HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-10/17/2007James F. King, President o~~OF SO(/lyo~
Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President ~ O
Peggy A. Dickerson
Dave Bergen
Bob Ghosio, Jr. G Q
~~~y~OUNTr 0~~0
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
6:00 PM
Present were: James King, President
Jill Doherty, Vice President
Peggy Dickerson, Trustee
Dave Bergen, Trustee
Bob Ghosio, Trustee
Lori Montefusco, Assistant Town Attorney
Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone(631)76b-1892
Fax (631)765-6641
RECEIVtD '`~`'~``'~
/aZ: 5o P/p/1
(y' ~~~~I J GUJ ,p
4:.... / ~~ f n
'3outfra9d Toren Clerlt
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Tuesday, November 6, 2007 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, November 14, 2007, at 6:00 PM
WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM
TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone. My name is Jim King and I
have the pleasure of being chairman of this Board, the Board of Trustees. I would
like to introduce the rest of the Board to you.
To my far left is Dave Bergen; next is Peggy Dickerson; Co-Chair
Jill Doherty; myself; Lauren Standish is our office manager; to her
right is Bob Ghosio, another Trustee, and to his right Lori Montefusco. She is our
attorney tonight, legal representative.
Board of Trustees
October 17, 2007
Don Wilder sits on the CAC, which is the Conservation Advisory Council.
They go out and visit a lot of the same sites we look at and they give us their
opinion on how we should handle the application. And we have a new member, D
Doug Hardy for the CAC, welcome. And our reporter is Wayne Galante. He keeps
track of what everybody says.
If you have any comments to make, any testimony, please come
to the microphone and identify yourself so he can get it on the
record. I hope you can all hear me. I have trouble, I'm losing my
voice, its terrible. I don't know if I'll make it through the
night or not. If I have a problem and you can't hear me and I
really lose it, I'll turn it over to Jill.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I don't have a problem talking.
TRUSTEE KING: She doesn't have a problem talking. With that, we'll
get going. We have a pretty busy agenda tonight. If you do have
comments, please try to keep them as brief as you can, five minutes
or less. That's all I could say. We try to move things along as
best we can. Thank you.
We'll set our meeting for the next field inspection, November
6, Tuesday.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Regular meeting, November 14, at six o'clock. Work
session at 5:30.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
Has anyone read the minutes of May?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I only got through 40 pages of it. Only about
half of it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was the one we just received. I did get
through them and I found two small errors that I already gave to
Wayne to correct. So I have gone through them.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I found two small errors as well.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to make a motion or do you want to wait?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Since I read them and found only the two smaller
errors that I have already given, I'll make a motion to approve the
minutes May 16, 2007.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE KING: The Trustees monthly report for September, 2007. A
Board of Trustees
October 17, 2007
check for $9,687.69 was forwarded to the Supervisor's office for
the General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE KING: Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's
bulletin board for review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE KING: We have a resolution on state environmental quality
reviews.
Resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold
hereby finds the following applications more fully described in
Section VI, Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated
Wednesday, October 17, 2007, are classified as Type II actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations and are not subject to
further review under SEQRA. There are a number of them. They are
as follows:
Frank Scavone -SCTM#137-4-35
Narrow River Marina c/o Fred Dacimo -SCTM#27-2-4
Krause Family Trust c/o Mary Krause -SCTM#104-3-16.1
Dominic Nicolazzi -SCTM#78-7-9
Robert's Custom Homes -SCTM#31-8-12.9
Robert Marston and John Gardiner -SCTM#117-5-30
Graham and Barbara Head -SCTM#78-8-5.1
Joseph and Barbara Dai - SCTM#47-2-28
Evelyn Turchiano(2) -SCTM#115-12-5
Sanford and Elizabeth Friemann -SCTM#117-3-8.4
Carol Kafka -SCTM#113-6-9
Eve Seber as Contract Vendee -SCTM#70-6-18
Nick Andreadis -SCTM#106-6-25
Thomas Fitzpatrick -SCTM#99-3-11.19
Paul Keber -SCTM#72-2-2.3
Hope Schneider -SCTM#67-7-11
Victor J. and Mary S. Zupa -SCTM#1-1-13.1
Emmanuel and Catherine Zarbis -SCTM#94-1-12.2
Scott and Lia Vitrano -SCTM#78-2-15.1
Michael Mitchell -SCTM#115-11-17
John Spicer -SCTM#118-5-2.1
Patricia Dawson -SCTM#86-7-7.2
Steve Tenedios -SCTM#54-4-18
Betty Sullivan - SCTM#43-5-2
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Motion to approve.
Board of Trustees 4 October 17, 2007
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: We have a number of postponements here tonight. We
don't want anybody sitting here through the night thinking
something is going to come up and we don't address it
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Page three, number three, the application of MARIA
KATSIGEORGIS requesting an Amendment to Wetland Permit #6358 and
Coastal Erosion Permit #6358C to remove and replace the existing
concrete block wall on the west 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' 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' wide cobblestone apron to access asphalt or
Bluestone curved driveway. Located: 55455 County Road 48, Southold,
has been postponed.
On page five, number three, the application of ROBERT G.
BOMBARA requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to
construct asingle-family dwelling, detached garage, pool and
associated water supply and sewage disposal system. Located: 1725
North Sea Drive, Southold, is postponed.
Page five, number four, the application of PAUL KEBER
requesting a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to install a
bluff access stairway and bulkhead with stone armor to curb the
bluff erosion. Located: Oregon Road, Cutchogue, has been postponed.
Page six, number 11, the application of the KRAUSE FAMILY
TRUST C/O MARY KRAUSE requesting a Wetland Permit to relocate and
repair/reconstruct the existing shed and deck, inkind, as needed,
and electricity provided to the shed. Located: 9205 Skunk Lane,
Cutchogue, has been withdrawn.
Number 13, the application of EVE SEBER AS CONTRACT VENDEE
requesting a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x16' ramp onto a 4x50'
fixed dock with a 32"x20' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6x20'
seasonal floating dock with a 4x4' access platform, and install two
eight-inch diameter anchor pilings. Located: 3025 Pine Neck Road,
Southold, has been postponed.
Board of Trustees 5 October 17, 2007
Number 14, the application of CAROL KAFKA, requesting a
Wetland Permit to construct a 4x16' ramp up to a 4x60' fixed dock
with a 32"x24' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6x20' seasonal
floating dock with a 4x4' access plafform and install two sets of
two eight-inch diameter anchor pilings for float. Located: 750
Holbrook Lane, Mattituck, has been postponed.
Page seven, number 17, the application of HOPE SCHNEIDER
requesting a Wetland Permit to construct asecond-story addition to
the existing dwelling, renovate the existing first floor, reduce
and replace the existing deck, replace and extend the front porch,
and install a new sanitary system. Located: 1960 Mill Lane,
Peconic, has been postponed.
Number 24, the application of MICHAEL BUNKER requesting a
Wetland Permit to repair the existing 41' section of existing dock
as required; construct new 3x32' catwalk on offshore end with a
32"x14' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6x20' seasonal floating dock
secured by two 10-inch diameter by 30' pilings. Located: 3392
Oaklawn Avenue, Southold, is postponed.
Page eight, number 25, the application of DEBRA LACHANCE
requesting a Wetland Permit to remove and replace the existing
staircase and revegetate the bluff with native species. Located:
630 Ruch Lane, Southold, is postponed.
Number 26, the application of ROSE L. MILAZZO REVOCABLE TRUST
requests a Wetland Permit to remove a 40 square foot section from
the seaward side of the existing one-story single-family dwelling;
remove the existing wood deck and stairs located off the southern
side of the existing one-story dwelling; remove a 72 square foot
section from the landward side of the existing dwelling; construct
a 732 square foot two-story addition to the landward side of the
dwelling; construct a 144 square foot one-story addition to the
landward side of the proposed two-story addition; construct a 192
square foot porch with stairs on the southern side, in the corner
created by the existing one-story dwelling and proposed two-story
addition; and install a sanitary system landward of the proposed
additions. Located: 1165 Island View Lane, Southold, has been
postponed.
Number 27, the application of JIM & EILEEN KASSCHAU requesting
a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x41' elevated fixed dock,
3x12'ramp and a 6x20' float to be secured by two piles. Located:
5800 Vanston Road, Cutchogue, has been postponed.
Board of Trustees
6 October 17, 2007
Number 28, the application of JOHN INGRILLI requesting a Wetland Permit to
install on filter fabric 105' of 1-1.5 ton boulders along the toe of an eroded bluff.
The boulders shall then be covered with 150 cubic yards of clean sand which shall
then be trucked in from an upland source and then planted with Cape American
Beach Grass 12" on center. Located: 10375 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, has
been postponed.
Number 29, the application of JOSEPH ZEVITS requesting a
Wetland Permit to construct atwo-story wood frame dwelling with
attached deck and attendant sanitary system. Located: 1945 Little
Peconic Bay Lane, Southold, has been withdrawn.
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Under resolutions and administrative permits, what we
try and do, if there are no real problems with any of these, we try
to lump them all together and approve them all at once. It saves
us some time rather than go one and the next and the next. If
anybody has any comments on any of these, you are more than welcome
to come up and make your comments.
So we'll be approving number one, DEBRA LACHANCE requesting an
Administrative Permit to construct asingle-car garage on the
landward side of the existing dwelling. Located: 630 Ruch Lane,
Southold.
Number three, MARK MELILLO requesting an Administrative Permit
to trim the phragmites to three feet from the ground, and to
Transfer Permit #8-88-90-4-21 from Robert E. Mitchell to Mark
Melillo, as issued on December 2, 1988. Located: 685 Oakwood Court,
Southold.
Number four GLEBE ASSOC. requesting an Administrative Permit
to partially remove the existing chain link fence and to remove the
bomb shelter and debris. Located: 5775 West Mill Road, Mattituck.
Number five, SALVATORE GRANFORT requesting an Amendment to
Administrative Permit #6710A to include five cubic yards of clean
fill needed to revegetate area of retaining wall, to be removed.
Located: 575 Hill Road West, Southold.
Number six, PEBBLE BEACH LOT OWNERS ASSOCIATION requesting an
Administrative Permit to install a fence with two gates, one for
members to access private beach and second gate to allow emergency
vehicles to access beach. Located: 5065 The Long Way, East Mario.
Board of Trustees 7 October 17, 2007
Number seven, SOFIA ANTONIADIS requesting an Emergency Permit
for a temporary repair of the bulkhead using non-treated plywood
and to backfill 150 square foot area with clean fill. Located:
12500 Main Road, East Marion.
These are mostly administrative permits, that type of thing.
So I'll make a motion to approve those with the exception of number
two.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Bob, do you want to do number two?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number two, VINCENT BASILICE requests an
Administrative Permit to reconstruct the existing patio at ground
level and install a portable hot tub. Located: 3255 Bayshore Road,
Greenport.
It doesn't mention putting in a drywell for the hot tub or for
the roof runoff, and it's only 17 feet from the bulkhead. So I
don't think we have a problem with having the hot tub there. It's
on an existing patio. But I do think it's a good opportunity to
address the runoff and putting in drywells. So that would be the
only stipulation I would make on it.
So I would make a motion that we approve the permit with the
stipulation that they put in drywells to contain the roof runoff
and any backwash or drainage from the hot tub.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: You want roof runoff from the house too, Bob?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. That's really, the way it's situated there,
the roof runoff just runs right down, it's a pretty steep hill and
it goes right down and over the top of the bulkhead with nothing to
catch it.
TRUSTEE KING: Because I had some conversations with the town
engineer, now that we have the new drainage code, and one of his
recommendations was we should, any of these resolutions where we
make people put in drainage, they should meet the requirements that
are in the new drainage code as far as capacity goes.
They have to design a system now to handle atwo-inch rain by
this new code, which is something, all we ever said was you need
drywells to contain roof runoff. Now they have certain
specifications they have to meet. So that's in chapter 236, which
is the Storm Water Management Plan. And it's section 236-F-8.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we can say drywells as per 236-8.
TRUSTEE KING: That way they know what they have to do.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I second it.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Board of Trustees
(ALL AYES.)
October 17, 2007
V. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number one and two we'll do together, EVELYN
TURCHIANO requests an Amendment to Permit #701 to reface the
existing bulkhead with new approved planking tight to the water
side of the deteriorated existing planking, reinforced with new
whalers, not to extend out past the existing bulkhead pilings.
Located: 450 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck.
And number two, EVELYN TURCHIANO requests an Amendment to
Permit #689 to replace the access ramp to the floating dock.
Located: 450 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck.
These are old permits, from the early 70's. We all looked at
this. They are exempt from LWRP. They are all inplace
replacements.
The CAC supports the application. They support the bulkhead
application. They support the dock application, with the condition
the dock is constructed with open grate decking. The dock already
exists. The floating dock already exists. They are replacing the
ramp and platform going to the floating dock and we requested
drawings and they submitted some.
And the only, in looking at it, the way the float is, I want
to make sure when they put the dock, when they put the ramp and the
float, they have a little platform going out.
TRUSTEE KING: Does the float -- I thought it was parallel.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It is. The platform is going to go out and the
ramp will go down. One stipulation that I have is to make sure the
float doesn't go further out seaward, because the channel is right
on the outside of that, of his boat. It hugs the shoreline in that
area. So it really cannot be moved out not even an inch. So it has
to be --
TRUSTEE KING: How long is the present ramp? There were just three
boards sticking out, right? Because I walked out on it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The original permit from -- it doesn't have a
width. It just has a 20-foot ramp. (Perusing).
TRUSTEE KING: This puts it out a little, where these piles are. It
almost looks like -- (perusing.) We didn't get a dimension between
the float and the bulkhead, did we?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, we didn't.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what we should do. Where it is now.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. I think seven feet might be too long going
out. Although the way he drew it here with the pilings, the piling
is more here.
Mr. Turchiano, the plans seem to reflect that the float is
Board of Trustees
9 October 17, 2007
going out further.
MR. TURCHIANO: No, ma'am, it's not.
MRS. TURCHIANO: Seven feet is just what it is now.
MR. TURCHIANO: The platform is pretty much set.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you know what this dimension is between the
platform and the bulkhead? That was my question.
MR. TURCHIANO: Between 36 and 40 inches.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what it is now?
MR. TURCHIANO: That's what it is now. The ramp is coming out seven
feet so it's just going to catch the end of the platform coming
out. It's just going to catch the end of the ramp.
TRUSTEE KING: What's the dimension of the float, 6x20?
MR. TURCHIANO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: So six feet wide?
MR. TURCHIANO: I think it's five.
TRUSTEE KING: The float is five feet wide?
MR. TURCHIANO: The whole thing is 20 feet.
TRUSTEE KING: This is your float here, 20-foot float?
MR. TURCHIANO: Yes, that's it.
TRUSTEE KING: And this is the ramp coming down to it.
MR. TURCHIANO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: This distance here you say --
MR. TURCHIANO: Between 36 and 40 inches. Which is we'll stay right
where it is.
TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we mark that here. 40 inches.
MR. TURCHIANO: 40 inches tops.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, so then we know. And you don't know the width
of the float. It's not six feet?
MR. TURCHIANO: It's about five.
TRUSTEE KING: Are you sure?
MR. TURCHIANO: It's not more than six, that's for sure. I'm pretty
sure it's five feet.
MRS. TURCHIANO: You measured from the bulkhead to the edge of your
dock and you figure five and that will come out to seven feet.
TRUSTEE KING: Well, what you can do, when you get home, whenever,
measure the width of the float and just call the office and we'll
mark it on here so we know what the float is. I don't want to put
five feet if it's six. 6x20 is a standard float today.
MR. TURCHIANO: These are 40 years ago.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But if you ever go to rebuild it, you have to
rebuild it to what we approve tonight.
TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we put six feet here for the width. If
it's five, it's fine. But when you rebuild it, new float, you can
build 6x20.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That means it goes out another foot. It would
have to go toward the bulkhead.
Board of Trustees 10 October 17, 2007
MR. TURCHIANO: I went over this with my neighbor and he has to have
access to the canal, so we have no problem.
MRS. TURCHIANO: We couldn't go any further out either because we
would not be able to get out. It's a sand bar there, on the other
side. That's the way we get out.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. And did you have a drawing of the bulkhead
for the other file?
MR. TURCHIANO: It was done by Patrick Carig (sic), 40 years ago.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I asked you to make a drawing for that also.
MR. TURCHIANO: I understood you want it for the access.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Actually, you do have it here, yes. Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Are they going to put new whalers in there for you?
MR. TURCHIANO: The lower whaler.
TRUSTEE KING: They'll replace that. Are they going to leave the old
one in place?
MR. TURCHIANO: That's coming out.
TRUSTEE KING: How? Don't the bolts go right through it?
MR. TURCHIANO: They take it out and we'll put the planking in in
two pieces. The new whaler will cover the seam of the planking.
The first planking, the whaler covering the seam and the rest of
the wood planking going up to the top.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you don't have to take the bolts out.
MR. TURCHIANO: No.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That answered that mystery.
MR. TURCHIANO: They are working with this new material. He's very
familiar with it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Who will be doing it?
MR. TURCHIANO: A man by the name of Wilson.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Does the Board have any other questions?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, I think that's all the questions we have.
MR. TURCHIANO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Seeing that all our questions are answered, I'll
make a motion to approve the applications of Evelyn Turchiano for
the an amendment to permit #701 to re-face the existing bulkhead
with new approved planking tight to the water side of the
deteriorating existing planking, reinforce with new whalers not to
extend out past the existing bulkhead pilings. In other words, the
pilings will not be removed. It's basically just refacing. I make
a motion to approve that.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I make a motion to approve Evelyn Turchiano
with an amendment to permit #689 to replace access ramp to the
floating dock, located at Deep Hole Drive, with the condition the
floating dock does not extend any further seaward.
Boazd of Trustees 11 October 17, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: Did you have a comment?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, I'm sorry. My name is Warren Jackson. I'm just
a neighbor of the Turchiano's. We had some discussion about the
ramp and float. And I'm totally in favor with what they are
doing. I just want to be on the record that it's approved for
seven feet out from the bulkhead for the seaward side of the float,
that it goes no further. Because as Ms. Doherty has indicated, it
is a narrow channel and I just, that's the only reason I came in.
I reviewed the files and I wanted to know exactly what was going
on. I have had discussions with both Mr. and Mrs. Turchiano over
it. I don't want to be a bad neighbor but I just want to be sure;
that there is only two other people that go up there, myself and my
neighbor, and things have been silting in there terribly so the
channel gets narrower and shallower. So I want to just be sure it
doesn't encroach any further out. That's all.
TRUSTEE KING: They have it marked out as seven feet to being the
seaward side. We'll put that in the resolution.
MR. JACKSON: For all principals, I have no objection to the
project. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: We could put the seaward edge of the float being no
further than seven feet seaward of the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, so for the amendment to permit #689 --
MR. TURCHIANO: Mr. King, I'm not absolutely sure that the seaward
side of the float is seven feet. I would like to measure and call
you. The existing float.
TRUSTEE KING: I see what you are saying. According to the drawing
it's --
MR. TURCHIANO: It's right there. But they told me about this
Wednesday and I put it together real fast. But this edge, wherever
the float is now is where it's going to be.
TRUSTEE KING: Your neighborjust left. He seemed to be happy with
the present location. He just didn't want it going any further
seaward.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was my impression.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll word it the way I originally was going to
word it.
MR. TURCHIANO: Seaward side of the float is --
TRUSTEE KING: What we need to know today is the measurement from
the bulkhead to the seaward side of the float. We need that
dimension.
MR. TURCHIANO: I'll call your office tomorrow.
TRUSTEE KING: And we'll put that in.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we can approve it subject to that?
TRUSTEE KING: Sure.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll try again. Approve this amendment to replace
the ramp and platform to the floating dock as per the drawing, not
Board of Trustees 12 October 17, 2007
to exceed the outer limits of where the float is existing now, and
the measurements will be given to us. Right now it's no further
than seven feet.
TRUSTEE KING: The existing location of the float is all right where
it is now. We need a measurement on that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Subject to receiving the measurement.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number four, DENNIS KORD requests an Administrative
Permit to #6267 to extend the fixed ramp by 16' seaward, replace
the 16' aluminum ramp with a 20' 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.
This application was found consistent under LWRP and the CAC
resolved to support the application with the condition the project
is staked and does not exceed one-third of the way across the
creek.
Is there anybody here on behalf of this application?
MR. KORD: Me.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We went out and looked at this and we agreed that
what you originally were granted really does not allow for the use
of the dock. Our concerns primarily were for the width of the
waterway and navigability and the fact that it's right across from
a very active marina.
One of the things we were wondering is, I know on the plans
submitted August 24, it shows the floating dock on an angle at the
end of the hinged ramp. We were wondering if that floating dock,
instead of being angled straight out, so that the boat in essence
comes in and goes bow in, and is straight out. That way there is a
minimal intrusion into the water from the stern of the boat yet
your stern is in enough water depth to be able to operate.
Is that something that is okay with you?
MR. KORD: Yes, that's something we discussed. That would work.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. And we had no problem with the landward
addition that you wanted to put on the open-face walkway.
So I would make a motion to approve the amendment to permit
#6267 with the condition of new plans being drawn that will reflect
the float going straight out and that the addition of the float and
the hinged ramp will not exceed 20 feet more out into the creek.
Because that's exactly what you are asking for here. So I just
want to make sure that that is in there, that it won't exceed more
than 20 feet additional out into the crook from the present permit
that was granted.
TRUSTEE KING: Dave, that catwalk goes on 4x4s? Was it 4x4s
Board of Trustees 13 October 17, 2007
supporting that? They can go to six-inch piles when they get out
into the water further. That's what we have been doing. It's all
4x4s right now.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just a second. I'm looking for the diagram, if
that's outlined in the diagram at all. And I don't see that.
So you understand what Mr. King is saying, that the outer
securing piles --
TRUSTEE KING: When you get into the water, at that end, you can go
to a six-inch pile rather than go with 4x4s all the way.
MR. BURKE: When I redraw it, 6x6 square or six inch round?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Six-inch round.
MR. BURKE: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I've made the motion.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Subject to receiving new plans reflecting both the
piles as well as the changes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Suffolk Environmental on behalf of MICHAEL KENIN
requests an Amendment to Permit #4984 to install a 6x12' fixed dock
on the seaward terminus of the existing catwalk. Located: 430
Lakeview Terrace, East Marion.
Is there anybody here?
(No response.)
I spoke to Bruce Anderson. It's probably too early for him.
He's usually here later.
I went out there, it was finally staked and I went out there
and I don't think a 6x12' fixed dock is needed in this area. What
they are looking for is a fixed platform so they can take their
canoe and kayaks and be able to put them in the water and get into
them. Where it's sturdy enough. And we talked about maybe a 4x4
fixed platform would be sufficient in that area.
Basically, the phragmites are in the way and they need sturdy
steps. So they already have a permit from the Trustees to cut the
phragmites. Once they get the DEC permit they can do that and I
think just the 4x4 is okay in that area.
And I think by doing that would bring it further, it would
bring it into consistency with LWRP as it is inconsistent with
LWRP. And CAC supported this application.
Should we wait for Mr. Anderson to come here to continue on
this? I mean, I did talk to him on this one. The next one on
Kenin is something I want to discuss further with him.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to skip that and go back to it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are we asking to amend what he has submitted?
Board of Trustees 14 October 17, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then I'm not comfortable voting on it without him
being here to see whether they like the idea or not.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. I did talk to Bruce about that and he said
it was fine. But the next one --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We need him here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So actually we should just skip five and six for
now until Mr. Anderson shows up.
TRUSTEE KING: So we'll table these two to later in the meeting.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll go to number seven.
TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, rescind Wetland Permit #6556 dated
March 21, 2007 and amend to read as follows: Suffolk Environmental
Consulting, Inc., on behalf of BOYAR/MCNEILY requests a Wetland
Permit to reconstruct the existing 150' timber bulkhead along the
northern section and install aten-foot wide non-turf buffer
landward of the bulkhead; remove the existing timber pilings and
two sets of whalers and install vinyl sheathing directly to the
seaward face of the existing timber bulkhead and secure with two
sets of timber whalers and timber pilings; reinforce overall
structure by connecting the pilings, top whalers and vinyl
sheathing with helical screws extending landward. Seaward portions
of the existing fixed dock assembly will be removed and stored on
site during reconstruction and re-installed and floating dock will
remain during the bulkhead resheathing. Revegetate area extending
two feet seaward of vinyl bulkhead with Spartina Alterniflora or
Salt Water Cordgrass. Located: 250 Goose Creek Lane, Southold.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is two feet sufficient?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't know.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the buffer we put on before?
TRUSTEE KING: Two feet is plantings in front of the bulkhead of
Spartina.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is that enough? It seems small.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you remember, it's basically only about two
feet, then the property goes straight up.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is seaward of the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Oh, sorry.
TRUSTEE KING: There is no original permit. It was never issued.
All right. CAC voted to support it with an 18-foot non-turf buffer
landward of the bulkhead. That was a pretty steeply sloped lawn
there. We talked one time of even raising the bulkhead, to level it
off a little. That was talked about the first time.
I think the original request was to do it behind the original
bulkhead. And in discussions with Docko, they said it was just
about impossible to do it that way. So they have to go in front
and use the helical screws. They have to keep the vinyl as close
Boazd of Trustees 15 October 17, 2007
as they can to the original. Evidently they couldn't do it behind
and then tear the old one out. That's why they changed this. And
we had a six to eight-foot non-turf buffer in place, when that was
originally printed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are right, Jim. What we had done was raise
that.
TRUSTEE KING: They are not talking about raising the bulkhead at
all, I don't believe. It's just going in front. They had originally talked about
taking the floating docks out and that's what we said, if you take them out,
don't put as many poles back in place. They are leaving everything in place
now, they just want to leave it alone. That's the story on that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm trying to address the buffer question that has
come up. My understanding, in the original permit, we had extended
the bulkhead up higher so that it would take some of that bank off.
TRUSTEE KING: We didn't -- we never issued that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We never issued that.
TRUSTEE KING: That's why it's extended.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They are talking about aten-foot buffer on the
survey right now. It says proposed non-turf buffer. One inch
equals 20. So it's ten feet.
TRUSTEE KING: The yard is not that big.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a very small yard.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And very steep.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: One inch equals 20.
TRUSTEE KING: So that's ten feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we can say ten-foot non-turf as per survey.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you want to do that with raising the bulkhead,
though?
TRUSTEE KING: Did we have an LWRP review on this? On the
original?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's consistent.
TRUSTEE KING: It's consistent? It was found consistent?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It says inplace.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's not inplace. I'm wondering if it's reviewed
under the LWRP since the amendment was filed. Because that could
change the LWRP consistency to another determination.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's showing they are not raising it. It will be
the same height.
TRUSTEE KING: It was found consistent. Charles Boyar requests a
wetland permit to construct existing, within 18 inches of the
existing bulkhead. So the consistency was with it being 18 inches
above the existing bulkhead and revegetate two feet by 150 foot
area seaward of the bulkhead with Spartina. So --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it doesn't have to go back then.
TRUSTEE KING: It's been my -- seems along the way when they went
Board of Trustees
16 October 17, 2007
out in front it was found inconsistent.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. That's my understanding also. But for
some reason he didn't find it inconsistent. He found it
consistent. So, I don't know.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If somebody from CAC would like to talk about the
request for the buffer. I believe it was 18 versus the ten, what
the applicant is asking for.
MR. WILDER: I have to go back and recall this. I don't have the
paperwork in front of me. It would appear they were trying to pick
up the whole slope.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are on the Boyar application. We are down to
the non-turt buffer. CAC recommends the entire bank, which is
approximately 18 feet, to be non-turf rather than ten foot as you
are asking for.
MR. LOHN: On the McNeily application, there was not --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the survey they show a ten foot non-turf
buffer.
MR. LOHN: I was not aware this was on tonight. Ten feet was agreed
upon at the last --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. They requested 18 at the last. We were just
discussing it.
MR. LOHN: I would respectively submit we are reducing the scope of
the work. I think ten feet is still adequate as was agreed upon
last time.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In the plan last time for this, and please correct
me if I'm wrong, because I know we don't have it here, there was
the opportunity to raise that bulkhead up so as to once it's
completed, put fill, and you are in essence eliminating a lot of
that slope. And with that, then aten-foot non-turf buffer might
work. Because you are eliminating a lot of the slope.
MR. LOHN: I was under the impression we were raising the top of the
bulkhead 12 inches above the grade to act as a lip to catch the
storm water runoff. I didn't think we were importing fill behind
that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The plans don't show that it's any higher than the
original bulkhead. Which I didn't, maybe I looked at it wrong.
Unless --
MR. LOHN: That's the first iteration of the plans. There should be
another version.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll search.
MR. LOHN: LOHN: That should show --
TRUSTEE KING: The only problem with that is, I think DEC does not
allow the bulkhead to be higher than your neighbor's.
MR. LOHN: This shows the photo we had discussed.
TRUSTEE KING: Is that higher than the neighboring bulkheads?
MR. LOHN: It would be, yes. The neighboring bulkheads are at grade
Board of Trustees 17 October 17, 2007
and, Imean --
TRUSTEE KING: I was just reading some of that DEC stuff.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was not aware of that.
TRUSTEE KING: Are you aware of that?
MR. LOHN: We were issued the DEC permit for that height.
TRUSTEE KING: Then I don't have a problem with it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Oh, on this.
MR. LOHN: Yes, ma'am.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what I'm saying --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If we think it's a good thing, slowly but surely
we'll get them all raised and they'll all be the same again.
TRUSTEE KING: That would help because the level is off grade.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's where I was going. If I remember, the
members of the CAC over here, if that was done so it eliminates
some of the slope, would aten-foot buffer be more acceptable to
you?
MR. WILDER: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right, there it is.
TRUSTEE KING: So we are okay with it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. LOHN: Beautiful.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that your motion? Do you want to make a
motion?
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve this application as
it's been submitted. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you want go back to five and six now?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Number five, Suffolk Environmental on behalf
of MICHAEL KENIN requests an Amendment to Permit #4984 to install a
6x12' fixed dock on the seaward terminus of the existing catwalk.
Located: 430 Lakeview Terrace, East Marion.
I finally did get out there and see the stakes, and we have
pictures, just in case. And I did happen to talk to Bruce in the
office the other day and we talked about maybe a 4x4 fixed platform
instead of 6x12. And he said they just basically need, and we can
cut the phragmites back.
MR. LOHN: We spoke with the client a couple days ago, actually.
He's comfortable with the reduction but I'm sure you noticed the
giant gold canoe that is his chief mode of transportation around
the lake. The canoe itself is fine feet along. So four feet wide,
he's totally fine with. Five would be better. But he could do 4x10
just to have that extra wiggle room to be able to launch that boat
because it is a fairly substantial craft even though it's paddle
Boazd of Trustees
18 October 17, 2007
driven.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You said it's nine foot long?
MR. LOHN: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Could it go 4x8?
MR. LOHN: It would be easier if it's 4xg. I'm not a canoe guy. He
was explaining how it launches it, and something that was at least
the length of that canoe would be very, very helpful to him.
TRUSTEE KING: I think 4x8.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 4x8 would be sufficient. I'm willing to go 4x8,
but not 4x10.
MR. LOHN: If that's the Board's pleasure, we'll accept that.
TRUSTEE KING: One sheet of plywood would do it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does he want this fixed?
MR. LOHN: Yes, ma'am.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think it's sufficient. It will be fixed. You
won't have the floating dock. It would be sturdy.
MR. LOHN: Obviously we want it fixed the whole time. There's no
reason for a float.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Could you do that open grate?
MR. LOHN: Of course. Like through-flow? That type of thing?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. LOHN: Sure.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the amendment to
install a 4x8 fixed open-grate dock on the seaward terminus of the
existing catwalk subject to receiving new plans showing --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jill, with a stipulation that the 4x8 reduces the
structure that was requested to address the inconsistency of the
LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Thank you, very much. And CAC, I mentioned
all this before. I forgot to mention it again. CAC supports the
application. And this would bring it into consistency with LWRP.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: What we should start doing, to bring it into
consistency, is let the whole Board vote yes. We feel, in other
words it's not Jill saying this brings it into consistency, it's
the whole Board determines it brings it into consistency.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It may be more of a resolution. It's typed in in
our approvals as a resolution, so we should say it more as a
resolution.
TRUSTEE KING: It makes it that much more obvious to people.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number six, Suffolk Environmental on behalf of
Board of Trustees
19 October 17, 2007
MICHAEL KENIN requests an Amendment to Permit #6127 to construct a
9x13' covered deck and steps on the northern side of the existing
dwelling; 9x28' wood deck and steps with associated planter on the
eastern side of the dwelling; 13x24' semi-circular stone patio on
eastern side of dwelling; and 12x12' pergola with benches and
associated planter on eastern side of the dwelling. Located: 420
Lakeview Terrace, East Marion.
Again, I went out there, saw the stakes, and --
MR. LOHN: For the record, William Lohn, Suffolk Environmental on
behalf of applicant.
I'll briefly go over the basic plan that I just passed out.
Obviously the purpose of the non-turf buffer is to catch storm
water runoff prior to entering the wetlands. All the impervious
structures obviously as per Southold Town Drainage Law will be
served by drywells, leaders and gutters. So that at that leaves
only the lawn area landward of the bulkhead that would be producing
any runoff whatsoever.
What I have done here is just a pretty simple calculation.
The existing bulkhead is 117 linear feet. There is an approximate
two-inch lip from the existing grade to the top of the bulkhead,
and approximately three feet back from the top of that bulkhead is
where the existing grade meets with the height. So what you have
is shown in the little diagram on the left-hand side of the plan,
is just a basic triangle that, in this case, could hold storm
water. If you do the basic calculations, you come out, on the
whole face of that bulkhead, to a possibility of around 351 cubic
feet of storage.
Now, also, to do the calculations for the amount of runoff
that would be generated by the remaining lawn area, once you
subtract the house and everything, comes out to 323.5, of course
approximate, cubic feet of runoff during atwo-inch storm. It's
our contention during all this that the existing conditions at this
site are more than adequate to function in that capacity and
protecting the wetlands from storm water runoff. And if you also
note, newly adopted chapter 236 of the Southold Town Code states:
Natural land features such as shallow depressions shall be used,
wherever possible, to collect storm water onsite for recharge. And
another section also states: Natural drainage patterns shall be
protected and incorporated into site design.
Once again we respectfully submit existing conditions will
serve the same function as a non-turf buffer and it will capture
storm water for recharge and prevent that from entering the
wetlands. And I really do feel it would be an undo burden on the
applicant to force them to change their site when existing
conditions will pretty much accomplish the same thing.
TRUSTEE KING: It's funny we were just talking about the new
Board of Trustees
20 October 17, 2007
drainage code and how we would have to start putting it in our
resolutions. This is great, coming forward with this, this is
really very good of you. I would like to see this more from the
other applicants coming in now, they'll have to start doing these
things. So it's very professional of you.
MR. LOHN: Was I correct reading the law the Zoning Board makes
determinations on projects that don't comply with the code?
TRUSTEE KING: I'm not sure. I'm not sure.
MR. LOHN: I figured they would leave it up to your Board.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is as per chapter 236?
MR. LOHN: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You mean the appeals?
MR. LOHN: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lori, is there an appeals process under Chapter
236?
MS. MONTEFUSCO: I don't know.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's all new to us.
MR. LOHN: It's just out of curiosity. It seems more of a matter for
you guys to discuss.
TRUSTEE KING: It's pretty much any new construction, any
modifications now will be required to maintain the runoff on the
property. And you have to show the calculations. Like you have
done here. A certain size drywell will handle so much from a
two-inch rain. I had a lot of discussion with the town engineer
about this this week.
MR. LOHN: Of course the drywells are not shown on there. Obviously
they'll be provided for the house.
TRUSTEE KING: They are in the calculations now, as needed. Thank
you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you for doing that. I'm satisfied with
that. As long as it meets the new Chapter 236, that's what our
concern is.
MR. LOHN: So the existing conditions will provide all the storm
water storage and obviously the soil will percolate the water as
well.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You have the calculations here, so.
MR. LOHN: You'll get all the effects.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I just have one question. On the calculation of the
two-inch rainfall on the remaining lawn, you have two constants in
that formula. What do they represent?
MR. LOHN: 0.167 is two inches divided by 12. So we are all working
in units of feet. And .25 is the runoff coefficient for lawn area.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is inconsistent with LWRP due to it's within
100 feet. And that's about it. They said to establish anon-turf
buffer, but we just went over that. Require hay bales during
Board of Trustees
21 October 17, 2007
construction, require gutters, drywells.
MR. LOHN: Of course.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: Jim, I could answer that question in the
affirmative. It does go before the ZBA.
TRUSTEE KING: That's their way of getting relief if they don't feel
they can put the drainage in.
MR. LOHN: Itjust seemed more of a environmental issue. I would
think they would have left that up to the discretion up to your Board.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All my questions have been answered. Are there
any other questions?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to amend the application of Suffolk
Environmental Consulting on behalf of Michael Kenin as applied for
with the condition of gutters, leaders, drywells to be shown on the
plan. And I resolve that this will make it consistent with LWRP.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. LOHN: Thank you, very much, ladies and gentlemen. Sorry,
again, for my tardiness.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We need revised plans showing the drywells.
That's just part of the application. So we would we need the plans
showing that.
MS. STANDISH: All right.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number eight, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of BETTY
SULLIVAN requests an Amendment to Permit #5258 to construct a
13x24' garage addition, remove outdoor shower and wood platform,
construct a 6x29' two-story addition and 24x29' second-story
addition. Located: 380 Inlet Lane, Greenport.
LWRP finds it inconsistent and it is suggesting that we
require hay bales landward of the non-disturbance line during
construction, and requires gutters to drywells on the house in
addition to the garage to contain roof runoff.
CAC resolved to support it with the condition of gutters,
drywells are installed to contain roof runoff. And when I went to
take a look at it, I came up with the same thing: Hay bales and
contain the roof runoff, by connecting it to the existing and/or
adding drywells as needed. The buffer is very nice there. It's at
least 15 feet of full grown bacharus and beach grass, so I didn't
have any problem with that. So I would make --
TRUSTEE KING: The drainage is going to have to comply with the new
drainage code.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: That's our requirements as far as capacity.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So I would make a motion to approve the application
Board of Trustees 22 October 17, 2007
with the stipulations that drainage on the house and on the
additions be brought up to current code. And in doing so that will
mitigate it so that the Board can find it consistent with LWRP and
then also the placement of hay bales within the 50 foot non-disturbance line.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number nine, VINCENT FLAHERTY requests the last
One-Year Extension to Permit #6013, as issued on October 20, 2004.
Located: 1775 Inlet Way, Southold.
We have no problem with this one-year extension and, as it
says, it will be last time. I'll make motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can do the next one, Jim.
TRUSTEE KING: Number ten, CHERYL HANSEN requests aOne-Year
Extension to Permit #6242 as issued on November 16, 2005. Located:
405 Williamsburg Road, Southold.
We had talked about this extension mandating a buffer. The
original permit was for the house, because I remember hearing, we
said we would get the buffer in there when they redid the
bulkhead. I would make them go down there and tear it all up just
because they are rebuilding the house.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the permit for?
TRUSTEE KING: This is an extension of this permit to
construct single-family dwelling, staked hay bales be placed 50
feet from the bulkhead during construction, gutters and drywells
put on the house to contain roof runoff.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to request a buffer now?
TRUSTEE KING: What's the Board's pleasure?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought we already told these applicants they
would not have to do the non-turf buffer until they came in for a bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KING: We did, at the first go around, yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would stick with that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would stick with that.
TRUSTEE KING: I think at the time, because there had just been a
bulkhead replacement next door, and we felt the bulkhead is not
long for this world, it will be replaced, that's the time to make
them put a buffer in.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Fine.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll just go with the transfer as it is now. With the
original permit. We'll approve aone-year extension for Cheryl Hansen.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Boazd of Trustees 23 October 17, 2007
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number eleven, Garrett A. Strang on behalf of
THOMAS 8~ MARY IRENE MARRON requests aOne-Year Extension to Permit
#6234, as issued on November 16, 2005. Located: 3125 Wells Avenue,
Southold.
I looked at this. I have no problems with it. The only thing
I would like to comment on and stipulate is that there are two
pilings to the east of the dock that are not on the survey and I
requested the last time I looked at this and it still has not been
added. So I would like to stipulate that that be put on the
survey. And I would also like to comment to CAC because their
recommendation was a 20-foot buffer and I just wanted to say for
the record that there is a very nice ten-foot sort of gravel area
and in front of that is very nicely buffered with beach grass. So
I felt that that was sufficient. So I just wanted to comment on
both of those things.
TRUSTEE KING: So there is an adequate buffer there now?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, there is, as far as I'm concerned. And they
do have the staked hay bales on the tree line on the lawn. So
other than that, I will make a motion to approve the one-year
extension to permit #6234.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Can we do 12, 13 and 14 all together?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, you can.
TRUSTEE KING: So we'll group 12, 13 and 14 together. I'll make a
motion to approve those three. They read as follows:
Number 12, Samuels & Steelman on behalf of JONATHAN ZANG
requests aOne-Year Extension to Permit #6247, as issued on
November 16, 2005. Located: 370 Takaposha Road, Southold.
Number 13, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of JAMES
TAPSCOTT requests aOne-Year Extension to Permit #6221, as issued
on October 19, 2005: Located: Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island.
And, number 14, En-Consultants on behalf of KEVIN & ALEXANDRA
O'MARA requests aOne-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #6248 and
Coastal Erosion Permit #6248C, as issued on November 16, 2005.
Located: 14345 Oregon Road, Cutchogue.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 15, ANTHONY & GUISTINA IENNA request a
Transfer of Permit #2069 from John C. Kavanagh to Anthony &
Board of Trustees 24 October 17, 2007
Guistina lenna, as issued on September 25, 1985. Located: 500 Glenn
Road, Southold.
Is there anybody here on behalf of this application?
MR. IENNA: Yes, I am.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We all went out and looked at this and we have no
problem with the transferring of the permit. But we want to condition it upon
the permit being amended to reflect what is actually there. Because when this
was applied for in 1988, it looks like, the diagram that was given only showed two
6x8 floats. That's all that was there. And what we saw was there is there is
an 8' catwalk going to a six-foot ramp that goes to a 6x8 foot float.
So I am willing to make a motion to approve this conditioning
the approval upon your submiting an amendment for that permit to
reflect what is actually there. Is that something you can live with?
MR. IENNA: So I should have someone re-draw what is there?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And come in and apply for an Administrative Permit
to amend the permit number 2069 so it actually reflects what is
there rather than what was there in 1988, since they are not even
close to the same.
MR. IENNA: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I'll make that motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. IENNA: And I want to rebuild that dock. How do I do that?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we are willing to give you is we are willing
to amend in what is there, which is, again, an eight-foot catwalk,
six-foot ramp and 6x8 float. So if you are going to do repairs to
that, after it's approved, that's not a problem. If you want to
tear it out and completely rebuild it, you'll have to come in to us
for a permit for that, okay?
MR. IENNA: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Folks, we'll take a five or ten minute break.
(After a recess, these proceedings continue as follows.)
TRUSTEE KING: I need a motion to go off our regular meeting and go
into our public hearing section.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make that motion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Folks, we are going into our public hearings now.
Coastal Erosion and Wetland Permits.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Board of Trustees
25 October 17, 2007
COASTAL EROSION 8 WETLAND PERMITS:
Number one, Catherine Messiano on behalf of EMMANUEL & CATHERINE
ZARBIS requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit for the
asbuilt splash pad approximately 6x102 feet with small stone
approximately two inches deep over filter fabric; asbuilt retaining
wall approximately 102'Lx1'Dx15'H dry-stacked, constructed of one
course of eight-inch concrete pavers set two inches below grade,
one course of six-inch concrete piers and one course of 2.5 inch
concrete cap; 8,000 beach grass plugs planted approximately one
inch on center in mesh cloth over face of bluff, approximately
100x100 feet; and inkind/inplace replacement of pre-existing 4x72'
wood steps and 5x12' wood landing (top), 5x8' wood landing (mid"
and 7x12' wood landing (bottom) and six steps to grade. Located:
2505 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck.
I have a letter here that was just faxed to us concerning this
application. I would like to read it into the record. It's from
Ingrid C. Maley (sic), Flushing, New York. It was faxed here, I
believe, yesterday or the day before. October 17. Today.
Dear Mr. King, my name is Ingrid Maley and I own the property
located at 2635 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck, New York, 11952, which
is located immediately to the east of the Triatis/Zarbis property.
Yesterday I received a certified letter from Catherine
Messiano, an agent of the owners, outlining bluff construction on
said property. Unfortunately, due to short notification I'm unable
to attend the Board meeting scheduled for 10/17/07 but would like
this letter voicing my concerns entered into the record.
As anyone associated with waterfront property knows, the
process for constructing anything on the water is not only an
expensive proposition, but time consuming as well, when you factor
in the permit acquisitions and construction.
Over the past eight years or so I have invested close to
$100,000 to restore my bluff, including bulkheading, filling,
planting, surveying and acquiring the proper permits and
authorization to do so.
Mr. King, as you and the Board are aware, construction of a
secondary retaining wall utilizing pavers sod was completed on the
Triatis/Zarbis property without proper authorization despite the
cautioning you gave Mr. Zarbis in terms of not proceeding with his
plans.
I'm not certain as to how far west the squall runs, but it
does terminate at my property line. Several months ago while my
brother Robert Froendoffer (sic) was at the house, he observed a
washout of fill on my bluff, directly adjacent to the secondary
wall. At the time he phoned Terry Triatees and expressed his
Board of Trustees 26 October 17, 2007
concern regarding this condition and the placement of the wall.
He informed me his call was met with pure animosity with Mr.
Triatis with regard to the washout stating "so what." You
destroyed my bluff when you put in your bulkhead and I didn't
complain. If need be my brother stated he would be more than
willing to submit a letter regarding the incident.
In addition, from another legal standpoint, it is my
understanding that only a homeowner can petition and apply for a
permit. The letter I received lists Emmanuel and Catherine Zarbis
as the property owners. Yet according to the Suffolk County Tax
Assessor's office, the rightful owners of the property in question
are Terry and Francis Triatis and only their names are listed on
the deed.
My primary concern, Mr. King, is that the construction of that
secondary wall is having a negative impact on my bluff in the form
of washing out the newly placed fill and plantings thereby
rendering the west side of my bluff unstable over time, negating
the cost and investment I have made in my property.
In addition, no studies to my knowledge were conducted to
gauge the impact of such a structure on the surrounding
properties.
Furthermore, permission to construct this wall was never given
by any authority nor was the work carried out by any professional
source. Mr. Zarbis placed the cart before the horse by
constructing this wall without the permission of the Trustees and
the Department of Environmental Conservation, to say nothing of his
utter disregard for the impact on his neighbors' property.
The fact that he's now applying for a permit in order to
legitimize the already completed construction, serves only to make
a mockery of not only the Board but the entire permit acquisition
process as well.
Ordinances and laws are instituted to protect the interest of
all concerned, not just a few. If this permit is approved it serves
only as a slap in the face to all Southold Town residents who
diligently, respectfully and legally go about their daily lives.
It's my hope, given the circumstances, uncertainties and
underhandedness of these actions, especially the willful disregard
of town ordinances and circumventing of legal procedures, the
Trustees will vote to disapprove their permit and have Mr. Zarbis
remove this structure before my bluff suffers anymore damage in the
approaching winter season.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns regarding
this matter. Respectfully Ingrid C. Maley. And it was CCd to the
Town Attorney's office.
I know it was long-winded but I think it's important because,
Board of Trustees
27 October 17, 2007
basically, I'm very familiar with the situation. Everything in
this letter to me is pretty factual. This is exactly what has happened.
Is there anybody here to represent the Zarbis'?
MS. MESSIANO: My name is Catherine Mesiano and I'm here on behalf
of Mr. and Mrs. Zarbis.
TRUSTEE KING: First question I have, Cathy. Who owns the
property?
MS. MESSIANO: It is my understanding that although the property is
shown in the tax records as Mr. Triatis being the owner, there is
an agreement between the families that sets forth the ownership of
the property between the two couples, Mr. and Mrs. Zarbis and Mr.
and Mrs. Triatis.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: If that's true then I'll need a copy of that
because I don't have any record indicating that that is so. And in
fact the attorney, one of which is present here, that's involved in
litigation in Justice Court, have taken opposite views of who the
owner of the property is. And that creates a problem for my
prosecution as well, obviously.
MR. MESSIANO: I was not prepared with that because from my past
experience with the Board, when I raised similar issues, it's not
been taken very seriously, so I didn't get the documentation. But
I will provide you with whatever documentation we have to show that
the Zarbis' are entitled as owners of the property.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: Okay, that would be great because I'm not sure
under what theory we would accept a proposal or application from
Mr. Zarbis if he doesn't have that interest.
From my understanding with the conference I had with the
attorneys, the two parties are at odds and are not interacting with
each other. So that would come to a surprise to me if there was
such an agreement.
MS. MESSIANO: I'm told by the Zarbis attorney that such a document
exists. He was unable to be here. He has a prior commitment.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: I talked to him recently and this is not directed
at you but just as a matter of public record and he has not
provided that to me and has affirmatively said it does not exist.
He denied he's the owner. So I'm not sure where we are going with
this but I find that completely directly at odds with each other.
MS. MESSIANO: Whatever there is that is available to me will be
available to you.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: I would recommend to the Trustees that you don't
approve this application tonight without that.
TRUSTEE KING: There is noway this is going to be approved
tonight. I could guarantee you that. I just want to get some thing
on the record with this.
MS. MESSIANO: That's fine.
TRUSTEE KING: For the record, the permit for the bulkhead was
Board of Trustees 28 October 17, 2007
issued April 19, 2006. It was in the name of Terry and Francis
Triatis. There was no mention any of other parties on the
property on the permit. And the permit was for a bulkhead. It was
for 2,000 cubic yards of sand to be as part of the recovery of the
blowout part of the bluff. There was to be a 15 foot non-turf
buffer along the top of the bluff.
To get to the present situation, just from where I'm at on
this, I'm very familiar with this. I'm very familiar with this area.
Mr. Zarbis came into the office, I believe it was early this
year, and wanted to build a second retaining wall behind the
bulkhead. He was told in the office at that time to come in and
amend the bulkhead permit that the Board would go out and look at.
He then asked for a Trustee to come to the site. I went to the
site and I met Mr. Zarbis there on site. I explained to him the
process and the process is if you want to make a change to the
permit, come in and apply for an amendment to the second retaining
wall; the Trustees will go out and do a site inspection and go
through the process.
At that time, he wasn't argumentative but he was pretty
stubborn, why can't I build. Why can't I do it now. And I spent
about an hour with this gentleman. Then he started complaining,
after we got through discussing the second retaining wall, which I
told him he can not put there until he came in for an amendment for
the permit, then he started arguing with me why he had to have a
15-foot non-turf buffer at the top of the bluff. Because my
neighbor up there doesn't have one. And that neighbor over there
doesn't have one. Why should I.
I explained to him, as we go through the process, put new
bulkheads, non-turf buffers are a requirement at the top of these
bluffs to try and some of the erosion problems. When you have sod
right to the very edge you are just creating problems for
yourself. The discussion went on, I went away.
We get a complaint he was building a wall. The bay constable
went out there, sure enough, the wall has been built. He planted
sod down there. He also planted sod along the top of the bluff. A
violation was issued to Triatis. It's my understanding since then
it's been nothing but one argument of who should get the violation,
who did the work and whatever.
Now we have an application before us by Mr. Zarbis for us to
approve all the things that he was told he couldn't to without an
amendment to the plan. And that's where it stands.
You're on, Cathy.
MS. MESSIANO: Well, thank you. I understand your ire at the
actions being taken without a permit, after the time that you had
apparently spent with Mr. Zarbis. Since I was not a party to that
or a part of the permit process, I really don't want to delve into
Board of Trustees
29 October 17, 2007
that. It's duly noted your ire.
I'm only here to address the wetlands permit and the
environmental aspect of this application. I think who broke what
rules, et cetera, is a matter for the court and a judge to decide.
I think that's aside from the activity that would be covered under
a permit or a request or whatever we end up deciding at the end.
But as far as -- I think my basic statement is that I would just
like to focus on the environmental aspects of the situation because
that's the purview of this Board, and let the court handle the
violation aspect of it.
As far as the non-turf buffer not having been planted, the job
was stopped, so it was not completed. It was every intention to
plant the non-turF buffer at the top of the bluff and landward of
the bluff as was described in the earlier April, 2006, permit.
As far as removal of the structure, we believe strongly that
removing the structure will destabilize the bluff. Before the
structure was installed there had been restoration of that bluff
from an earlier blowout, which was the subject of the 2006 permit.
I believe that approximately 1,600 cubic yards of fill was
brought into the site, placed on the site. The restoration was
undertaken. The storm came along, undercut everything, and about
half of that fill was lost.
Another 600 cubic yards of fill was brought in to replace what
was lost. A lot of effort was put into the filter fabric, the mesh
that was laying down on the face. To make that very long story
short, it's quite obvious that the filter fabric, the planting of
the plugs, et cetera, has been very effective because the bluff is
very stable. And to take out the 18 inches or 12 inches, whatever
we have sitting at the bottom -- I believe it's 12 inches above
grade. To remove that, we fear the destabilization of the bluff
because there will be nothing supporting the toe of the bluff,
again. It's where the problem began in the first place. I might
go so far as to say the bulkhead probably needed to be higher to
begin with because the overtopping did scour, did cause the
blowout. Again, the bluff is stable.
You don't believe that a storm scouring caused the blowout?
TRUSTEE KING: No. Did you go down to the site, Cathy?
MS. MESSIANO: I have been to the site twice.
TRUSTEE KING: Did you notice almost every bulkhead around that area
is planted with beach grass going right out tight to the bulkhead
and there is no ovenrvashing and no damage?
MS. MESSIANO: I did notice there is beach grass and as I mentioned
to you when we were at the site visit, we are more than willing to
do additional plantings of beach grasses, whatever --
TRUSTEE KING: I'm talking right down to the bulkhead itself
he has done more damage by putting that wall in there then if he
Board of Trustees 30 October 17, 2007
simply planted beach grass there. There is nothing growing there.
He tried putting sod down there. That didn't work.
MS. MESSIANO: I know the sod, we had this discussion on site, too.
TRUSTEE KING: This is almost bizarre, really. I don't mean to be
facetious.
MS. MESSIANO: That seems to be what I specialize in. I'm sorry.
What can I tell you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Cathy, you said that the non-turf buffer did not
happen because the project was stopped. Yet he planted sod along
the very top of the bluff where anon-turf buffer is supposed to
be. There is a row of freshly planted sod there.
MS. MESSIANO: I think that was placed there before the job was
stopped and it wasn't meant to be permanent. It was a stop gap
measure because -- let me explain. I can only tell you what I know.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
MS. MESSIANO: The mesh fabric that runs from, just seaward, excuse
me, landward of the bulkhead, runs all the way up the bluff and
back ten or 15 feet landward of the crest of the bluff. And to
anchor that material, he placed sod. I don't know that it would
have been my choice, but that's what was done. That served to
anchor the mesh material that the plugs were planted in, the grass plugs.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Gotcha.
TRUSTEE KING: t don't believe that extends down to the bulkhead.
MS. MESSIANO: I think it extends into the area where that 1/12th
inch high wall is.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't believe so.
MS. MESSIANO: I think it's anchored under that.
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't see any signs of any mesh material being
there at all.
MS. MESSIANO: I'm not going to argue the point with you because I
was told it was anchored by the block. So I'm not going to argue
the point. I'm only going to tell you what I have been told.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Cathy, who did the work?
MS. MESSIANO: Mr. Zarbis.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Himself?
MS. MESSIANO: Himself.
TRUSTEE KING: When I was out there, he was there. He had a little
dog and he had a helper. And there was sod piled up. There were
pavers piled up on palets at that time. And that's what I told
him. You can't do anything until you come in and amend the
permit. That advice was just totally ignored.
MS. MESSIANO: Again, I was not a party to that.
TRUSTEE KING: I understand you are coming in late in the game.
MS. MESSIANO: And I've never advised a client, when I had the
opportunity, to proceed without a permit. I was not involved until
about four days before the deadline for this hearing. So I'm just
Board of Trustees
31 October 17.2007
here on their behalf trying to do whatever damage control we can do.
I think the most important thing I could state at this point
is that we fear destabilization if we pull the wall out. If we are
allowed to plant it and let it stabilize and then pull the block
out, I think that might be a smarter route to go. But to simply
just pull the block out I think would be detrimental to that
bluff. If it's stable, it's growing down to that 12-inch high wall
and we pull out that support on that wall, I think we are asking
for trouble. If we can get rid any of sod that is in there, get
that planted adequately with the beach grass, give it an
opportunity to get established so that it's doing what it's there for.
TRUSTEE KING: When is the appropriate time to plant beach grass?
MS. MESSIANO: I believe, and any expert that is here can correct
me, it's this time of year that is appropriate to do the planting.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think there is too many questions right now and
I think, plus it needs to be finalized in the courts before we act
on it. So I think maybe we should just table this. I think we have
gone as far as we can on this. We have a lot on the agenda ahead of
us and since we are not going to be making any decisions tonight I
think we need to get those questions answered and then talk about
it next month.
TRUSTEE KING: I agree.
MS. MOORE: If I could speak, before you close it.
TRUSTEE KING: Sure.
MS. MOORE: If I could. I actually represented Mr. Triatis, who is
the other property owner. We have been in court because
fortunately and unfortunately, his, in the deed it shows as Mr.
Triatis as the title owner. However he has assured me that Mrs.
Zarbis, I don't know that Mr. Zarbis is, Mrs. Zarbis is Mr.
Triatis' sister, is the equitable owner. So they are both
equally, legally entitled, one as the equitable owner and one as
the title owner. And I would encourage you to ask for some proof of
that. I don't have it but I have been waiting for Mr. Zarbis to
step to the plate here.
For the record, I know this is certainly in your paperwork,
Mr. Triatis, who is a professional, he hired En-Consultants. Rob
Herman is here. He was hired to do the bulkhead, he was hired to
do the restoration plan and the planting. That was all done. It
was paid for. It was completed.
Then without Mr. Triatis' help, without his consent and
without his involvement, Mr. Zarbis took it upon himself to try to
make modifications, for whatever reason, and well intentioned as
they may have been, were not the appropriate means to do it and
maybe not even the appropriate solution to this problem. But
nonetheless, when he was stopped, we did come to the court and it
was our hope that Mr. Zarbis would certainly present himself before
Board of Trustees 32 October 17.2007
the court and acknowledging that he was the one that was involved
with the whole process. I don't know. Is Mr. Zarbis here today?
(No response.)
I think that it is an opportunity you have to get the facts
because unfortunately the prosecution has been against Mr.
Triatis, but he has been uninvolved in the process and is
unfortunately the one to be asked to clean it up.
He's prepared to deal with it in whatever method the Board
feels is appropriate. We feel Mr. Zarbis should clean up the mess
that he created and certainly that's our position. And we are
prepared to go to trial. We are waiting for a trial date and we'll
put on the record and let the court decide if that's how the town
wishes to spend its money, essentially what we have all described
here, is Mr. Zarbis went and did it pretty much on his own.
We did provide Mr. Zarbis' address and we hope that the court,
that the action would be brought against the proper party.
Here we are, we would like to see a solution here. If it is
restoration, make that be the case, that's fine. We want it to be
done right. My client has funded and applied for permits to do the
job right.
We don't want to be in a position where it's undermined by a
family member, without their knowledge.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: Pat, if that's true, what you just said, and I know
we have both had many conferences about this then your client
should sign an affidavit indicating that Mr. Zarbis did all the work.
MS. MOORE: I have no problem with that.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: And if I could get a notarized affidavit from him,
because as you well know, if a violation doesn't occur under the
observation of the bay constable, you are the owner, you'll get
charged. That's usually what happens.
MS. MOORE: I understand that. But you actually have Mr. King's
affidavit as to who he was dealing with.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: That doesn't matter.
MS. MOORE: I have no problem providing an affidavit as to Mr.
Triatis. That's the first time I was asked and I would be happy
to provide it.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: And you know also, the town is not spending its
money because we want to. The problem is your client and Mr. Zarbis
are both pointing the finger at each other and trying to end around
in court. And that's unfortunate because if what you are saying is
true Mr. Zarbis should really step up to the plate.
MS. MOORE: 1 was really looking forward to meeting him here tonight.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: Unfortunately his attorney has adamantly denied
ownership. That leaves us in a little bit of a bind.
MS. MOORE: I could give you an affidavit stating they are the
equitable owner.
Board of Trustees
33 October 17, 2007
MS. MONTEFUSCO: And that he observed Mr. Zarbis performing the work
on the property.
MS. MOORE: He can't say that. He didn't give him permission and he
was not there to observe it.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: How does he know who did it?
MS. MOORE: Because your people saw him doing it. The bay constable
stopped him. Right?
TRUSTEE KING: No. He was issued a violation after the fact.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: That's why Mr. Triatis gets the violation because
he's the property owner of record.
MS. MOORE: Okay, but here we are. He didn't do it and--
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can I interrupt for a second? Can I make a
suggestion? Obviously there is legal issues involved and there is
a summons that is outstanding to be taken care of. I would like to
make a suggestion that this be tabled and that the Trustees make
recommendations to legal counsel as to what they would like to see
done as far as our opinion of a resolution to this in court and
then let it play out in court as it would and then we'll see what
happens with that. And it can then come back to us after for
action afterwards, once the ownership has been determined, the
responsibility has been determined and the court has rendered a
decision on it.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: I just don't understand how Mr. Zarbis even gets an
application before the Trustees at this point. He's not the agent,
he's not the owner. He has not even proved any indicia of
ownership whatsoever.
TRUSTEE KING: One more question. Was there a DEC violation issued
to anybody?
MS. MOORE: I think there was a notice but nothing beyond that. I
think it actually -- actually I had to call the DEC and say what
would you like us to do with this. Because we had, they didn't
actually observe it. They came after the fact and issued it. But
we had to deal with it. My client wanted to resolve it. He
doesn't want to have any outstanding violations.
He did it right the first time. So he was trying to solve it
when he had a family member that went a little on his own. But we
have not had an consent order. We haven't anything beyond that, so.
TRUSTEE KING: Thanks, Pat. I'll make a motion to table the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Patricia Moore on behalf of STEVE TENEDIOS
requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to renovate
the existing dwelling, new second floor, replace decks and convert
existing dwelling to garage. Located: 1625 North Sea Drive,
Board of Trustees
34 October 17, 2007
Southold.
This is an application we all went to look at. It was not
staked and --
MS. MOORE: It was staked.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We did not see it staked.
MS. MOORE: I apologize. The surveyor didn't make it in time.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's something we need to see staked, but also,
it's in the Coastal Erosion Hazard area and it's in a dune area and
under our code, I don't have the section, you cannot go any further
out seaward than the existing building. I don't have the section
of the code. And this seems to --the drawings are kind of vague
and kind of, you know -- doesn't really show --
MS. MOORE: There is a lot of structures here, so we have to --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand that you are trying to tidy
everything up, so --
MS. MOORE: We also have to comply with FEMA. So, in order to comply
with FEMA, certain structures have to be raised and other
structures have to be connected, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand that. Now, the foundation on this,
what are you planning on doing with the foundation?
MS. MOORE: We have to have breakaway walls with respect to the
foundation. So the existing structure is on a poured concrete
foundation. I don't believe that will comply -- block foundation
-- excuse me. So we have to make it conform. Whatever the
architect would plan.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So how do you plan on redoing the foundation;
lifting the house and redoing the foundation and then putting it
back down?
MS. MOORE: Yes, and probably piles driven and then, piles and
breakaway walls, yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Essentially the house will have to be knocked down,
right?
MS. MOORE: That's the problem. We can't do that. We understand
the best way to do it, certainly is to knock down the house.
Everybody would acknowledge that would be the best way. But under
the FEMA guidelines and the Coastal Erosion Law we have to maintain
certain structures and the walls and lift things up. The whole
project probably doubles if not triples in cost because of that
regulation but we are prepared to presence our rights by raising
and building connections to the existing walls, so.
Would we love to demolish the whole thing. I think anybody
with their right mind would do that. Unfortunately we can't do that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How do you drive pilings with a building in the way?
MS. MOORE: You have to pick it up, move it out of the way, drive
the piles, move it back. Actually a couple of the houses there
have been done that way.
Board of Trustees 35 October 17, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does that constitute new construction?
MS. MOORE: You have to comply with FEMA. You don't have a choice.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The other issue then, if you are going to do that,
you have to comply with the new installation code, and go from
four-inch walls to six-inch walls. In essence you might as well
cart the thing away and --
MS. MOORE: If you are prepared to grant that, that's great. But I
recognize your limitations.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it can't go any further seaward than the
existing building. And you have proposed, I can't tell how far
out, from these drawings.
MS. MOORE: We actually do have existing buildings and decking, so
it may be -- it will help when we stake it because you'll see that
in most instances we are connecting existing setbacks. There is a
lot of decking, there is a lot of --the Coastal Erosion Law speaks
in terms of keeping it to a minimum, a minimum structure,
maintaining 25% of the overall lot coverage.
So we have to take into all that effect, you can increase it
by 25%, then configure your way around the structures, so. It is
complicated.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think what we need to see is it staked in the
field and we also need better plans than what you have submitted.
Because according to these plans you are going a lot further out
than what the existing structure is. From what I see, the way I read them.
TRUSTEE KING: We need original plans, not shrunk down like that.
MS. MOORE: I could ask -- let's see if I have something better.
If you can see, we have an existing structure with existing decking
and we are not going any further than the, further seaward than the
existing decking.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We are saying we don't want it any further than
the existing building to the west.
MS. MOORE: It's currently two structures connected by decking. So
which are you asking us to follow?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Come up here, please, and I'll show you what we
are pointing out
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is your east. So this whole extension is not
permitted under the code. Because the existing house stops here, right?
MS. MOORE: Yes, but we have the existing garage that is closer.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are still going a lot further out than that.
And that's not acceptable under the code. That's what we are saying.
This whole addition, under the definition of a dune area,
which this is, and under the Coastal Erosion Hazard --
MS. MOORE: That's a new definition as of recently. I'm not sure
it's been classified as a dune area or not.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was today.
Board of Trustees
36 October 17, 2007
MS. MOORE: Okay, well, I didn't yesterday it was a dune.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We were not sure either so we got Rob --
MS. MOORE: Can I get a copy of the report?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When we get the report, Rob McDonaugh from the DEC
and Eric Starr is from DEC, they came out, they inspected it and
classified it as a dune. And they have classified it as a dune
prior. Actually, the toe of the dune is at the road.
MS. MOORE: But you have an existing structure, so you are permitted
under the Coastal Erosion Law -- I mean that's why in certain
instances like this one --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. So we are under that law, since it's an
existing structure, we are allowed to build a certain percentage of
an extension, but not any further seaward than the existing
structure. That's what was explained to us today.
MS. MOORE: I need to get a copy of that report.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It also depends on when this building was built.
MS. MOORE: It all predates.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can't do anything further tonight. So we are
awaiting the report from DEC and we also need to see it staked and
we need a better survey that's a little more clear than this. So
I'll make a motion to table this application.
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: WILLIAM & CHRISTINE EISENREICH request a Wetland
Permit to construct atwo-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 this evening who would like to speak to
this application?
MR. EISENREICH: William Eisenreich. We were not able to make last
month's hearing and we thought it was going to sail through, to be
honest with you. Then there was an issue regarding the Zoning
Board of Appeals or something like that. I talked to Lauren and I
think everything is straightened out. But, whatever.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We have a report from the CAC that they do not
support the application and recommend the project is moved further
landward. With no encroachment towards the water. It is
inconsistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our main concern is if it was, how it played out
the first time around with the Zoning Board. If it was approvable
under Zoning Board.
Board of Trustees 37 October 17, 2007
MR. EISENREICH: I don't believe there was any issues.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we found out, there were no zoning
issues.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: LWRP states the distance of the proposed
two-story addition from the wetland boundary is 69 feet. The
distance from the proposed second-story addition from the top of
the bank is 64 feet. And a minimum setback distance of 100 foot is
required.
To further policy five, LWRP asked to establish 20 to 25 foot
non-disturbance buffer, vegetated buffer, landward of the wetland
line; require hay bales during construction; require gutters to
drywells to the house and addition to the contain roof runoff.
Does the Board have any other -- I'm trying to look at the
field notes here. I don't know see any comments aside from
checking the ZBA; it says the buffer, drywells and hay bales. But
there was no buffer identified. Any recollection from the Board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought when we were out there we talked about a
non-disturbance area. But if it's not on the notes, it's not on the notes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's not on the notes. Most all of the
construction is landward or in line with the existing building.
The driveway is crushed concrete, which I would say is pervious.
So I would think if we --
MS. EISENREICH: I'm Chris Eisenreich, one of the owners of the
property. The corner of the garage is six inches closer to the
water. The way the architect drew it and the surveyor surveyed it,
it came out six inches closer than what we have. Which we can cut
off a 2x4 if we have to.
MR. EISENREICH: Can I express some of the constraints here? We are
constrained by the wetlands, obviously. We are constrained in that
it's an irregularly shaped lot. We have constraints going landward
because we have to be 35 feet back from the road, something like
that. We have cesspools there. We are within inches of making
this work and we have complied on the first construction. We intend
to comply again. But we really, we don't have anymore inches to
work with. It's that tight.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Let me see if there is anyone here this evening
who would like to speak to this application. Anyone else? Any
comments? Any Board members?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Just mitigate it with the drywells -- CAC
wanted, recommended this project be moved further landward. But
there is really not a lot of options.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any way you can reconfigure the design of
it to make it fit better?
MR. EISENREICH: We can't, because you are bumping into the
cesspools. I can't go any further to the south.
Board of Trustees 38 October 17, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand. I'm kind of thinking out loud.
MS. EISENREICH: We have to allow ten feet between the cesspools and
the garage. And I think we have ten feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was thinking on the seaward side if you could
reconfigure, make a straight line across instead of bumping out.
You have a bump out there.
MR. EISENREICH: We don't have a basement so we had to put like a
utility and furnace area.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you have constraints on the pool as far as
the road? Can they be moved farther towards the road?
MS. EISENREICH: Moving five cesspools?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They're existing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Oh, their existing.
TRUSTEE KING: Oh, they're existing. I thought they were proposed.
MS. EISENREICH: No, they were all put in. We went through a big
appeals process ten years ago to get that approved.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: 25 foot non-disturbance buffer, okay. If there
is no further comments from the audience, I'll make a motion to
close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the wetland
application for William and Christine Eisenreich for a wetland
permit to construct atwo-story addition and that we are going to
request that there be a 25-foot non-disturbance vegetated buffer
landward of the wetland boundary to protect the water quality of
the creek; require hay bales during construction and require
gutters to drywells on the house and addition to contain roof
runoff to bring this into consistency with our LWRP.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number two, JOSEPH & BARBARA DAI request a Wetland
Permit to patch the existing 100' bulkhead to prevent soil from
washing from the property into the bay. Located: 1465 Shore Drive,
Greenport.
LWRP finds this to be exempt because of it's minor nature.
CAC resolves to support the application, and when I went out there
to look at it, so that everybody knows, most of the work is done,
if not all of it, really. They resheathed the front with the black plastic.
The only suggestion I would have, the condition I would make
to the proposal would be to create aten-foot non-turf buffer and
plant it with native plantings and contain the roof runoff, while
Board of Trustees
39 October 17, 2007
we are there.
Is there anybody here who would like to speak to this
application?
MR. COSTELLO: George Costello, Sr., representing Joseph and Barbara
Dai. I understand the necessity for the buffer area. How large of
a buffer area are you talking about?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would say ten foot. I believe it's either a
five-foot or ten-foot buffer that was originally attempted there
but the plantings, those spreading yews, I guess they were, did not survive
MR. COSTELLO: Okay. Roof runoff. I'm not sure if they don't have
some sort of roof runoff containment system now. I don't know.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As I recall, I didn't see one. It was just dumping
out on to the grass.
MR. COSTELLO: No gutters --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They had gutters. But the pipe was dropping right
on the grass.
MR. COSTELLO: So what would you like?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Drywells will be fine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: To conform with new Chapter 236
MR. COSTELLO: 236?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. COSTELLO: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any further comment from the Board or the audience?
(No response.)
I would like to make a motion that we close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion we approve this
application with the stipulation that we create aten-foot non-turf
buffer and put in drywells to contain roof runoff according to the
new code 236.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Number three, DOMINIC NICOLAZZI requests a Wetland
Permit to install a 4'x100' ongrade walk, 4'x20" wood chip path,
3x60' elevated walk, minimum 2.5' above grade, 4x125' wood chip
path, leading to a 3x53' timber dock with 4x8' steps to grade.
Located: 105 Watenriew Drive, Southold.
Jill and I went out and looked at this. Originally there was a
permit for this that expired. And I believe it was also downsized
once again by the DEC. This is a new proposal.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We talked about eliminating the 4'x125' walk.
TRUSTEE KING: Right. The proposed elevated walk was eliminated.
It's to be a wood chip path. And there a walkway that goes down to
that low spot. And it was to be a 3x60' elevated walk. What we
Board of Trustees
40 October 17, 2007
are going to put in is there a 40-foot open grate walk. It's
proposed it will start at grade and end on grade and will be
approximately two, two-and-a-half feet above this ditch that goes
inland that is going across. There is an existing path, 4'x125'
feet. Is Mr. Nicolazzi here?
MR. NICOLAZZI: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Were you going to put wood chips all the way out
there orjust leave it natural?
MR. NICOLAZZI: I'm going to try to leave it natural. That's what I
would prefer. That was just a verbiage the DEC used to put wood
chip. There is a typo, though. It should be 4'x200', not 4'x20',
the path. On the agenda is says 4x20. If we eliminate the four
foot --the 100-foot catwalk then we would have to increase the
path by an additional 100 feet.
TRUSTEE KING: All we need is some revised drawings showing exactly
what you are going to do there. So it will just be for the walkway
going down, 3x40, open grate catwalk, it's actually more like a
little bridge that goes across that ditch. Like I said, we want to
see that start on grade and end on grade, to keep this low. And
the rest of the path goes out to the timber dock, 3x53 with steps.
And that is also going to be open grate catwalk.
MR. NICOLAZZI: If that's what you are --
TRUSTEE KING: That's what we are moving toward. And they are
working out real well because we get them down lower, we can get
them down to 18 inches above grade.
MR. NICOLAZZI: Are they sharp on your feet?
TRUSTEE KING: No, they make a variety of them. We have a sample in
the office, they are squares, sort of a nonskid surface on top. We
have seen others that is maybe 1x2 rectangular square out of
fiberglass. We also seen some plastic ones that are pretty nice.
There is a multitude of these materials coming out now because more
and more agencies and areas are starting to use them because they
are working out so well.
That would on be 4x4s until you get into out into the water,
and then you can have six-inch piles in the water. So if you could
give us a new set of plans indicating those changes.
MR. NICOLAZZI: I will do that.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we can approve it. Did I miss anything?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, I think you covered it. And it brings it into
consistency.
TRUSTEE KING: We really downsized a lot of this by using the --
shortening up the walk, using the open grate system, and with these
changes -- it was inconsistent. The need for a dock is
unsubstantiated. It's just for access to a very small boat because
there is really no water in there but you need something to get
out, whether it be a kayak or canoe, you need some sort of platform
Boazd of Trustees 41 October 17, 2007
to go out on.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What does CAC say?
TRUSTEE KING: They support the wetland application. The project was
not staked. They support the application with the condition the
walkway is constructed using flow-through open grating. That's
it. So I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve this based on the new
plans indicating the changes we talked about.
MR. NICOLAZZI: Thank you.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: And the revision of the 200 feet?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. NICOLAZZI: May I approach with some pictures for the sign?
Thank you. (Handing).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.).
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: FRANK SCAVONE requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing 3x22' beach stairs with a 4x4' platform and gate, and
existing docking facility consisting of a 4x44' fixed dock, 3x12'
ramp and 6x20' floating dock. Located: 1615 Fleetwood Road,
Cutchogue.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this
application?
MR. SCAVONE: Frank Scavone. The structures have been in place
since, as best we can determine, 1976. They were repaired and the
dock was actually relocated at the request of AI Krupski when I
originally purchased the house in 1995. And everything is to
current dock code, for whatever that is, including the size of the
float and there is no new work to be done. It's all existing
structures that have been there for approximately 12 years.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I looked at the dock. I have no problem with
it. I actually thought you were missing some details but I went
back. It does indicate there is water and electric. The pictures
in here do indicate that there is one -- we have a boat, whips and
-- the mooring whips and the boat lift. I'm looking for the right
language here. But they are in the pictures. So I don't have any
problem with it.
The LWRP is inconsistent and I'm just wondering how --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What were the reasons for the inconsistency?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The inconsistencies are that the proposed dock
is located in a significant fish and wildlife habitat; critical
environmental area; applicant must demonstrate the following dock
Board of Trustees 42 October 17, 2007
standards with construction. It's all construction that is already
existing.
TRUSTEE KING: It's been there.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So I'm just trying to figure how to word it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll do I resolution that we find it consistent.
Our opinion is it's consistent.
TRUSTEE KING: It was done before LWRP existed.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's not consistent with LWRP now because it was
a prior grandfathered 1976 dock. That's my question. It's a
grandfathered dock. I don't know how we can say it's consistent
when it's not consistent with our current standards when it's a
1976 existing dock.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: We don't exempt that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have a question for Mark.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: That is what I would think they would do. They
should do.
TRUSTEE KING: Can we condition the permit so if it's ever rebuilt
they would have to do it according to the new specs, untreated wood
and that type of thing, and that would bring it into consistency?
Right now we can't make him tear it apart and rebuild it. It's
just not right. But if we can condition this permit when it's
rebuilt or repaired, we use the materials of today's standards.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So it is what it is now but if and when it's
rebuilt, it would have to be brought up to code.
MR. NOTARO: That would be great.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else here who would like to
speak to this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. I'm certainly not against it or anything. There is
supposed to also be a transfer of this permit from Mr. Scavone to Illuzzi?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We are taking care of that.
MS. MOORE: I didn't see it on the agenda.
TRUSTEE KING: We are going to take care of that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the request for a
wetland permit for the existing stairs, platform, gate and docking
facility, with the condition that if in the future at any time that
this docking facility would have to be built up to, be brought up to code.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Which would then make it consistent with LWRP.
MS. STANDISH: It can be consistent bringing it to code how?
TRUSTEE KING: Using untreated materials.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The float is fine. And I also wanted to
mention, too, as far as aligning it with the consistency of the
LWRP. The area that it's in is very well vegetated. The bluff that
Board of Trustees 43 October 17, 2007
is referred to in this file is a very healthy area as far as the
dock being there. It's really not disturbing anything. So I think
I have a second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Scavone, we also have a request to transfer
this permit to a Vincent sent Illuzzi?
MR. NOTARO: Correct.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do we have your permission to do that transfer?
MR. NOTARO: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to transfer -- I don't have
a permit number. I'll make a motion to transfer this wetland
permit for this docking facility at 1615 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue
to a Vincent Illuzzi.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. NOTARO: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five, SANFORD 8~ ELIZABETH FRIEMANN
requests a Wetland Permit to extend the existing roof on the east side of
the dwelling 10 feet to cover a portion of the existing deck, and
to install a 12x22' swimming pool. Located: 1165 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk.
We have all been out to this site. It's inconsistent with
LWRP because it's proposed within 100 feet and they would require
hay bales during construction and drywells for pool drainage and
require non-turf native vegetated buffer landward of the top of the bluff.
CAC supports the application with the condition the pool is
relocated no closer than 50 feet from the top of the bluff and gutters and
drywells are installed to contain roof runoff from backwash.
There is not room to have it located 50 feet back from the top
of the bluff. This is a site where it's bulkheaded and a terrace,
it has two retaining walls. So I don't know where -- the top of
the bluff where you are talking about was the very top where the
lawn was, right?
MR. WILDER: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The way the property line was, he couldn't bring
to the side of the house because the property line goes on an
angle. So what he has done, and I don't know if you saw the
amended plans, it's akidney-shaped pool that basically is in line
with the existing hot tub. So he actually made it a little
different than the plan that you probably saw, which brings it back
a little further.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application?
(No response.)
Do the Trustees have any questions?
(No response.)
Boazd of Trustees 44 October 17, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We talked about requiring a drywells for not only
the pool but also the house. There is gutters and leaders on the
house. We would like to see them go into drywells. And the bluff
is heavily vegetated and two retaining walls on it. So what we
have done is we've asked them to put the pool back into the deck,
so he's actually cutting off part of his deck. Part of the decking
will be removed. And the drawings reflect that accurately.
Do I have any other comments on this?
(No response.)
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Sanford and Elizabeth Friemann for the extension of the roof and
the hot tub as applied for with the condition that drywells are
installed for the house roof runoff and the backwash of the pool.
And hay bales during construction.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you have a location of the hay bales?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll do ten foot landward of the top of the
bluff, a line ten foot landward of the top of the bluff. It will
give you enough room to do the pool and then give that plenty of
space. And with doing that, that brings it into consistency with
LWRP. So I make that motion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number six, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf
of PECONIC LANDING AT SOUTHOLD, INC., requests a Wetland Permit to
widen and improve an existing 6'-g' access path to a 10' paved
path for handicap access and construct a 20' gazebo. Located:
1500 Brecknock Road, Greenport.
This, I guess, is a hearing that we tabled for some more
information. We had asked that they draw the coastal erosion line
in on the plans. That's been done. We know where the gazebo is
going to be going.
LWRP does find it inconsistent because, in general, the gazebo
is too close to the wetlands. There's freshwater wetlands as well
as Long Island Sound there, all within proximity. However, as I
recall, when we discussed it, we understood the nature of the
project was to allow the folks who live at Peconic Landing,
particularly those that are disabled and perhaps in wheel chairs,
will be able to access their waterway.
We were also concerned about the drainage off of the path, and
I have been told from Glenn Just, who could not make it tonight,
Board of Trustees 45 October 17, 2007
they plan on making drainage on the side of the path by using 12
inches on the downgrade of the road and going 12 inches down and
filling it with gravel, like a French drain, the length of the path.
So I think with that it mitigates it and will bring it into
consistency. So I think all our questions were answered.
Is there anybody here who would like to address this application?
(No response.)
Any comments from the Board?
(No response.)
Seeing none, I would entertain a motion that we close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion we approve this
application for Peconic Landing with a 20-foot gazebo and work on
the path, noting that there will be drainage, essentially a French
drain, 12 inches down on the downgrade of the road filled with
gravel to catch road runoff thus mitigating it so we can find it's
consistent with LWRP.
(Trustee Doherty leaves the meeting room.)
TRUSTEE KING: And that drain will meet the specs of the new
drainage code.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Correct. Second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Dickerson, aye.
Trustee Ghosio, aye.)
(Trustee Doherty did not vote on this application.)
TRUSTEE KING: It has a majority.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It just has to be noted she didn't vote on this.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: She can vote when she gets back.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Not if you close it. We've already taken the vote..
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have a majority.
(Trustee Doherty re-enters the meeting room.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Would you like to vote on Peconic Landing?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. I have no problem with that. I reviewed the
drainage.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There you go.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number seven Vicki Toth on behalf of ROBERT'S
CUSTOM HOMES requests a Wetland Permit to construct asingle-family
dwelling, sanitary system and driveway, and to remove the existing
shed. Located: 1500 Bay Avenue, East Mario.
This was an application that was approved in 2004, I believe,
and it has expired. And I went out there and looked at it, and the
Board of Trustees 46 October 17, 2007
only change that I could see, and it was the septic system was
moved further out of our jurisdiction. The building itself is
right at 100 feet from the top of the bluff, I was measuring.
The survey shows from the edge of the pond. There is somewhat
of a bluff there. So I measured from the bluff. As I said, it's
still 100 feet out. But the work is going to be done within our
jurisdiction so it still needs a permit.
And it's found consistent with LWRP. And the CAC supports this.
The previous conditions on this permit I would like to see
stay with this: The line of hay bales, I would like to see placed
at the top of the bluff there, kind of in line with that little
building that is being taken down, the little shed. Like it is on
the survey that is submitted to us. And from that hay bale line,
which is basically at the 50 foot contour line seaward will remain
a non-disturbance buffer.
Other than that, I don't really have any questions. Is there
anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this?
MS. TOTH: My name is Vicki Toth, I'm here on behalf of the property
owner. Basically we are revisiting the same application. The
house has been made smaller and we do have our Health Department
permit now and we have no problems with the buffer and hay bale line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. You gave us the proof of mailing but we
don't have the receipts.
MS. TOTH: I dropped them off at the office.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. They are not in the file. Okay. Thank
you. Do I have any questions from the Board on this?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Vicki Toth on behalf of Robert's Custom Homes as applied for, on
the survey dated as received in the office September 13, 2007, with
the conditions of hay bale line during construction at the 50 foot
contour line and of course there are drywells on the plan already
and to meet the specs of the drainage code, Chapter 236.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MS. TOTH: Thank you. Good evening.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: John J. Condon PE on behalf of THOMAS
FITZPATRICK requests a Wetland Permit to construct an 18x32'
one-story addition to the existing one-story dwelling. Located:
1160 Bailie Beach Road, Mattituck.
Is there anyone here this evening who would like to speak to
Board of Trustees 47 October 17, 2007
this application?
MR. CONDON: I'm John Condon, representing the owners, if you have
any questions.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I did go out and see this. Why were there two
--did you guys look at the two plans?
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't see the plans.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is September 26 -- there are two sets of
plans, the 26th of September and 11th of October.
MR. CONDON: Yes. The surveyor went out and picked up the flags at
the wetlands that were flagged by En-Consultants. It was done at a later date.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is En-Consultants?
TRUSTEE KING: The wetlands are right along the edge of the road, on
the south side of the road.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's the only difference between the two?
MR. CONDON: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I thought I was missing something.
Did the Board have any other comments? I looked at it today
and it seemed quite minor. Most of the addition --
TRUSTEE KING: With the condition of existing drywells.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is inconsistent with LWRP and it does
recommend that it be required that gutters and leaders to contain
roof runoff.
I notice you did have hay bales, some hay bales in the front
of the house. I would recommend the hay bales go all the way
across the front, unless, I didn't know where the driveway was, but
it should really cover the front.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think there will be anymore excavation. The
footings are all in.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just noticed the one area.
TRUSTEE KING: That's where they took the equipment back if forth
through and there was mud coming out.
There won't be any further ground disturbance there.
MR. CONDON: No.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The president says it's fine. That's all the
comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: This didn't come to us originally because during the
application process the wetlands were not indicated. They didn't
know it was within our jurisdiction. I happen to be driving by --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And there being no other comments from the Board
or the audience, 1'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the wetland permit
to construct cone-story addition to the existing dwelling and with
the aforementioned gutters and leaders for roof runoff, this will
bring it into consistency with LWRP.
Board of Trustees 48 October 17, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. CONDON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: North Fork Permits on behalf of GRAHAM & BARBARA
HEAD requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 10x10' shed and an
8x10' shed 20' landward of the high-water mark. Located: 1160 Goose
Creek Lane, Southold.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. GOREMAN: Bill Goreman, North Fork Permits.
I just want to say neither of these sheds -- that's the 10x10
you are looking at, and there is a smaller one, 8x10. Of course
neither of them require a building permit from the town, because of
their size. There is no foundation so there is not going to be any
excavation or soil disruption. No plumbing, it's all wood
construction. We even go as far as to use locust skids for it to
sit on rather than ACQ or CCA, which would have less of a negative
environmental impact than say a dock pier or dock piling. And
really that's it. We would like to put it down five feet off the
buffer. We would take out another approximately 100 square feet of
sod per shed underneath where the shed goes, so we would eliminate
that much more sod in the wetlands.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else here who wants to
speak on behalf of this application?
(No response.)
The Board did go out and look at this as a group. It was
found inconsistent under the LWRP because of its proximity to the
buffer and the wetlands, with a recommendation that it be moved to
50 feet landward of the wetland boundary.
The CAC supports the application with a condition that the
sheds are setback at least 50 feet from the wetland boundary.
Now when we went out this in the field we had the same
concerns and we started looking around the property and we noticed
that there was an arbor over the brick patio, and that's 52 feet
from the boundary. And so what we had proposed out in the field
was the opportunity to move these two sheds, one on side of this
arbor and the other on the other side of this arbor, basically the
north and south ends of these arbors. So if that's agreeable to
the applicants that his and her sheds would be located adjacent to
the arbor.
MR. GOREMAN: Yes, that's agreeable.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In that case that brings it into consistency with
the LWRP and meets the recommendations of the CAC.
Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: No, that's what we discussed in the field.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
Boazd of Trustees 49 October 17, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
North Fork Permits on behalf of Graham and Barbara Head as depicted
in the application, location 1160 Goose Creek Lane with the
stipulation that the two proposed sheds be moved adjacent to the
arbor over the brick patio on the survey. And so the condition is
that the plan will be resubmitted with the sheds' location as we
talked about and that by moving the sheds it will bring it into
consistency for the Board with the LWRP. And I believe that was
all that was asked for here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. GOREMAN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you need the pictures back of your shed?
MR. GOREMAN: No, you can keep them.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number ten. En-Consultants on behalf of ROBERT
MARSTON & JOHN GARDINER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
fixed dock, consisting of a 4x48' fixed catwalk (constructed with
fiberglass-reinforced decking and elevated 2.5' above grade); a
4x14' ramp and a 6x20' float secured by two six-inch diameter
pilings. Located: 7065 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk.
LWRP finds this application to be inconsistent. It's concerned
about turbidity. It should be noted that the bottom land of School
House Creek is owned by Larry Tuthill. LWRP goes on to make some
other observations. The proposed construction practices of the
dock have not been identified; the proposed length of the dock may
impede navigation in School House Creek.
CAC resolves to support the application with a condition that
the size of the float is reduced to 6x10' and no treated lumber is used.
Is there anybody here who would like to speak for or against
this application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicants. Before I start, is Bob Marston here? And is either
Mike Irving or anyone from New Suffolk Shipyard here.
(No response.)
Okay. This is an application that is effectively in the
works. It's in the process here. The bottom land here is owned by
Larry Tuthill. We had originally proposed the plan that the Board
is looking at for the dock that starts in the upland and then
extends across and turns out north into School House Creek at a
location that, by my estimation and based on the survey, extended
the least amount into School House Creek in this area as possible
Boazd of Trustees 50 October 17, 2007
and sort of most out of the way of the docks of New Suffolk
Shipyard.
Of course we had to extend the flood out to a point where the
inside of the dock would actually reach 2.5' of water at low tide.
We then commenced our discussions with Mr. Tuthill and then through
Mr. Tuthill with New Suffolk Shipyard, who incidentally is also my
client, which I didn't realize when we started the application,
because I'm familiar with the other marina. So Mike Irving and I
had a bit of a laugh over that.
What Mike had indicated to Larry, and I should say for the
record that we were told by Larry that he doesn't have a problem
with the dock here at all. 1 should remind the Board and the
audience that this is the area of School House Creek that we are
talking about. The dock would go right here. This photograph was
submitted with our LWRP application.
Going backwards a step, the policies that affect the project
are policy three, policy five, policy six, policy nine and policy
ten. And you can see this is the application that I filed and as
with virtually all of my LWRP applications, all this information is
disregarded in the staff report, and very general observations
appear to be made, based on what Bob was saying, that could apply
to any and all docks in the Town of Southold.
This is, I would say, one place in the Town of Southold where
a dock would probably fit in. But what we tried to do based on New
Suffolk Shipyard's initial feedback, they requested and they had
sent a sketch asking if we could actually move the float to the
west, which I originally had not proposed due to the location of
this dock extending from the shipyard. What I told the shipyard
was we can't move it due west because then that would rest the
float on the bottom. It would be too tight. So it would have to
be angled. And I did prepare and we did have staked an alternate
location.
Now, I had spoken so to Jill briefly, I tried to reach you all
before your field inspections, to let you know there are actually
two dock locations out there that are staked. The float that is
staked with pink ribbon is what is pending before you. The dock
that was staked with yellow stakes is this alternate dock which
Mike Irving had relayed to me, he would prefer to see to the west
because of the location of the shipyard's gas stop. He said where
this float is here, even though common sense would suggest that
this would be the best place for the float, he said it actually
isn't. He said closer, farther to the west would work better.
We sent this to him. We had it staked. We asked for his
comment and they said it might actually work out a little bit
better, but made no commitment to it.
We did on this alternate layout, which I understand based on
Board of Trustees 51 October 17, 2007
the tide you may not have seen, we actually did shrink the size of
the float from 6x20 to 6x16. It also allows for the catwalk to be
much shorter and to traverse less wetland area because it's going
more as a straight shot from the upland rather than wrapping out
and around.
So first of all, I realize we are not going to resolve this
tonight. One of the things that has occurred to me as I was
sitting here for the past two hours is, based on my attempts to
discuss this with the shipyard, we had actually forestalled sending
the mailings on this until we had a plan that the shipyard could
okay. So while the opposite neighbor has been notified, they are
aware of it, the property was posted, we actually had not sent this
plan to the surrounding neighbors. So we would have to properly
notice it for the next hearing anyway.
But what we were hoping to achieve tonight was to see what the
Board's feeling was about either of these alternatives, knowing
that according to Larry Tuthill, it didn't make a tremendous
difference to him as long as there were no objections from the
shipyard, which is who is most directly affected by this.
I will say that we are trying to hamstring this float in a
little bit because of the protrusion of the shipyard docks across
the way. I have plotted out on our plan view a distance of 123
feet from low water on the Marston property to the bulkhead on the
shipyard, which would allow us to go out about 40 feet into the
waterway before we would exceed our one-third allowance.
The dock that we proposed goes out 24 feet, so it leaves about
16 feet short of that mark where a boat could occupy some of that
space. Obviously it gets a little bit tighter if we move the dock
to the west, but we still have the room, and one of the things that
the shipyard is suggesting is to have some sort of limitation on
vessel size. I know that's not something this Board is in the
usual habit of doing, but obviously the shipyard is here, it
exists, it's an important commercial facility. So if that would be
one way to try to balance the rights of the Marston property versus
the shipyard over privately owned bottom and all those entities and
the Board could be happy, then I think everyone would be happy.
Obviously, no matter where they put the float, if somebody
comes in and docks the Queen Mary here, it will completely shut
down that westerly portion of the shipyard.
So that is all of it. I think we are probably going to end up
having to discuss it further with the shipyard to try to get a more
definitive response from them. But I guess we are also looking to
find out what the Board's reaction is to vote the proposal that was
presented and the possibility of this alternate proposal with a
shorter catwalk and a smaller float.
The idea of having the non-treated materials is not a
Boazd of Trustees
52 October 17, 2007
problem. We are already proposing this as through-flow decking
with a low profile design as ways to render the project consistent
with LWRP.
1 can't imagine what part of this dock would be inconsistent
with LWRP. If it's the idea turbidity of driving posts, we show 4x4
posts, so that turbidity that might be created in the waterway by
the driving of these 4x4 posts, when you are talking about the
driving of these posts next to a major commercial facility, it
seems almost absurd to me. So I don't really know how to respond to
that. The basis of that would allow the town to deny every single
dock that is proposed in the town. Perhaps that's the goal of the
LWRP, I don't know.
But certainly I did respond to all the policies in the LWRP
application and tried to address them. So if is there anything
else specifically we could address, we can try to do that. But
certainly we are willing to reduce the size of the float, we are
willing to move it, we are willing to use non-treated materials in
addition to what we already proposed
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Rob, I'll just say, if I may, that being a
member of the last Board when this, the original application first
came in for this, it was a real struggle with where this property
is and the home and all of the trepidations that we went through to
make that decision. I am extremely hesitant to give anymore
structure in this area. I think even though it is a marine area, it
is a very vegetated area and I myself would not want to see one
more structure on this property. I'm just stating that for the
record.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It wasn't the last Board, it was this Board.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It was both Boards, then.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't know about the other Board. When we did
the application for the house a few months back, we had quite a
discussion to make that approval, did everything we could to
mitigate it because I really felt that we had a property right
issue here.
It was traditionally a small cottage that was here since the
20s or 30s and I felt that against, you know, against maybe what
the LWRP would have said or maybe even our code 275, in terms of
the setbacks, we mitigated it and tried to make it so the person
would not what had traditionally been there.
I tend to agree with Peggy, mainly because I don't want to see
anymore structure on a piece of property that was really too small
to have a house to begin with. And the house is for sale. It's
obviously, instead of a family house, it is, it's being spec'ed,
sold as a spec house. We don't even really know that the person
buying the house will want a dock there. I think that plays into
my thoughts here.
Board of Trustees
53 October 17, 2007
MR. HERMAN: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would rather see that we see whoever buys the
house, if they want to come in for an application for a dock there,
we can approach it at that time. That's my opinion. I don't know
if there is any other comment from the Board.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only comment I would like to make is as this
Board is aware, I voted against the application for the house to
begin with because I felt it was, the structure that was there was
completely uninhabitable. It had to be demolished. And it was an
opportunity then to basically protect a very small piece of
property that is directly on the water. I notice it is being
advertised right now as a lot, and I can't remember the exact
dimensions, but I think it was like 100x200 where obviously the
majority of that is wetlands. And I agree with Bob, you know, it
was presented to us as it was a family that wanted to build a house
for the brother out in California. Well, it was being approved to
build as a spec house to sell and make money and now what they are
trying to do is get a dock in a very sensitive area. I don't want
to see more structure in that area. I didn't want to see the
structure that was approved, so I certainly don't want to see
additional structure in that area. It's a heavily vegetated
wetland and I think any dock there is potentially going to
interfere with the navigational ability of boats coming into that
gas dock. You have to take a very wide swing as you come into the
back of Schoolhouse Creek there. It's not just a matter of having a
third to maneuver the way the present pre-existing nonconforming
docks the shipyards have there. It requires boats to come in and
do a fairly large swing either into the gas dock or away from the
gas dock. So they need plenty of room there and I think this could
potentially interfere with navigation. So I would not be in favor
of this application.
MR. HERMAN: All right, that's a lot of comments. I'll try to
respond to them as quickly as I can. First of all, I was not party
to the original application for the house so I don't know what was
represented about what the purpose of the house was or anything else.
To my knowledge, the Board, under Chapter 275, doesn't grant
or not grant permits based on whether they are going to be
inhabited by a little old grandmother or whether they are going to
be sold to a hedge fund manager. So I suggest that that should not
really have any bearing on what your permit decision was on the
house and it certainly should not have any bearing on what your
permit decision is with respect to the dock.
Apparently there was a majority of the Board that granted a
wetlands permit to allow for the reconstruction of some small area
of this property for a dwelling.
I would not agree that this is a highly sensitive area. To
Board of Trustees
54 October 17, 2007
the contrary, I think compared to most applications that I
represented before this Board, I would suggest that this photograph
depicts one of your least environmentally sensitive areas, probably
in your entire town. This is a immediately adjacent to a roadway.
It's immediately adjacent to a very heavily trafficked marina, or
at least that is what this photograph would suggest. f would say
virtually every other property on this shoreline is improved with a
dock structure and certainly I don't think that -- I think it would
be a stretch to argue that a small dock that would be proposed here
with the mitigations discussed would have a significant adverse
impact on this particular water body.
There are a good portion of wetlands on the property. I don't
know what the percentage is. But that to me doesn't really have
anything to do with the proposal for a dock. A dock by its nature
typically crosses a wetland area from an upland, so as long as we
are minimizing the portion of structure that over the wetlands, I
think what occurs on the rest of the property is really irrelevant.
So I think what we have to ask the Board to do is, and you
obviously each have your own personal opinions about it, and it
apparently was not a unanimous vote for the house, but it is a
property now that has permits for a dwelling and so like every
other riparian owner in Southold they are coming in for a dock. And
whether that's to sell it, I mean that is certainly no secret.
This Board has seen its share of applications for docks that, I
mean you just had one. The Scavone application was to legalize an
existing dock, apparently so it could be sold to a new owner who
would know that the dock was legal.
So I don't think that is any secret in the fact the property
is being advertised by Mr. Marston and his partners. It's no
secret from the Trustees or anyone else what their intent is.
With respect to the navigation, I think that is probably the
biggest issue here. I will say that the way your code reads is to
allow for the use of up to one-third of the width of the waterway,
which, again, would be 40 feet, and here we are proposing a dock,
at least with the original application, that goes out to 24 feet.
The marina uses more than 50% of the width of that creek.
Obviously it's apre-existing use, but it's there. So I think this
application, just looking at the specifics of it, is asking to use
a very small portion of the waterway compared to the much heavier
commercial use across the creek.
I think the best answer to the navigation problem would be to
see if we can get a design that new Suffolk Shipyard would consent
to. Whether we feel they are taking up most of the creek already or
not, obviously the navigation is a concern. And the sense that I
got from speaking with them was that they were not objecting to a
dock here per se. That they were willing to consider a
Board of Trustees
55 October 17, 2007
location that they felt would not impede upon their use of the
marina. And Larry Tuthill, who owns the bottom here, seems to echo
those sentiments. So I would just ask the Board to at least give
us the opportunity, and I realize perhaps it puts you in a tough
spot. If you feel that there should not be a dock constructed
here, it may be difficult for you to opine about where it could
best be located. But I think that to go through the process
properly and, Counsel, stop me when I'm wrong, I think the Board
has to at least objectively receive the application and offer its
opinion as to where a dock might be located on this property where
it would not impede on navigation. I mean that would be our
request, anyway, for you to at least objectively discuss the
application regardless of your whatever position you had when you
issued the permits for the house because the fact of the matter is
you issued the permits for the house. And given how heavily
developed this area is, that frankly doesn't surprise me.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. In reviewing for the house, I echo what Bob
says. And we did discuss that we did not want to see any further
structure, like a dock, in that area. Because the area is, yes,
the whole area is built up, but it doesn't, it has a lot of
wetland, it doesn't mean we can say the whole area is built up so
who cares about these wetlands, even though they are minor. We are
trying to save what is there. One of the reasons why we approved,
why I approved the house structure was because of the history. And
our understanding, my understanding is not so much the structure
over the water, but the destruction of the wetland, the path and
everything, to get to the dock is more of what we, more what I'm
concerned with than actually -- and Pm concerned with the
navigation also. That's a problem, too.
MR. HERMAN: I think, Jill, the alternate location, most of the
area, up until where you get to the intertidal marsh is phragmites,
in the area where the dock is proposed. I mean I didn't delve deep
into the wetlands to the east side, but this is, I mean I don't
know, maybe I need to take another look at this site. But to me
this is not a pristine wetland area. This is an area that is
heavily vegetated.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But it is a wetland area.
MR. HERMAN: It is up to where the wetlands boundary is. But the
dock is, again, with this alternate proposal -- again, what the
original proposal was to sort of cut through this area, which is
largely phragmites, and then cut around, whereas this would be a
much shorter run. So it's really, in terms of the area of
vegetation, that wetland vegetation that would be crossed by the
catwalk is actually pretty minimal. And you have to have a path
through the phragmites and adjacent area. But that would really be
Board of Trustees 56 October 17, 2007
no different from any other permit that the Board issues where you
have to cut a path through the woods or whatever.
TRUSTEE KING: That's the alternative one we are talking about now.
MR. HERMAN: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What was the stipulations on the house permit?
What were the conditions?
MR. HERMAN: Was there a condition of the house permit that
prohibited a dock here?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't believe so. I was on the Board when it was
first approved. I don't think there was ever any caveats tied into it.
MR. HERMAN: Okay, because I didn't see any, but.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think in retrospect, a few months ago when we
approved the house after all the discussion and like you noted, it
was not a unanimous decision, I think had anybody brought it up at
that time, we actually may have made that a stipulation of that permit.
MR. HERMAN: It sounds like you anticipated it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't know if we anticipated it because we
suggested we didn't want it, but there is always a possibility.
MR. HERMAN: That's what I'm saying, if you brought it up you were
anticipating the possibility someone would apply for a dock here.
That's all I'm saying.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Or any other structure; a shed. We talked about
any structure.
MR. HERMAN: And that seems perfectly clear to me because in order
to have upland construction here it has to, it can't conform to the
wetland setbacks. But that's not at issue with the dock or with a
catwalk. So I don't want to beat it to death. I have guess what I
would ask for is if we could have a site meeting and perhaps I
could have Larry Tuthill and Mike Irving there, perhaps we could
meet in November and if we could come up with a plan that anybody
thought was reasonable, we could resubmit it and re-notice the
application for the December hearings. Because I would not
re-notice it for November anyway because I won't be here for the
November hearing but I could still meet you for the field
inspections in November and we could actually design a plan.
I think if you determine that what a best potential location
could be doesn't mean you have to vote to approve it, but at least
if we had a best potential location that the shipyard could sign
off on, so to speak, we could then resubmit the paperwork, we could
notice it, so that everybody would have the best practicable
alternative on the table. And if the majority the Board feels at
the end of the day that the best practical alternative is not good
enough, then that's the decision you would make.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would also suggest getting an affidavit from
Larry Tuthill.
MR. HERMAN: We have to. That's, as I said, how the conversations
Board of Trustees
57 October 17, 2007
with New Suffolk started was through Larry, who has been very
helpful by the way and, as I said, Michael Irving has been very
cooperative in the process as well.
It's at least one good thing about this application is it's
not an antagonistic situation in terms of talking to neighbors or
to Larry. If Larry doesn't sign off on it, then the application
dies. I think we understand that.
TRUSTEE KING: Rob, was there any other consideration for just the
catwalk without a ramp and float.
MR. HERMAN: Not yet. That could be a suggestion that could be
discussed that would provide access and, as I said, I think if we
could get --
TRUSTEE KING: There is not a lot of tide in there. I know most of
the docks to the east are all tied to docks. There are no floats.
MR. HERMAN: That's why I mention, if we could get everyone out
there at one time, we could figure out what if any alternatives
exist that might be acceptable.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I make a motion we table this.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. HERMAN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll re-inspect in November.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: Do you think you'll have Mr. Tuthill's acquiescence
by then in writing?
MR. HERMAN: We wouldn't because I don't think we can get Larry's
consent until we finalize a plan. So I think if we are able to at
least -- my goal, I guess, Lori, would be if we could finalize a
potential plan in November, that regardless of the Trustees'
position, Larry and the Shipyard would say, we don't object to
this, then at that point Larry could sign off on it and we could,
as I said, we could do a proper noticing and have a final plan go
out for the December hearings. But I would not be able to have it
for our meeting in November. But I would have it in time before
the next hearing.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: Okay, I'm just giving it up to the Trustees if they
are going to spend time to go out there and inspect and we don't
even have that yet.
MR. HERMAN: We would ask Larry to be there.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: Okay, that's up to the Trustees. That seems to be
a question mark.
TRUSTEE KING: If he could be there, that would be kind of helpful.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is it possible to have the affidavit in advance of
us going out on the field inspection?
MR. HERMAN: It's not possible because I have to reference a
specific plan and 1 don't, can't have a plan until we talk about it.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: He won't give you a general consent?
Board of Trustees 58 October 17, 2007
MR. HERMAN: I haven't asked that question. But when the plan was
brought to him for his consent and the discussion with the shipyard
that's, when all this discussion with the shipyard started. So I
believe, and again, it's hearsay, but I believe it was Larry's
position that if the shipyard is happy with it, he'll sign off on
it. That's why I'm asking if we could meet out there and I could,
again, have the luxury of being able to speak to Mike Irving and
see if we could get him out there with the Board at the same time
so everybody's concerns can be aired at once.
And we understand that if we don't have Larry's consent we
won't come waste your time in December.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can Larry put something in writing he consents to
a structure there but he has to --
MR. HERMAN: I could ask him that question.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Some sort of thing so we have something in the
file.
MR. HERMAN: I could ask, Jill.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: If there is awkwardness about that, if we could
just get his permission to make the application to begin with, that
would give the Trustees some basis to move forward. It seems to me
there should be something there in the file that says he is giving
you some permission to do this.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That Larry will entertain --
MS. MONTEFUSCO: If that's possible.
MR. HERMAN: Again, I could ask Larry, but I can't tell you what
he's going to say. My understanding is he'll be comfortable if the
shipyard is comfortable. And I don't know whether Larry will just
give me some generic statement that he might fear would be abused.
So that's what I'm saying, if I could get Larry there, he can stand
there and tell the Trustees face-to-face, yes, I'm entertaining
that they can put a dock here but let's discuss it.
I mean you had field inspections to discuss more absurd things
so I'm really just asking if we could have a field inspection to discuss this
MS. MONTEFUSCO: Were any of those your applications?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are we ready to move on?
MR. HERMAN: Yes. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 12, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of
NARROW RIVER MARINA C/O FRED DACIMO requests a Wetland Permit and
Coastal Erosion Permit to remove 466' of existing bulkhead and
replace inplace using C-Loc 4500 vinyl sheathing. Located: 5520
Narrow River Road, Orient.
This is an application for a bulkhead around Narrow River
Marina, actually replacement of a bulkhead around Narrow River
Marina property, and an adjacent house and boat basin to a
launching ramp.
Board of Trustees
59 October 17, 2007
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. COSTELLO: George Costello, Sr., representing the Narrow River
Marina.
If you look at the drawings on page three of the drawings in
front of you, you'll notice there is basically two sections. One
section being residential to the north and the other section being
a bit more commercial to the south. We are proposing to build a
bulkhead around the residential section within 18 inches because of
the house, the cesspool systems and the existing pool. The other
section, being the commercial section, is basically in place or in
two instances behind the existing bulkhead because of the boat
shed. We have a problem with the room there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That answered one of our questions how you were
going to do that around that boat shed.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. Actually we are building it inside actually 12
to 14 inches inside of the existing bulkhead. And then remove the
existing bulkhead so that the boat shed is not disturbed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what I see here is depicted Section A and
Section B, this is a faxed set of plans, faxed on October 9 to us,
stamped October 10. And Section A is the residential house. So if
what you are telling me, just to confirm, Section A is the section
you want to do in front and Section Be is either in place or behind
around that area of the boat house.
MR. COSTELLO: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Three was found exempt under the LWRP but it's
recommended that a silt boom be put in place during reconstruction
of the bulkhead.
The CAC resolved to support the application as long as vinyl
sheathing was used. And I believe that is what is in the plan here
is all vinyl sheathing.
MR. COSTELLO: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We had a question. We had a concern. And this
would be in the area that is labeled Section A, specifically the
house. There is a ramp, it looks like it's a launching ramp going
down on the side of that house, the north side of the house going
down to the water. This launching ramp is asphalt. The house has
leaders and gutters running down to that asphalt. So you had the
combination of the water runoff from the driveway that led to that
asphalt pad and all the house, not all the house runoff, but the
house runoff that went into that gutter all going into this asphalt
and all subsequently going down -- we predicted, because we were
not there during the rain -- but we predict it was all going down
to the creek. So we wanted to see the possibility of the removal
of this asphalt and a pervious driveway being put down there and
some type of drainage to address the runoff from the house so that
none of that runoff from the house was going down to that area then
Board of Trustees
60 October 17, 2007
going on down into the waterway there.
MR. COSTELLO: I will have to consult the owner on that aspect.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I believe that was our only concern with this project.
Are there any other comments from the Board? In particular,
are there any comments about the bump out part of this?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Where is the property line in the bump out? Is
the bump out still within the residential property or does it go
into town property?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking the survey. There is a proposed
lot line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The proposed bump out, is it still within the
property?
MR. COSTELLO: The survey that you have, and the survey that I have,
this survey was done for setoffs only and I believe there is
another survey in the Dacimo file that will show that you some of
this bay bottom is private property. Their property. So if there
is going to be a bump out of, it's going to be a bump out of 11
inches total, I believe that's on their bay bottom and not town
property. Not on Hallocks Bay property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there are no other comments from the Board, it
sounds like the recommendation is, well, we have two choices. We
could table this application giving the applicant an opportunity to
go back to his client and discuss this issue with the asphalt
driveway or we could act on it under the condition that the asphalt
driveway is removed.
MR. COSTELLO: Excuse me, I was conferring with the client. We just
need to, because of this, also that side of the house is used
commercially for the launching of their boats, we are going to have
to figure out how we will accomplish launching of the boats and
what material to use instead of that asphalt; asphalt/concrete
launching ramp.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What about, I don't know if it's still called
graded, but we have seen in the field where they actually have a
geo-web, I think it's called, so you still have a stable base, but
it's pervious.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And stuff could flow through it.
MR. COSTELLO: We have to pick something better than geo-web. I had
a lot of experience with geo-web and we tried it in New Suffolk, I
tried it in Gardiners Island and I tried it in a lot of areas. If
there is another product out there, I'll certainly try to
investigate it, but I know that geo-web won't suffice.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It can't just be pervious gravel?
MR. COSTELLO: Because of the incline and driving the boat down and
stopping and braking and dropping the boat in the water and getting
back up there without spinning your tires and all that kind of
nonsense. I have to come up with a better solution.
Board of Trustees
61 October 17, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: At the very least I would want to see the drainage
from the house taken care of.
MR. COSTELLO: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's a definite.
MR. COSTELLO: We would have to take that to the front of the house
and not the water side of the house because of the cesspools are
within that wood deck area, pool area. And I would not be able to
dump water in there. We would cause problems with the sewer
system. So we could do something in the front of the house, toward the road.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What about a French drain at the top of the
driveway, would that be of any use?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If they contain the roof runoff.
TRUSTEE KING: It's probably more runoff from the roof than from the
driveway.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I agree with that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You have the driveway going to that asphalt pad.
Again, we were not there in the rain so I don't know as far as
grade goes how much water is coming down that driveway. We do know
that water is coming off the roof. So I agree with, no matter
what, we need to mitigate the water coming off the roof. But you
still have the situation where there is water coming down that
driveway to the asphalt pad and on down there.
Now, if the Board feels that a French drain in there is
something that could work sufficiently, that's open to discussion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Maybe they can cut through a certain point of the
asphalt and put one of those grate drains in there.
MR. COSTELLO: I discussed some of those options with Chuck
Hamilton, at one time we were working on the launching ramp at
Mattituck Inlet, the new one, and we were trying to come up with a
surface to drive on and not allow the parking lot runoff, although
the parking lot is gravel, but we had a couple of other projects
and I think he brought up the French drain on the head of that
launching ramp. That certainly would work. Whatever is above that
ramp would not go on the ramp and into the bay bottom. And
obviously I could take care of the roof runoff in front of the
house with your catch basins, Chapter 236.
TRUSTEE KING: Anything we could do to help, it doesn't mean we have
to do it 100%
MR. COSTELLO: I understand that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If the Board is amenable to addressing the runoff
from the house with gutters and leaders into drywells and a French
drain across that launching ramp, I'm just trying to figure out an
appropriate location for that so as to catch as much of that runoff
as possible.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can we have an engineer determine that?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We certainly could. I don't know in that's needed.
Board of Trustees
62 October 17, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: I think Costello has done enough of this to figure it out.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, and I trust them to --
MR. COSTELLO: I think the best way for me do this is for me to
observe it during a little bit of rain, which we'll have in the
next couple of days, so they tell me, and to see exactly how much
is coming off the road and coming down and where actually to stop
it. Because if you take the actual area of the asphalt, the
existing, let's call it the launching area, I don't believe that
square footage doesn't amount to a whole lot but the road above it
all the area above it would be quite a bit of square footage. So
if I could stop it at that point, I would be doing something.
TRUSTEE KING: Sure.
MR. COSTELLO: And I could look into that and we could take pictures
of it. It's not a big deal. A digital camera could do that and I
could submit them back to the Board.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what we could do this subject to the
installation of this. If you could introduce yourself for the record, first.
MS. DACIMO: Maureen Dacimo. I'm Fred Dacimo's wife. As you see on
the drawing above the asphalt driveway, toward the road, there is
first gravel. We never had a problem with runoff from the road
coming down the driveway. It gets settled into the gravel first.
And then there it's flat. The incline starts where the asphalt is.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it sounds like if we take care of the roof
runoff and do a French drain, that would suffice.
MS. DACIMO: Right. We never had a problem with the road runoff at
all coming down that driveway.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments?
(No response.)
If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Costello Marine on behalf of Narrow River Marina as depicted in the
application with the inclusion on the house of gutters and leaders
leading to drywell to handle the roof runoff and installation --
subject to the installation of a French drain at an appropriate
location on that launching ramp to handle the runoff from that area
in order to meet Chapter 236 Drainage Code of the Town of
Southold. There was also the recommendation that a silt boom be
installed during reconstruction of the bulkhead. Would the
applicant be amenable to that also?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would also place that as a condition of the
application. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
Board of Trustees
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor.
(ALL AYES.)
63 October 17, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 15, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of
MICHAEL MITCHELL requests a Wetland Permit to re-sheath 96' of
existing wood bulkhead and 11' of return with vinyl sheathing on
the seaward side, leaving existing sheathing in place. Remove only
those existing 3"-4" piles as necessary to accommodate the
configuration of the vinyl sheathing. Excavate area behind existing
bulkhead as necessary to place anchoring components. Reconstruct
88' of existing wood retaining wall landward of bulkhead
inkind/inplace. Reconstruct existing 4x12' wood stairs and landing
landward of the bulkhead inkind/inplace. Place an estimated 20
cubic yards maximum of clean soil/sand behind re-sheathed bulkhead
and reconstructed retaining wall to replace material lost to
wash-out before proposed operations. Located: 750 Lupton Point
Road, Mattituck.
LWRP finds this project exempt. And the CAC supports the
project with the condition of a ten-foot, non-turf buffer.
We all went out there and the only comment we had was we want
the bulkhead installed landward of the existing bulkhead, not in front of.
MR. FITZPATRICK: We plan to leave the existing bulkhead there,
Jill. We are not replacing it, we are just re-sheathing it. And
re-sheathing it with the Shore Guard 425, which is eight inches
deep. And the thought was just to be able to slide those sections
down in contact with the front side of the existing bulkhead with
the, if you will, corrugations of the vinyl fitting over the
existing piles. No new piles.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you'll go in front of the piles
MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes. We'll go around the piles with the shape of
the vinyl.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our concern is --
TRUSTEE KING: You have wetland right up against it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You have spartina grass right up against it. It's
healthy, there is muscles in there. We don't want to see that
disturbed at all. It's on the east side of the stairs. The one
side was really nothing there. On the west side. But on the east side.
I understand what you are saying on how you are constructing
it but it's still in front of. And that's right up against.
MR. FITZPATRICK: Well, what you are suggesting, would not do
anything for us. I mean if we put a new, they are planning on
leaving, they want to leave the existing bulkhead there, and mainly
in order to minimize the disturbance to the whole area. And
putting a new bulkhead in behind is, it is going to be much more
disruptive.
TRUSTEE KING: I disagree. Aren't you going to have to put deadmen
Board of Trustees
64 October 17, 2007
in with tie rods?
MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: So you'll disturb the area behind the bulkhead.
MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes. I'm not saying it's not going to be
disturbed, Jim, as is indicated on the drawing. The potential of
area disturbance is pretty much in that whole area between the
bulkhead, the existing bulkhead and the retaining wall.
TRUSTEE KING: My recommendation is to go behind it and cut the old
bulkhead to grade when the new bulkhead is completed. And make
that area between the bulkhead and retaining wall anon-turf area.
MR. FITZPATRICK: I would have to of course discuss it with the
owner. Because it's significantly different from what he had
intended originally.
TRUSTEE KING: Have you applied to DEC yet for this, Jim?
MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you have any answer from them?
MR. FITZPATRICK: Not yet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a really healthy marsh area that I think
there are other ways that this can be done without disturbing that.
MR. FITZPATRICK: There is no doubt about it. But the question is
is the overall impact on the citizenry less important than what we
consider to be a relatively minimal impact on the environment. But
that's the same question as Rob said before. It's the same kind of
thing that keeps coming up again and again.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, it's a delicate balance we are trying to
maintain.
MR. FITZPATRICK: I understand.
TRUSTEE KING: We can table that and let him discuss the proposal
with the applicant.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. If you want us to table it then you can take
that back to the applicant.
MR. FITZPATRICK: I think we have to do that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Number 16, Catherine Messiano on behalf of VICTOR J.
& MARY ZUPA requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing
dwelling and construct a 40x60' two-story dwelling in its place
maintaining the existing wetland setback of 75' and to install a
new sanitary system and abandon the existing sanitary system.
Located: 365 Basin Road, Southold.
The question here is, is the new proposed house larger than
what is existing there now?
MS. MESSIANO: The footprint of the new proposed house is larger
than the existing footprint.
Board of Trustees 65 October 17, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: Okay. Because it will have to be re-reviewed under
LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll need new plans.
TRUSTEE KING: It was kind of misleading that it looked, the way it
was presented was like just putting something back right in the
same spot. And it's not the case.
MS. MESSIANO: It's not exactly the same. There is some deviation.
TRUSTEE KING: So we'll need a survey with the existing house shown
on it and then the proposed house overlaid.
MS. MESSIANO: We discussed it at the site. Here is the new surveys.
TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing). The dotted line is the existing house?
MS. MESSIANO: The dotted line is the existing house, yes.
TRUSTEE KING: So this will have to be rereviewed.
MS. MESSIANO: I did indicate in my application that what we plan to
build was larger than what exists. I did indicate that.
TRUSTEE KING: Evidently the reviewer did not get that impression.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is this a tear down?
MS. MESSIANO: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Tear down completely and going back up on the
same foundation?
MS. MESSIANO: No, we need a new foundation. I don't think you were
at the site inspection, so let me enlighten you. The house that is
there now is functionally obsolete. Vanduzer made the statement
that the Zupa's are their best customer overall. They are the
highest consumer of propane gas that they have. And I think that's
sad, not funny. They do heat the house with gas and it has
extremely high use of gas.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was not laughing that it was their situation
it's just how you presented it, that it's the Vanduzer's feeling it
was their best customer. I was not being negative to the Zupa's
MS. MESSIANO: But the fuel consumption in the house the way it
exists is way over the top. The house is not properly low
insulated; it doesn't have efficient windows; it needs a new
heating system. Anything that they would do to it would require
such a degree of refurbishing that it's not worth fixing what is
there. TRUSTEE KING: I'm missing something here, but 1 don't see it.
MS. MESSIANO: What you are looking for, Jim?
TRUSTEE KING: The septic system.
MS. MESSIANO: The septic system that exists is on the south side of
the house. And that septic system will be abandoned. If you look
in the center --
TRUSTEE KING: I see these to be removed. I'm looking for the new
one. I see them on the old drawing.
MS. MESSIANO: The new one. This is the new septic system and this
is the old overflow. Here is the septic tank.
TRUSTEE KING: They re-designed that. You have three pools and two
Boazd of Trustees
66 October 17, 2007
expansion pools on the side of that.
MS. MESSIANO: And we did the test hole. If you look here, you'll
see the test hole data --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You were waiting for the guy to come that day.
MS. MESSIANO: Yes. (Continuing) dictates the depth of the cesspool,
so we only need two rings instead of three, because we have 16
feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How far is that away from the basin? Sorry, my
apologies. It's Basin Road.
TRUSTEE KING: It's 75 to the front of the house. It's well out of our jurisdiction.
MS. MESSIANO: The septic system is 190 feet away from the basin.
TRUSTEE KING: Are these drywells?
MS. MESSIANO: Yes, we had discussed containing the runoff so we
have done the calculations. If you look down here, we have the
drainage system calculations for roof runoff as well as for storm
water runoff from the driveway area.
If you see the house and the septic system is proposed in such
a way that minimal disturbance is proposed to the driveway as it
exists. And if you look further, the pitch of the driveway is, for
the distance that we cover, I think we are almost 20 here, and we
are ten or 11 here. So the distance in grade is about nine feet
from one side to the other. So I think it's more effective to have
adequate containment rather than a pervious surface, because it's
too steep, it runs off.
TRUSTEE KING: I agree.
MS. MESSIANO: So we have given you the two-inch calculations,
containment for the two-inch calculations, we are abandoning the
old septic system which is only about a hundred feet from the
basin, giving you a new conforming system, which is almost 200 feet
from the basin. We are giving you a house that is far more energy efficient.
What is the purpose for the rereview?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The purpose is LWRP reviewed this as you applied
for it and it was not specific enough. It was vague. And he
reviewed it as it was going to be in place, not an extension of anything.
MS. MESSIANO: I have to take exception to that as I'm sure you expect.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is what he told us, that that is how he
interpreted your description and the plan that you gave.
MS. MESSIANO: Just indulge me here for a moment. Because my
project description says demolish the existing dwelling and
construct a 40x50 two-story dwelling in its place, maintaining the
existing wetland setback of 75 feet; install new septic system and
abandon the existing septic system. I don't know what is vague about that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The plans were vague.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: While I tend to agree with you -- sorry. Go ahead.
MS. MESSIANO: What could be more specific?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just repeating what Mark told us today in the
Boazd of Trustees 67 October 17, 2007
office. And he said, from what he got, which was the plan and the
description, he interpreted it as being inplace.
MS. MESSIANO: If he had looked at my application he would have been
able to determine that was not the case.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I can't talk for him. This is what we are dealt
with right now. So I conferred with our legal, if we can somehow
move past this without him reviewing it and by law, he has to review this.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would ask if we could get legal in the room.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lori. We are on Zupa and we are explaining why we
have to go back to LWRP. And Cathy said the description described
the changes in the application and I was explaining to her that
Mark has told us that he understood it as being inplace and that he
legally has to review the new plans.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: It has to go back to LWRP consideration, definitely.
MS. MESSIANO: Since we already know it will come back from LWRP as
inconsistent, I don't really understand why we have to go through
another month of this. We can address the fact that we know it
will come back inconsistent, because they always do. And we can
address the inconsistencies that may exist, in their opinion, by
the fact that mitigation is being offered and that we are doing
substantial runoff containment, we have done the calculations that
are required under the new code, the house will be exponentially
more energy efficient than it presently is. We won't have the
quantities of fuel that is being consumed, but you were not here
for the joke of the night which is the Vanduzer's consider the
Zupa's their best customer because they have the largest amount of
consumption of all their customers, to heat that house. So from an
environmental perspective, I think energy use is one of the issues
on the LWRP form, and we do address the fact that this is
consistent with the intent of LWRP. So we have adequate mitigation.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I agree with you but --
TRUSTEE KING: Why didn't Mark Terry get this?
MS. MONTEFUSCO: That's the problem, Cathy. The problem is your
arguments are sound if that is what they are going to accept. The
point is the process, and unfortunately the way it came to Mark was
in a different vehicle.
MS. MESSIANO: Mark was given a map that had enough information for
him to ascertain that and if he had read my application he would
have been able to see it very clearly because there is nothing
ambiguous about the statement that the project description is to
demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new one in its place
and abandon the old septic system and install the new septic
system. There is nothing ambiguous about it.
So is there some middle ground? Can you approve this pending
the CAC as we expect it so that we can move on? I can't finalize
my Health Department approval until I have Trustees and if I have
Board of Trustees
68 October 17, 2007
to wait until November, that puts us in December. And that puts us
in a time period when we are risking ground freeze and we can't do
anything until Spring.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: I can appreciate that. The problem is that the
process, LWRP has to weigh in and unfortunately we are, it's the
Trustees' hands are tied at this point.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Last time I tried doing something like this, that
you are proposing, it was shut down a big way.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we were trying to figure out --
MS. MESSIANO: Let me just say on the record, LWRP has some use I
have yet to figure out what it is. In this case it's being nothing
but obstructionist because the reviewer didn't read the application.
TRUSTEE KING: Those are objections you should take to the Town
Board.
MS. MESSIANO: I would have happy to do that.
TRUSTEE KING: That's my suggestion
MS. MESSIANO: I would be happy to do that.
TRUSTEE KING: Because we have been dealing with this for a couple
of years now. It's very difficult, but right you now our hands are tied.
MS. MESSIANO: I tried to help the Board on numerous occasions.
TRUSTEE KING: It's unfortunate this didn't go to Mark. You would
have a complete review.
MS. MESSIANO: If I had it, I would have given it to you.
TRUSTEE KING: This is from the 9th.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We tried to work our way around this, but,
legally, we can't. And like Lori says, our hands are tied.
MS. MESSIANO: Since you had earlier notice of this, it would have
been nice had I been called.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I stopped in the office today at one o'clock.
MS. MESSIANO: That would have helped because it's almost ten and
you could have called me and said that you needed to postpone it
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. We have too many other things going.
I'm sorry.
MS. MESSIANO: Me, too. So what are we doing?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Before we table this, is there any other ideas from
the Trustees they may have to address a possible inconsistency so
as to assist the applicant here ahead of time knowing what to
prepare for the next go around on this?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I like what they did. I don't have a problem with it.
TRUSTEE KING: Frankly, I'm happy with what I see here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. I'm happy. They've addressed the
drainage --
TRUSTEE KING: We'll just go through --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: They've addressed the drainage and the parking lot
we asked them to address. And we already talked out in the field,
looking at any opportunity to move this structure back given the
Boazd of Trustees 69 October 17, 2007
lot line that is along the Basin Road boundary, closest to the
Basin Road boundary. There is no opportunity to move the house
back, so I think the applicant has done everything they can.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just wanted to see if there were any concerns the
Board members had so there were no curve balls thrown the next time
around.
MS. MESSIANO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I did address, knowing that if you answered
our questions and we were satisfied with it, that we would be happy
with it, is there some way we can find it inconsistent and then you
know, go around it that way, then mitigate it and find it
consistent. But Lori pointed out that the process distinctly says
that he, that the LWRP person has to review it. So we tried.
MS. MESSIANO: Well --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want a make a motion, Jim?
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone else that wants to comment on this
MS. ALBERY: I would like to comment. I'm Helen Albery (sic). I'm at
4345 Paradise Point Road. I'm a member of the Paradise Point
Association. I thought there were quite a few inconsistencies. I
just didn't understand it. In the first place, we have no idea of
how many square feet this house is going to be. Do we?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, we do.
MS. ALBERY: Can you tell, me, sir?
TRUSTEE KING: This is on the new survey we just got tonight. And I
guess it shows on the old one, too.
MS. ALBERY: There are numbers there but it's atwo-story dwelling.
Is it 4,000 square feet?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's going to be 4,800 square feet.
MS. ALBERY: How can you possibly put a house that size on the
amount of property that he has? He has a sliding slope to the
wetlands, he borders me 20 feet here, right along. With a house
that size, he's practically in my backyard.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The house doesn't cover anymore footprint than what
is already there.
MS. MESSIANO: The footprint is slightly larger than the existing.
All the setbacks proposed are consistent with the zoning that is in
place for the R-80 zone. There are no variances that are required
to accomplish what we have shown here.
MS. ALBERY: He accomplished that because he has no other place to
put it.
MS. MESSIANO: And the problem with that is?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let's have the dialogue to the Board, please.
MS. ALBERY: Sorry, sir.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's okay. Just go ahead and continue with your
statements.
Board of Trustees 70 October 17, 2007
MS. ALBERY: There is quite a history with this whole situation. I
bought my property in --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Why don't you hold off. There seems to be a
discussion going on in the Board. So you have the full attention of the Board.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, I'm done.
MS. ALBERY: I bought this property in the 60s. My children were in
college. And I was paying Paradise Point dues all those years
until I built if'84. And with the building of'84, I have been
paying Paradise Point dues for 40 years. And he came along, I mean
this owner of this property, came along and decided that he was
going to put the Lelan Cypresses across my whole 140 feet, my
backyard. So 1 was very gracious, and I said to him, don't you
think, because my property had water view of the boat basin.
That's what I bought. I didn't want to go on the water because my
husband and I, this is a retirement home, and we did not want to be
bothered with bulkheading or hurricanes or anything. My husband had
gone through the space program and we had enough difficulties with that.
So he comes along and I said, well, I'll pay for them, why
don't you just put the little shrubbery along my view and you can
put your trees up. And as a result he put them right on the line.
I said you can't do that because you have to put them at least two
or three feet in otherwise I'm going to make a hedge out of it.
You cannot be allowed to take any of my property. So with that,
with great vengeance, he put a seven foot fence up and I didn't
know whether I was living in Fort Apache or the Chinese Wall.
Here's my den, my kitchen, my dining room, my bedroom, facing this
beautiful view of the water. His wife wanted her privacy. I said
from a little old lady? Because my husband was gone by then. I'm
85-years old. And a few months ago he decided to put another fence
up. I'm completely blocked. And all he's depending on is my 20
feet because I'm the only one that is adjacent to this whole
property. He put another Fort Apache fence up, and he went right
down the line. And I'm completely closed in. I have no water view,
I have no beautiful sunsets. I have nothing. And he's depreciated
my property because that's what I bought. I bought water view.
So with the new house, he is doing the same thing. He's
building that whole house on my 20 feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
MS. ALBERY: Thank you, very much. Thank you for being so patient
with me.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
MS. ALBERY: Another thing I did want to ask you. What is this line
underneath? See this line here, which is 20 feet, 20 feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The dotted line?
MR. LOHN: That's the building envelope., ma'am. That's the
boundary in which you could build without needing a zoning variance.
Boazd of Trustees
71 October 17, 2007
MS. ALBERY: I see. Now the cesspool is also on the 20 feet. Is that
necessary?
TRUSTEE KING: I believe they were changed. The location of those
were changed.
MS. ALBERY: They were changed?
TRUSTEE KING: I believe so. This shows five pools. They lessened
the number down to I think it's three.
MS. ALBERY: I have to honestly say I objected to this when I saw it
and I wanted to, you know, tell you about it also. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. CAC voted to support the application with
the condition of gutters and drywells for roof runoff and a line of
staked hay bales in place before the activity begins.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Were there any other people who would like to
comment on this application?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to table the application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second?
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 18, Pat Moore on behalf of RUTH FALBEL
SCHWARTZ requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x10' fixed dock
using Flo-Thru fiberglass decking with steps to grade and 18" above
grade and high-water, a 3x15' seasonal ramp and a 6x20' seasonal
floating dock. Located: 2350 Clearview Avenue, Southold.
This was tabled from last month. We requested the dock be
shortened. We felt it could have been and we did get a new plan
shortening the catwalk by 12 feet. So now the new proposed catwalk
would be 4x10 Flo-Thru fiberglass decking with steps to grade --
the steps are on the landward side -- to a 3x15 ramp, and the
previous one was two-and-a-half by 18 feet, so the ramp has been
reduced by three feet in length but widened by half a foot. And
the float is the same, 6x20. So it does bring it in. It's still at
5.2 feet of depth at the outer end of the float, but it does bring
it in. If you compare the -- I still think it could come in a little more.
MS. MOORE: Which part, I'm sorry?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The whole --
MS. MOORE: I asked Bob to cut back the fixed structure as much as
possible, and the ramp, because of the height, he had to maintain
the length that is proposed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you are using the fiberglass grading, can you
make it into a "T"?
TRUSTEE KING: Why not make it a "T" formation.
MS. MOORE: No, I think I would be over the property line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, an "L", going that way. Because you would
still get --
Board of Trustees 72 October 17, 2007
MS. MOORE: I have the water depth. That's not a problem. I didn't
think you wanted to have so much surface going across the water
body, but I have no issue.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's just that it's kind of a natural area of
where, it's deep in that area on either sigh it gets more shallow.
MS. MOORE: The "L" going obviously to the east.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. It's kind of a natural channel and I would
not want any structure in that area. So if you could just swing that over --
MS. MOORE: Same measurements but as an "L."
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes
MS. MOORE: I don't see a problem with that. As long as the DEC
doesn't have an issue with it. We are certainly at the water depth
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are at 4.4, so it won't be sitting on the
bottom. All right.
MS. MOORE: Do we need to lengthen --
TRUSTEE KING: No. It looks like it will fit right in there. Can I
draw on this?
MS. MOORE: Because the boat will be on the outside of the four
foot. That's fine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. So they'll have more than 4.4 feet.
MS. MOORE: That's plenty. That's not a problem.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It will be at 4.4.
TRUSTEE KING: That tucks it in even better.
MS. MOORE: Do you want to just, this time, adopt it as amended,
then I'll just get you a drawing?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll work toward that. Let me go through some
-- it's inconsistent with the LWRP. As we stated last month,
there are several issues with -- it's a lengthy LWRP. I believe
you got a copy of it. One of the issues is that it's next to a
town road and access and they list Policy 11, Policy 10.4, Policy
Nine, Policy Six, Policy Four, Policy Three, Policy One.
MS. MOORE: At the previous meeting we did actually go through an
extensive discussion, so you are welcome to do it over but --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's why I'm just mentioning it now.
MS. MOORE: Because I responded to all those in writing and
documents.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just mentioning now how we went over it. I
think -- let me see what CAC said. CAC supports the application
with the condition the dock doesn't extend any further seaward than
neighboring docks. CAC requests a more definitive plan with regard
to the trimming of the phragmites. In addition CAC recommends
consideration to allow for public access below mean high water.
The path is already there and cut and I believe that was
permitted under a previous application. And it's depicted on the
plan here as a 4x75 foot wood chip path. So it can't be more than
four feet wide.
Board of Trustees 73 October 17, 2007
MS. MOORE: I think it's actually less than that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think it is, too. And you really can't walk
along the foreshore here with the phragmites the way they are.
What's the Boards feeling on having the access across, walking
across that?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think there is a lot of activity back and
forth across there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can easily just have them put steps so if
somebody wants to walk across, they can. You put steps on either side.
MS. MOORE: You have a shoreline that is pretty steep. I don't know
that -- I think you would have more damage if people walked along
the shoreline
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. I'm just bringing it up because CAC brought
it up. And we do request it in our code.
MR. WILDER: It is provided for in the code?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MS. MOORE: Also, I'm pointing out we did reduce the height of the
structure to 18 inches above grade, I think to address the
accessibility.
TRUSTEE KING: You could walk right over it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, you had it at three-and-a-half foot. Now
it's 18 inches.
MS. MOORE: Right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments?
(No response.)
Any comments from the Board?
(No response.)
I think by reducing it and lowering it and doing fiberglass decking
makes it consistent with LWRP. So hearing no other comments, I'll
make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the request of Pat
Moore on behalf of Ruth Falbel Schwartz to construct a 4x10
Flo-Thru fiberglass decking dock, 18 inches above grade with a 3x15
ramp and 6x20 float in an L-shape. And it's a seasonal ramp and
float. And not no extend further out than the depth of 4.4 feet
and to have revised plans showing that.
TRUSTEE KING: And the seasonal dates are in the water no sooner
than April 1 and out of the water no later than December 1. Those
are the same dates that the DEC uses.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: April 1 to December 1 on the ramp and the float.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Doherty, aye.
Trustee Ghosio, aye.)
Board of Trustees 74 October 17, 2007
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll be voting no due to the fact that Goose
Creek is a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Critical Environmental Area and I don't know how you can make
available access to the public consistent when it's inconsistent
with LWRP. So my vote is no.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: She changed it to an "L." She did give us new
plans and we wound up making it an "L," so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Patricia Moore on behalf of CAROL MERCIER & PETER
SCHRAMM requests a Wetland Permit for repairs to the existing 3x28'
fixed timber dock, 3x12' seasonal ramp and 6x10' floating dock, and
replace piles with galvanized steel posts. Located: 600 Sunset Way,
Southold.
This was tabled from last month. We did go back out and look
when we did go back out and look, the area between the dock and the
cement retaining wall was all water. I know it was an unusually
high tide, a new moon tide, but, and we did take pictures but for
some reason they didn't make it into this fie. So we don't have
them with me tonight. But it was, the water did go right up to the
cement block wall. So I think that just solidified our thoughts of
maybe moving the catwalk back to that cement wall and then leaving
that area to go natural. And we understand and sympathize with
your dilemma with the DEC but we really can't, it's not a reason to keep --
MS. MOORE: Let's keep in mind the reason that we are here is for
repairs to an existing structure that has been documented to be
there since the 60s. So according to the code can you make repairs
to an existing structure and it's not even one that requires a
permit. Rather than argue that point, we, came in because we
agreed we would and in to, since we were replacing piles for the
metal posts, we were coming in to get a permit for the structure
that pre-dates permitting such that there is really no
documentation that the structure existed other than through
photographic evidence and surveys. We now established from last
meeting that this is apre-existing structure. The concern we have
is, and f spent two days at Cornell with people from all over the
east coast, including Canada, actually, that they had a symposium
on phragmites and one of the big concerns that we have is that we
are going to have the phragmites take over this property and
essentially make it valueless.
There is also the problem that the phragmites have now become
an invasive species. I brought back for you to educate you, as I
was educated. There is a video tape that takes about five minutes
to view and it was a public service tape that was conducted by,
created by between government and a civic association of the Great
Lakes region, because they were dealing with the with the invasive
phragmites. t also brought for you a host specified test plant
Board of Trustees
75 October 17, 2007
list that gives a list of plants that are generally recommended
that fight off phragmites growth which is the plants that, one, are
not recommended because the phragmites, the migratory birds don't
eat the plant; it tends to be so dense that it does not provide
appropriate area for the crustaceans and for the Finn fish. So it's
been determined that phragmites is really something that we don't
want to see invade a property to the extent that it goes beyond the
property line
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is other than the phragmites here. It's not
the phragmites here that we are trying to protect.
MS. MOORE: Exactly. But our concern is, the only reason you don't
see phragmites on the property is because there has been controlled
maintenance of this property. What you do see there are what are
the pink vines, the ground cover that is there, that is growing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Last month I suggested to come up with some kind
of replanting plan, keeping the natural wetland there but enhancing
them with other plants. Did you give any thought to that?
MS. MOORE: I was going to this conference with a lot of data that I
was coming back, so I thought best place to start was this place.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. Because that theory, to me, seems to keep
the phragmites at bay.
MS. MOORE: Keeping it natural would not.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, with a planting plan of natural vegetation, of
native vegetation, and having a plan, and in the approval of that
you would be able to cut the phragmites down if they grow up. You
could still cut the phragmites. You can't mow them, but you can
cut them.
MS. MOORE: The problem you have, DEC doesn't allow you to cut
them. They have not yet reached the point they are calling it an
invasive species. The state has actually been asked to make it an
invasive species but the DEC doesn't want to hear it because they
don't have a better plan. So rather than not have aplan -- right.
So we don't want to be in a position where we are in violation of
DEC regulations. What we have to do is maintain the property here;
could we do a better job than what you have now, which is a
seasonal maintenance of mowing, maybe there is an alternative with
plants that you could put together. You are the green thumb, you
know what the plants are, we could provide you a plant list of, I
have the list here that was provided at the symposium and I will,
some of these may or may not be available out here regionally. So
we can certainly look into that. But keeping in mind we are here
because you wanted us to improve on an existing dock that predates
the regulations, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are asking to improve. We didn't come up to
you and find you and say can you improve the dock. That's what it
sounded you just said.
Board of Trustees 76 October 17, 2007
MS. MOORE: No. The way I read the regulations, there is no permit
requirement for repairing an existing, pre-existing dock.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: That's an incorrect statement. It needs to be
presently permitted to do the repair. Just because it predates
pre-existing doesn't mean permitted. It has to be permitted.
MS. MOORE: But the problem that it's not permitted is not the
applicant's problem.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: It's not ours, either.
MS. MOORE: It's that it was not recognized, it was not found by the
town when they did their inventory in '85. So the town was
initiating having existing docks in '85 be inventoried and put on
the list of issued permits. The fact that the town never went by
this property or these properties and found the docks that were
clearly there, should not be a penalty, is not penalizing the clients.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: As I recall from last month, what got this tabled
was not as much the repair of the dock, but what this got tabled
for is because it was a stipulation from the Trustees that mowing
had been taking place in what we felt was an intertidal zone and
the applicant was making a case that this was not an intertidal
zone. So it was tabled for us to go back out there and look at that
area. I don't remember that there was any question about the
permit of the dock. And so, you know, we could still go ahead, my
feeling is we could still go ahead and act on the permit of the
dock with the same condition that we wanted before, and I know that
condition was something the applicant had an issue with. But we
went out, we looked at it. It was completely covered with water.
It was in our opinion it was an intertidal zone and we didn't want
it cut. Am I incorrect in any of that?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Now, I agree with that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So you are absolutely right, we are here, our
primary purpose, I think, was the applicant had here was for the
dock and to get the dock permitted in and the repairs approved. So
we can go ahead and do that. As I recall, the glitch was the fact
that we wanted it as a condition that there not be any mowing in that
area between the dock and concrete wall. That's what your
applicant really objected to. And so we have gone out, we looked
and we are still sticking with that. We are still saying there
can't be any mowing in that area.
MS. MOORE: I think, for the record, didn't you state it was a very
high lunar tide so that it was not an ordinary mean high water. It
was an extraordinarily high tide.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You're right.
MS. MOORE: So that does not in and of itself create a tidal marsh.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And again, we didn't base it strictly on the tide.
MS. MOORE: Again, I think that there can be compromise here. We
can't, I understand your purpose of not mowing, but we can't allow
Board of Trustees 77 October 17, 2007
it to go natural and unmaintained. Because that will really create
a situation that is not appropriate here given the history of this
property, the fact that this property predates any of town's
regulations.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm willing, speaking for myself, even though this
is an intertidal natural wetland, I'm willing to entertain a
planting plan to maintain it other than mowing it; put plants, let
the natural wetlands grow up, put other native species in and
around. I'm willing to entertain that so it's not just phragmites
growing up out of control.
MS. MOORE: That's what will happen if you don't maintain it with
some vegetation.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm willing to say you can maintain it but I need
to see how you are going to maintain it and what kind of plans
TRUSTEE KING: I think you can control the phragmites without having
to mow the whole thing. Nip them in the bud as they cross the
line. Cut them by hand. You don't have to mow the whole place
down like that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can't plant other things, like you said, other
things can be planted and the phragmites will stay at bay.
MS. MOORE: I'll pull this transcript when the DEC sends us off in
handcuffs, but that's okay. But I agree. I think you do have --
there is a way of controlling it.
There is -- no, the DEC would not, because this property predates,
it is not a violation to maintain the property that is already was
maintained this way since '77.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't want to get involved with what DEC would
allow. I want to talk about what we would allow. I don't know if
we can approve the dock subject to receiving a planting plan. I
don't know how the other Trustees feel. Or if you want to table
it, see the plan first or. Because I think we all agree that we
really don't have a problem with the dock.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We want to extend it to the wall
MS. MOORE: You talked about a couple of things. I don't know what
you want us to do at this point.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, as I recall from last month, we wanted the
dock extended to, the catwalk of the dock extended landward to the
top of the wall.
MS. MOORE: My only concern with that is that that would necessitate
us going to the DEC to make an application to extend the dock in
that way. And my client did do some surveying to determine what
the height is and the dock right now is at the same height as the
wall. So you would be asking us to make a modification to a dock
with a regulatory process right now that right now we don't have to
pursue. So is it something that down the line maybe we could do
but I don't want to have us go through an eight-month regulatory
Board of Trustees
78 October 17, 2007
process to try to build a dock differently than has been
historically been.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In your planting plan then just maintain a
four-foot wide or three-foot wide path.
MS. MOORE: Do you have a preference?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm not sure if it's going to be what is natural
there grow up. In other words not dig that all up.
TRUSTEE KING: What is going to happen is this will all turn into
patens. This will all be patens. The phragmites will try to
invade and all he'll do is keep cutting it back at that line. When
you see the phragmites come back, cut them off
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What Jim is saying is if you let it grow and
constantly cut the phragmites, the patens will eventually take over
and it will be all patens, and you can have a path and just
constantly, in the permit, we would stipulate that you can cut the
phragmites. And we have seen that where --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Maintain them. Use the word maintain.
MS. MOORE: Control invasion of phragmites.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What we have seen is if they are maintained then
the patens do grow and the phragmites are less and less.
MS. MOORE: A practical issue.
MR. SCHRAMM: Peter Schramm. I'll remain calm today. A practical
issue is, depending on how dense whatever grows is there, whether I
plant it or it grows naturally, I no longer can get my float in and
out. It's no longer going to be seasonal. I don't own a crane to
go over the growth and pull it out and put it in my front yard.
TRUSTEE KING: How do you get it out now?
MR. SCHRAMM: I take it out on the high moon tide and I put on
rollers and roll it out.
TRUSTEE KING: You can still do the same thing.
MR. SCHRAMM: How, if I have growth that high?
TRUSTEE KING: You are not going to have growth that high. If you
leave this alone, that's -- it's a high marsh now. That's high
marsh. That will turn into, you have your spartina out in front,
then it turns into patens.
MR. SCHRAMM: If I control the phragmites, how tall is whatever the
description of this is --
TRUSTEE KING: spartina grows about that high (indicating).
MR. SCHRAMM: I see things growing up to my shoulders.
MS. MOORE: It's relatively short. That's actually how you can
differentiate between the phragmites, the invasive and the native.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is that what you learned from your workshop?
MS. MOORE: I spent hours there.
MR. SCHRAMM: So if I control the phragmites then I'm looking at a
growth of maybe 12 to 14 inches?
TRUSTEE KING: It would be like the same area as at the landward
Board of Trustees
79 October 17, 2007
edge of your dock there where the grass is like this high
(indicating.)
MR. SCHRAMM: Then there is no need for me to plant anything then.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what we are saying. Just leave it alone, cut
the phrags as they try and come in and just stop them and keep them
there. That's going to come right back to just a natural high marsh.
MR. SCHRAMM: Okay. And since you were all this, I have not touched
this, obviously, you all walked my property. You can see how the
phragmites, I don't touch them, they're walking toward my garage.
What do I do with those? Do 1 maintain those, too?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Once you got a permit from us, you can maintain
them.
TRUSTEE KING: Cut them to a foot high.
MR. SCHRAMM: So I'm not going to see things growing up to here.
TRUSTEE KING: No, no, no.
MR. SCHRAMM: Okay. Also, this should be the last thing, I'm sure
you noticed there is two cinder blocks in my seawall that need
repair. Do I need a permit for that or should I have not mentioned
that?
MS. MOORE: Do you want to include it in here?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can include this in the permit here.
MR. SCHRAMM: It's on the survey.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll get the length of that.
MS. MOORE: It's maintenance of the existing seawall. It's about 50
feet in length. Linear feet. I'm looking at the length of the
house is 50 and it's about parallel to that so it's about 60, more or less.
TRUSTEE KING: Just put on that maintain existing concrete wall.
MS. MOORE: May 1 make a suggestion. You have the survey dated
February 2, 2005. Why don't you refer to the seawall shown on the
February 2, 2005 survey.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just getting the length of it. It's a little
less than a hundred. One inch equals 30.
MR. SCHRAMM: It's probably 75% of the total width. It's long.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Maybe it's less than that. It doesn't quite go to
six inches.
MS. MOORE: We have one inch equals 20 on my survey.
TRUSTEE KING: That's about 58 feet long.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I didn't have the right scale. It's 60 feet, plus
or minus. All right, are there any other comments? Does the Board
have any other questions?
(No response.)
MS. MOORE: We are keeping the dock as is?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You are not raising it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was our suggestion.
MS. MOORE: Can you raise for next season?
MR. SCHRAMM: It's already a 16-inch step and the last time we were
Board of Trustees
80 October 17, 2007
here you said you would like me to raise it to the height of the
seawall. I work in road construction so I borrowed the survey
instrument. It's exactly the height of the seawall.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's fine.
MR. SCHRAMM: It's exactly the same height as the seawall, end to
end. I mean I can raise it but the last time you mentioned it you
wanted it to the height of the seawall. It is the height of the seawall.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We were saying if you bring it back to the seawall
to the height of the seawall. And the reason we are trying to raise
it so the light can get underneath for the grasses, but --
MR. SCHRAMM: I don't know the expense of it but I might prefer to
raise it and I might prefer to put one of those other surfaces on.
I don't know the prices. I'm saying, if they are not overly
expensive, because right now it's a decent step. I don't want to
turn it into a staircase.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would rather keep it at that height with an
open grate or to raise it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Or if it's going to be rebuilt.
MS. MOORE: Yes, in the event it's rebuilt, we'll use the grate.
It's resurfacing, we replaced the slats, the walkway, we'll replace
it with the grated material.
MR. SCHRAMM: How much would you want it raised? I believe it's 16
inch step now.
TRUSTEE KING: I would prefer to just leave it alone. When you do
the repairs and fix it, do the grating on it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm comfortable with that.
TRUSTEE KING: Is that decking treated or is it untreated?
MR. SCHRAMM: I'm not 100% sure. I want to say it is not but I'm
not 100% sure.
MS. MOORE: Is it cedar?
TRUSTEE KING: It's not cedar.
MR. SCHRAMM: It's wood. I'm not a carpenter. I work on roads.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. Are there any other comments?
(No response.) (Inaudible.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know if we were definite on that. It was
just one of our thoughts. Because the slats are spaced apart.
MS. MOORE: It's been there for so many years, it's pretty healthy
under there. If that's any evidence.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. Again, any other comments?
(No response.)
Being none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
the Pat Moore on behalf of Carol Mercier and Peter Schramm to
repair the existing docks to 3x28' fixed timber dock; 3x12'
Board of Trustees 81 October 17, 2007
seasonal ramp and 6x10' floating dock and replace pilings with
galvanized steel posts with the condition that the area between --
seaward of the brick cement wall be left natural, and you can
maintain the phragmites that grow up in there. The seawall is
approximately 60 feet plus or minus, to include that in the
application. And that can be maintained as well.
TRUSTEE KING: No mowing in that area.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No mowing in that area at all. It should be
natural. The whole area in front, not just in front of the 60 feet
of wall, but whole front area, because the wall doesn't extend from
property line to property line. So the whole area, from property
line to property line shall not be mowed and shall be left natural
and the phragmites can be maintained to 12 inches. That's the
standard.
MS. MOORE: Weren't we talking about cutting the phragmites so they
don't spread?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The code says up to 12 inches.
MS. MOORE: Right now they are not on his property, so you would
have to let them grow on your property to cut them to 12 inches.
What I'm saying --
TRUSTEE KING: What I would say, when you see them this high, pull
them out. That's the only way. By hand. They come up, just yank
them out. So you are weeding through your natural landscape.
Because if you let them get too high, they spread. Just kind of nip
them in the bud.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I made that motion. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Patricia Moore on behalf of SCOTT & LIA VITRANO
requests a Wetland Permit to re-install a 4x20' floating dock and
6x6' platform with six-inch pile on either side of float. Located:
3875 Main Bayview Road, Southold.
The Board did go out and look at this site. Now, we do have
an issue. There is, my understanding, an outstanding violation,
wetland violation has been issued that has been resolved yet.
So in keeping with Trustee policy, we cannot act on this tonight
but we can certainly discuss some of the issues that we brought up
in the field and listen to any issues that you might have so as to
maybe keep this rolling along for in the future when the summons is
resolved so that we can hopefully approve a dock in this location.
MS. MOORE: Yes. Do you want to give me your comments first?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. I see there is a plan, most recent plans
here dated October 1, where you included a 25-foot wide natural
vegetated buffer. So we know we are referring to the same plan.
Boazd of Trustees
82 October 17, 2007
MS. MOORE: Yes, October 3, yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, sorry, stamped October 1, it looks like.
MS. MOORE: I have on the top amended 10/3/07 -- sorry. The one
10/3/07 is after staking. Hold on a second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This had a by-hand note attached to it. If you
want to come up and take a look what I'm referring to.
MS. MOORE: I think we have the same one. The only one I have is
10/3. I don't know what 10/1 is.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's the Town of Southold stamp. Looks like 10/1
at the bottom.
MS. MOORE: You are right. What do I have. I have -- sorry. Bob
Fox, after he staked, he dated it 10/3. So you got, I don't know
if I actually gave you the staked or the one that had the --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is Bob fox 9/28/07, we have stamped received
10/1. That's the set of plans that we have in front of us.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only question we had out there, and it's hard
to tell from these pictures, but where this, the location of this,
proposed location of this dock is, is a pretty heavily vegetated
area, where if you move to the east about eight to ten feet, there
was more of a wide open area. As a matter of fact there was even a
break in the vegetation down to the water. So we were just
wondering if a whole dock could be moved eight to ten feet over.
MS. MOORE: I have a situation where the dock is put in what we
believe is the historic location that it was approved by the
Trustees. We have the configuration and we have the dock. All in
accordance with, historic data we were able to put together. I
then got an aerial photograph to try to figure out, with Bob Fox's
help, and he provided for me to a drawing just faxed over today,
where we tried to identify the float that is there on our property,
was just, on the aerial, it was just set aside, so it was not a
real good indicator but, I'm sorry, I'm trying to be as clear as I
can. But its confusing. I only have the one print and I'll get
you more of them. If you could see that the vegetation, the
clearing line, is actually not to the property line. It's only to
half the property.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We noticed that.
MS. MOORE: All right, so the dock is actually placed in where we
think historically Foster had put the dock originally. If you want
us to move it over slightly, I just have to be able to justify it
with the DEC as showing it was historically there. I don't know
that based on this aerial we really, 1 think we can move it
slightly and not have problems with the DEC. Because we are
guesstimating, since the piles popped up, we are trying to figure
out based on where there is cleared path and where the aerial
photograph seems to show that it existed and where Foster's old
Board of Trustees 83 October 17, 2007
1985 application seemed to show that it was where it was.
So the bottom line to that is we don't, I really don't see a
problem with my client. My client's are here. If we moved it over
slightly. I know Bob Fox mentioned to me it probably made more
sense to do that as long as we don't have an issue with the DEC
when we have the dock put back in.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Hopefully you won't because where we are asking
you to put it is less vegetation and you won't have to cut through
the vegetation upland or anything.
MS. MOORE: Yes. I have my client here and I want to give you
historically, my client did not do any clearing here and I know
this for afact --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's for the court.
MS. MOORE: But f do want to put on the record because I think that
the court or Lori needs guidance from the Board.
What we have here is prior to them buying the property, the
owner right before, owned this property for a very short time. He
flipped it. I actually looked at this property on behalf of the
potential buyer before them so it's two buyers ago, and the
property was vegetated at time and my advice to the person that was
looking to buy this property was, well, you need a permit to clear.
And it just seemed too insurmountable an effort and they chose not
to buy it. Somebody else bought it. They cleared it. And by the
time the town went out, my client had then become the owner. So I
think we need to put that into perspective. And also, I have the
aerial photograph that shows that this property was developed and
cleared. I mean it was almost entirely cleared at the time, and
it's been growing back. And I think that's the problem that it was
unfortunately it was just not caught by the person who did it and I
know this to be a fact because I personally had experience with
this property. And my client is here, he'll tell you, clearly, he
didn't do it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's an issue for the court. That's not an issue
for the Trustees. There was a violation issued and that has to be
resolved in court.
MS. MOORE: Do you understand, again, you are making the applicant
guilty until proven innocent. And that's a serious problem when
the person, the owner, has to go through the expense of a trial
trial when in fact he's here, he's willing to tell you, I know
personally from my inspection of this property from a prior owner and --
MS. MONTEFUSCO: What date do you have on the aerial, Pat?
MS. MOORE: This is the 1976 aerial.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: What's the date for the one you said shows the
clearing?
MS. MOORE: The one that I had to get was from the DEC so I new
where the dock could be placed so that the DEC would recognize it
Board of Trustees
84 October 17, 2007
as a grandfathered structure. So I have that. I have the property
and I have the, it shows --
MS. MONTEFUSCO: But you don't have anything recent that shows
clearing?
MS. MOORE: I don't have anything recent. I have my client that I
know has only owned the property for eight months.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: A couple of years I thought.
MS. MOORE: Why don't you go on the record.
TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was two, two-and-a-half years they owned
this property.
MS. MOORE: No. Come on up to the mic. You have to give your name
and explain the situation.
MR. VITRANO: Sure. My name is Scott Vitrano.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: Sir, how long have you owned the property?
MR. VITRANO: Roughly two years. I don't know the exact date. It
was January or something.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: You see, Pat, my understanding is that it was
actually was the one who helped them clear the property, so that's
the information that I have.
MS. MOORE: I think there was misinformation. What they did was
they were working around the house and when somebody asked well who
cleared it, well they were clearing trees around the house but
that's about 200 feet from the wetland. The property was cleared
bit prior owner.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's being maintained cleared now.
MS. MOORE: When you buy property, like across the creek --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I know, but since the violation it's still being
mowed. We were just there last week.
MS. MOORE: Since the violation they have not cut in the area of the
edge of the wetlands.
TRUSTEE KING: We actually don't know when that was cleared.
MS. MOORE: He'll have to be the one. Go ahead, you tell them.
MR. VITRANO: That's how it was when I bought it, as far as mowing
down there and everything. I only cleared around the house, in
that area..
MS. MOORE: I can tell that I looked at this property before he
bought it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: like Dave said, this is for the court and we can't
act on it until that violation, regardless of who did the
violation, regardless of that, that is done in the courts. Then we
would come back and we'll --
MS. MOORE: Do you understand the unfairness of what you are
proposing for applicants to do? You are asking them, you are
saying that --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me interrupt. It's better than saying go
ahead do what you want and we'll approve anything.
Boazd of Trustees
85 October 17, 2007
We are trying to keep to our code and keep the people to our
code. And we made a --
MS. MOORE: I understand that but you've imposed the code, the
violation of the code, of a prior owner on this owner. Now when he
buys a piece of property and it's cleared and it's mowed, his
thought of mowing is not -- he doesn't understand there is a
violation. Since the code enforcement officer went out there, he
has not been mowing the area. In fact you can see clearly the
natural, and we also removed or moved the dock that has been there,
stored there, because again we think the Board prefers not to see
docks stored on the edge of wetland, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our answer is not changed. It has to be dealt
with in court before we can act on it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could finish with a couple of pieces of
information. First off, LWRP found this exempt. So there is
nothing that needs to be addressed in LWRP. And CAC notes the
project was not staked however they support the application with
the condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer and that the docking
facility and vessel does not exceed one-third of the way across the
waterway. The plan you submitted shows a 25-foot natural vegetated
buffer so it will meet the desire of the CAC. And the dock that is
proposed here, unless it's the Queen Mary is docked here, it is not
going to be a third of the way across. So I don't see the third of
the way across will be an issue here. So we should be able to
address those from the CAC.
MS. MOORE: My only question that you raised was moving the dock
over to the east slightly. Doesn't that require us to extend or
enlarge the platform? Because the way it was, Foster had this, that
we, again, mimicked what was in the permit, was a 6x6 docked
platform. It was a stand with the dock against it. So I don't know
how we bring over without making the platform longer. Because
right there is where the edge of the wetlands.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What you are saying that is a little bit of a wider
wetland area moving it over to the east because you did show a
4x40' wood chip path going down to that 6x6 platform. So it could
be that by moving it over to the east you might have to extend that
platform a few more feet. I myself, and I can't speak for the
whole Board, would not have an objection to that because, again, I
think our goal when we first saw this was to move it over to what
we felt was a more environmentally logical location of it where it
was not harming as much vegetation. As a matter of fact it was
even, like I said, it was an open, natural opening in the
vegetation going out into the water a few feet over.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you think moving it would make it
inconsistent?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It would have to on go back to LWRP if it's moved
Board of Trustees
86 October 17, 2007
and it might become inconsistent because of the new location.
MS. MOORE: Could I make a suggestion? What I would like to do is
know we could put this in. Because I think DEC, again, has no
jurisdiction if it's pre-existing, pre-1977 structure. So it can
go in there. Now, I don't have an issue with moving it, making an
application separately to move it over and extend the dock portion
as a second, as an amendment or as a second application so that I
could document with the DEC existing, then I will make it as a
modification to an existing structure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would work.
MS. MOORE: It's a little more time and documents but I'm trying to
protect him in the long run.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think that's a good idea. And I appreciate you
pointing out the LWRP issue. Thank you, Jill.
MR. VITRANO: Just a question on mowing the lawn. How far are you
supposed to mow the lawn?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We measured from the, if I could see the map,
please, from the house. I'll tell you, from the house seaward --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. Let me read it. It's 186 feet from the
northwest corner of the house to the buffer, south to the white
stake. We also measured 60 foot seaward, you know, from the edge
of the marsh, but a more accurate measurement was going from the
house and it was 186 feet from the northwest corner of the house to
the buffer, south to the white stake.
MR. VITRANO: I can mow up to 186 feet. Up to that I need a permit
to maintain?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay?
MS. MOORE: Does that coincide with the 25-foot natural buffer we
are actually proposing?
TRUSTEE KING: It gives you about a 50 foot buffer.
MS. MOORE: So 25 is THE natural buffer and the other 25 he should
ask for some maintenance permit? How do I correlate the two?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just leave it alone and have a path through there.
Even maintain phragmites.
MS. MOORE: So this buffer becomes how big? 50?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Like I said, it's measured 186 feet down, so from
that measurement on to the waterfront. Whatever that is. In the
notes here it was written as non-disturbance buffer.
MS. MOORE: I think Bob Foster said natural vegetated buffer.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. That's what you have in your plan. What I
have in the environmental technician's notes was it was a
non-disturbance buffer. Again, I asked the Board if that was what
the intent of the Board was; we are anon-disturbance buffer.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's already disturbed, if we do at a natural
vegetated buffer that he --
Board of Trustees 87 October 17, 2007
MR. VITRANO: What determines the size of the buffer?
TRUSTEE KING: Lot's of times it's based on the size of the yard
area you have. I mean the larger the buffer, the better it is for
the environment. If you have a 30 foot yard we are not going to
make you put in a 30 foot buffer. But have you 200 some odd feet
and change, 286 plus 50, so a 50 foot non-disturbance buffer is
reasonable for that size yard.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Scientifically, they say 50 feet is good for
natural, you know --
TRUSTEE KING: If you look at some of the reports, 200 --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: One of the reports I read was 50 feet. Peggy is
saying 200 feet.
MR. VITRANO: So 186 feet behind the house, I could do whatever I
want, level it if 1 want to or clear it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I wouldn't use the term whatever you want. But you
can cut it, mow it up to 186 feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We still have jurisdiction within a 100 feet of
the wetland. If it's within a hundred feet you have to get a
permit from us first.
MR. VITRANO: If it's 100 feet of the wetland.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So if you want to do grading, filling,
construction, whatever.
MR. VITRANO: Okay. Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there are no further comments, I would like to
make a motion to table this application until the summons can be
handled in court.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): I have a couple of questions, just briefly.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. That's why I asked. We need to make a
motion --
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): My name is --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. Hang on. What we need to do now is reopen
the hearing. I need to make a motion to reopen the hearing of
Scott and Lia Vitrano.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, if you would now state your name for the
record.
MR. HOLOBIGIAN: My name is Edward Holobigian. I know it's very late
at night. When this float is on, and the dock is on, how far will
it extend into the creek? That's my first question. Because we
have 58 foot in width and I'm across the creek.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Approximately 12 feet. No, approximately ten
Board of Trustees 88 October 17, 2007
feet. Ten feet it will extend
MR. HOLOBIGIAN: Into the creek.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's it.
MR. HOLOBIGIAN: Second question. The water was staked out to the
west and I guess that's been done away with, we are not going to
use those stakes?
MS. MOORE: No.
MR. HOLOBIGIAN: There is six stakes there with a little plaque on it.
MS. MOORE: Let me explain. 1 think what is deceiving for him, the
vegetation line actually here. That is where the staking is.
MR. HOLOBIGIAN: No it's not.
MS. MOORE: Yes. Bob Fox confirmed it today with me. The property
line is here. It's actually on the other side, it's at the end,
the far end of your dock.
MR. HOLOBIGIAN: For the moment, if he puts the dock in where it's
staked out, if he has a boat there of any width, it will be
approximately 18 to 20 feet away from the bow of my boat.
MS. MOORE: For the record, his dock is the one on the west side
that is a narrow -- that is yours, right?
MR. HOLOBIGIAN: Yes. If some member of the Board of Trustees can
come down and look at this and verify what I'm saying, I certainly
would appreciate it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sir, we have been down and looked at it. The
entire Board was down and looked at it. I'm looking at the
measurement right now.
MR. HOLOBIGIAN: With the stakes in place?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MR. HOLOBIGIAN: I have nothing more to say. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's approximately 60 feet wide, the waterway at
that point. And they are looking at ten foot out, without a boat,
ten foot out. In other words, their structure right now will
project ten feet into the waterway. Okay? You follow me so far?
MR. HOLOBIGIAN: 6x6 float and the four-foot dock, correct?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. That's ten foot total that will be going into
the water. And it's, the width there of the waterway is about 60
feet wide.
MR. HOLOBIGIAN: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And our code says it can't extend more than a
third. So ten feet is much less than a third of 60 feet. That's
without the boat. But it would have to be a very large boat. It
would have be a very large boat
MR. HOLOBIGIAN: The 25 foot just about makes it. I have one there
and it is bottoming now. And the problem 1 have to go through,
everyone knows about it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's okay. They are within the code of what they
are asking for.
Board of Trustees
89 October 17, 2007
MR. HOLOBIGIAN: Thank you, very much. Sorry I kept you guys out.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's okay. You waited a long time to speak
tonight. It's not a problem. I would like to make a motion to
table this hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Patricia Moore on behalf of PATRICIA DAWSON
requests a Wetland Permit for the existing dwelling and deck, steps
down slope, concrete retaining wall, 15x15' deck extension to west,
screened porch, and outdoor shower. Located: 7940 Indian Neck
Lane, Peconic.
Would anyone like to speak to this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes, thank you. The house is in contract. The buyer,
when they got the survey, noticed that there were some
modifications to the wood deck. This piece of property is on
Peconic Bay off of Indian Neck Lane. It's elevated very high.
Have you been there?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: f went and looked at it.
MS. MOORE: It's elevated quite high. It's actually more of a bank
to the house. There is an existing wood deck and what they did is
when they extended the existing deck slightly over to the west.
You see where the outdoor shower, the outdoor shower was there.
What they did is connected the deck to the outdoor shower and that
apparently didn't have a permit, and nowadays it would have been,
at the time it was done, it would have been out of your
jurisdiction because it was 75 feet, but now because of your
hundred foot jurisdiction when we have to go in for a permit, now
for that modification, it brings it back in. So we had to come and
get a permit for this from Board.
I also noticed that in looking for the documentation for the
concrete bulkhead and all of the marine structures, the concrete
bulkhead was built in about 1930, 1940. There is no
documentation. And when I tried to get an aerial photograph, it
was so heavy he vegetated. And at the time the beach covered over
this bulkhead. So it could not be seen. So we were fortunate to
find from Perlwitz (sic) who was the common owner of all the
properties here, they had an old 1930s photograph of the
construction of this bulkhead. That's the only reason we can prove
in fact that that's when it was built. So what we are trying to do
is document all the structures and not have somebody buy into
something that ultimately the buyer would have problems down the
line, if he wanted to come in for repairs or whatever, it would not
show as any documentation in your records, again, because it
predates all of the regulations that, the towns regulations.
Board of Trustees
90 October 17, 2007
That's the reason I through everything in to give it a permit.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is before the ZBA?
MS. MOORE: Yes, because the deck on the west side encroaches, it's
18.3 feet and it should be, the setbacks, because of the size of
the property, I believe are 25, we had to get, I have to get a
variance for the deck, the small deck area that was added, again,
between the existing deck that has a permitted CO and the shower,
the outdoor shower which didn't need a permit because outdoor
showers generally don't need permits because it's dispensing
material around plumbing. But because, again, now we are trying to
show proper CO's, the CO that we have only shows the deck that is
directly behind the house. It doesn't show that small addition on
the west. And that needs a variance. So I need a 200 square foot
decking area variance.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So this house is, they are looking for this to
be a permitted additional structure because they are selling it?
MS. MOORE: The house has a CO. It predates all the Trustee
regulations. The deck has a CO. What doesn't have a CO is a small
portion of the deck.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Here's my question --
MS. MOORE: We have a contract vendee, yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because it's inconsistent, but it's an existing structure,
my motion would be to approve the existing
structure but that if it was ever renovated, that I would not want
those decks replaced. So that is why I'm asking if there is an
intent for this to be sold, renovated, rebuilt.
MS. MOORE: Probably, yes. The only decking you are being asked to
consider is 200 square feet on the west side. That's it. Where it
says "wood deck," see where that little wood deck. That's it.
Because the rest of it predates the Trustees. It has a CO. That's the only.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Then the wording for your application is
confusing because you say request as wetland permit for the
existing dwelling and deck, steps down slope, concrete retaining
wall, 15x15' deck extension to the west, screen porch and outdoor
shower. So you are saying that the permit is only asking --
MS. MOORE: Sorry, yes. The other structures don't have any, the
bulkhead, the stairs and the wood deck, were all built prior to regulations.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So that shouldn't be part of this permit.
MS. MOORE: The only problem is how does a buyer know that
everything has permits if we don't have a permit, so.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. I, myself, it's a very well vegetated
buffer, it's got sand, it's got natural vegetation, it's very
heavily -- I don't have any problem with what is there except for
the fact it's inconsistent with LWRP. What I'm saying is I would
approve to permit what is here with the condition that it does not
guarantee that in rebuild that those deckings could be replaced.
Boazd of Trustees
91 October 17, 2007
In other words, I don't want to approve a permit that would then
allow those decks to be replaced.
TRUSTEE KING: How close is the house to the water?
MS. MOORE: It's 95 feet to the water
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How about if we condition it that when and if
those decks are to be replaced, they have to come back in to us.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There you go. I'll do it that way.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That way we are not saying no, because --
MS. MOORE: I think there is, let me just clarify for you. Because
I don't want to put the buyer in a worse position than he was.
This is what was added. Just that. This house, the portion of the
deck, the house, all has CO's on it and it was built in 1980s,
maybe. '70s, so.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just giving the opportunity to improve this
if this house is going to be knocked down and renovated that
permitting this doesn't guarantee that the decking can go --
MS. MOORE: This is the only thing that was added. I'm trying to
let her know.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: That's the deck.
MS. MOORE: This is the existing deck.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are there drywells?
MS. MOORE: I saw downspouts.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we put drywells on to the house then whatever
it doesn't mitigate as part of the project --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just want to give us the opportunity that if
this is knocked down they don't come back and say, well, it was there before.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: That's exactly what they are going to say.
MS. MOORE: But the only reason -- but understand that the --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So how do you word that?
MS. MOORE: I'm coming in for a permit for only that portion of the
wood deck that needs your permit now.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: Isn't it one structure now, one contiguous
structure?
MS. MOORE: The decking?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's why we are approving the whole thing.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: You are approving the whole thing. Absolutely.
MS. MOORE: But only portion that doesn't have a CO is 200 square
feet at the far end of it. The other was built.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The CO is for the Building Department, as we all
know. This is for the Trustees, so it's the whole.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If the deck is to be rebuilt, you must come back
into us.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Why was it inconsistent under LWRP? I missed
that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No residential structure shall be located within
50 feet from the top edge of the bank, along the shoreline; no new
Board of Trustees 92 October 17, 2007
sanitary disposable facility; proposed setback from the wood decks
to the concrete bulkhead is 42.3; proposed setback from the new
addition to the top of the bluff is 75.2 feet; requiring gutters,
downspouts and subsurtace drywells to control storm water runoff.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So if we just do that, then --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: They are saying the structure should not be, the
structure is the wood deck is too close. So my point, again, was
to not guarantee that this deck can be replaced if it's knocked
down. That the only condition 1 want to put on this.
MS. MOORE: Honestly, I don't think the Building Department gives
you guarantee. You come back in for a permit if you knock it down.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you would have to come back to us.
MS. MOORE: So I don't think you have to say that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We do for us. We are talking under our code you
have to come back. Not the Building Department code. Under our
code you would have to come back to us if have you a replace the deck.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: They are concerned you'll make the argument that
you made tonight on prior applications that you'll come in and say
say, hey, it was there, so we want the exact same thing again. It's
just a simple repair. That's what you would say as the attorney
for that person if they were to come back before the Trustees.
Irrespective of --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you have a problem with the condition that if
it's rebuilt that you come back in for an amendment to the permit?
MS. MOORE: Well, we are selling the house, so -- I'm sorry, it's
getting late. That's fine.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's the motion I'm going to make.
MS. MOORE: Fine
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was there anyone else here to speak on this
application?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the request of the
wetland permit for the existing dwelling and decks, steps down
slope, concrete retaining wall 15x15' deck extension to west,
screened porch and outdoor shower located at 7940 Indian Neck Lane,
Peconic, with the condition that if there are renovations or
additions or changes to this structure that have anything to do
with decking, that the applicant must come in for an amendment.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 22, Patricia Moore on behalf of JOHN SPICER
requests a Wetland Permit for the portable hot tub on the existing
Boazd of Trustees 93 October 17, 2007
deck. Located: 8050 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
I went out and looked at this application. Is there anybody
here to speak on behalf of this application?
MS. MOORE: Again, the house is being sold. We found that the hot
tub didn't, needed a permit and it's sitting on top of an existing
patio, but the Building Department recently has said if you add
something on top of an existing structure you should still come in
and get the permit from the Board so we said, okay, fine. So here we are.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was exempt under LWRP. And CAC makes no
recommendation due to lack of information. Okay. There you go.
I did go out and look at this and it is as depicted in the
plans. It's a hot tub sitting on a deck underneath an upper deck
of the house, and I had no problems with it.
So unless there are any other comments from anybody in the
audience; any comments from the Board?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve number 22, Patricia
Moore on behalf of John Spicer; location, 8050 Nassau Point Road,
as written.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MS. STANDISH: Is this for the deck as well or just the hot tub?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just the hot tub. The deck was there on the plan.
MS. MOORE: It's just that the portable hot tub is sitting on top of
an existing deck.
MS. STANDISH: Is it a permitted deck?
MS. MOORE: It was very pre-existing. The house was built prior to
the Trustees' jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: (Perusing.) It's not a permitted structure. Do
you want to open it up again and add the deck?
MS. MOORE: Fine, just add the deck.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to make a motion to reopen number 22,
Patricia Moore on behalf of John Spicer, 8050 Nassau Point Road.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to approve the application of John
Spicer for the Wetland Permit for the portable hot tub on the
existing deck and in doing so, permitting in that existing deck as
depicted on this survey stamped September 26, 2007.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
Board of Trustees
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
94 October 17, 2007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 23 Patricia Moore on behalf of NICK ANDREADIS
requests a Wetland Permit to construct atwo-story dwelling,
sanitary system, swimming pool and concrete retaining walls along
north and south sides of property. Located: 700 North Drive,
Mattituck.
It is found inconsistent with LWRP due to the fact it's within
100 feet of the top of the bank. No. Due to the fact it's 35 feet
from the top of the bank where 100 feet is required. And Policy
Five they say install drywells, gutters and leaders and drywells
for the pool drainage; driveway to be constructed with pervious
material; undisturbed vegetation to be established at the 18 foot
contour; stabilize slope; install hay bales at 20 foot contour
line. Which were all the comments that we had made also.
And CAC supports the application with the condition that the
bluff is maintained as is and no removal of trees on the bluff;
landscape plan submitted depicting the disposition of all the trees
over eight inches and 20 foot non-disturbance buffer. CAC further
recommends set of stairs along the disturbed path on the bluff.
And the other comments we had were, on the survey you have the
concrete walls on either side of the property. What is the purpose
of that?
MS. MOORE: The topography here really shifts. We have the property
owner to the south, which is lower, and the property owner to the
north, which is about the same. The retaining walls, since you
have differing grades on this property, it average the grade so the
house can be built with in making provisions for the differing
grades. I have here tonight -- was I accurate? Good. Roger Smith
is the architect and the client is here, the owner of the property,
Mr. Andreadis.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll assume you'll put the walls and grade
everything flat to the walls and regrade that whole property or --
MS. MOORE: No. Roger, I think I need you.
MR. SMITH: Roger Smith, for the record. BBS Architects in
Patchogue. The site is cascading downward and we are maintaining
that cascade as it comes into the property setting, the house
setting, and then retaining the soil to the north, because that is
a higher piece, and retaining the soil to the south, so it's not
raising the entire property, it's laying it into the property
itself.
MS. MOORE: They are taking the contours of the property and
building into the contours, the existing contours.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the property to the south, on the neighbor's
Board of Trustees 95 October 17, 2007
property, what will that do to so the south of that wall, on the
south side?
MS. MOORE: It will keep their grade exactly as is. The only
difference, inside the wall on the home side, is making the grade
even. On the outside of that wall it's maintaining the existing
grade as is. So it doesn't create, it's not creating a wall, it's
maintaining the same grade.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know that we really see the purpose of it.
I understand what you are saying but I think it's gradual enough
that you don't need all that structure there.
MR. SMITH: We indicated the retaining wall for the application
because we know we need some retaining in those areas. I think
some of that can be done more naturally, stone wall, et cetera,
but we want it to reflect the idea there will be some retaining.
We need to make sure we are not disturbing either of the adjacent
properties as part of the project.
MS. MOORE: I didn't want to exclude it because I didn't want you
going on doing an inspection and seeing a retaining wall that was
never mentioned. So to the extent that we need it, we want to
include it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think you need it all the way back into
the property.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is it a permitted dock?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Historically that dock was used for
commercial fishing.
MR. SMITH: The one to the north, yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I don't think we need to see this extended to
the west as much as it is.
MS. MOORE: The retaining walls?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. SMITH: If we can reduce that, we absolutely will. Also,
maintaining the slope, what would be appropriate slope for driveway
in and its distance away and the sanitary system itself.
MS. MOORE: If you recall, you are coming from the street level and
coming up the property, then kind of down the property. So that
wall will allow them to kind of grade a driveway.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What I'm concerned about is the flow of the water
that goes through that land that has been going that way forever
and now you are going to put these walls up and change the
elevation and change everything around there. How high, you don't
indicate how high this --
MR. SMITH: Yes. The average from almost a zero to one foot to two
to four foot grade change depending on where they are being cut in.
One of the things we are also concerned with is in constructing the
house, you almost do set a barrier of natural water movement. We
want to be able to retain our water, I heard the discussion
Boazd of Trustees
96 October 17, 2007
tonight, I'm not sure I'm saying this right, landward. We want to
be continually dealing with the drainage landward. That also allows
us also to do that without having runoff, what would be improved
going down the slope. So we thought it was a better arrangement by
leaving the slope more natural throughout the property.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What's the square footage of the house?
MR. SMITH: 4,500 square feet, first and second floor.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the pool is here. Are there any other
questions?
(No response.)
From the Board?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do they have well water?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They have proposed well. It's well water, not
county water down there. Where is the septic?
MS. MOORE: Septic is landward of the house.
MR. SMITH: And the arcs in which that is located is the only place
that can be. That's alocked-in location.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we would need to see drywells on the plans for
the house; gutters, leaders and drywells.
MR. SMITH: Through the Building Department?
MS. MOORE: They want to see it on their plans.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We need it on our plans.
MR. SMITH: We can put that on, sure.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What we would like also is approximately at the 18
foot contour line, seaward, to be left natural, undisturbed, no
cutting, no trimming. So you could have a path to, obviously, a
path to the dock. Basically at the top of the bank --
MS. MOORE: It shows the 18 foot, we have the contour here. It's
the more sloped portion of the slope. I see that.
MR. SMITH: 18 seaward, natural, sure.
MS. MOORE: CAC made a good suggestion of the stairway. Any issue
with getting approval for wood stairs down; because we have to get
to the dock, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, you could apply for something like that. Now
I lost my thought. The other thing we want to see on the survey is
the neighboring houses, because what we have talked about is maybe
moving the house back, but we also, one of our policies is to draw
a line between the two houses and make sure this is not in front
of. And it's not.
MS. MOORE: Absolutely it's not. The problem is it's very close to
the edge there. I remember I did a permit for that one right at
the edge.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We had drainage problems with that, too.
MS. MOORE: The Grubman house is very close to the water and then
the neighbor to the north I think is right in line with the main
Boazd of Trustees 97 October 17, 2007
house. The pool is only, is the pop out that is first level and
below.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we could just get that on the survey so we have
a record of that.
MS. MOORE: Sure.
MR. SMITH: We can take it off the survey from the aerial.
MS. MOORE: This survey, it's clear, this location is actually in
line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It is. Would there be a consideration of moving
the house back at all?
MS. MOORE: The problem we have is sanitary. We are fixed and we
have to maintain the separation from the sanitary. We actually
shrunk everything to fit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. So you can come back for the stairs,
because we would need see that on here, too, to see what kind of
plans you want, and exactly where on the slope.
MS. MOORE: If you tell us where you want them, we can just add them
to the plan, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know if we could just do that or we should
go out there and take a look at it and see what the best spot is
with the slope of the land. I would like to see it staked and look
at it again.
MR. SMITH: From the water side of the house, the east side of the
house, if you were looking at the plan with the triangle, it would
be either north or south of the triangle. We would be approaching
getting out --
MS. MOORE: It's either a shorter steeper there or a long wider.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 1 would like to see it staked.
MS. MOORE: We'll do a separate application. We don't want to delay
this application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Only because the slope is there. We want to see
where you are digging into it.
MS. MOORE: It was a good suggestion that I had not thought of.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We want a hay bale line during construction.
MS. MOORE: Where do you want the hay bale line; at the 22?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Around there, yes.
MS. MOORE: All right, hay bale line at the 20. That's just during
construction.
MS. MOORE: So far I have drywells, gutters, hay bales --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Non-disturbance area marked on the survey.
MS. MOORE: Non-disturbance at 18 slope.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And seaward of that. Driveway must be pervious.
And I would like to see that wall shortened.
MR. SMITH: We can work on that. Absolutely.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't see the whole need for it. Make it as low
as possible were you can and shortened in length.
Board of Trustees
98 October 17, 2007
MR. SMITH: Oh, on the approaching on the driveway, shorten it
there; not the full length of it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I could see maybe more or less on the sides of the
house but I don't think you need it way back.
MR. SMITH: We'll take a look at it. I'll be happy to do it.
MS. MOORE: We can do grading.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments from the Board?
(No response.)
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Patricia Moore on behalf of Nick Andreadis subject to receiving new
plans showing that from 18 foot contour line seaward is a
non-disturbance area; that the hay bale line will be at
approximately the 20 foot contour line during construction; the
retaining wall to be shortened in length and kept as low as
possible in the other areas; that the driveway is pervious;
drywells, with gutters and leaders and; that the house, although we
talked about moving it back, we realized it can't be because the
sanitary system is fixed where it is, there is no room for moving it.
So with these conditions, I feel it is becomes consistent with
LWRP. And I think I covered it all.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Dickerson, aye. Trustee Doherty, aye.
Trustee Ghosio, aye.)
TRUSTEE KING: I abstain.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Please note for the record Trustee King is
abstaining from the vote.
TRUSTEE KING: I have family next door. My sister lives there.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number 19, CAROL MERCIER & PETER SCHRAMM.
If we can go back to that. I want to vote no on the motion because I really
felt that the dock should have been moved up. But I thought what
you were doing, I thought you were closing the hearing and I voted
aye. So I just want to change my vote to say no on that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We need to reopen the hearing. We need to make a
motion to reopen the hearing. Is that one of yours, Pat?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It was on the dock and I thought I was voting on
the closing the hearing and I voted aye. So I want my vote to be a
no because I felt we had discussed --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to reopen the hearing, Patricia
Moore on behalf of CAROL MERCIER & PETER SCHRAMM.
Board of Trustees 99 October 17, 2007
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to -- we have to make a motion
to close the hearing of Patricia Moore on behalf of Carol Mercier
and Peter Schramm.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve the application of
Patricia Moore on behalf of Mercier and Schramm as stated
previously with the same conditions and we'll do a role call vote.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Aye.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aye.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Motion carries.
MS. MONTEFUSCO: For the record, there was no change in the outcome
of the vote. No change to the conditions or the outcome of the
vote. It was the same.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to adjourn the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
RECEIVtD ~~~~
/~: 5 o f in
I~"AY 808
-~
Soufhold Tuv~n Cierk