the west. You know, from the stairs
that go down where we saw there was some dropping off there on the
west edge of the property. That's their biggest concern. That's
to the west edge of the property.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So from here, behind here, and behind this side,
toward that.
TRUSTEEBERGEN:Yu~
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And not on this side.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How wide is that building, John?
MR. COSTEllO: I think it's eight feet. I'm not sure. I have it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So make it ten feet in.
TRUSTEE KING: Where would that retaining wall be in relation to the
back of the bungalow; even with the back of the bungalow?
MR. COSTEllO: It would be midway to the bungalow back. It shows on
the drawing on page four of ten.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Oh. I was just going to go back to here.
(indicating.) I'm sorry.
MR. COSTEllO: It's just on that one side. That's where the worst
of the erosion is.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's just shy of 60 feet. (Perusing.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We'll go one terrace behind the building, all
the way across.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's about 58 feet. Yes, from the stairwell to
the west. To the property line. Which is approximately 58 feet.
Board of Trustees
80
August 22, 2007
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Starting behind the building.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Starting from, my understanding is what we saw was
behind this building on either side, this was dropping off also.
So I'm saying from the stairwell we'll address what was dropping
off from that stairwell over.
TRUSTEE KING: Could we just write against the back of the building.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's only where I saw it eroding was behind
the building, the beach house.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is the side where they said it was getting
really bad. That's where they are putting the catch basin also.
I would recommend this entire length.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know if you remember, when we were out
this last time that was not as grown in as the other side.
MR. COSTEllO: This is going from this point on.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That area was not growing in like the other area
did.
MR. COSTEllO: Only because that's where the water will run, the
excess water that doesn't percolate.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have a problem with doing that one side
with a retaining wall.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, what's your feeling on this? Is that okay
with you?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, it's fine with me. I would rather have that
then have erosion and the whole thing.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have any problems behind the building.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So we are saying plus or minus 58 behind the
building.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we just say west side of the stairs.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is it south or west? Yes, west of the existing
stair. Okay, how about --
MR. COSTEllO: That would leave that 12 foot non-turf buffer in
front of it anyway.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the Board's feeling on the catch basin?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm fine with the catch basin.
MR. COSTEllO: We could put that on the top on that corner, on page
four of ten. It shows a catch basin.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. We're just checking. Remove existing ring
retaining wall. That's this one.
What's the purpose of increasing the size of the deck?
Doesn't the deck sit on top of that beach house?
MR. COSTEllO: Just the people want a deck. That's where they would
congregate. It's in the non-turf buffer area.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's existing now.
MR. COSTEllO: There is a deck existing. This is, I believe, it is
just --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Oh, the lower deck, by the beach house. Okay.
Board of Trustees
81
August 22, 2007
(Perusing.) What's the original size?
MR. COSTEllO: I think the original size was approximately, it's
going to be moved slightly to the west. It's similar in size.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's an addition to the west.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Of a deck.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: A 10x10 addition.
MR. COSTEllO: The reason for moving the deck and enlarging it
slightly was to put it in line with what they were being proposed
as the dock.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: let me ask the Board, what's your feeling on the
dock?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I went on record last time on this and I'll remain
the same. I have no problem with this requested dock. There are
two docks immediately to the, I call it the south, but I guess it's
also technically the west there. This proposed dock is less
structure than the dock immediately to the southwest. It doesn't
extend as far as out into the water as that one does so it does not
impede navigation. There were proposed stairs on this dock as, I
recall, so public access along the beach would be maintained. This
is not an area that has eel grass on the bottom. It's a sandy
area. There has been a suggestion that a mooring be placed out
front. That entire area, in my opinion, as someone familiar with
that area, is not safe to moor a boat because it's fully exposed to
anything from the northeast to in particular the southeast. And
that gets very, very nasty in there in the southeast. So because
there is docks immediately in the area, because it would not impede
navigation in any way, because public as access is not impeded, it
doesn't visually impair the shoreline, since there are two docks
already there, in my opinion, I'm in favor of this application for
this dock.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll repeat my feelings from the last time the
dock came in that I feel this is in a pristine area. We have said
over and over that pre-existing docks, pre-existing houses doesn't
give reason to permit a new structure. lWRP has about five pages
with stated reasonings for this dock not being there, and the most
relevant one is that it's in the New York State designated
significant fish and wildlife habitat area. So my feelings for
this would be to not accept the dock or the deck that would then
step down to it. So, that's my feelings.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to address that last part of the lWRP, the
significant habitat area begins at approximately the Cedar Creek or
Cedar Beach area and extends to the entrance to Wickham Creek that
is two properties away. I don't know how many miles of coastline
that is. This is technically in the significant wildlife habitat
area, it is by maybe 300 feet. So it's right at the border of it.
I'm agreeing, it's technically in the area. Absolutely, it's
Board of Trustees
82
August 22, 2007
technically in the area. But it's, in a our coast line of many
miles, it is by 300 feet.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think one of the other considerations we have
discussed in the past and will be continuing to discuss the
possibility of certain areas of pristine shoreline to be considered
for no docks and the two existing docks to the southwest, you know,
may have been done in the past but again we have changed our
outlook on structures and size of structures and where structures
should be. And probably ten, not even 20, but ten years ago, five
years ago, these were permitted and they are not what we are
looking at now.
MR. COSTEllO: Could you tell me, what is the detriment of the dock,
the negativity of the dock? I mean -- because there is no eel
grasses here. There is shifting sand. There is minimal
vegetation, if any, on the bottom. There are docks. This is not a
pristine area. It's not a pristine area.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would disagree with that. Because there is
only those two docks and it's pristine from there over to Cedar
Beach.
MR. COSTEllO: That takes the pristineness out of it when you put
structures there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mud Creek, you mean.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Horseshoe Cove
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with Dave. I agree with approving this
dock for the reasons he stated. There is also a concern when we
talk about where do you stop the dock. I think in this area, um,
you could stop it because as you go further down, it's a couple of
properties down, then there is public access for the association.
And I would stop it there because that would impede the public
access use of that beach. This area does not have public access
except for just to walk along the foreshore which there's stairs
for people to go across that. And not that this matters but just
to note that there was a dock there years ago. There had been a
dock there before. Not that that has any bearing on the decision
that we make. I just wanted to note that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Well, we would we used to use asbestos, too.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I'm saying, a dock worked there
before.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This dock is between the other two, right?
MR. COSTEllO: No, it's just to the east of it. I have been
building docks for a considerable amount of time but let me tell
you, this is the smallest dock that has ever been designed by
either my company or me. In order to minimize the impacts. It's
three feet wide. I mean we I are trying to use whatever materials
you desire.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And I compliment you. Because you are very
Board of Trustees
83
August 22, 2007
environmentally conscious. And what you do, I give credit for
always keeping the environment in mind. I just disagree with this
position.
MR. COSTEllO: By keeping the environment in mind you also tend to
get more approvals in doing that, too. We are all getting smarter.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's why my comments that there is less structure
with this dock than there is with the dock to the southwest.
TRUSTEE KING: If you have a mooring, it's not a structure. I would
rather see a mooring than a dock. You have to say no some times to
stop it. I think if you do one, you have to do another one and
other one along the line. That's my feeling. I think it's more
appropriate to put a mooring out in front. As far as the weather
goes I think the mooring is safer in bad weather than a dock. The
boat turns into the wind and hangs off the mooring then you get
beat up into a dock, then you need tie off poles and you need all
this other structure to keep the boat from hitting the dock and on
and on it goes. I don't see an advantage to the dock to anybody
except the property owner.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, you have the other two docks there. This dock
will be a little bit shorter. Um, I agree with Jim, there comes a
point you have to figure out where you have to say no.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm ready to make a motion. Are there any other
comments?
(Negative response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing. Do we have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would like to give Mr. Costello the
opportunity to separate this out again, unless you would like me to
make a motion as to the entire application.
MR. COSTELLO: I certainly appreciate that opportunity but I think I
would rather wait until at least the Board votes on it one way or
the other.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would like to make a motion on this entire
application as it is. I would make a motion to deny the
application for a Wetland Permit to construct the deck, dock,
retaining wall, concrete catch basin, due to the fact that part of
this application would impose on the New York State Designated
Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area. It is inconsistent
through the lWRP. CAC also has major concerns or did not support
the fixed dock. And it questioned the five-foot retaining wall and
size of the catch basin. Its only support was for the extension to
the deck. That would be my motion to leave this inconsistent with
lWRP and to deny this application without prejudice
TRUSTEE KING: You want to deny the whole thing, Peggy?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Well, I was offering Mr. Costello the choice.
Board of Trustees
84
August 22, 2007
Because he wants to wait for a vote. I implied that because --
TRUSTEE KING: He'll have a problem.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I understand that.
MR. COSTEllO: I represent the property owner so it's difficult for
me to make a decision of that kind without consulting them.
TRUSTEE KING: Would you make a motion to approve partial motion for
the drywell?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I offered. He said he wanted to wait for the
vote.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there a second on Peggy's the motion? If not,
the motion is off.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't either, Jim, and I would be happy to do
that. But Mr. Costello wants a vote on the entire application as it
stands.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If there is no second, we could redo a motion,
right?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. The motion goes down.
MR. CORCORAN: Someone can offer a motion to approve certain aspects
of it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Would you like me to reword my motion?
MR. COSTEllO: Sure.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll rescind that motion. I'll make a motion to
approve a Wetland request to construct 58 feet, plus or minus, of a
new five foot high retaining wall west of the stairs, backfill area
behind retaining wall with clean trucked in soil. I don't know if
you could keep it at approximately 50 cubic yards, and revegetate
with Cape American Beach Grass planted 12-inches on center; repair
existing stairway up bank as needed in place and install cash basin
on top of the bank on southwest corner of property. located 805
West Road in Cutchogue.
Do I have a second to approve the retaining wall as stated?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So now I make a motion to deny the request to
construct a 10x10.25 extension of existing wooden deck, construct a
3x104 fixed dock with cross over stairway to beach. Install two
1O-inch diameter mooring piles and remove existing -- and that's
it. That was a motion to deny the deck and a dock at 805 West
Road, Cutchogue. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? Aye.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Nay
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Nay
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Nay.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll have a role call vote.
Board of Trustees
85
August 22, 2007
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I said nay.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Nay.
TRUSTEE KING: Aye.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Nay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The motion failed.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion that we table the
decision on the dock and see it again.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the reason for seeing it again? We have
the pictures and the stake was out there. So we saw -- I mean, I'm
just, you know.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's a pretty intense discussion. I don't know, I
just want to get another feel for it. If the rest of the Board is
satisfied with that --
TRUSTEE KING: I'm happy to go take another look.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that, then. We are tabling the dock
portion to re-inspect
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: How much experience have you had with these, they
look like a fishing pole that holds the boat off the dock?
MR. COSTELLO: Probably installed 20 or 30 of them.
TRUSTEE KING: Do they work?
MR. COSTEllO: On certain size boats.
TRUSTEE KING: I saw one it's good for up to a 30,000 pound boat.
That's a big boat
MR. COSTEllO: No, we haven't had much luck. Because the bases break
off. But smaller boats, maybe up to 28 feet, 30 feet, at the
most. Light boat.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We use them on our 23-foot boat. They work well.
Mooring whips they are called.
MR. COSTEllO: They only go to a certain size though, at present.
That's, we use the biggest for the smallest boat and they work
quite well.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can I make a suggestion. We have some people
sitting in the back of the room, I don't know where they are on the
list. But if there is an opportunity -- which application are you
here for?
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): We wanted to object to one part of a request
for an application. The Holman application.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's two away. Okay. Why don't we do Holman next
to help them out.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll skip to number 26, Costello Marine on behalf
of BUD HOLMAN requests a Wetland permit to remove 140 feet and
Board of Trustees
86
August 22, 2007
16 feet of west return of existing bulkhead and replace inlike,
inplace using C-loc vinyl sheathing; remove remains of existing
retaining walls and construct 130 feet of new retaining wall
inlike, inplace; backfill void areas behind new bulkhead with
200-250 cubic yards of clean trucked in soil. Revegetate graded
areas with Cape American Beach Grasses. Backfill and regrade area
behind new retaining wall with 50 cubic yards of clean trucked
in soil. Revegetate disturbed areas with Beach Plum or Bayberry.
Remove and replace inlike, inplace existing stairway from top of
bank to base of bank and stairway from retaining wall to existing
wooden deck. Construct new three foot seasonal stairway from top of
bulkhead to beach to replace destroyed and missing existing stairs.
Install one new piling at offshore end of existing middle jetty and
replace existing 4x6 inch top wale. located: 350 Park Avenue,
Mattituck.
The lWRP finds this exempt because it's being replaced
inplace. CAC supports the application with the condition of
non-treated lumber used on the stairs; a ten-foot, non-turf buffer
is installed along the top of the bluff and no repair work is
conducted on the middle jetty.
Our comment in the field was also on the middle jetty. We
found it was pretty much non-functional and we did not want to see
the repair work on that middle jetty. Then the bulkhead itself, no
evidence of remains of existing retaining wall. I'm just trying to
read it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We couldn't find any secondary retaining wall in
there. Anywhere.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought Jim did. Eventually he went in there
and found it. Didn't you?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Remember, it went up from here and it was all the
way up.
MR. COSTEllO: If you look at some of the photographs that were
submitted --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It did not have the retaining wall, but this one
did. And we found it is. At first we didn't. Then Jim went up in
there and they found some remains of it. Whether it was functional
or not is a different story. So I don't know if we had a problem
with that retaining wall. And the bulkhead was already bumped out
at one time.
MR. COSTEllO: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any reason why it can't be replaced where
the original bulkhead was, put it back in within 18 inches?
MR. COSTEllO: It's just a cost item. You know, you would have to
do a lot of excavating. There is so much of the second bulkhead
that is practically nonexistent. They are like broken off and
Board of Trustees
87
August 22, 2007
rotted off at ground level. So I mean you would have to do a
little excavating to get that out of there. The front bulkhead was
in tact until last winter's storms.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This bulkhead as it is now is in line with the
neighbors. In line on one side and behind on the other, I think.
Just another, note, too, if you could pass on to the applicant,
he's dumping his grass clippings down the bank. He has to stop
that and probably remove the grass clippings and replant.
MR. COSTEllO: I think the guy who he hired to mow the lawn.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He has to pass that on. That's ruining the bank
as well. Are there any comments from the audience or Board?
(No response.)
MR. COSTEllO: I would like to make one or two comments on it. We
will be taking out, the entire bulkhead that was there, the
offshore bulkhead that was there, was all CCA. The new bulkhead
will not. It will be all vinyl sheathing. The jetty, which the
comment was that it was a non-functional jetty, the middle jetty;
there is no holes in it. It is probably the most functional of
most jetties on that beach because of its low elevation. It's
filled on both sides and it goes over the top of it. All the
sheathing is in tact. The only recommendation I made to the owner
at the time was just by adding one pile at the end, whether it's
structural or not, would make the visibility of that jetty a little
more visible, because it's only six inches out of the beach at
times. And that's all.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with you as far as part of the jetty is
functional, the landward part. But we have a picture here that
shows the rest of it that doesn't look functional to me. The part
that is in the water at low tide. If you want to look at the
pictures, I could show you the portion I'm talking about.
(Perusing.) I agree that this part is functional because the sand
is covering it, but from here out, it's not.
MR. COSTEllO: Okay, the functionality of this jetty is ideal
because of the lowness. That's all. That's fine. The beach is
not jeopardized. But other, they are all too high.
TRUSTEE KING: This other jetty. It's tremendous.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would rather see nothing be done with that and
leave it as it is. If you want to take off the non-functional
portion and take that out while you are there doing the work on the
bulkhead, that would be helpful.
MR. COSTEllO: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I was going to say putting in a new pile at the end
of the non-functional pile, what purpose would that serve?
MR. COSTEllO: Just so somebody doesn't run into it skiing, that's
all. Because its not visible at certain times.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That could be done with a Clorox bottle and line.
Board of Trustees
88
August 22, 2007
MR. COSTEllO: It's a nice beach to ski, too, because some of the
adjoining beaches you can't ski to because the water goes to the
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KING: The jetty to the east is starving the next door
neighbor and it's really a big difference there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would this other gentlemen like to comment?
MR. CORIERI: My name is Dave Corieri, I'm the property owner to the
east of the Holman property. This goes back a long way. Did you
get my package that I dropped off on Friday?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. CORIERI: I gave you the old DEC permit. Anyway, alii ask is
that you do not do anything to the middle jetty. There is hardly
any sand on our beach. If there was another structure built, just
to the west us, I would have even less sand in front of our beach.
That jetty doesn't go out as far as the other two jetties, so there
no problem with skiers or anything. That jetty goes out 48 feet.
The other two are 54. That jetty is in, and from the picture I
showed you, all it is is just sticks. So if you take that under
consideration, don't hold up any other part of the bulkhead, he
needs it repaired, but please consider not doing that. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any comments from the Board or anyone else?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of Bud Holman for a permit to
remove 140 feet and 16 foot of west return of existing bulkhead
and replace inlike inplace with C-loc vinyl sheathing, remove
remains of existing retaining walls and construct 130 new
retaining wall inlike, inplace; backfill void areas behind new
bulkhead with 200 to 250 cubic yards of clean, trucked in soil.
Revegetate graded areas with Cape American Beach Grasses. Backfill
and regrade area behind new retaining wall with 50 cubic yards
of clean, trucked in soil, revegetate disturbed areas with Beach
Plum or Bayberry. Remove and replace inlike, inplace existing
stairway from top of bank to base of bank and stairway from
retaining wall to existing wooden deck. Construct new three-foot
seasonal stairway from top of bulkhead to beach to replace
destroyed and missing existing stairs. This is not to include the
piling at the end of the jetty. And not a cap. I do request that
the non-functional portion of the jetty be removed while you are
there doing construction. It's kind of hard to tell what the
footage is, but from low tide, from the point of low tide seaward
to be removed.
Board of Trustees
89
August 22, 2007
We find this exempt from, by not doing that, we find this
exempt from lWRP because everything else is being replaced inplace,
and also we would like to put a buffer at the top of the bank so
the lawn is not right up to the bank. And did you take a picture
of that? CAC is asking for a ten-foot, non-turf buffer. I think
that is probably sufficient. I think they have plenty of lawn
there, don't they?
MR. COSTEllO: They do.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So a ten-foot, non-turf buffer on the top of
that. That's my motion. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(All AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 25, Costello Marine on behalf of WICKHAM
BUNGALOW EAST, llC, requests a Wetland Permit to construct 148 foot
of rock revetment consisting of 1-1.5 ton rock on 25-50 pound
hardcourse stone foundation and filter cloth base. Revegetate areas
disturbed with Cape American Beach Grass. located: 4787 New Suffolk
Road, New Suffolk.
CAC resolved to support the application with the condition
that the entire area from the house to the bluff is revegetated
except for a delineated path to the beach. And the grasses should
be maintained and/or replaced until fully developed.
lWRP finds this application would be consistent with lWRP.
Construction of a hard structure is beyond practical design,
consideration is essential in protecting the principal use. The
proposed hard structure erosion measures are limited to minimal
scales necessary based on sound engineering practices. Practical
vegetative methods have been included in the project design and
implementation and adequate mitigation is provided to maintain to
ensure there is no adverse impact to adjacent property or natural
coastal processes.
Is there anybody here who would like to comment on this
application?
MR. COSTEllO: Yes, my name is John Costello, Costello Marine
Contracting. We are the agents for the Wickham Bungalow East llC
and we were the agents for both adjoining properties. And it was
the same, similar design to the joining properties, was allowed by
this Board and we are just going to an area that has the least
amount of erosion to the northeast, with the same structure.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I see the plan, please. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: John, what do you do at the end of the 148 feet
to bring it back down gradually? Do you just abruptly stop or --
MR. COSTEllO: No, the height of the rocks, because of the elevation
Board of Trustees
90
August 22, 2007
of the bank will be less and less in quantity as you go to the
northeast. It's not necessary.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We saw this from the water side when we were out in
a boat that Dave was driving.
MR. COSTEllO: As far as the CAC's recommendation on planting,
you'll see that there is very little or any planting except for
some American Cape Beach Grass in the area. They tried to plant it
before. It eroded away. After we put the revetment in we'll
replant it with American Cape Beach Grass. Hopefully it will
re-stabilize.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: John, do you know, the property to the northeast,
how long the beach front is on that? In other words, from the
creek, I'm looking for the length from --
MR. COSTEllO: I can't recollect. I think each one was, one was 150
and one was 126. But I'm not, but they were permitted, I believe
at the last hearing --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: She's asking from this property line to Wickham
Creek.
MR. COSTEllO: Oh, to Wickham Creek. (Perusing.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Change the elevation down.
MR. COSTEllO: It doesn't show on the survey.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What would happen if you just changed the slope and
did your plantings on there?
MR. COSTEllO: In above normal tide it would just take a little bit
of the sand. Most of that is sand that was pumped up there through
dredging processes on the entrance. It would just start scoffing
out a little bit at a time. Evidently, the slope of the beach, you
are finding to the northeast, is doing less scouring because of the
shoalness and the waves are losing their energy running up.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm looking at elevation eight. Where does that
drop down at the next property? I don't know -- I know you didn't
survey that, again, to the northeast. We are looking to where,
because on this property the elevation pretty much stays the same
but as you go northeast the elevation goes down towards the creek
opening.
MR. COSTEllO: It almost goes down to two or three foot elevation.
I believe you have the same photographs. This photograph here,
there is no need, because of the shallowness of the beach, the wave
energy is running up and losing all its energy on the beach itself.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When Jim and Peggy are concerned with are having
this go all the way to the end of the property line.
MR. COSTELLO: Maybe bring it into the bank.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Maybe bring it into the bank and lower.
MR. COSTEllO: It will be lower.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, but to the extent you have it, I think I
would rather see it in front of the house, building there, but not
Board of Trustees
91
August 22, 2007
to the extent your are going northeast.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I can tell you, because I'm very, very, very
familiar with this property. That the elevation at the northeast
end is not the same, in other words, I don't know that it's eight
foot elevation, but it's probably about five foot elevation. It
was, approximately two feet of elevation, two to three feet before
the storm. Now it's probably five feet of elevation going down
there.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think we should go back and do some
measurement and see where the elevation is now.
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to take another look, walk the
property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I also know that the owner of the property has
pleaded with the town to do something because they feel that in
another storm it is going to break right through into Wickham
Creek. I don't know that I agree with that, but that's what they
feel and so they are looking for as much protection from that
happening as possible; breaking into Wickham Creek.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It sounds like the Board wants to take another look
at it
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would like to go back and measure the distance
where the house is and check the elevations and the distance to the
creek.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any concerns with the way he is
proposing the wall directly in front of the house?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it's just northeast end of the wall. I just
figured if we could get anything else out of the permit in front of
the house and let him amend it to something we might consider.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: In order to protect the house.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we need a measurement of some type.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Definitely. Did you feel that you want some type
of approval tonight for in front of the house or can you wait --
MR. COSTEllO: I think we'll wait a little bit. Everyone wants it
done the minute they get the permit. But we are not going to do
the adjoining property owners. We are doing all three together.
TRUSTEE KING: Do they have DEC there?
MR. COSTEllO: I think one of the property owners has. I think the
concerns are legitimate. Because how this ends up, and the
elevation, the end, because I'm telling you, it would be lower
because there is no use putting a rock up in mid air. For what
purpose. So the elevation in this would be relevant. And whether
needs to be turned in to keep it low, I think that that, you know,
if you stake it out and took the elevation, marked the stakes, I
could do that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: John, one other question. I believe it was last
Board of Trustees
92
August 22, 2007
month or the month before, we approved stairs to the beach at this
site. They have not been installed yet but they should probably be
drawn into the plan as to where they are planning to put the stairs
to the beach.
MR. COSTEllO: What we usually try to do under circumstances like
this is we try to pick out some select rocks that have a flatness
to them and allow -- we try to do that. And it's worked.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you are okay to table things for a month?
MR. COSTEllO: Sure. And I'll try to get out there and stake out
something with elevations so that you'll see, because the drawings
don't show it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to table this so we can get a
chance to go out and inspect the site again.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(All AYES.)
MR. COSTEllO: If the Board could allow my office to know when you
go visit this site I could probably come. So we could mark it out
properly or cut it back or do whatever. I think it would be
helpful for the owners.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll go out on September 13.
MR. COSTEllO: If you just tell me when. I won't take the 13th
off.
TRUSTEE KING: Number 27, Kinlin Rutherfurd Architects on behalf of
PETER BACCILE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new
garage/storage accessory building and install an inground swimming
pool with pool enclosure fence. located: Equestrian Avenue, Fishers
Island.
We were all out there in August. Everybody looked at it. We
talked about downsizing the pool and trying to move it in closer, a
little further away from the bluff. They've done that. It was not
a huge reduction. They went from like a 50-foot pool to a 48-foot
pool. less is less. It's kind of a different area there. It's a
stoned-in enclosure with all stone walls that have been there for a
long time. It's been there for a long time, by the looks of it. My
feeling was there would be more disruption if you made him remove
the stone walls and put the pool even further back.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What about structurally, being on the bluff like
that?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It was pretty far off the bluff.
TRUSTEE KING: It's a pretty stable looking area. It's been
developed for a long time. I don't know what it was used for.
It's a separate area with the stone walls around it and they must
have used it for something.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, did you want to address the fence?
TRUSTEE KING: It's been found inconsistent because of the setback.
Board of Trustees
93
August 22, 2007
We know that. But we tried to move it a little further landward,
downsize the pool. The garage, we'll be putting gutters and
leaders to drywells to take care of the roof runoff.
The fence on the top of the bluff, there is a privet hedge.
There are two privet hedges; there is one along the top and just
another one a couple of feet seaward along the top. And they
intend to put the chainlink fence between those two privet hedges.
I think that's a good idea. The privet hedges are going to
remain. They wanted to do some trimming of them for view. I think
we could let them trim down to a height of four feet. Same height
as the chainlink fence.
MS. MOORE: I have some additional information on the privet. I was
letting you go until you got to that point. If I could just
interject at this point.
TRUSTEE KING: Go ahead. The next door neighbor, is that the one to
the left?
MS. MOORE: It's the one facing the pool.
TRUSTEE KING: The one next to the clear cutting on the bluff,
maybe?
MS. MOORE: I wouldn't know.
TRUSTEE KING: It looked like a violation to me when I was out there
a couple of weeks ago.
MS. MOORE: Actually, the neighbor called me. He was concerned
about the privacy, maintaining privacy here, and my suggestion to
him was, listen, talk to Mr. Baccile, see what you could work out,
because Fishers Island tends to be very cooperative. If they can
be, people talk it each other, and it's gentile, for the most
part. Sometimes. But for the most part, they do try to work it
out. So they worked it out. My suggestion to Mr. Baccile was,
because his, what they worked out was keeping the privet, when you
started getting to the privet, keeping the privet but replanting
some of the privet on a berm so that it would raise it and in
particular that area of the privet was not growing very healthy, so
that needed to be regenerated anyway.
So what I suggested was, and they were going to work it out
amongst themselves, and I said because it was within your
jurisdiction I just felt that put it into the plans so that are no
issues later, that the berm or the privet has been changed. So
that's why it's here before you. I want it incorporated both for
the sake of my client to know and feel comfortable that it is going
to be done and for the sake of the property owner so he does do it
in order to try to mitigate the noise and the privacy, that he
didn't get in trouble because it's within your jurisdiction. So
that's why I'm here tonight.
TRUSTEE KING: That's it?
MS. MOORE: That's it.
Board of Trustees
94
August 22, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we have a huge problem with people
planting things. It's usually removing.
MS. MOORE: He actually has to remove to put the berm, and
re-plant. The berm I thought might be an issue, so rather than
create an issue, we just included it.
TRUSTEE KING: In talking to Mr. Baccile he seemed very
environmentally conscious in our discussions with him. He wanted
to keep the privet hedge but he wanted it trimmed for a view.
Which, you know, that's okay.
MS. MOORE: Can't fault him for that. And I think that's why the
berm makes sense.
TRUSTEE KING: He has a good, stable bluff there.
MS. MOORE: My client has no opposition, has no issue with the
proposed structure. It's just maintaining privacy that everybody
has enjoyed. If you would include that into your permit.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't see why we can't. Does anyone have a problem
with it?
(Negative response.)
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with
the addition of a row of privet being planted on the western side
of the property between the neighboring property between the
neighboring property for privacy; gutters and leaders for the
garage; the fence is going to be installed along the top of the
bluff between the privet hedges and the privet hedges can be
trimmed to a height of four feet. I think that's everything we
talked about when we were out there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think with the pool being moved back a little.
TRUSTEE KING: We tried to downsize it. With the existing stone
walls that have been there for many, many years, by the looks of
it, it would be far more disruptive to move those and move the pool
in any further. I think we have done all we can.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It shows the drywells for the pool and garage.
That makes it consistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we did it all we could to make it consistent
with the LWRP.
I make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
Board of Trustees
95
August 22, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: En-Consultants on behalf of JOAN YORK requests a
Wetland Permit to construct approximately 108 linear feet of vinyl
bulkhead in place of existing storm-damaged timber bulkhead;
backfill with approximately 25 cubic yards clean sand to be trucked
in from an upland source; and reconstruct inplace existing platform
and steps to beach; and establish a five-foot non-turf buffer.
Located: 4025 Camp Mineola Road, MaUituck.
This is an application that we gave an emergency permit to.
LWRP finds it exempt. I would agree with that.
The CAC supports the application with the condition of a
non-turf area from the bulkhead to the house and wall. Right now
she has an established lawn, and I went back out there the second
time to measure, and it's approximately 22 feet from the bulkhead
to the house. With the repair they did, they disturbed
approximately seven feet. So there is already, like seven feet
wide straight across of dirt right now, and I would say a
seven-foot, non-turf buffer would be fine.
I talked to Rob Herman, the consultant for this, and he
stressed that Ms. York would love to maintain some lawn so this
gives her a ten-foot lawn and we have a seven-foot, non-turf
buffer. Any comments from the Board?
(No response.)
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve the application of Joan
York as stated with a seven-foot non-turf buffer straight across to
be maintained. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is, we find it exempt from LWRP.
SECRETARY STANDISH: (Indicating.) This was an approval that Rob Herman
got back in April from the Board. While he was here, he said, oh,
I also want to include the four-foot wide wood walkway. He asked
me at the last hearing could we revise the plans but not with what
he asked for at the meeting but rather with the walkway. He said
he would rescind the original approval, get the permit for this,
then he applied to amend the approval back in April. I talked to
him on the phone about this. We are trying to figure out how to
amend the permit that he actually has.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: (Perusing.) Now I remember it. Alii need to see
was that
SECRETARY STANDISH: They got the approval for a permit. When he was at
Board of Trustees
96
August 22, 2007
the hearing, I also wanted to add, he wanted to add something to
it. But he's removing it now and adding a walkway instead with A
non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So we are just rephrasing it?
SECRETARY STANDISH: Yes. But he'll come in next month.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have to open it and do it.
SECRETARY STANDISH: Open it, rescind, read the resolution from
April and approve it this way, since it's the original application
with the application of the walkway. He'll come back at a later
time to amend the permit for something else.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Let's do it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So rescind the first one. First we need to open up
this hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to rescind wetland permit 6579
dated April 18, 2007.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to approve a wetland
permit for En-Consultants on behalf of BARBARA KAPLAN who is
requesting a wetland permit to replace within 18 inches
approximately 126 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with
recycled plastic bulkhead; backfill with approximately 15 cubic
yards of clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source;
remove existing deck located over and seaward of the bulkhead and
replace with a 4x8 deck and stairs and construct a four-foot wide
wood walkway landward of the new bulkhead. Located: 1700 Inlet
Way, Southold.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
MR. CORCORAN: Do you also find it consistent with the LWRP?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I do find it consistent with LWRP.
MR. CORCORAN: For the same reasons I guess you found the prior
permit consistent?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Absolutely.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion that we close this meeting.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)