HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-09/19/2007
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:-CC!VED ) ~
3'.S3 p""
'!1
~~~~~
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
6:00 PM
Present were:
Jill Doherty, Vice President
Peggy Dickerson, Trustee
Bob Ghosio, Trustee
Kieran Corcoran, Assistant Town Attorney
Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant
Absent were: James King, President
Dave Bergen, Trustee
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, October 8,2007, at 8:00 AM
TRUSTEE SPECIAL MEETING: Wednesday, October 3,2007, at 6:00 PM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 6:00 PM
WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Good evening. We are short a couple of Board
members tonight. One is out of town and one is sick, but we do
have a majority, so we'll get through what we can get through.
Peggy Dickerson is on my left; I'm Jill Doherty; this is Lauren
Standish our office manager; Bob Ghosio, to my right; and Kieran
Board of Trustees
2
September 19, 2007
Corcoran is our attorney for tonight. And Wayne Galante is keeping
track of our minutes.
I think we'll have a CAC member here as well. Jack is
coming. Before we get started, we have quite a few postponements
tonight, so I just want to go over them. Because we have so many
postponements, we are having a special meeting October 3 for some
of these postponements. Nothing new on that October 3 meeting.
Page four, number 18, the application of PETER & ALETRA
TAGIOS, JR., that's postponed.
Page five, number four, the application of ROBERT G. BOMBARA
is postponed.
Page six, number nine, the application of JILL & CAROL RIDINI
is postponed.
And number 13, the application of ROSE L. MILAZZO REVOCABLE
TRUST, is postponed.
Page seven, number 17, the application of PECONIC LANDING AT
SOUTH OLD is postponed.
Number 18, the application of JIM & EILEEN KASSCHAU is
postponed.
Number 19, the application of JOHN INGRILLI is postponed.
Page eight, every one of them is postponed.
That's number 20, the application of PERI HINDEN;
Number 21, the application of JAN JUNGBLUT;
Number 22, the application of RUTH FALBEL SCHWARTZ;
Number 23, the application of CAROL MERCIER & PETER SCHRAMM;
Number 24, the application of CARRIAGE HILL ASSOCIATES, INC.,
is postponed;
Number 25, the application of HENRY H. TRAENDL Y & BARBARA A.
CADWALLADER, is postponed;
Number 26, the application of MICHAEL BUNKER is postponed;
Number 27, the application of PETER S. DANOWSKI, JR., & SUSAN
DANOWSKI, is postponed.
And page nine, the application of DEBRA LACHANCE, is
postponed.
As you can see, we have quite a few scratched off the list.
And there is, on page eight, numbers 20, 21, 22 and 23 are going to
be heard on October 3. There might be more on October 3, possibly
17, 18, and 19, but we are not sure on them yet. If they are not
heard on October 3, they'll be on October 17, once we set those
meetings.
The Board is working on a number of projects and we are
continuing working on them also while we are reviewing all these
applications and doing our inspections. So we are working hard.
Same thing, it's frustrating working on these projects. They go
forward but they are not getting done. But we are still working
Board of Trustees
3
September 19,2007
hard on them.
I guess we'll set the meetings, Wednesday, October 3, for a
special meeting for the postponed applications.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Next field inspections, we have Wednesday,
October 10.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would like to make a motion to change that to
Monday, the 8th at 8:00 AM.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, we'll do it on the 8th. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Next Trustee meeting, Wednesday, October 17 with a
work session at 5:39 and a meeting at 6:00.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have minutes for March 21,2007. I know Dave
said he read through them and he didn't have a problem with them.
Did you get a chance to read through them?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: March. As a matter of fact, yes, I think they are
fine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Would you like to make a motion?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to accept the minutes
of March 21, 2007.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Trustees monthly report for August, 2007. A check
for $10,218.72 was forwarded to the Supervisor's office for the
General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's
Bulletin Board for review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of
South old hereby finds that the following applications more fully
described in Section VI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee
agenda dated Wednesday, September 19, 2007, are classified as Type
Board of Trustees
4
September 19, 2007
II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not
subject to further review under SEQRA.
And there is a list of all the applications on the agenda,
which reads as follows:
CLAUS RADEMACHER - SCTM#57-1-31
PAUL LONG - SCTM#123-5-30
STEPHEN MATTEINI - SCTM#26-2-22
RUTH FALBEL SCHWARTZ - SCTM#70-10-28.3
ROY & LINDA ARGENT - SCTM#86-6-23
PECONIC LAND TRUST, INC. - SCTM#79-5-20.2
WILLIAM & CHRISTINE EISEN REICH - SCTM#53-3-10
CHENG KAI YU - SCTM#83-2-4.1
CAROL MERCIER & PETER SCHRAMM - SCTM#91-1-10
GEORGE GUIMARAES - SCTM#9-6-4
MICHAEL KENIN - SCTM#31-9-11
JAMES KELLER & ELISSA SANTISI - SCTM#123-8-17
EDMUND NASH - SCTM#115-12-24
ESTATE OF HELEN CASE - SCTM#116-6-21.1
CARLL & SUSAN AUSTIN - SCTM#128-6-7
DENNIS KORD - SCTM#140-1-7
ANTHONY BELLlSIMO - SCTM#87-5-5
FISHERS ISLAND UTILITY CO. - SCTM#10-9-13
CJC1 - SCTM#45-4-4.1
JOSEPH & GRACE FINORA - SCTM#122-3-12& 13
CYNTHIA POWER & RICHARD MCKINNEY - SCTM#31-14-6
CLEAVES POINT VILLAGE - SCTM#38-7-4.2, 8&38-2-1,45
I make a motion to resolve that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With that, we'll go to resolutions and
administrative permits.
SALVATOR GRANFORT requests an Administrative Permit to remove the
existing retaining wall, install returns on pathway and install
plantings. Located: 575 Hill Road West, Southold.
This is one we have all been out to a couple of times. He
wanted to replace a retaining wall that had been there for years,
and we asked him, we told him that we didn't want to see that. We
asked him to take the old wooden, rotting stuff out and replant the
area. And that's what he has applied for.
Board of Trustees
5
September 19, 2007
So he's applied for what we asked. We told him he can, right
where the dock is, he's got a little piece of wood under there. We
told him he could keep that and do little pieces of wood, I think
they are like 4x4s he had or something, just for the pathway. Then
he has mulch there, and replant the rest. That's what he's applied
for.
So I make a motion we approve the application of Salvator
G ranfort.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two, WILLIAM STANTON requests an
Administrative Permit to remove a buried 1,000 gallon fuel tank,
excavate crawl space under rear of dwelling and add additional
reinforced concrete walls under existing cement block walls to make
area for a new 550 gallon tank installed within dwelling, and
install five replacement windows in southeast end of dwelling.
Located: 1115 Bungalow Lane, Mattituck.
I looked at this today and the tank is basically out of our
jurisdiction but it is on the corner of the house where it slopes
down into the creek, so I would just like to see hay bales on the
one corner. Where the house bumps out, he could put the hay bales
along that line. And I spoke to the gentleman, he was there. He's
fine with that. And everything else is, they might even be digging
the crawl space out from inside the house, so. And the other side
of the house does not slope down, so it's really not a problem.
So I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number three, ROBERT BOGER requests an
Administrative Permit for the existing 36 cubic yards of fill along
the north and east sides of the property, recently placed to
prevent flooding. Located: 723 Main Bayview Road, Southold.
On this one there was a violation, and what they did, they put
approximately 36 cubic yards on here already, and that's what they
are applying for. They are not applying to put any additional on.
And this, it's the house that is over here, not this one
(indicating.) This is Peter Boger. This one is Robert Boger. So
it's not this one where we saw the berm or anything.
So actually they have already done the work and they are not
asking for anymore additional fill to be brought in. The pipe is
theirs. And I don't know if that is part of the violation.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Why don't we just make it part of the permit to
Board of Trustees
6
September 19, 2007
remove it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. So I'll make a motion to approve
approximately 36 cubic yards of fill, which has already been
placed, no further fill to be placed, and the drainage pipe they
have directed to the creek to be removed.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Tom McCarthy on behalf of BERNARD & CAROL KIERNAN
requests an Administrative Permit to renovate the basement and
remove and replace the existing sanitary system. Located: 1605
North Parish Drive, Southold.
Again, this is an Administrative Permit on a permit that we
already gave them for some work that they are already doing. This
is just a little more work they found that they needed to do and
there is really no problem with this.
So I would make a motion that we approve this request for an
Administrative Permit.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of
PAOLO BLOWER requests an Administrative Permit to remove vegetated
debris within 100 feet of wetland boundary, plant six white oaks
(6-8 foot height) six foot on center, in area where cutting
occurred, and plant 12 pitch pine (1-2 inch height or larger) in
area where cutting occurred, and in accordance with an Order on
Consent from the NYSDEC dated March 2, 2007. Located: Sound Avenue,
Southold.
This is an area we all looked at. They are simply removing
debris so re-plantings can be done and the area cleaned up. I
believe the Board had no problems with this so I will make a motion
to approve this Administrative Permit.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have one more that was taken off the agenda but
there was a misunderstanding so we are putting it back on. It's
not on your agenda. And it is PAMELA MAINO & RICHARD JOHNSON.
There are actually two applications here, one is an
Administrative Permit to place down mulch along path to pond,
remove trees that are dead and dying, and saplings, and prune lower
branches of healthy trees.
Board of Trustees
7
September 19, 2007
The other is an Administrative Permit to clean up yard, place
down mulch around house, install sprinkler system, remove selected
trees, prune lower branches of healthy trees, replace metal shed
with a new shed and install a propane tank on south side of the
house west of the chimney.
The reason why there are two applications is because it's two
separate pieces of property. Ms. Maino, are you here?
MR. VERITY: I'm Dave Verity.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Do you have plans?
MS. MAINO: Yes. When you guys came out, there were over 35 trees.
There is two lots, lot nine and lot 14. Initially the landscaper
that we were using identified many, many trees, over 35, to be
removed. And not all of them were dying or diseased. Mr. Verity
came out today and consulted with us and identified 13 trees that
were either too close to the house, leaning over the house; they
were healthy but just at risk. And then the other ones were either
rotted
MR. VERITY: They were very hollow. There was extensive heart rot.
MS. MAINO: He stuck his hand in there and banged them. So those
would be the outlying ones that one, two, three and four are the
ones too close to the house. These are rotted. This one is right
next to a utility pole. L1LCO pole. This one is completely dead.
MR. VERITY: It's fungus. It's leaning over the path that is clear.
MS. MAINO: He likes the cherry tree. That's a healthy tree. This
one was not marked before. (indicating.)
MR. VERITY: The black locust is the middle of the path. It is
loaded with poison ivy the size of my arms on the lower limbs.
There is nothing left at the top. All the surface roots are
exposed. And it's hollow, to boot. There is nothing that can be
done with it.
MS. MAINO: Did you know that was poison ivy? It's like this
(indicating. )
MR. VERITY: That's the only tree I saw in the whole path that needs
to be removed. Everything else can be pruned.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You had four trees here.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My only concern is here, the ones that seem to
be closest to the wetland boundary.
MR. VERITY: What I did, actually, they are not the same ones that
are circled. They are fine. It's the northeast, and you won't get
a lot of sun anyway. But some in there are not marked at all and
should have come down. They were all hollow. I changed things
around. Whoever marked them had it wrong.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The cedars?
MR. VERITY: Yes, they are nothing. That can be done later.
changed that all around (indicating.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, that's much better than what we saw in the
Board of Trustees
8
September 19, 2007
field.
MR. VERITY: You would be shocked if you go there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Like I said to you on the phone, I think the best
way to do this is we can -- and we have no problem with the other
items that you wanted to do. We could approve this tonight subject
to one of the Trustees meeting you out in the field.
MR. VERITY: I would like love to meet with you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Probably Dave Bergen because he's in the Southold
area. If he can't, I can. We can do it on a Saturday.
MR. VERITY: That's fine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we are sure. Because what we saw, and, it was
just definitely way too much. So I'm comfortable with that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree with having Dave go out and look at it.
It's obviously not what we saw, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can we keep these?
MS. MAINO: Absolutely. They are all marked, so Dave will be able
to identify them.
MR. VERITY: He'll get in touch with me? He'll call me?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. What's your phone number?
MR. VERITY: 765-4980.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Dave is out of town. When is he due back?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He's due back Friday.
MR. VERITY: Even on Sunday, if he works Sunday.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know if he does.
MR. VERITY: Should I get his phone number?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll have him give you a call because I don't
know what his schedule is.
All right, then I'll make a motion to approve both
applications. Do you want to do one resolution for both
applications or two separate? It's two separate applications.
MR. CORCORAN: It's the same project.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But it's two properties. Okay.
I'll make a motion to approve the application of Pamela Maino
and Richard Johnson at 7619 Soundview Avenue to prune trees and put
down mulch subject to meeting a Trustee in the field to double
check which trees are to be cut down and pruned.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I'll make a motion on the application of
Pamela Maino and Richard Johnson at 7617 Soundview Avenue to clean
up the yard, place mulch around house, install sprinkler system,
remove selected trees, prune lower branches replace metal shed with
new shed and install propane tank on south side of the house west
of chimney, again, subject to a trustee going out and inspecting
Board of Trustees
9
September 19, 2007
which trees are to be pruned and taken down.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
V. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is applications for amendments, extensions
and transfers.
Number one, 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.
We had met him out in the field and spoke to him, and the 800
cubic yards that's on the application is not all in the Trustees'
jurisdiction. I believe we got revised plans.
MR. DROUZAS: I'm Vlassi Drouzas. We have them here, too. Actually
we, this is your jurisdiction right here (indicating.) It would be
actually that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 148.3 cubic yards.
MR. DROUZAS: And this would be DEC.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So our, I thought our area was up to this line
here. It was behind the wall?
MR. DROUZAS: It's right here (indicating.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. I thought we measured nine feet from the
proposed wall landward. And that was our jurisdiction line.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That would be this line, but he's only going behind
the wall here (indicating.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He's filling all this, too. We needed to see,
what we measured was nine, we measured from the wetland line to a
point here. And so what we did, so we were a little more clear, is
we measured from the proposed wall to the hundred feet, and we got
nine feet off the proposed wall. So we needed the information in
this area, what amount of fill was going here, and of course here,
on both sides of the wall. Because our jurisdiction is --
MR. DROUZAS: That includes that, doesn't it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So it does show it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The hundred foot mark is right here. They have 14
feet.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So all of this area.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So 148 cubic yards is all in this area.
MR. DROUZAS: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All this other stuff has been approved. And the
rest of the fill is out of our jurisdiction.
Board of Trustees
10
September 19, 2007
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is part DEC.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: DEC and Building Department, yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And this is all graded.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, that will be graded. It's graded from the
wall down, so it's not a steep slope.
Are you going to do plantings on that side? What are you
going to put here to hold the fill? You have plantings on this
side. Are you just planting lawn or?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, the retaining wall.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The planters area -- oh, that's here.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So what will happen here is grass or something to
hold it so the rain doesn't wash it down.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And there is no drainage. This is the area of concern.
(indicating. )
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We talked about putting some kind of drainage
here. Have you talked to the state about the drainage they have on
the state road? I know we talked about maybe a French drain in
that area.
MR. VLASSI DROUZAS: Were you talking about any drains?
MR. DROUZAS: I'm Peter Drouzas. Can I show you?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In the area -- yes.
MR. DROUZAS: The one measure was wrong because before we come the
last time, okay, we have something like this. This is wrong. All
right? We have four feet. Like this step out. We don't want this
wall not to look so big. This wall here. So what is from the
corner of the house is 14 feet. It was about two-and-a-half, three
feet shorter. We measured nine feet, right. It would be shorter.
Now, about this drain here --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No, we are concerned about where this is going
to drain.
MR. DROUZAS: There is water here. It drains down. We are going to
connect to this one. We going to connect to this one. They ask on
the driveway.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are talking about the surface water, not the
house water now. We are talking the surface water coming off the
road. We don't want it to run down there.
MR. DROUZAS: Tell me where you want it to go.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We talked about you doing a French drain and
plantings here.
MR. DROUZAS: To where?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can put in the drywell.
MR. DROUZAS: Fine.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Will that go up hill?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the thing. You could put this much into
the drywell, but from here down you can't really put that into the
drywell. But maybe -- what are you planning to do here; grass?
Board of Trustees
11
September 19,2007
MR. DROUZAS: That's right, grass.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Plantings maybe, or filter a little more.
MR. DROUZAS: Yes, something like this.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And you can do plantings here instead of grass.
MR. DROUZAS: Sure.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we can see a planting plan.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We had letters of concern from the neighbors
with the drainage here. And our concern, this is what we are
protecting here. The fresh water, which I know is dry now.
MR. VLASSI DROUZAS: Their houses are draining into ours, actually.
MR. DROUZAS: What about these? (indicating.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The Town Board is putting a new code into effect
that everybody has to contain their runoff. So eventually, when
they come in.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When they come in for improvements. So eventually
it will be taken care of. It will take a while.
MR. DROUZAS: What do you want me to do on the drain? We drain the
water here, okay?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That will take care of a lot of that but then
right here, from this slope.
MR. DROUZAS: Do you want me to put another one here and connect to
the --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is elevated, isn't it? Or am I reading it
wrong?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It is all going to be, see how it's going here, so
he can catch this.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What if he does the French drain this way? I'm
concerned about that.
MR. DROUZAS: Do you want me to put another drywell here and connect
to this one here? I could do that, too.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If he puts it here then he can catch all this down
here.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: He said connect to here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Put a drywell here, he's saying. So another
drywell around here.
MR. DROUZAS: Very good.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: To catch all this
MR. DROUZAS: That's good enough.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then I wouldn't mind the grass there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have a problem with it.
MR. DROUZAS: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We just need to see the drywell on this plan.
MR. DROUZAS: Okay, fine. When last time you give me this. What I
miss here?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the last permit that we gave, so when you
pay the fees, you actually get the permit.
Board of Trustees
12
September 19,2007
MR. DROUZAS: I mean this.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The new plans.
MR. DROUZAS: What that means here. I thought 25 feet from the
fresh water.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: From the fresh water wetland.
MR. DROUZAS: So why you measure now hundred feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, the non-disturbance buffer, we wanted
non-turf. So you can't put grass within 25 feet of that.
MR. DROUZAS: That's what that means?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. DROUZAS: Okay. So what do we do now
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll make a resolution and we'll let you know.
MR. VLASSI DROUZAS: You'll call us?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll let you know right now.
I'll make a resolution to approve 148.3 plus or minus cubic
yards of fill to be placed in the southwest corner of the property,
which is in our jurisdiction, subject to an additional drywell on
the south of the wall to catch all the water coming from the south
of the property down to there so it will not drain into the fresh
water pond. One additional drywell. And I would like to see that
subject to seeing that on the survey. So we'll need you to put
that drywell on the survey and once that's done we can sign the
maps, then can you get your permit.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you want to stipulate the drywell be designed to
hold all the drainage that comes off the hill?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I tried to say. The drywell is for
the south side of the property there, all of it, to contain -- and
be at the bottom of the hill to contain all the runoff from the
south side.
MR. CORCORAN: All the runoff or two-inch rain fall?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For a two-inch rain fall, yes.
MR. CORCORAN: Do you also find it to be consistent with LWRP?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: By putting the drywell there I find it puts it
into consistency with LWRP. We didn't have an LWRP on this.
MR. CORCORAN: It says inconsistent.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, here it is.
MR. CORCORAN: So for those reasons you now find it to be
consistent?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two, MARIA KATSIGEORGIS requests an
Amendment to Wetland Permit #6358 and Coastal Erosion Permit #6358C
to remove and replace the existing concrete block wall on the west
Board of Trustees
13
September 19, 2007
side of the basement and replace with a new concrete block wall;
repair and level staircase to upper deck and support existing deck
walkway to main entrance of house; replace 30-foot length railroad
tie division on west side of property; cover existing dirt area
landward of the bulkhead with additional non-turf material; replace
paving stone retaining walls on west side of dwelling south of
splash pad to stabilize dirt from running down into splash pad;
replace walkway along side of dwelling; and construct a 4x16 foot
wide cobblestone apron to access asphalt or bluestone curved
driveway. Located: 55455 County Road 48, Southold.
Is anybody here for this application?
(No response.)
We requested some revised plans and we did not receive them and
being nobody here -- should we postpone it? Open it?
MR. CORCORAN: I would just postpone it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion we postpone Maria Katsigeorgis
until we get revised plans.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll put it on October 3 if she gets us the plans
in time.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: CLEAVES POINT VILLAGE requests an Amendment to
Permit #4224 to install two metal brackets on an existing floating
dock in order to secure a docking platform for a wave runner.
Located: 2820 Shipyard Lane, East Marion.
I believe after the field inspection we decided, in this
particular case, because they removed the finger float off the
catwalk, and this wave runner float is actually, it's considerably
smaller than the finger was, it's actually not a bad thing.
So I would like to make a motion that we approve this
amendment with the stipulation that the finger float that they
removed does not get put back into place and that if they do want
to remove the wave runner and put the finger back, they need to
come back and let us know about that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And that keeps it exempt from LWRP if we do it
that way.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It was exempt anyway.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number four is GEORGE SEEGER requests an
Amendment to Permit #411 for the existing dock consisting of a
Tx10.2" top platform, 3'x24" platform, 3x12 foot hinged ramp, and
6'4"x16' floating dock. Located: 930 Jockey Creek Drive, Southold.
Board of Trustees
14
September 19, 2007
This is an existing dock which we had no problem with. Our
field notes from one of our Trustees who is not here, we are
attempting to read his notes.
We did this inhouse, the numbers are okay. So his measurements are
here. Do you want me to read them into --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what he's saying.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So we'll approve the Seeger dock and the
dimensions taken by our Trustee Dave Bergen is, landward of the
deck is 7x10 foot to a 2'4"x 2'10" platform, to an 11 '3"x3'4" ramp,
to a 6'6"x1 0'4" float.
I'll make a motion to approve this dock permit with those
dimensions.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: VINCENZO & MARGHERITA POSILLlCO request an
Amendment to Permit #6569 to trench through the property to install
a water line and electricity for the existing dock. Located: 6170
Skunk Lane, Cutchogue.
Is there anyone here this evening?
(No response.)
I inspected this and I don't have a problem with it. My only
concern is there were no dimensions on the length with distance
between the two trenchings, so I would simply stipulate that the
water trench has already been done, the electrical trench is being
done north of the water trench and I would stipulate that none of
the trenching be encroaching into the wetland area at all. And
since there are no dimensions, I'm assuming they are parallel, and
I would also stipulate that they need a row of hay bales because
there is a lot of dirt that is being trenched up, obviously, and I
would simply have that placed along the wetland line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What does LWRP and CAC sayan this?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: LWRP has it inconsistent.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was for the dock, though. That was the
previous.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: For the dock. And CAC is for the transfer.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I wasn't sure if they reviewed it. Sometimes they
don't -- okay. I'll second that.
All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: JOSEPH & GRACE FINORA requests an Amendment to
Permit #6005 to replace the previously existing floating dock with
a low profile, open grate catwalk and a 6x22 foot floating dock.
Located: 45 & 135 East Legion Avenue, Mattituck.
Board of Trustees
15
September 19, 2007
The dock was not there now because we approved reconstruction
of a bulkhead, which they did. And the bulkhead came out really
nice. It looks good. And the amendment, it's the same size dock
but he's putting it closer to the shore. And I'll show you on the
map. It's further away from the channel. It won't interfere at
all with the marina across the way.
(Indicating.) Here is his property here and this survey
doesn't show it, but the bulkhead sits like this on his property.
So he would come down here and it's an open-grating and then it
runs this way. The bulkhead runs this way. So the dock will sit
like this. And here's the marina over here. So it's the best he
can do. So I have no problem with it.
So I'll make a motion to approve this amendment using the
open-grate catwalk to replace the existing, what was existing on
the dock. Same measurements. It's 6x22 floating dock.
CAC supports the application with the condition the dock and
vessel don't exceed one-third of the width across the creek. Which
it won't. It was laid out this way. And I don't have the
dimensions of the ramp and the float that were written down here.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The float is 6x22?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The float is 6x22.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you mean the catwalk?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The catwalk, I mean. I thought I had that written
down. Low profile, open-grate catwalk. This is six by -- this is
usually 6x6s. 6x22 foot float, um -- I'll approve it subject to
receiving the correct dimensions of the catwalk and the ramp. He
has it depicted clearly on the survey but I don't want to stamp it
and sign it without the numbers being there.
And it is exempt from LWRP, although we don't have, I did talk
to Mark today. Did he give you LWRP on this, Lauren?
SECRETARY STANDISH: No, it's exempt.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Was that motion clear?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
SECRETARY STANDISH: What about the dimension on the plan?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't see the catwalk and the ramp. We have the
dimension for this but not these.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Just missing some dimensions.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He said it was the same as before. I just assumed
it was on the permit from before. But it's not. So we'll need
that.
Who wants to do the next one?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: DENNIS KORD requests an Amendment to Permit #6267
to extend the fixed ramp by 16 feet seaward, replace the 16 foot
Board of Trustees
16
September 19, 2007
aluminum ramp with a 20 foot ramp, and replace the proposed
staircase on the landward end of the ramp by an eight foot
extension of the fixed ramp. Located: 295 Maiden Lane, Mattituck.
It's consistent with LWRP with the following conditions: They
recommend no use of CCA lumber in the construction of the dock; the
dock must not extend more than a third across the creek; applicant
must show water depths at the dock location.
We felt there was a question on the distance across, didn't
we? That it was sticking out too far.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, and we felt that they had sufficient depth,
as far as we were concerned.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: CAC supports the application with the condition the
project is staked and does not exceed one-third across the width of
the creek.
Okay, so. This is what we can do. They were going to turn
the floating dock on an angle.
MR. BURKE: I'm Marvin Burke. I'm a partner in the property. If
there are any questions.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There are some comments.
MR. BURKE: We are here if you need any information.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When we were out there it looks like it was too far
out. It would make navigation a concern.
MR. BURKE: We have an overview here of the creek, so you can see
exactly how it will work, from a Google aerial map. If I could
bring that up. This is the existing, which is more than half into
the creek. Our property is right here. What we are talking about
is to bring it out to about there, which you can see it's about 10%
into the creek, in actuality. And the depth at low tide is,
actually, it's in the mud. With the wet posting at low tide, it's
about 24 inches deep. We have gone through all the other docks in
the area and they have about 48 to 50 inches deep where their float
is. So we are actually about a foot-and-a-half less than all the
existing floats as they exist on the creek at this point in the
inlet. So I'm not sure we even have enough depth at this point
but, you know, to guard the clams and undergrowth, I think we
definitely need the depth and whatever is going on in the depth of
the creek, the width of the creek is inconsistent. We are way
within the third. Way in. And if we go at an angle we would need
another eight feet because the ground is actually more shallow
going at an angle.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do we want to see this staked out?
MR. BURKE: It was staked out.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was the outer part of the stakes, that was
there.
MR. BURKE: I walked and measured it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We went with the catwalk and we figured with the
Board of Trustees
17
September 19, 2007
ramp and the float, that's what the existing is. So we thought you
wanted to go additional beyond that.
MR. BURKE: We do. The ramp as it exists now is 32 feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Where are the stakes?
MR. BURKE: There were two stakes with rope. The one stake that was
in there, where the dock would end with 18 feet, and the then the
other stake is where the angle and where the outside of the float
would be.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we only saw the one stake. There was only
one stake.
MR. BURKE: So, in case it was under water. You must have been
there at high tide. If you were there at high tide, the metal
stake that you probably saw was the proposed end of the walkway.
Then there should have been a rope that probably went underwater.
You probably didn't see it. So that would be where, if you had, if
it were visible.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I mean it doesn't seem like -- the picture makes
it look further across.
MR. BURKE: That's an aerial view. That's reality, right now. So,
you know, I don't know -- we are way within, from the end of the
creek, from the opposite side of the creek, we are way within your
desired one-third. We are way under.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Looking at the existing. 16 feet further than what
it already is. It's a 20 foot ramp. 18 feet. 20 feet more, and
so it's going to be 28 feet longer than what is currently there.
MR. BURKE: Right. So that gives us about 24 inches of depth during
low tide, which is still much less than anyone else has. I wonder
if the DEC or your Board would like it to be even farther out, in
order to protect the land.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, it's showing here on the water side of the
floating dock that low water you'll have three--and-a-half feet
MR. BURKE: That's inaccurate. I walked it out and measured it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is Army Corps of Engineers.
MR. BURKE: I'm happy to leave it as that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What's the Board's pleasure?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: One thing we didn't see was all the post
stakings. Without the full Board -- I think the full Board should
see it staked. So I think we should postpone it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Get more measuring tapes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll table it to re-inspect at low tide.
MR. BURKE: That will be what date?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: October 8. Do you recommend we re-stake it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Make sure the stakes stay there. A lot can happen
between now and then.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The furthest stake was not there when we were there
MR. KORD: It's there.
Board of Trustees
18
September 19, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So just make sure it's visible in case we don't
get there at low tide.
MR. BURKE: Should we put a balloon on it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Whatever works.
MR. BURKE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Make that motion, Bob.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I motion we table it until the Board gets a chance
to see it on the next inspection date.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: ANTHONY BELLlSIMO requests an Amendment to Permit
#6526 to erect a drystone natural stone wall to bring land to
grade; place bluestone in compacted sone dust with 1/2 inch
drainage joints; remove asphalt driveway and replace with circular
drive in compacted stone and dust with gravel surface; install
three downspout drywells and landscape, and install stairway with
railings. Located: 600 Koke Drive, Southold.
We went out to inspect this. The patio is already built and
the stakes have been put down. LWRP is found to be inconsistent.
The recommendation here was mainly because the distance from the
patio to the wetland boundary is only 12 feet. They are asking
that you establish a larger non-turf buffer area in addition to the
existing ten-foot sand buffer; require hay bales during landscape
and construction and require gutters to drywells on the house and
drainage for the patio.
CAC did an inspection there. CAC supported the application
with the following conditions: They were asking that the patio be
pervious, and a discussion revolved around the notion that the
bluestone dust really becomes like a cement. And of course it
would not be pervious anymore. Drywells are installed, all roof
drains lead to the drywells and the drive should be completely
pervious.
Basically, when we were out there to inspect it, we saw it was
already done. The area to the, as you are looking at the house
from the water side, the patio would be on the right, bluestone
patio, then there was a section next to the patio that was not
planted or anything and the Board really felt that that needed to
be part of the buffer. We wanted to see that planted with native
plantings.
MR. BELLlSIMO: I think you have it. I'm Anthony Bellisimo, the
owner of the house. This is the area you are talking about here.
There is no grass here. Here is the other area you are talking
about. The planting area. This is the water. This is the boat,
by the way. The patio is here, actually.
Board of Trustees
19
September 19,2007
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sorry. Then there is a section right over here
which is just, we have Montauk daisies and beach grass. Okay.
That's okay.
MR. BELLlSIMO: I think it probably is a bigger plan. The smaller
one, I gave you three of those also.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Look at that. Very nice. Do you guys want to see
it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: (Perusing).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Montauk daisies and beach grass. Doesn't show
drywells.
MR. BELLlSIMO: That's on all the plans.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The drywells, it's already done?
MR. BELLlSIMO: No, I didn't start that. I wanted to finish this
before I started that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you plan on keeping that buffer sand as it is
now?
MR. BELLlSIMO: Yes. It actually ends up being 12 feet.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I guess what we were asking is what this area here
is.
MR. BELLlSIMO: I would continue to make it beach grass.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's why I was asking.
MR. BELLlSIMO: Just so you know, this is approximately, probably
came out here, this is about a 12-foot buffer. I only have 30 feet
from here to here. So basically what they are asking me to do is
take more than half my backyard and make it a buffer at that
point? I'm just trying to make clear.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Essentially the LWRP says you shouldn't have
anything anywhere in here because the buffer is supposed to be 100
feet, according to the LWRP. We are mitigating the issues because
the house is, of course, already existing, and you are going to be
doing some of this work, so we are trying to make some mitigation
to make it so it's more consistent with LWRP
MR. BELLlSIMO: Did I hear I have to reduce the patio? I want to be
clear on that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That was the recommendation.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In other words, those were the recommendations.
That was, actually, that was not in here. That was not one of the
recommendations, so. Any other questions or comments?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just that he show the drywells in the plans, and
that would make it consistent. Can the patio be drained off into
the drywells at all?
MR. BELLlSIMO: I'm not a construction person, but I'll ask.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know how it's angled.
MR. BELLlSIMO: It was built because I presume it was part of the
landscaping and if people did need to improve it, I apologize. I
made my peace with the court. I'll do whatever needs to be done.
Board of Trustees
20
September 19, 2007
I don't have a problem. Tell me to do it, I'll do it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know. I mean it seems if it's built level
then it's kind of hard to have the water run off a certain way.
MR. BELLlSIMO: They indicated to me it's about half inch between
each tile that he left purposely. Normally it's quarter of an
inch. Because we wanted it to drain down. Because the true problem
we have here, this was not planned, when they put the bulkheading
in, they had to excavate so deeply, Angelo had to go down so down
with the scoop, the whole landscape was chopped and drained into
the water. So we quickly built this to avoid things going into the
water and was told no permits were necessary. Obviously they were
necessary. They are done. And we left half inch between the tiles
instead of a quarter inch to protect the drainage. If there is
another material I could put in between the tiles other than the
dust, you suggested, it doesn't work. It becomes cement. I would
be more than happy. There is no dust in there now. It's open, as
you saw. We could always put something in there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The problem there is the substrata is already set.
The dust is already there, on the bottom. So even if you didn't
put anything in the grout lines, it would not matter because it's
not going to drain anywhere anyway. We have the ten foot sand
buffer there. If he leaves it that way, I don't suspect it would be
too much of an issue.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think that's what we talked about. The sand
buffer would act as a drainage along with the plantings.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have a problem with that. So, I would like
to make a motion that we approve this application for an amendment
based on the stipulations that the plantings will be according to
the planting plan that the applicant has given us and also with the
stipulation that you put where the drywells are on the plan so that
we have that on record. By adding those two items, that mitigates
it so it brings it into compliance with, consistency with, LWRP.
And that's my motion. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. BELLlSIMO: Thank you. Do I bring that up to Lauren?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. BELLlSIMO: Thank you, have a good night.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Nine is Frank Yakaboski on behalf of KEVIN &
CARA FERRO requests an Amendment to Permit #6497A to construct
renovations to the existing dwelling, as depicted on the plans
prepared by James Merrell Architects PC, dated April 26, 2007.
Located: 300 Jackson Street, New Suffolk.
I believe this was mainly a change of architect and I went out
to look at it. The reason there was a bit of a question is because
Board of Trustees
21
September 19, 2007
the plans were confusing, but after looking at it, what appeared to
be a long front porch way actually becomes, see how this goes all
the way over here, it's actually a carport. So this is just a
roof. So the roof goes across the decking and then over to this
carport. So it makes it look huge, like it goes all the way to the
property line.
Is there anyone here for this? My only question was about
setbacks because it appears that they are along the line. But it's
really not our concern, so there was, the reason I wanted to speak
to someone was because part of the original permit had a special
condition that chainlink fence be removed, and it has not been
removed. And that in place of the chainlink fence a split rail
fence be put up. So this permit will be conditioned that that
chainlink fence be removed and in its place a split rail fence be
put.
I also, while I was there, noticed that there is a beach area
in front of a brick patio in front of the house before the beach,
and there is an area of dead vines. I don't know if it was the
drought, but it seems very specific. So I'm simply going to say
and make a condition that it must be re-planted with beach grass.
It's a nice crop of beach grass in front of this area where there
are these dead vines. It didn't even appear to be poison ivy. So
I'm not sure what it was or why it's dead.
So having no problem with the new plans, I'll make a motion to
approve the request for Kevin and Cara Ferro to amend permit #6497 A
for their renovations to existing dwelling as per their new plans
stamped August 17, 2007, but I will stipulate that they must remove
their chainlink fence, replace it with split rail and that the area
seaward of the brick patio be replanted with American Beach Grass.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number ten, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of MICHAEL KENIN requests an Amendment to Permit #6127 to
construct a 9x13 foot covered deck and steps on the northern side
of the existing dwelling; 9x28 foot wood deck and steps with
associated planter on the eastern side of the dwelling; 13x24 foot
semi-circular stone patio on eastern side of dwelling; and 12x12
foot pergola with benches and associated planter on eastern side of
the dwelling. Located: 420 Lakeview Terrace, East Marion.
We all went out there and it was not staked. We asked for it
to be staked. I went out and I didn't see the outer limits of the
dock there.
MR. LOHN: Sorry, Ms. Doherty, I thought you just wanted the
Board of Trustees
22
September 19, 2007
proposals on land to be done. I didn't know you wanted the dock
done. My apologies.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the reason they are looking for the
extension on the dock?
MR. LOHN: Excuse me, you might have noticed on the existing catwalk
there is a kayak rack and the seaward terminus of the catwalk is
not very conducive to launching very well. They have to drag them
over the wetlands. It's kind of a bad step down. They wanted to
make the launching of those small craft easier.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are you aware there is an association formed here
that got a permit for the Trustees to remove phragmites in front of
everybody's places along the whole lake and they are in the process
of getting a DEC permit to do that as well?
MR. LOHN: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it seems to me this is mostly phragmites in
this area, and I'm thinking if they do get their DEC permit then he
could cut back the phragmites, then he'll have his area and he
won't need to extend his dock.
MR. LOHN: I agree with you there are phragmites to the right and
left of the existing catwalk but I didn't think they were that
substantial around that area.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They are very substantial.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We have a picture if you would like to see it.
MR. LOHN: Still, at that point, regardless of the presence of
phragmites or not, they would still be dragging the kayaks over the
wetlands. I figure the fixed dock would be much more conducive to
launching the boats. Mr. Kenin does as well.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Its inconsistent with LWRP; has not demonstrated
the action could meet or further below the policies. He writes
aerial photos indicate that Marion Lake contains no docks. I
talked to him today. He looked up aerials and I specified where
there are other docks in the area. He did say however none of them
extended further out than the existing phragmites, although we have
a picture right here that shows one that does. So when I tried to
tell him that it did, but without being out there, it's kind of
hard. And then he listed all the policies in chapter 275-11, which
I looked over them and I don't think, myself, I don't know how
anybody else feels here, that it interferes with any of this, that
the deck will impair navigation. It won't impair navigation
because it's at the end. Whether the dock will unduly interfere
with public use. Again, public use is not there. That you could
not use it anyway if there was no dock.
MR. LOHN: I agree with you very much.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the public can't traverse there even if there
was a dock there or not, on the foreshore, because of the way it
is. The only thing is I'm just uncomfortable without seeing the
Board of Trustees
23
September 19, 2007
outer limit of the dock staked.
MR. LOHN: If you would like to table it until the special meeting
October 3, I think you guys set for, we could definitely get the
outer limits of that staked by then. That's not a problem at all.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The problem is one of us has to get out before
that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sure. As long as it's staked, I'll go out there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What I'm concerned about is the property lines and
if it's, if here is one property line and the dock is going to go
right here in front of this guy. So--
MR. LOHN: Sure.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion we table the application.
MR. LOHN: If I can make a point. I have no problem staking it.
That's kind of why the dock is set at an angle to the end of the
catwalk now so they are going straight out in the same orientation
because of that lot line thing. If you extend it out, it was in the
same orientation, yes, it would be an issue, you would have that
lot line problem.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. I make a motion to table the
application of Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of
Michael Kenin for the amendment for the permit #4984 for the dock.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 11, Suffolk Environmental on behalf of
MICHAEL KENIN requests an Amendment to Permit #6127 to construct a
9x13 foot fixed dock on the seaward terminus of the existing
catwalk. Located: 430 Lakeview Terrace, East Marion.
That you did stake. I went out and looked at it again, and I
didn't have a problem with that. It is consistent with LWRP and it
says protect and restore Tidal Freshwater Land. Policy six, protect
and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold
ecosystem. Because of the hundred feet. And they recommend
establishing a non-disturbance buffer, hay bales, gutters and
drywells.
CAC supports the application with the condition the deck is
pervious and drywells are installed to contain all runoff. And
that was basically my comment. I would want to see like a five
foot buffer all along the bulkhead.
MR. LOHN: The drywells and hay bales, obviously, I have absolutely
no problem with. Even a five-foot buffer, there has been a pool
here and a deck here previously with no discernible impact to the
wetlands and there is a very large vertical separation. I don't
think taken away the minimal amount of lawn that my client has; the
benefits will not outweigh the detriments to the applicant. I
Board of Trustees
24
September 19,2007
don't think. Considering nothing detrimental has happened here.
And there have been past improvements located further seaward, you
might have noticed the disturbed areas, they are from the stakes.
I really don't think a non-turf buffer is warranted there. Drywells
and hay bails, though, most certainly.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What does the rest the Board feel about that
vertical --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Five foot non-turf buffer along the bulkhead is
what you have a problem with?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, I mean he has a point, it's like --
MR. LOHN: It's about 12 feet.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's a big wall.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's a big wall. But the water is still flows
down.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The water still flows down. It goes over because of
the drain, whether it's 12-foot, two-foot or a hundred feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just wanted to get your opinion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would not be inclined to approve it without
the buffer. That's my feeling.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We would like to see the buffer there.
MR. LOHN: I respectfully request if you can table this to the next
available meeting so I could have the benefit of a full Board and
talk to my client as well.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure.
MR. LOHN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to table Michael Kenin, number 11,
amendment to permit #6127.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm opposed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So what do we do? That motion was not carried.
Do you want to make another motion?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Why is it not carried?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are opposed. We need a majority to table it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you really?
MR. CORCORAN: You need three to carry any motion. If you don't act
on it and you don't table it, it kind of just sits there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All right. So what do we do?
MR. CORCORAN: You have to decide whether you'll allow it to be
reheard at the special hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll change it. I'm okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll re-do the motion to table the Suffolk
Environmental on behalf of Michael Kenin to the October 3 meeting.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
Board of Trustees
25
September 19, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 12, En-Consultants on behalf of CARLL &
SUSAN AUSTIN requests an Amendment to Permit #6578 to authorize the
construction of approximately 94 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in
place of existing timber bulkhead; inplace replacement of existing
10x12 wood deck and 4x7 steps; and backfill with approximately 20
cubic yards clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source
and planted with Cape American Beach Grass (18-inches on center.)
Located: 3300 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
I inspected this today and it's property that we have been at
before. And basically it's straightforward, inkind replacement. I
should say replacement of the bulkhead and stairs with pictures in
here.
Rob, the only question I had, which really doesn't pertain to
this amendment; it pertains to the previous approval that this
Board gave, for replacement of the jetties, the groins. I notice
one is almost completely gone. Is he still anticipating to replace
th at?
MR. HERMAN: There is only, there is two groins that front the
property. The one that is to the north or the northeast has always
been proposed to be removed. The one that is to the south or the
southwest is the one that was 38 feet long and we are proposing to
replace it with a 28-foot groin. That got completely torn up
during that April Nor'easter so it's in much worse shape than when
you recall looking at it with Jim ages ago.
But it took that long to get the approval from the DEC and,
because of that storm, if you remember during the original approval
process, we had talked about lopping into that permit the
backfilling of the bulkhead, planting it and establishing that as a
non-turf buffer. But we withdrew that because the Austin's decided
to just go ahead and proposed to replace the bulkhead at the same
time. So the DEC ended up accepting revised plans and including
the replacement of the bulkhead with the groin. So everything is
sort of morphed into one now that we would replace the 38-foot
groin with a low-profile, vinyl 28-foot groin. The bulkhead would
be replaced inplace with vinyl and that area would be backfilled
and re-planted and the area between the bulkhead and retaining wall
maintained as a planted non-turf buffer which, in effect, it is
now.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. All right. Just to clarify, the groins
that I have been talking about already have been approved, so he's
just in to amend that permit to add the bulkhead. And it
definitely needs it. It's bowed out and I have no problem as it is
applied for.
CAC supports the application with the condition that a
ten-foot, non-turf buffer. And it has the buffer in between. And
Board of Trustees
26
September 19, 2007
we have not been requesting a buffer on the upper walls, so I don't
think we really need to, you know.
MR. HERMAN: It acts as good natural area for a buffer. That's how
they were maintaining it anyway. So the plan would be to continue
to maintain it that way.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. Okay. I'll make a motion to approve the
application of En-Consultants on behalf of Carll and Susan Austin
as applied for in maintaining that buffer between the two walls.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of
FISHERS ISLAND UTILITY CO., requests an Amendment to Permit #6406
to allow two tie-off poles for the newly constructed docking
facility. Located: Private Road of Gloaming, Fishers Island.
Anything to add, Glen?
MR. JUST: No, I think it's a pretty easy proposal.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The only comment I would like to make is it is
consistent with the LWRP but the LWRP does have a request of a
floating turbidity screen.
MR. JUST: To install two piles? That's going to be really tough to
do for installing two piles.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Well, it says "if feasible." So therefore --
MR. JUST: I will look into the feasibility of it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I realize it's minimal, but it is a
recommendation of LWRP.
MR. JUST: I'll be more than happy to look into it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Good. I don't think any of the Board members
have any other comments.
I'll make a motion to approve the request for amendment to
permit #6406 to allow for two tie-off poles for the newly
constructed docking facility on Fishers Island. Do I have a
second?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. JUST: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of WALTER
GITLIN requests a one-year extension to Permit #6224 as issued on
October 19, 2005, and amended on February 14, 2007. Located: 1180
Smith Drive South, Southold.
We reviewed the file and everything we felt stays the same so
I make a motion to approve this one-year extension.
Board of Trustees
27
September 19, 2007
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Pamela Greene on behalf of PECONIC LAND TRUST
requests the last One-Year Extension to Permit #6014, as issued on
October 20,2004, and Amended on May 16, 2007. Located: 10273 North
Bayview Road Extension, Southold.
We all went out there. We had some discussions about what the
pilings would do and I think the Board supported the work that you
wanted to do there.
So I would make a motion that we approve that request for the
one-year extension. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Patricia Moore on behalf of VINCENT ILUZZI
requests a Transfer of Permit #4733 from Frank Scavone to Vincent
lIuzzi as issued on May 2,1997. Located: 1615 Fleetwood Drive,
Cutchogue.
I looked at this. I did request updated plans because what
was there are not the plans that are in the file. So it seems we
do have those plans. I'll make a motion to approve the transfer as
stated. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Patricia Moore on behalf of VINCENT ILUZZI
requests a Transfer of Permit #4697 from Frank Scavone to Vincent
liuzzi, as issued on January 31,1997. Located: 1615 Fleetwood
Drive, Cutchogue.
This is for a rock revetment, and I looked at this and I have
no problem with this transfer. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before we go into public hearing we'll take a
five-minute break.
(After a short recess, these proceedings
continue as follows.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before we go onto public hearings, we'll go back
Board of Trustees
28
September 19, 2007
to page two, number two, the application of MARIA KATSIGEORGIS.
She is here now. It's for an amendment to Wetland Permit #6358 and
Coastal Erosion Permit #6358C.
The Board went out and looked at it and we just have some
comments. The original permit was not for the extensive decking
that was done. However, we don't have much of a problem with the
decking because it was spaced and, as you can see, it is pervious.
The only problem we have with it is it's treated wood and it cannot
be treated wood. So that has to be removed. You can replace it
with non-treated wood or you could do plantings like the original
permit said for you to do.
And the other, what is the area to the west, northwest that is
dirt right now, what are your plans for that area?
And please state your name for the record.
MS. KATSIGEORGIS: Maria Katsigeorgis. Non-turf material, of
course.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As in what; plantings?
MS. KATSIGEORGIS: Plantings.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is it going to be native plantings?
MS. KATSIGEORGIS: I have only this list. So whatever is in that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, perfect. Have you gone to court yet on the
violation?
MS. KATSIGEORGIS: No, that's Monday.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Friday, actually. The 21st.
MS. KATSIGEORGIS: Yes, Friday.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, our policy is not to act on these
things until it's satisfied in court. So we need that. And also,
if you can, we need a new plan showing the -- we would need new
plans, a new drawing showing what is existing now, stating that
it's non-treated lumber being used, if that's what you choose to
put back. And also the fish pond, that was not approved.
MS. KATSIGEORGIS: What fish pond?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The little pond that you have there with flowers
around it.
MS. KATSIGEORGIS: That goes in in the wintertime. It's removable.
It's just plastic.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, we have no problem with it. It just needs
to be part of the permit because it's within our jurisdiction.
MS. KATSIGEORGIS: So you want me to remove it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, just put it on the plan so we can permit it.
You don't have to remove it. It's actually nice. We like it. So
we would just need new plans. So I would say we have to table this
application until we get, until it's satisfied in court and we get
new plans showing what I mentioned.
MS. KATSIGEORGIS: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You're okay with all that?
Board of Trustees
29
September 19, 2007
MS. KATSIGEORGIS: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you could show on the plans the plantings and
what plantings you'll put where, so we know. I'll make a motion to
table this application for the reasons stated.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion we go off regular meetings to go
into public hearings.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: COASTAL EROSION AND WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Coastal erosion and wetland permits. Number one,
is CHENG KAI YU requests a Wetland Permit $ Coastal Erosion Permit
to construct a second-floor addition to the existing dwelling,
alteration of first floor and new second-story deck; construct
35-foot stone retaining wall; restoration of stone walk/steps over
bluff and fill and replant vegetation around top of bluff. Located:
3300 Dignan's Road, Cutchogue.
This is a violation. A lot of work was done. The violation
has not been satisfied in court yet. And we have been out there
several times and we have spoken to the applicant and we noted that
we would not approve the materials that were used for the
construction, the construction method, the scope of the whole
project, due to the effects on the environment.
And from what I can see, that's exactly what was applied for.
MS. ZKAGOLDING: Agnies Zkagolding. We are the architect for the
application mainly to answer questions regarding the house. The
application was filed currently for the house and existing work
that has been done. We understand that. We are wondering if there
is any possibility of pursuing with the application of the addition
to the existing home.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: At this time I would not feel comfortable
separating it for the reasons of there are violations on the house
as well and that is not taken care of. And I don't think the Board
is comfortable with putting that size addition onto that house
because it's so close to the bluff right now. We would like to see
the house moved back, actually, if you are going to put any
sizeable additions on there.
So I don't know if the Board has any other questions at this
time. It's kind of -- to go further with questions for something
that is not approvable is kind of a waste of time.
Board of Trustees
30
September 19,2007
MS. ZKAGOLDING: So in essence we do have a choice of coming back in
front of the Board requesting a new construction, in a sense?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MS. ZKAGOLDING: Setting the house back.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MS. ZKAGOLDING: And that is the only way.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have not voted on it yet but I think that's the
consensus. It's inconsistent with LWRP and CAC does not support
this application because of the same reasons that I have mentioned.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You can apply for anything, I guess. If you want
to separate the house from the rest of it, I mean, you can do that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can separate it.
MS. ZKAGOLDING: Apply for an application, basically. Is there a
possibility to ask if I can apply for addition to the existing home
or maybe a renovation of the existing home, in it's existing
location, of course.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's hard to judge based on -- unless we have a
plan.
MS. ZKAGOLDING: We would like to pursue but not waste anybody's
time, if we come back with an addition to an existing house or
rather a renovation and smaller type of addition to it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You could do it two ways. You can apply to us,
just like you did now or you could do a pre-submission and we could
meet you in the field and discuss different options. And you could
speak to Lauren as to how to do a pre-submission.
MR. CORCORAN: To be clear, is it the position of the Board that the
policy of the Board is that they are not necessarily inclined to
approve a permit while there are existing violations being
prosecuted on the property?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. We cannot give out a permit for that.
MS. ZKAGOLDING: So a permit would not be even though we were to
apply separately, a permit would not issue because of the --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct.
MS. ZKAGOLDING: Now, what steps if I may ask will be taken to
pursue with the existing --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We don't address anything with an existing
violation, period.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: She has to go to court. I don't know what her
court date is. And that has to be taken care of before we get into
the meat of any kind of application.
MS. ZKAGOLDING: All right. But we can still set up a meeting to
have an idea?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MS. ZKAGOLDING: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments on this application?
(No response.)
Board of Trustees
31
September 19,2007
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to deny the application of
Cheng Kai Yu as applied for, for the reasons that are previously
stated, for the materials that have been used, for the
construction, the construction method and the scope of the
construction of the wall and the stairs and for the effects on the
environment.
MR. CORCORAN: Do you also find it inconsistent with LWRP?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, this totally makes it inconsistent with LWRP
with the construction materials they have used, which are pallets,
wires, cement block. It's not something we would allow on a
bluff.
MS. ZKAGOLDING: Can I pick up a copy, if I may, of the LWRP from
the office?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of
MISSY DIACK requests a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to
relocate the existing single-family dwelling landward and construct
an addition (1,295 square feet overall) to be situated 80' from
the wetlands boundary; rear decking (622 square feet) situated
64' from the wetlands boundary; rear plat and walkways (411
square feet) situated 5' from the wetlands boundary;
retaining wall to surround the proposed sanitary system within the
front yard, situated 127' from the wetland boundary; and a
gravel driveway (540 square feet) situated 120 feet from the
wetlands boundary; and to maintain the timber bulkhead inplace.
Located: 1840 Leeton Drive, Southold.
Is will anyone here who would like to speak to this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for
the applicant Missy Diack.
Just for point of interest here, we have given you a survey
prepared by John Metzger and we don't need a Coastal Erosion Hazard
permit because the line is well seaward of all activities.
The second thing is, the proposed deck that shows there
actually already exists, so all we are doing is really just
connecting it. It may have to be rebuilt somewhat, but it's
already there.
The third point, which is worth while mentioning, is that this
Board of Trustees
32
September 19, 2007
particular project, we are taking an existing house and we are
picking up and removing it and moving it away from the water, which
should be favored by the regulations. Then we are really proposing
a small, one-story addition next to it. The purpose of the
addition is just to provide the Diack's with a little more room in
their beach house, specifically for their grandchildren who come
from all different places at various times during the summer. So
it is a simple application in that regard.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Bruce, I just want to say, the full Board, when
we were all there, were quite impressed with her conscientious
effort to construct minimal and construct landward and so --
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. Because LWRP says they would somehow
prefer this to be in the middle of the road, apparently.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I wouldn't say the middle of the road.
MR. ANDERSON: But I can't move it anymore landward. Well, if it
were 100 foot back from the wetland boundary, the septic system
would be in the road.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. But she did a very, very nice job as far
as being able to renovate and also minimally affect and stay as far
away from the beach.
MR. ANDERSON: I just want you to understand it's as far back as it
can go, given the septic system. The rest is straight forward.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Good. You are right, LWRP finds this
inconsistent because the proposed distance from the tidal wetland
is 80 feet, rear decking is 64 feet, and it does ask to retain a
non-turf, non-disturbance buffer landward of the timber bulkhead to
protect the water quality; requires hay bales during construction;
requires gutters and drywells to contain roof runoff and during
construction to protect all wetland vegetation
MR. ANDERSON: Well, there is no wetland to protect. At all. There
is no turf and we are not proposing any turf. And we would
certainly put the hay bales on and we'll certainly comply with the
town drainage law, so.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And she herself I think was very protective of a
lot of the vegetation.
MR. ANDERSON: A lot of that will go away when we put the proper
septic system in. Right now you have a cesspool that is not to
code. So the area between the house and the road will have to be
cleared so the septic system can be installed.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC supports the application with the condition
of drywells and gutters are installed to contain roof runoff and to
assure stabilization of the dunes and dune grasses. Which again,
you are saying the deck is being simply re-done where it is, so
there is no new disturbance of those dune grasses.
MR. ANDERSON: Right.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else here this evening who would
Board of Trustees
33
September 19, 2007
like to speak to this application?
MS. DIACK: Hi, I'm Missy Diack. When you talk about the protection
of the dunes, I am, the ones at the front of the house, as I had
said previously, I'm very conscious about it. We don't want any of
that to be removed. It's just that way we have to move the house
back. Some of those beach plums will, of course, go. But I want to
re-plant in that whole area. That's alii wanted to say.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Good. Any Board comments?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments from the audience?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to -- first I would like to
make a motion to refund Missy Diack for her applying for the
coastal erosion because all of this work is being done landward of
the coastal erosion line. So I will make a motion to approve a
wetland permit for the description of the house, the cesspool, the
decking, with the stipulation and to make this consistent with LWRP
that roof runoff be retained with drywells, that there be hay bales
during construction.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was kind of sloping back. I don't know if hay
bales are necessary.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If they could put them right in front of that
wooden bulkhead. But the review also says retain a non-turf
non-disturbance buffer landward of the timber bulkhead. I was
going to say -- I'll say it remains a non-turf non-disturbance
buffer landward of the timber bulkhead and hay bales be placed
landward of the bulkhead. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. CORCORAN: Do you find it consistent?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I thought I said that. But I'll say that I find
it consistent with LWRP due to those mitigating --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And in that resolution was to refund the coastal
erosion hazard fee.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have drywells on the plan, Bruce?
MR. ANDERSON: No. I'll amend the plan to show hay bales and
drywells.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of CYNTHIA
POWER & RICHARD MCKINNEY requests a Wetland Permit & Coastal
Erosion Permit to remove fallen Maple and Birch trees from
Board of Trustees
34
September 19,2007
storm-eroded embankment; and place generally along toe of
embankment, between existing bulkhead and concrete rip-rap,
approximately 84 linear feet of 1-2 ton quarrystone toe armor over
50-100 pound core stone on filter cloth; re-nourish and revegetate
eroded bank face using approximately 50 cubic yards clean sand to
be trucked in from an upland source and planted with Cape American
Beach Grass (18" on center.) Located: 12340 Main Road, Orient.
LWRP finds this consistent because it was obvious erosion on
the bank. CAC supports the application with the condition that the
non-turf buffer is increased in the construction area. And I know
when the Board went out to take a look at it, we took a good look
and obviously there was erosion there and this really does need to
be addressed and since it was consistent with LWRP we really didn't
have a problem with it.
Is there anybody here that can make a comment on this
application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of applicants.
Unless the Board has any other questions or issues about the
project, I'm happy to go with Bob's summary.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It does say here on the field notes something about
including the stairs. I don't remember what that issue was. Is it
because --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because it was not included in the description.
Although it's on the plan, I believe.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, I thought it was, too.
MR. HERMAN: The stairs next to the deck and arbor.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
MR. HERMAN: We were going to submit, subsequently -- I discussed
this briefly in the office with Jim. Of course, he's not here.
That deck was originally built under the not really the approval,
but it was built through the authorization of a waiver that was
issued by the Trustees. So that deck is non-permitted, but it's
legal.
It was also originally built through the authorization of a
non-jurisdiction letter from the DEC. Because of the urgency of
dealing with this erosion problem, which of course actually effects
the neighboring property owner's garage, more directly than it
affects the applicants, we wanted to get this in and before all the
agencies and addressed so all that work can be commenced.
What I had originally indicated to Jim is we thought that deck
might have to be reconstructed. But it does not. It really just
needs -- the supports just need to be reset. The stairs obviously
need to be reconstructed. If we could include with this
application the ability to reset one of those posts for the deck
and Ian Crowley is here and he could explain the scope of the work
Board of Trustees
35
September 19, 2007
that needs to be done, and just repair those stairs in place, I
would love to do that. I just didn't want to risk, particularly for
Mrs. Bramson's (sic) sake, not getting in in time because we
couldn't get all the plans together quickly enough to address the
deck and the stairs and it was, we were trying to figure out
whether there was a permit for that deck and arbor and, as I said,
we did find out from Ron Reisoff, the prior property owner, our
office had actually worked for Mr. Reisoff and gotten a waiver from
this Board for the deck. So I would be happy to give you revised
plans showing that and do this all in one shot so we don't have to
come back to you. But that's your pleasure.
Would you want Ian to describe the scope of the work so you
are comfortable?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, I think we are all --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We kind of figured that. That's why I brought it
up.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we would rather have it all done at once
instead of coming back.
MR. HERMAN: Us, too.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So as to disturb it once. You are only out there
once.
MR. HERMAN: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions or comments?
MR. CROWLEY: There will be movement of the concrete and stuff, to
do the work under the deck. That's the only thing. There will be
movement. That's all.
MR. HERMAN: And we would probably want to refill the soil there and
replant it as well. It's consistent with what we are doing over
here except in this spot the concrete debris is already present so
I think they would just want to make sure that so this doesn't
happen to the deck again, that that debris is re-shifted, reset and
then covered with sand and soil and replanted with beach grass. So
if the Board is comfortable with that, we can just give you revised
plans reflecting that as a condition of the permit issuance.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We are anxious to see the work start because
October is right around the bend.
MR. HERMAN: It needs to be done.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm okay with that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. HERMAN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
described. It's been found to be consistent with LWRP with the
added stipulation that we add the repair of the existing stairs
inkind and inplace and replace the supports on the existing deck
Board of Trustees
36
September 19,2007
and that En-Consultants will provide us with a revised plan.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me, Bob. What's the dimensions of that
deck, so we can get that in the permit as well?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That platform is 19'4"x10'.
MR. HERMAN: Jim had noticed when he looked at this, it was just
below the 200 square feet where you would require a coastal erosion
permit.
MR. GHOSIO: Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll move on to Wetland Permits.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number one, WILLIAM & CHRISTINE EISENREICH
request a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story addition and greenhouse
addition to the existing single-family dwelling, and reconfigure
the existing driveway. Located: 805 Bay Shore Road, Greenport.
Is there anyone here with regard to this application?
(No response.)
I think the Board feels on this one that -- we are not sure --
because the Building Department has determined -- that we feel it
has to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and just the way it is, I
think we wanted to see what happens in the Zoning Board of Appeals
so if the rest of the Board feels that way I would make a motion to
table this until we get something from the Zoning Board.
That they should go to the Building Department to see if they need
something from the Zoning Board.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: PECONIC LAND TRUST INC., requests a Wetland Permit
to reinforce 390 feet of eroding bank along marina and creek with
filter cloth and 50-75 pound stones, and add four eight-inch
pilings along dock in marina area. Located: 10273 North Bayview
Road Extension, Southold.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak for this application?
MR. RIVERA: We're here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Mr. Rivera came in the other night and spoke
to us. The full board went out and looked at this. It's in dire
need of repair. The only comments that our Board had was that the
rock revetment we are talking about, we want to make sure there are
plantings near the top of the road, on Great River Road, and the
Board of Trustees
37
September 19, 2007
applicant that. And the LWRP deems it consistent. We were going to
add that the spoils that they had to be used to regrade the road.
CAC supports this application with no comments.
Any comments from the Board or the audience?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the wetland request
for Peconic Land Trust to reinforce their eroding bank and also the
addition of four eight-inch pilings for their marina area.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With the use of the spoils to be used for the
grading of the road and the plantings at the top of the road.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And I'll second again.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: ROY & LINDA ARGENT requests a Wetland Permit to
remove and raise roof, replace windows, repair or replace all
rotten wood, repair or replace foundation, if needed, and for the
existing bulkhead. Located: 6429 Indican Neck Lane, Peconic.
I did look at this. CAC supports the application with the
condition of inkind inplace maintenance of the bulkhead. It is
exempt from the LWRP and the only comment that I have was that part
of the permit asks for an if-needed for the existing bulkhead and
just that the bulkhead, if repaired, cannot have any CCA on it. So
any repair work that you do to the existing bulkhead can have no
CCA.
There were stairs there. Were they part of the bulkhead
originally
MR. ARGENT: Roy Argent. They were there as far back as I could
remember. Our neighbors, next door.
(UNIDENTIFIED NEIGHBOR): Since 1960, I'm sure they were.
MRS. ARGENT: Linda Argent. The place has been there since the
'40's.
MR. ARGENT: I have aerial photographs which you have a copy of
which shows prior to 1977.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. Is the bulkhead, are you repairing the
bulkhead or just asking for a permit?
MR. ARGENT: No, just in case we need it. As far as I know nothing
has to be done now.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So you are not doing any work right now?
MR. ARGENT: No.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My only comment to the Board would be, normally
Board of Trustees
38
September 19, 2007
we would prefer a buffer, that -- you have at least a ten-foot
buffer between your bulkhead and lawn area now and I did notice on
both sides of your neighbors, that they actually, their land area
actually comes back quite a bit so my request would be to give this
permit with a condition that you create a buffer sort of inline
with, trying to look at my pictures here. on the east side of your
bulkhead, that you make the buffer align with where your neighbor's
property is. There is also two trees in your front lawn. If your
buffer area can come up to that area because we would do that with
anyone who is doing a bulkhead.
MR. ARGENT: That's fine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want a planting buffer or non-turf?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can plant it, but some people just do
non-turf.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because both sides of the property come back
quite a ways. So they created that buffer. There is two trees
there that make a nice line.
Being no further comments from the audience I'll make a motion
to close the public hearing. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit
to remove and raise roof, replace windows, repair and replace all
rotten wood repair or replace foundation if needed, and for the
existing bulkhead and the staircase. And that if there are any
repairs needed on the bulkhead or staircase that there are be no
CCA wood used and; a buffer be created from the bulkhead landward
to the be in line with the neighbor's property or the two trees
that are there, which unfortunately I didn't measure.
MR. ARGENT: On the buffer, do you want something planted or just
sand?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You can do just sand or plant anything native.
Any of the native grasses, any of the bayberries or rosa rugosa.
You can do any of the flowering, native shoreline plants. We have
the list in the office if you would like a list.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Young & Young on behalf of MICHAEL JUDGE requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a new 85'x4' wide beach access stairway
with platforms. Located: 13007 Oregon Road, Cutchogue.
We were all out there the other day and inspected it. LWRP
finds that it is consistent with LWRP, provided that the best
management practices are applied, that being no CCA treated lumber
is used in the construction of the stairs; a revegetation plan is
Board of Trustees
39
September 19, 2007
provided for the bluff following construction to control erosion;
existing vegetation on the bluff is protected during construction
and; the applicant limits the clearing of vegetation to the area
necessary to construct the access stairway.
The CAC was out there and they support the application with
the condition that best management practices are followed in the
construction of the stairs and no removal of any vegetation from
the bluff and a licensed engineer prepares the plans for the
stairs.
Like I said, the Board went out and we inspected it.
Generally we are in support of it. The only comments that we
really made at the time were none of the platforms should be larger
than 4x4 along the way. And that was it.
Are there any comments or concerns?
MR. MCGREEVY: One of the recommendation that the CAC has been
coming up with lately, in constructing these stairs, give more
consideration to the engineering design to prevent erosion. In
other words running, as an idea, planks of wood at the base of the
supports so, to hold back erosion in the bluffs. It's a
recommendation that we came up with.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The CAC has been discussing that periodically,
particularly with the stairs and the bluffs. While we may not
necessarily support cross bracing, depending on whether or not
there is the putting up of a board kind of terracing of the bluff
as they have.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Oh, this way.
MR. MCGREEVY: At the base of each support.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: To eliminate the erosion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right.
MR. MCGREEVY: You can, for possible erosion control.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Especially if it's only at the base of each
support. You are not adding much lumber.
MR. MCGREEVY: Actually, you are lending more support to the base.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It seems to make sense. We have seen it on a
couple of stairs, I think.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think it's something the whole Board has to
discuss.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, I'm not saying make a wholesale change right
here, but it's something to discuss.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, I'm open to it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments, questions from the Board, from
the audience?
(No response.)
Seeing none, I'll make a motion that we close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
Board of Trustees
40
September 19,2007
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion that we approve the application
as described. It's found by LWRP to be consistent and we do find it
to be consistent also. No platforms are to be larger than 4x4 as
per code. And that we stipulate that no CCA treated lumber is used
in construction of the stairs, and that the bluff be revegetated
following construction to control erosion. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Ian Crowley on behalf of PAT VARDARO requests a
Wetland Permit to install a 4'x6' cantilevered platform and 16'
aluminum gangway to access existing 5'x40' floating dock. Located:
1210 Wiggins Lane, Greenport.
This was tabled from last month because we had a question on a
40' float and we found there is a current permit. So we are okay
with it. I think we were okay with everything else. The only thing
that we will probably stipulate is if that 40' float is ever
rebuilt that it be brought into conformity with the current code.
Otherwise it would be reduced to a 20-foot float.
MR. CROWLEY: Very good. I'll bring it to his attention. With
regard to his comments before, I think that's a good idea with the
stairs. I have built quite a few of them. If you make it with
untreated material like pine, where is would just decompose, until
the vegetation kicks in, it's a good idea. But also to extend it
to the disturbance area, if you stipulate it, not to make it from
post to post, make it go past the post two feet on each side. I
think it's a good idea.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you, for your comments. Are there any other
comments on Pat Vardaro?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Ian Crowley on behalf of Pat Vardaro to install 4'x6' cantilevered
platform, 16' aluminum gangway to access existing 5'x40' floating
dock with the stipulation that if the float is to be rebuilt at any
time, it's to be brought into conformity with the current code.
6x20 is the current code now.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's consistent with LWRP, by the way.
All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
Board of Trustees
41
September 19,2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Harold Cook and JMO Environmental Consulting on
behalf of GEORGE GUIMARAES requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing deck and to remove the Japanese Knotweed, and repeat
cuttings over the next three growing seasons. Located: Equestrian
Avenue, Fishers Island.
We've all looked at this on Fishers Island this past summer
and the previous owners had placed this deck a few years ago. It's
rather close to a fresh pond. But I think at this point the Board
feels that it probably will do more damage than -- I'm getting
ahead of myself here.
It's inconsistent with LWRP. Let me see what LWRP says,
policy 6.t, protect and restore tidal freshwater wetlands; setback
distance of 100 feet; establish non-turf buffer, which it's all
non-turf there, currently, and; require gutters to drywells on
house to contain roof runoff.
And the CAC did not make an inspection, therefore there is no
comment. Is there anyone else to comment on this application?
MR. JUST: Glen Just, if there are any questions from the Board or
from the public.
I have been involved with this site since the previous owner
Lisa Kakowski (sic) and I'm still involved with her now. Actually
the DEC just recently settled the violation on this particular deck
with the Guimaraes's and now they are going after the people who
actually built it, the Kakowski's, who sold the property like seven
years ago.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there drywells?
MR. JUST: I really don't recall. I'll be there next week. I could
definitely check it out.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we want to make that a condition of this, put
the drywells?
MR. JUST: On the existing house or the deck itself?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, to do the whole house, is that what we
want?
MR. JUST: I think the house was recently resided. I think drywells
went in but I just can't say for certain.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it shouldn't be a problem if we make it a
condition of this.
MR. JUST: I'll bring it back to the owners tonight. I'll call them
tonight in California.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, are there any other comments?
MR. JUST: I had one question as far as the removal of the Japanese
Knotweed. That was in the original application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's in here, yes.
MR. JUST: Is that something that the Board wants to discuss
tonight?
Board of Trustees
42
September 19, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's part of this application, yes. And I don't
think we had a problem with that. It's an invasive species.
MR. JUST: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Hearing no other comment, I'll make a motion to
close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
JMO on behalf of George Guimaraes with the condition that drywells
are to be installed to contain roof runoff of the house.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. Have a good evening.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number seven, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf
of STEPHEN MATTEINI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
cantilevered platform 5'x6' extending seaward from top of existing
bulkhead; construct stairs to grade with rise of 9'-10" and run
of 14 feet; install handrails on two sides of platform and seaward
side of stairs. Located: 1060 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient.
The full Board went out and looked at this. It's really the
only access for the homeowner to get to the body of water. Is
there anyone here --
MR. FITZGERALD: Jim Fitzgerald for Mr. Matteini. I think it's
pretty state forward. I'll be happy, of course, to answer any
questions you may have.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim, when we were there, the neighbor to the south
has a retractable ramp. Is there any consideration for that as
opposed to the wooden staircase?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, they considered it and decided that they would
rather have a permanent installation.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because when we were there we noticed the wooden
stairs to the north and the southern one had the retractable one.
The Board doesn't have any difficulties with it. We just thought
we would ask.
Are there any other comments from the Board?
(No response.)
Audience?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
Board of Trustees
43
September 19,2007
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the wetland permit
for Stephen Matteini to construct his platform and stairs with
handrails and two sides of platform and seaward side of stairs on
Willow Terrace in Orient.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number eight, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf
of WICKHAM BUNGALOW EAST, LLC., requests a Wetland Permit to
construct 148 feet 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.
The whole Board went out there. It's pretty straight
forward. LWRP does find this to be consistent. There has been
quite a bit of erosion out there, namely due to the April storm, I
suppose.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Bob, I'll mention we had a very interesting
consultant with us that gave us some pretty nice recommendations.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, and what was his name?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jay Tanski, who is from the New York State Sea
Grant and is a coastal geologist and gave us some very nice
comments while we were out there. Very interesting comments.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It was pretty educational, actually, for all of
us. We measured everything, we looked at it. The Board was in
support of the application. The CAC supports 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 replaced until fully developed.
Jack, where do you stand on that issue. I don't remember that
discussion. Revegetating from the house to the bluff?
MR. MCGREEVY: Bob, I have to be honest with you. Don Wilder did
the inspection and I can't recall what he had in mind.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Read it again, Bob.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The CAC supports 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 replaced until fully developed.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Not a bad idea.
MR. MCGREEVY: You would have to get Don up here.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's not a bad idea.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Being familiar with the cabin itself, because I
spent some summers there, the area in front of that front deck
could very nicely be revegetated since most of the trafficking
would be through that delineated path. And I think it might be a
Board of Trustees
44
September 19, 2007
wise recommendation to make that a condition of.
MR. MCGREEVY: Would the consideration be for erosion, Peg?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think because even with the rock revetment I
think it would be encouraging with more stability behind it.
MR. MCGREEVY: I'm assuming --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And it's very heavily vegetated with the beach
grasses all along that area. It would be nice to confine it to
that, for the traffic to be on the pathway. It's not a big area.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's pretty small. I don't necessarily have a
problem with it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They currently use that area, since the house is
so small, as like a yard, almost. I have seen, they have a small
deck but they also expand on that and use it as a lounging area.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have an issue with the erosion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just mentioning that because I have seen it
out there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there anybody else who would like to make a
comment from the audience; would anybody like to address this?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have one comment. This was tabled from last
month and Jim did have a couple of questions. I spoke to Jim today
and explained to him what Jay Tanski said. Jim's concern is where
the rock revetment would end and what would happen. So I asked Jay
Tanski that out in the field and he said, well, it's got to be
built where the rock revetment is not lower than the current bluff,
so it doesn't wash over. And he would have to, he could taper it
off at the end a little and try to do somewhat of a return without
cutting into the bluff. And I did explain that to Mr. Costello and
he was fine with that. And that's probably how he was going to
build it anyway. And Jim was fine with that. And that satisfied his
questions. I just wanted to mention that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What do we want to do on the plantings? Do we
actually want to make it a condition of it or are we more inclined
to make a strong recommendation?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm inclined to make a strong recommendation and
state the reasons why. And they stated they would revegetate the
areas disturbed. So they might be already planning to revegetate a
lot of that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: A lot of that may have been from the storm, too.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. Second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
described, with the recommendation as per the CAC that they
consider putting plantings from the house to the bluff,
revegetating it with beach grass, except for a delineated path to
Board of Trustees
45
September 19, 2007
the beach. And that the stones, the rock revetment be at least as
high as the bluff and on the north-northeast end, taper it down to
the non-reveted area. With that, it's also been found consistent
and the Board finds it consistent with LWRP. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of CJC1
requests a Wetland Permit to construct an 80'x99' two-story
building with two office units on the south side and a
garage/storage area on the north side. Install an attendant
sanitary system and to construct a pervious gravel parking area.
Located: 74495 Rt. 25, Greenport.
LWRP finds this consistent. And CAC supports the application
with a condition the parking area is designed with drywells to
control all runoff.
We went out there, the stakes are still there from previous and we
are pretty sure the building is pretty much out of our
jurisdiction. It's mainly the parking area, which of course we were
concerned with the drainage in the parking area.
Are there any comments?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, for the applicant CJC1. This is a
local contractor. You probably all know him. I wanted to point out
a couple things. It will be the subject of the site plan
application, is the subject of the site plan application for the
Planning Board. The drainage will be fully engineered. It's not a
question of just sinking some drywells because the site is
unreliable, a lot of the site.
Also, this is really our second time through. We were forced to
make this larger building because of the change in the accessory
building wall of this town that restricted its height. That's why
it's laid out. In doing so there was some discussion at the
Planning Board that we may be able to count what's called general
garage storage space in the rear toward the parking which would
eliminate parking space 16 to 23 or 24. And if that's amenable we
are going to show that as land packed which will further increase
the setback from the wetlands. But I won't know that until I go
through the whole process with Planning.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the reason you are doing the Planning Board
first is --
TRUSTEE ANDERSON: The Planning Board asked us to come here first
and there was a mix-up where the LWRP coordinator said, oh, no, you
guys come last. Which was opposite of the memo I had so when I
spoke with him this morning I said we are following the memo you
guys gave us. Being unaware of the memo had caused him to do the
LWRP.
Board of Trustees
46
September 19,2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Could you get us a copy of the memo for our
records?
MR. ANDERSON: Sure.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Oh, we have it. We have a copy of it. We just
received it.
And we would probably make the whole back woods area a
non-disturbance area.
MR. ANDERSON: Perfectly acceptable.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We didn't measure the distance between the flagged
wetland and the curb of the parking --
MR. ANDERSON: It's approximately 80 feet. The flags were in the
field. I actually tied additional flags to those to try to make it
easier. But it's approximately 80 feet. Probably -- let me see.
Maybe longer. Let me recalculate that. Approximately 60 feet,
actually. And as I said, the Planning Board, I think, is going to
have an interest in reducing parking or at least land banking
parking, because this is really a contractor space. The code
drives us to provide all these spaces but in reality the
contractors don't attract a lot of parking to their work yards.
Quite honestly, when this is done it's going to remove a heck of an
eyesore and the front building will actually look like the prince
building next to the bank. It's designed for that exact look. So
if we can get through paperwork I think it will be something the
folks will be proud of.
MR. CORCORAN: Is there a way you need or would like the resolution,
assuming the resolution is passed, to be structured so in case
something happens in planning you don't have to come back here? Is
there a way, say, you know, no closer than such and such feet or
something other than adopting a particular plan in case the plan
gets changed?
MR. ANDERSON: How about with the condition that the parking be no
closer than 60 feet from the wetland boundary. Because it will
probably be less than that. I mean greater than that. We are a
little over. We are just applying to code. But if I could use
interior space, that will knock some off, then I might just ask if
we could all together eliminate the whole back row of parking
because I really think it's overkill in this site. We don't need,
we have 20-some odd spaces. We probably need five.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we approve all these spaces and they take some
down, they are doing less of our permit so we would not have to
come back.
MR. CORCORAN: I know. I just don't want you to approve the plan
dated such and such and then have another plan that still needs a
permit.
MR. ANDERSON: With the condition the parking be no closer than
that. Because it's going to shrink. I think.
Board of Trustees
47
September 19, 2007
MR. CORCORAN: You might just want to sayan alternative plan with
parking no closer than such and such feet. I just don't want you
to have to come back for no reason or for a better plan.
MR. ANDERSON: I appreciate that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
I'll make a motion to approve the application of Suffolk
Environmental on behalf of CJC1 with the stipulation that the
parking is no closer than 60 feet, and any alternative plan will
reflect that. And find it consistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of
CLAUS RADEMACHER requests a Wetland Permit to install 120 linear
feet of new stone revetment with two four-foot returns at their
termini and set of slate steps to access the beach. The proposed
revetment will be backfilled with approximately 116 cubic yards of
clean sand and planted with Cape American Beach Grass plugs
installed one inch on center. Located: 950 Blue Marlin Drive,
Southold.
Is there anyone here to speak though this application?
MR. LOHN: William Lohn, Suffolk Environmental on behalf of the
applicant. I first would like to start off and clarify it was
changed in the agenda. The backfill will be 116 cubic yards and
not 1,041 as I mistakenly put on the plans. I apologize for the
confusion.
And the second point I would like to make, I would assume you have
all been to the site.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. LOHN: If you notice, the erosion is pretty substantial and we
are hoping get this installed before the start of the winter
storms. Other than that I would go with the description as
written. I'm here to answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: LWRP deems this consistent and with no further
comment. CAC supports the application with the condition of a
ten-foot buffer along the east side and moving to a 20-foot buffer
along the west side. And that is the recommendation of Don Wilder
of the CAC.
How does the Board feel about that? We didn't talk about a
Board of Trustees
48
September 19,2007
buffer in the field. We were mostly thrown off by the fill.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Didn't it say it was going to be planted?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. Well it says planted with Cape American
Beach Grass.
MR. LOHN: May I comment? That planting area, which will be on top
of the backfill, it's variable width, but five to eight feet will
function as a buffer.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I was thinking when we were out there.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, it said ten-foot buffer east side and
moved to a 20-foot buffer along the west side. But I agree with
you that the plantings they are doing will be sufficient as far as
the Board is concerned.
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit
for Claus Rademacher to install 120 linear feet of rock stone
revetment with the two returns, slate steps and backfill with 116
cubic yards of clean sand and create a buffer, it be planted with
Cape American Beach Grass plugs installed one foot on center.
Which aligns us with our LWRP report of being consistent and we
agree it is also consistent. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 12, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of PAUL LONG requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct 60
linear feet of existing functional timber bulkhead with vinyl
sheathing and new timber and reconstruct the existing wood deck on
bulkhead. Located: 3945 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck.
It's pretty straight forward. It is exempt from LWRP and CAC
supports the application, however suggests eliminating use of CCA
on all construction. And I also, I think at this point we would
say no CCA as per code.
MR. LOHN: The project description is all non-treated materials.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. And also, I would request --
MR. ANDERSON: A point of clarification, the piles and stairs can be
CCA. I want that clear.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, that's why I meant as per code. And I'll
request a seven foot buffer and I came up with seven feet because
we just approved Joan York next door and hers is seven feet and I
spoke to Mr. Long today. He was there. He had no problem with
that.
MR. LOHN: That's perfect. Thank you
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants. A quick comment. I had
Board of Trustees
49
September 19, 2007
spoken to Will about this briefly. As Joan York's agent, she did
receive the plans and it appeared the plans were showing the height
of the bulkhead to be raised a foot and Joan just had some concerns
about that because it would create the potential for them to raise
the grade and create a runoff issue. So we would just ask that the
bulkhead, unless there was a compelling reason by the client or by
the Board to raise it a foot above grade, that it be kept
consistent with what was approved for York.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I reviewed the plan and they are not asking for it
to be raised. And I spoke to Mr. Long and I asked him that
question today and said --
MR. HERMAN: He said he didn't want to raise it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. He said it would be in line with the
neighboring bulkhead. So all three bulkheads -- they are in the
middle -- they'll keep it in line.
MR. HERMAN: Wonderful.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments?
MR. MCGREEVY: On future considerations when CAC asks for due
consideration, after due consideration, makes a comment or
recommendation about eliminating all CCA construction, we are not
specifically aligning it toward this application. What we would
like somebody to do is do a study, if there is other materials,
other ways of construction, to eliminate CIA in the future. That is
the reason for the comment. Not for this application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we still have the report from DEC?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. And I have it but I don't have it with me.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Dave Bergen got us a report from the DEC.
forgot when it was done. We'll forward that to you. And it was
very interesting. It showed that the effects of the CCA are less
than we thought they were.
MR. MCGREEVY: Based on a cumulative --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There are some conflicting studies on that but we
did find that after much discussion, we did discuss this when we
were talking about the proposed 275 changes, that the CCA be used
in the pilings because the disturbance that they make is
essentially less than it would be if you had to replace those poles
in ten years because the CCA will last a whole lot longer. I think
I'm pretty close with that, I think.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, I think so. Especially if you have a high
flushing area, the impact is less.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would also like to say it's not completely off
the table and that in future revisions there is still an open
discussion.
MR. MCGREEVY: So we are not discouraged then. Right.
MR. ANDERSON: What's very expensive is tropical pine. Keep that in
Board of Trustees
50
September 19, 2007
mind.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm not debating that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We had that in our conversations, too. The
financial. We discussed the financial end of it even though that's
not -- the environmental end is our concern.
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Suffolk Environmental on behalf of Paul Long as submitted, with a
seven foot, non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead. The bulkhead is
at the same height as the neighboring bulkheads. And no fill to be
placed in the area. I don't think they are requesting any.
MR. LOHN: All excavated materials will be just replaced.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make that motion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. LOHN: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: En-Consultants on behalf of ESTATE OF HELEN CASE
requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 51 linear feet
of low-profile, vinyl groin in place of existing 73 feet,
storm-damaged, timber groin and renourish and revegetate
storm-eroded berm in front of dwelling with approximately 50 cubic
yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source and
planted with Cape American Beach Grass (12 inches on center.)
Located: 13650 New Suffolk Avenue.
We were all out there and looked at it.
LWRP finds that this is exempt. CAC supports the application with
the condition no CCA treated lumber is used.
This was another application where we met with Jay Tanski from New
York Sea Grant and actually got another education on the definition
of what's a groin and what's a jetty and the possible affects. A
groin is to keep sand from moving down the beach and a jetty is to
keep sand from going into an inlet.
MR. HERMAN: Right. Most people just use the word jetty to describe
everything because it's easier than calling up someone like me and
saying I need someone to fix the groin.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No pun intended, I'm sure. In any case, just
looking at the field notes, the drift at the site is west to east.
And Jay Tanski had suggested the distance between the groins should
be two to three times the length of the groin. And the other groins
are really too close to function properly.
I don't think we really had a problem with it. In essence, it needs
Board of Trustees
51
September 19, 2007
to be done.
MR. HERMAN: We proposed it in the form that we have been using with
the Board and the DEC for years which is though it's a 73 or has
historically been a 73 foot long groin, we are proposing to replace
the part that is still functional as evidenced by the beach at low
tide. So we are proposing to replace the 73-foot groin with a
51-foot groin and just standing on the beach it's obvious you can
tell that that 51 feet has been in tact for some time and the rest
of the poles and everything else out there is basically gone. So we
are proposing the replacement of only the 51 feet. It would be a
low-profile groin and be constructed of vinyl. So it is our
basically what the Trustees and DEC typically require in these
groin replacements.
Just responsive to Bob's comments, I mean, probably three-quarters
of the groin applications that you see are groins that are really
not in the optimal place if you had one overall design project for
the whole shoreline. Historically, each owner built their own groin
or two and everyone else did that and you have 50 groins in an area
where you should have five. The problem is you can not get approval
from any agency, and I mean historically, that I can think of with
this Board, to actually build a new groin in a different location
because from the DEC's perspective, the only thing that they will
allow is sort of a maintenance of the structures that had created a
historically stabilized shoreline and if you look at the aerials,
this is the last groin in a field of five. So even though these
probably are not, as Jay said, optimally positioned, this is where
they had been positioned historically and established this beach
and without this groin this house would be in danger of being lost.
So unfortunately when we come to the Boards and the other agencies
with these applications, we are really, we are almost compelled to
seek, just to maintain the status quo in as much as the status quo
is still functional. So that there is no conditions change.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We actually talked about this in moving the groin
over more, losing all that property.
MR. HERMAN: There is a lot of land here. It's just not designed in
the optimal way to protect the house. But the likelihood of getting
approval from anybody to actually abandon this groin and establish
a new one in a different location would be almost nil.
MR. MCGREEVY: Going back to the point this gentleman just brought
up, in the future where we don't have presently groins and someone
is making an application for one, maybe it should considered on a
wider scope. In other words, go a half mile east or west from
where that groin is going so that the new homeowners on each side
will fit in to a preconceived plan where to place the groins.
MR. HERMAN: In theory it makes sense but the difficulty is with the
ability to obtain permits for new groins. In other words, it
Board of Trustees
52
September 19,2007
ideally would make sense to shuffle these things symmetrically.
But you see even on the south fork where you will that collapse 30
years ago, whatever it was, in the area of what is now Westhampton
Dunes, you had that Corps of Engineers actually design this whole
project for a whole beach front but they had to stop where the
Westhampton Beach divider line ended with the town. So you ended
up having this well designed groin system for the village but then
beyond that there was nothing and that whole area got breached
during one of the storms and that area is now Westhampton Dunes.
So even there where you have an agency overseeing that type of
thing that you are mentioning, property lines, even at the
municipal level still kind of screwed thing up.
MR. MCGREEVY: That could be built into an overall plan. That would
be a visible shortfall.
MR. HERMAN: Much easier said than accomplished.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll tell you what. You look into that.
MR. MCGREEVY: I'll write another letter.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aside from that, I think we were pretty well set.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The one groin to the west, is that on Case's
property also.
MR. HERMAN: It's not. That's McGowan's. And that was recently
constructed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think the one directly to the west they are
going to remove. Weren't they going to remove one?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's other application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because that one didn't go back as far as the
other and it scoured out behind it.
MR. HERMAN: I think you may be thinking of a different one, Jill,
because the one to the west here was just recently redone.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The only question we had was where was the work
beginning; from what point? Because we noticed a lot of the timber
toward the cement --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are just looking to make the application
clear.
MR. HERMAN: Actually on the plans, I might have to blow this up for
you, but I actually triangulated the point of the beginning of the
groin off the two corners of the house. It's 35 feet from the one
corner and 31 feet from the other. So.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We couldn't establish the height --
MR. HERMAN: The height was shown, let's see, top groin elevation at
that point is five-and-a-half feet, which is exactly 12 inches
above grade. And that shows in the cross-section because we
actually had Sea Level do a full topographical workup on the
survey. So I have the elevations referenced on the cross section.
I have elevations for the top of the berm, the toe of the berm and
Board of Trustees
53
September 19, 2007
then the existing elevation right behind or right landward of the
proposed groin and top elevation. So if you want to reference
those elevations in the permit, you can. You might want to make
sure that the contractor has this staked out and maybe has a
Trustee inspection or something before the job goes in because as
long as it starts at the right point and starts at the right
elevation, it will be fine. But if they don't start at the right
point or start at the wrong elevation and build the whole thing
before you see it, the Case's are going to be in trouble and so are
you. So you may just want to require that. I found that to be a
pretty good safeguard on some of these where -- a lot of times
contractors are measuring off some obvious point but there really
is not that here because it's out on the beach. It doesn't abut a
bulkhead, which is unusual for a lot of the ones you see. So I
would suggest you compel the Case's to make sure that Sea Level
comes out and stakes that out so it's done correctly, which will
save them a lot of potential headaches.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: With that, I'll entertain a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion we approve this wetland
application which has been found exempt by LWRP and approve -- and
us, as well -- and approve it as described with the stipulation
that the project be staked and inspected as concerns elevations and
length prior to the actual construction. And it will be inspected
by a Trustee. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. HERMAN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 15, En-Consultants on behalf of EDMUND NASH
requests a Wetland Permit to construct (within 18 inches of
existing bulkhead) approximately 105 linear feet of low-sill vinyl
bulkhead and backfill with approximately 15 cubic yards clean sand
to be trucked in from an approved upland source. Backfill area
between new and existing bulkhead to be planted with Spartina
Alterniflora (18 inches on center) and backfill area landward of
existing bulkhead to be planted with Spartina Patens (18 inches on
center) and Baccharis Halimifolia (six inches on center.) Located:
1750 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck.
I inspected this today. He was explaining to me how DEC is
going to be approving this. If you could just briefly --
MR. HERMAN: This was the first one tonight where we are missing
Jim, not any more than we would normally be missing Jim.
Jim looked at this with Chuck Hamilton a while ago. We had
Board of Trustees
54
September 19, 2007
originally proposed to replace this within 18 inches, expecting
that DEC might require us to replace it in place. Which is why we
hadn't -- sort of unusual to our usual practice -- we hadn't
submitted any application to this board because if the DEC had
required it be reconstructed in place, we would not have required
former wetlands permit from the Board because the Nash's have a
grandfather permit from 1983, so we would just have to have
notified you that the bulkhead was being replaced in place. But I
guess when Chuck and Jim inspected the site, the feeling was that
the existing bulkhead is not functional, that it is being
overtopped regularly by Spring high tides which has allowed a, I
would not consider it particularly high quality, but high marsh
nonetheless behind it between the bulkhead and cedar trees.
So what they came up with, and apparently Chuck and Jim were
in agreement on this, was that a low sill bulkhead be constructed a
foot-and-a-half in front of this wall; that the area between the
two be backfilled and planted with Spartina Alterniflora in order
to establish a narrow intertidal marsh area and; that after the
excavation of the wall that entire area be replanted with high
marsh vegetation behind it. So in effect they would be allowing
Mr. Nash to maintain the existing condition which is that of a
stabilized shore front. Obviously this is contiguous to other
higher, more highly elevated bulkheads. But to do so in a way that
still allows Spring high tides to overtop the structures and allow
for intertidal and high marsh behind it.
In effect that is not that much different than what exists now
in that you have Spring high tides overtopping this bulkhead back
to where those cedar trees are. So that's probably why Mr. Nash
explained the DEC was going to approve it. I had met with, I was
meeting with Jim on something else and he had explained to me his
meeting with Chuck and what they were going to require and indeed
the DEC sent us a letter requesting that we propose exactly what we
are now proposing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, thank you, for explaining that. And the
plans reflect all that, how it applies to us.
MR. HERMAN: This has to be consistent with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: LWRP finds this inconsistent. The applicant has
not demonstrated the need or purpose for the proposed low sill
bulkhead in the proposed location. Currently there is a functional
bulkhead in a stable shoreline landward of the area in which a low
sill bulkhead is proposed. A sill bulkhead would further -- must
be missing the word "low" -- sill bulkhead would further harden the
shoreline and result in habitat destruction.
I see what he's saying but I think in replanting between, that
mitigates that.
MR. HERMAN: It's not just replanting, and this is the continued
Board of Trustees
55
September 19, 2007
trouble I have with these LWRP reviews. You could replace the
existing bulkhead in place and backfill it and destroy the high
marsh and end up with zero wetlands vegetation or, under this plan,
even though it was not Mr. Nash's first choice, he would love to do
what Mark is suggesting. This plan however actually creates an
intertidal marsh where none exists and it reestablishes and
enhances a high marsh that exists. So if that's inconsistent with
the town's LWRP, then the LWRP ought be to be rethought.
MR. CORCORAN: The whole point of the process is it's this Board
that makes the LWRP finding and you have your opportunity to make
your argument before this Board and convince them that what you are
doing is actually either creating or preserving a habitat rather
than destroying it.
MR. HERMAN: It just continues to trouble me, Kieran, that that
review could possibly come out of this project. That's all I'm
saying.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But I think the difference is he saw it, and I
don't know if he saw it, but he determined it to be functional
whereas --
MR. HERMAN: Even if that's the case, this project creates wetland
vegetation and creates wetland habitat that doesn't now exist, so
how could that be a bad thing?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But if he hadn't determined it functional he
would have most likely considered the replacement with the low
sill. I'm saying because he deemed it functional.
MR. HERMAN: I understand what you are saying. But I'm saying even
if it were functional and Mr. Nash, even out of some benevolence,
decided to propose this, it's still a better project than --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because you are adding. I see what you mean.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We had this come up. I think this was brought up
last week in a meeting before. If one part of it is consistent and
another part is inconsistent, which is it. And the determination
is that it's inconsistent. So this is one of those cases where
it's consistent with the part of the LWRP where it describes
actually creating wetlands is a good thing but it's inconsistent
because of this reason. So therefore it's inconsistent. So we
could determine that it is consistent because of the mitigation.
MR. HERMAN: I guess the inconsistency part of it that you described
is that it would further harden the shoreline but I'm not sure it
would further it. It's whether you replace it in place or create
something out in front of it, it's still a hardened shoreline but
you are softening it to some extent by creating wetland
vegetation.
So as I said, the ironic position I have been put in is that Mr.
Nash would love, I think, to have that determination made by
everybody and just replace his bulkhead. That was the intent of
Board of Trustees
56
September 19, 2007
his original application. But I think what happened here is when
the DEC and perhaps along with Jim, I don't want to speak for Jim,
but at least it appears that the determination was that because
there was a high marsh present behind this bulkhead, the fact that
you have muscles growing through this bulkhead, the fact there are
holes in the bulkhead, the fact that the elevation is so low that
it is not functional. Now, what is my opinion? Well, it's
standing and it's holding the land behind it. It looks functional
to me. It looked functional to Mark and it's functional to Mr.
Nash.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But there is no intertidal --
MR. HERMAN: But there is no intertidal wetland. So I think Mr.
Nash sort of begrudgingly agreed to this because he's going to be
able to maintain a stabilized shoreline and it's really not going
to change anything that already exists with the exception of the
fact that you are creating an intertidal marsh zone. Which you
probably couldn't do because this area is so muddy, it's so silty
in that area and you are just not going to get the exposure really
that you need. But with the wall you will because you are going to
have this little stepped platform there. And it should work.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just want to note that the bulkheading to the
south and the north, I don't know if they are 18 inches out, but
they are bumped out a little further than the Nash's currently.
MR. HERMAN: Yes, and this would probably end up nooked out a little
in front of those. Now, its elevation is such that it's below high
tide so you are not going to see it up in the air above those but
it is going to be just nipped out a little bit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments from the Board?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion that the way the permit is
applied for with creating further plantings, that I find it
consistent with LWRP and I make a motion to approve the application
as applied for.
MR. CORCORAN: Do you want to just beef that up a little. Do you
want to find that the application further then creates a habitat
area and does not in fact increase the hardening of the shoreline?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. HERMAN: I would agree with that. And it was found within
consistent with New York State Coastal Management Program from
which the town's program is derived.
And also, it's creating a foot-and-a-half by 105 foot area,
approximately 160 square feet of intertidal marsh.
Board of Trustees
57
September 19, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay (perusing.) And the addition of the plantings
will be Spartina Alterniflora and Baccharis and Spartina Patens.
So that's creating quite a habitat. So I make that motion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: En-Consultants on behalf of JAMES KELLER & ELISSA
SANTISI requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 54
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 planted with Cape
American Beach Grass (18 inches on center); construct 4x4 foot
platform and 4x9 foot stairs to beach in place of existing platform
and temporary steps; and remove temporary walkway over scoured area
landward of bulkhead. Located: 2934 Park Avenue, Mattituck.
I inspected this one also and it was actually -- this is the
one on Park Avenue -- I went out there today. It looks pretty
straight forward. The only other comment, maybe a silt fence
during construction or silt curtain.
LWRP has it exempt and CAC supports the application with the
condition of beach grass extends to the top of the slope.
MR. HERMAN: That's proposed. We are showing a non-turf buffer.
That non-turf buffer would remain as is. It basically runs from
the top of the bulkhead to the top of the slope where the edge of
the lawn is. That whole area will be replanted and maintained as
non-turf buffer. And that shows that on the plan, actually.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Yes.
MR. HERMAN: Heather actually talked to me about the silt screen.
There is a bit of beach here, actually quite a bit of beach at low
tide. I think the contractors will probably work here at low tide
so I'm not sure a turbidity screen would do much here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's my thought, too. Because when I was there,
it was probably mid-tide and it was beach, so the comment that
water was at mean high water, I didn't exactly agree with that.
But I just figured it would not hurt if you used it anyway.
And LWRP find it exempt.
So are there any questions from the Board?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
applied for, including keeping the non-turf buffer as applied for.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
Board of Trustees
58
September 19, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I also find it exempt from LWRP. All in
favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. HERMAN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)