HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-04/16/2008James F. King, President ~OF SDUTy
Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President ,`O~ Ol0
Peggy A. Dickerson
Dave Bergen r/a ~
Bob Ghosio, Jr. '.2 ~
~~'YOOUNTI ,Nc~
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
6:00 PM
Present were: James King, President
Jill Doherty, Vice President
Peggy Dickerson, Trustee
Dave Bergen, Trustee
Bob Ghosio, Trustee
Kieran Corcoran, 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) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765641
RECEIVED
II~~~~~~I e1 !0 ~
JUL~ 2008 ~' P
~Q7
Southold Town Clerk
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 at 6:00 PM
WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM
TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone, I'm Jim King. I have the
honor of being chairman of this board. I would like to introduce
the rest of the Board members here to everybody else that's here.
To my far left is Trustee Dave Bergen; next to him is Peggy
Dickerson; Vice-chair Jill Doherty; myself; Lauren Standish is our
office worker here. She manages the office and kind of runs the
show for us; Trustee Bob Ghosio, and our legal advisor tonight is
Town Attorney Kieran Corcoran. Wayne Galante is our stenographer
here that keeps track of what everybody says. If you have any
comments, please come up to the microphone and identify yourself
Board of Trustees
April 16, 2008
for the record so Wayne can get everything.
As we get into things and the public hearings in particular,
try and keep your comments brief, five minutes or less. It makes
things a lot easier for us. If we go rambling on and people talk a
lot, it makes things difficult for Wayne, and the minutes have to
be typed and prepared. We try to keep this concise if we can.
1 can't believe we are already four months into this year.
It's just flying by. We have a lot of things on our plate. There
is a lot of dredging issues coming up. We'll be looking at the
Wetland Code again to make more revisions and keep it modernized.
Coastal Erosion Code, we'll take a look at. There are quite a bit
of things going on. There is talk of a possible moratorium of
docks on the bay the Town Board is looking at, and the Sound.
Anything else anyone can think of? We have a lot of things to do
in less than a year.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The documentary is coming out. Our TV debut
should be coming out. It's with the state right now.
TRUSTEE KING: Anything else?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm meeting with the state tomorrow to go over
LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll be looking at the Coastal Erosion Management
Plan. The state is coming out tomorrow, we'll be visiting some
sites and see what is going to happen. It seems to be getting more
difficult as time goes on, we get more people coming out. I've
always said we are the problem, we have to somehow deal with each other.
With that, I would like to get going. Did anybody see the
minutes of October? I have not had a chance to read them yet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I did. I had a couple of minor changes I'll give
to Lauren.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I had and I already forwarded my changes to Wayne.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody want to make a motion?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of
October 17 with the minor changes included that have been reported on.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
POSTPONEMENTS:
TRUSTEE KING: We have some postponements tonight. I don't want
anybody sitting here waiting for something to come up that's not
going to come up.
Page four under Wetland Permits, number four, Costello Marine
on behalf of RICHARD K. JOHNSON & PAMELA MAINO requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a 4x10' ramp up to a 4x18' level fixed dock
section with a 3x10' seasonal wooden ramp onto a seasonal 5x18'
Board of Trustees
April 16, 2008
floating dock secured by two 4x4" posts. Located: 7817 Soundview
Avenue, Southold, has been postponed.
Page five, number 13, Jeffrey Butler on behalf of DANIEL HUME
requests a Wetland Permit to construct beach stairs and related
walkways and platforms. Located: 13945 Oregon Road, Cutchogue, has
been postponed.
Number 14, Jeffrey Butler on behalf of JOHN ELICK, AS TRUSTEE
requests a Wetland Permit to construct beach stairs and related
walkways and platforms. Located: Oregon Road, Cutchogue, has been
postponed.
And on page six, number 15, Ural Talgat on behalf of PAUL 8~
CHERYL RAGUSA requests a Wetland Permit to install an inground
swimming pool and terrace addition. Located: 1600 Hyatt Road,
Southold, has been postponed.
Number 16, Patricia Moore on behalf of PATRICIA 8~ THOMAS
NADHERNY requests a Wetland Permit to construct asecond-floor
addition onto the existing dwelling, renovate the first floor, new
windows and siding. Located: 1025 Pine Neck Road, Southold, has
been postponed.
Number 17, JMO Environmental on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND FERRY
DISTRICT requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge an 80x480'
channel to -20' ALW. The resultant spoil (7,800 cubic yards of
sand and cobble) will be disposed of at an island site upland
disposal site. Located: Foot of Fox Lane, Fishers Island, has been
postponed.
Number 18, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of VARUJAN
ARSLANYAN requests a Wetland Permit to install a docking facility
consisting of two floats, each 6x20' and secured by four 8-inch
diameter piles, with access by hinged ramp 4x16' secured at its
landward end to existing bulkhead. Located: 1280 Sage Boulevard,
Greenport, has been postponed.
We'll schedule the next inspection for Wednesday, May 14, at
eight o'clock in the morning. Is everybody all right with that?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Motion to approve.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Our next regular meeting will be May 21, at six
o'clock, with the work session at 5:30.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve.
Board of Trustees 4 April 16, 2008
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
I. MONTHLY REPORTS:
TRUSTEE KING: The Trustees monthly report for March, 2008. A check
for $4,436.05 was forwarded to the Supervisor's office for the
General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE KING: Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's
bulletin board for review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE KING: We have a number of state environmental quality
reviews.
Resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold
hereby finds that the following applications more fully described
in Section VII, Public Hearings section of the Trustee agenda dated
Wednesday, April 16, 2008, are classified as Type II actions
pursuant to SEORA rules and regulations and are not subject to
further review under SEQRA.
Robert & Ruth Ungerleider -SCTM#31-13-9.1
Hank & Susan Ruggiero -SCTM#63-7-29.1
Patricia & Thomas Nachemy -SCTM#70-5-34
Spyro Avdoulos -SCTM#44-1-5
Arielle S. Gerosa -SCTM#21-2-5.1
TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a motion to accept those?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Motion to approve.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: 1 have number one. STEVE WICK requests an
Administrative Permit to mow underbrush, cut invasive small trees
and control phragmites and replant with native shrubs and trees in
the area of the mosquito ditch. Located: 1541 Stillwater Avenue
(Vineyard View Drive), Cutchogue.
Board of Trustees
April 16, 2008
We had all seen this previously and I had just gone back to
check on the planting plan that Mr. Wick had given me. I just want
to change some of the wording. We'll give a permit to plant trees
and shrubs, native trees and shrubs along his easterly property
line and he can hand cut phragmites to 12 inches along the mosquito
ditch, but where he was requesting clearing and cutting out, we are
going to request that that be anon-disturbance area starting at
the property marker and going 50 feet toward his house or his
property. And I already called and discussed that with him.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: What we try and do on some of these, if there is no
controversy with them, we felt there was no problems with them,
we'll group them together and approve them all at once. These are
not public hearings but if anybody has a comment to make about one
of these projects, we'll listen to you.
Number two, JOAN EGAN requests an Administrative Pennit to
repair the existing 63' of face bulkheading by installing 1/4" high
density polyethylene (HDPE) sheets on the front of the bulkhead.
Located: 330 Knoll Circle, East Marion.
Number three, WAYNE OVERTON requests an Administrative Permit
to re-vegetate disturbed area with four Baccharis, 10 Bayberry and
20 Spartina Patens, all to be two-gallon pots, and to cut the
phragmites to 12" and to maintain to 12" along the entire
shoreline. Located: 2750 Glenn Road, Southold.
Number four, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of
WILLIAM KENNEY requests an Administrative Permit to install a
permeable stone patio off the existing deck. Located: 1515 Anchor
Lane. Southold.
Number five, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of
KATHRYN RUSSO requests an Administrative Permit to install a
200-square foot permeable stone patio off the existing deck.
Located: 775 Oakwood Court, Southold.
Number six, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of JOHN CORBLEY
requests an Administrative Permit to construct a covered porch
addition approximately 5.1x6', plus approximately 6x6' on the
landward (north) side of existing house; construct first story
addition approximately 16x2' on east side of existing house;
construct second-story addition approximately 4x30' on north side
Board of Trustees
April 16, 2008
of existing house; remove entire existing asphalt driveway; install
pervious gravel driveway approximate total 2,640 square feet.
Located: 680 Mason Drive, Cutchogue.
Number seven, Stanley Skrezec on behalf of DENNIS & RITA
GALLAGHER requests an Administrative Permit to abandon the existing
septic system on the seaward side of the dwelling and install a new
septic system further landward. Located: 3140 Minnehaha Boulevard,
Southold.
And number eight, Twin Fork Landscape Contracting on behalf of
JOINT INDUSTRY BOARD OF ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES requests an
Administrative Permit for periodic beach maintenance removal of
debris from beach from 10' above mean high water to concrete
seawall. Manual or rubber-tired tractor only - no treads and no
regrading of the beach or stone relocation. Located: 3800 Duck Pond
Road, Cutchogue.
Like I say, we didn't have a problem with any of them. I
would make a motion to approve those in one lump sum.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MS. EGAN: When do I get the permit now?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The girls will type it up and mail it out to you.
MS. EGAN: Okay. Thank you, very much.
V. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONSITRANSFERS:
TRUSTEE KING: Keeping two out and keeping four out. What we'll do
on these amendments and extensions, we'll group number one, three,
five and six all together and I'll make a motion to approve those
in one lump sum: One, three, five and six, listed as follows:
Number one, FRED FRAGOLA requests an Amendment to Permit #6452
for the existing motorized boat-lift installed within the boat
basin. Located: 1145 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport.
Number three, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of
GEORGE AND SANDRA ENGELKE requests aOne-Year Extension to Permit
#6364 as issued on May 17, 2006. Located: 5704 Indian Neck Lane,
Peconic.
Number five, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of NEIL STRONSKI 8
PATRICIA PEREZ requests a Transfer of Permit #6723 from
Stephen Matteini to Neil Stronski and Patricia Perez as issued on
September 19, 2007. Located: 1060 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient.
Board of Trustees 7 April 16, 2008
And number six, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of NEIL
STRONSKI & PATRICIA PEREZ requests a Transfer of Permit #5890 from
Stephen Matteini to Neil Stronski & Patricia Perez, as issued on
April 24, 2004. Located: 1060 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Number two, RICHARD BREN requests an Amendment to
Permit #1855 to replace two galvanized metal pipes with two 8"x16'
wood pilings to secure the floating dock. Located: 430 West Creek
Avenue, Cutchogue.
We have a letter in the file saying that the float is larger
than what was permitted. It also sits on the bottom at low tide.
There was a compliance inspection, I believe in June, 2006, where
everything was found in compliance. So I would recommend, first of
all, I would like to downsize the pile size to 6"x16'.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's all the way in the back the of the creek.
TRUSTEE KING: There is no wave action that requires a need for a
large pile. So I would say asix-inch pile would be sufficient.
And I would make a motion to approve that subject to us verifying
that everything is still in compliance with the permit that was issued.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number four, Creative Environmental Design on
behalf of DENNIS HICKEY requests a Transfer of Permit #3924 from
Mark McDuffee to Dennis Hickey, as issued on June 7, 1991, and to
Amend Permit #3924 to include the pre-existing beach house and
platform. Located: 175 Clearwater Lane, Cutchogue.
I went and looked at this and the purpose of the amendment is
to include the beach house and platform so that repairs can be
made. The reason I just wanted to make sure the dimensions for the
beach house are on the plans that we have but I wanted to add that
the platform dimensions I have are 12-foot wide by 14-foot long,
and the last time that we were out there we asked for a floating
jet ski dock to be removed. It's sitting on the deck now and I
think at this point we included that as an extra float. So 1 would
say they are not going to be able to use that.
TRUSTEE KING: That's another thing we'll have to address.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: They are not able to put it in the water. If they
want to leave it on top of the dock and use it with it sitting on
top of the dock, it's one thing.
Board of Trustees
April 16, 2008
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Which I didn't see when I spoke to you.
MR. BOSSEN: Derrick Bossen, Creative Environmental Design. The
client has no problem with taking that jet ski down off the dock
and bringing it up. We just brought it out of the wetlands for the
winter so it would not be on the grass for the winter. That was
per Mr. King asked us to do that and we had no problem doing that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So it won't be used.
MR. BOSSEN: No, he just needed to get it on top of the dock, with
whatever he'll do with the jet ski, if not, then there is no jet
ski this year. I made it clear to the client about the issues that
were brought up about the floating jet ski docks this year and he
is well aware of the new things that you are going to come up with.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
VI. RESOLUTIONS -OTHER:
TRUSTEE KING: Next one, we had a public hearing and closed it and
had made a decision on it. This is the one with the swimming pool.
What we did is put a 50-foot non-disturbance. Put it like ten feet
off of the side of the house. So this is the pool, the yard area
goes with this cottage, but this in front of the pool is all non-disturbance.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the pool is under construction.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, that's right there is a cottage.
TRUSTEE KING: There is a cottage near the house here and another
cottage down below. So I didn't think you could, you can't make
this all, because you already have a structure there, to make that
non-disturbance, so I just angled this down to make it smaller.
It's already there. So.
So on number one under "Resolutions," Pat Moore on behalf of
IRA NAGEL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a swimming pool
patio and planters: Located: 2200 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue.
I'll make a motion to approve that application. We have a set
of plans that shows a 50-foot, non-disturbance buffer in front of
the pool. Do 1 have a second?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it's found consistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: ROBERT LEHNERT requests a Duck Blind Permit in
East Creek. Access: Private.
This has been reviewed by myself and I think Dave reviewed it
Board of Trustees
April 16, 2008
as well. There is room for one more duck blind. Everything seems
to be in order and I'll make a motion to approve the duck blind in
East Creek.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off regular hearings and go
on to our public hearings.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number one, ROBERT & RUTH UNGERLEIDER request a
Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to break up remnants of
collapsed seawall section on beach area and construct 32' of new
one to two ton rock retaining wall within old seawall line. Place
broken remnants of collapsed seawall section behind new retaining
wall as fill. Located: 11292 Main Road, East Marion.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. UNGERLEIDER: Robert Ungerleider.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Go right ahead, sir.
MR. UNGERLEIDER: This 30 feet of seawall, it's about 130 foot
seawall in total. 30 feet on the western-most end fell down, I
think it was a year ago May, and a hurricane tide came in off the
bay and there is concrete lying on the beach. I would like to have
it broken up and thrown on the dune and have these one to two-ton
rocks barged across and unloaded from the western most edge of the
property to a point under the deck. And you can see it in the set
of plans that I submitted with my application.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The Board did go out and look at this. And just
for the record, first it was found exempt under the LW RP, and the
CAC resolved to support the application as stated. I want to read,
because we just received an E-mail from a neighbor, it's dated
Monday, April 14. And I'll read this into the record.
This is from a Vicki Papson. As per our discussion, I'm very
concerned that the retaining wall is considerably shorter than the
existing wall that was damaged. In addition, my seawall has been
compromised and has already eroded some of my property. I would
like to request the new wall meet the previous wall's heights and
butt up to my current seawall. My address is 11120 Main Road, East
Board of Trustees
10 April 16, 2008
Marion. My seawall is to the right of the subject seawall as you
are facing the waterfront. So I would say that's to the east, if
you are facing the waterfront.
MR. UNGERLEIDER: I think she is to the west of me. If you face the
waterfront --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, if you are looking out. That's why I wish
people would use compass directions instead of saying to the right or left.
Like I said, we went out and looked at it. A couple of things
that we were going to ask for, we were going to say to make sure
that the old piping, the metal piping and remnants of the debris,
there was a toilet and other things, that those be removed. Those
cannot be used as fill at all. They have to be removed.
MR. UNGERLEIDER: I intended to do that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And also with this proposal here, we would like to
recommend that there be American Beach Grass placed, that there is
sand brought in on top of the fill area and American Beach Grass
planted. In other words, at the top of this retaining wall, the
rocks, some sand and beach grass planted there to help retain the
area, retain upon top for anything from falling down in.
MR. UNGERLEIDER: That sounds like a prudent thing to do. I would
do that. I have to say about Ms. Papson, I would put this on the
record, too, that her construction was the cause of this, I
believe. She used a pile driver two years ago. This wall has
stood there for 75 to 100 years and the part of the wall that fell
down is the part that abuts her property, and now she is
complaining about it. I think that's kind of ironic.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And this is just a 32-foot section going from the
wood deck over to the Papson line.
MR. UNGERLEIDER: That's correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Are there any other comments from the
Board?
TRUSTEE KING: I think you covered it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else here who would like to speak
for or against this application?
MR. UNGERLEIDER: I have my affidavits of posting and mailing
certified mail.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Great. If you could leave them, bring them up and
give them to Lauren, that would be super.
If there are no other comments, 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 Coastal Erosion
Wetland Permit for Robert and Ruth Ungerleider as described with
the condition that we make sure there is the removal of all the
Board of Trustees
11 April 16, 2008
metal piping and debris that is in there and that some clean sand
be brought in and placed on top of the retaining wall and that
American Beach Grass be planted approximately 12 inches on center
along that area to help, like I said, in retaining any type of
collapse in the future.
MR. UNGERLEIDER: Okay.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you
MR. UNGERLEIDER: Thank you, all.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number two, Bruce D. Kinlin, Architect, on
behalf of ANN G. DEARBORN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal
Erosion Permit to connect the two existing dwellings on the
property and expand landward of the existing dwellings. Located:
Private Road off East End Road, Fishers Island.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this
application?
MR. KINLIN: I'm Bruce Kinlin, the architect hired to work on the
project.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, we have a consistency report here from our
LWRP coordinator asking that the following best management
practices be recommended: Require establishment of non-disturbance
buffer to retain large trees northwest of the residency; require
the installation of leaders, gutters and drywells to contain storm
water; and prohibit the use of synthetic fertilizers and herbicides
capable of degrading ground and surface water quality.
MR. KINLIN: I think I got it. Buffers, northwest trees; gutters and
no synthetic fertilizers.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And when our Board was out there we wanted that
non-disturbance buffer to be 75 feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: From the northwest comer of the house.
TRUSTEE KING: The property tapers as you go to the northwest. We
want anon-disturbance area starting 75 feet from the house to that
corner there.
MR. KINLIN: I think I understand.
TRUSTEE KING: The top of the bluffs, there has been some clearing
going on there, some manicuring going on. We would like to see
that a little more of a naturalized area.
MR. KINLIN: I understand. From the non-disturbance, buffer we
could put that in the drawing, obviously, to show that to you and
get that approved.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. And this was one of the down spouts to that
pipe. That pipe goes underground out to the bluff and going down
the bluff which is something we kind of frown on. So we want to see
Board of Trustees
12 April 16, 2008
drywells and gutters for the roof runoff. And they have to comply
with the new drainage code requirements, and they have the
capacity, I think for atwo-inch rain. That's Chapter 236.
MR. KINLIN: I'll repeat that back again. The downspouts and all
gutters obviously can't be treated like that, can't go toward the
water. They need to be diverted and directed into drywells and
those drywells need to meet the current code.
TRUSTEE KING: Right.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else here this evening who would
like to speak to this application?
(No response.)
CAC did not get out to make a review. I already mentioned LWRP.
Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: What was the LWRP?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Consistent. I read it.
TRUSTEE KING: It was consistent?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. They made the same recommendations that
our Board did. So deeming that we see that as consistent also and
agreeing with LWRP, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the application
for a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to Ann G. Dearborn.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. KINLIN: Thank you, very much. What happens now; something gets
sent to us? Should we submit a drawing with the silt fence?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you understand everything, submit a new drawing
and we'll have Jim sign it and send in a permit.
MR. KINLIN: Perfect. Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number three, Docko, Inc., on behalf of ROBERT
MEYER requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to
reconstruct 138 If of 5.7' wide fixed wood pile and timber pier
including ladders and four braced tie-off piles waterward of the
high tide line. Located: Crescent Avenue, Fishers Island.
MR. KINLIN: Excuse me, sorry to interrupt. I want to make sure
where the silt fence needs to be. Can I come up and draw something
on the site survey now so when we go back to the office and draw
it, we draw the right thing?
TRUSTEE KING: Will there be any excavation between those two
houses?
MR. KINLIN: There will be some, yes, to produce the connect.
TRUSTEE KING: We can draw a hay bale line.
Board of Trustees
13 Apri] 16, 2008
MR. KINLIN: Should I leave while everything is good; get out of
Dodge quick?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we do the hay bale right on top of the bluff line.
MR. KINLIN: You made it about 75 feet from that corner. I want to
make sure I understand where that comer is.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can you go back to the corner?
TRUSTEE KING: I can just show him real quick.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We measured from this corner. That's the house
corner on the northeast. We measured on that corner and followed
straight out from there, 75 feet. That's where that starts. We
can show you on the survey as well.
MR. KINLIN: Okay. May I approach?
TRUSTEE KING: Sure. (Perusing.)
MR. KINLIN: (Perusing.) Okay. We'll take care of that.
TRUSTEE KING: If you can draw that area in there.
MR. KINLIN: There will be anon-disturbance area here coming across that corner.
TRUSTEE KING: Sure, that's fine.
MR. KINLIN: We'll send in the drawing. Thank you, again.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number three, Docko Inc., on behalf of ROBERT
MEYER. Located: Crescent Avenue, Fishers Island.
We do not have an LWRP report on this and CAC did not make an
inspection, so there is no recommendation. Is there anyone here to
speak to behalf of this application?
MR. NIELSON: Yes. My name is Keith Nielson, Docko Inc., and I
prepared the application documents before you. One point of
clarification, in the LWRP report did they not review the
application or --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: LWRP, we don't have a report from him. There is
nothing given to us.
TRUSTEE KING: I got a phone call today from Mark Terry and Chris
Pickerall. Chris Pickerall said there is a lot of eel grass,
they are very concerned and he wants to go over and do a survey
within the next two weeks, so we'll continue on with this but I
don't think this is going to go anywhere tonight.
MR. NIELSON: Okay. Well, let me get started on the presentation.
First of all, we had a professional surveyor survey the dock and
the existing pier structure, the waters in the area, a hydrographic
survey and the drawings we submitted show the eel grass off the end
of the pier. And there was some sporadic eel grass in the vicinity
of the slips but we felt that the slip was not going to be
adversely affecting that eel grass.
The pier is an existing structure. It's been there about 20
years. I'm sure you realized as soon as you walked on it that the
piles have deteriorated to a point that reconstruction is
necessary. Unfortunately the siding for this pier is, it takes a
huge amount of wave energy in northeast storms and is considered
Board of Trustees 14 April 16, 2008
rickety, so it needs to be rebuilt, and it's the applicant's desire
to rebuild just the way it currently exists except two of the piles
that were knocked down about a year ago on the east side of the
slip, ayear-and-a-half ago, be replaced. If you find that you
cannot allow that because of the eel grass in the area, we'll
accept it with just the piles he has at this time.
TRUSTEE KING: Keith, I didn't measure anything. What size are the
current pile sizes now?
MR. NIELSON: The sizes vary. You have some oak piles on the inside
that was on the order of six to eight inches and are considered
inadequate. The piles out on the end are ten to 12 inches and I
recommended in the drawings that these be 12-inch piles just
because of the wave action.
The application documents include a pretty lengthy narrative
which addresses the concerns of Local Law Number Six and the LWRP
pertinent program guidelines, and I trust you have found those
acceptable, and the drawings contain a profile which shows how
beach access will be maintained by raising the first part where the
two Trustees are walking now (indicating.) That will be slightly
higher to allow continuous access beneath the pier for beach
walkers and then it follows the terrain about halfway out and then
it levels off about five to six feet above the water.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Normally we go over. This is under.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This shows stairs on the one side.
MR. NIELSON: Yes, because we raised the elevation, we have stairs
just on one side. But people can walk under the pier.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: A lot of times, what we normally see is stairs on
either side, keep the level down and then you have stairs going up
and stairs on the other side.
MR. NIELSON: We can certainly do that. We could maintain the
existing profile and we would put stairs on both sides. We can do that.
TRUSTEE KING: That way it's a lower profile.
TRUSTEE KING: What was the width?
MR. NIELSON: 5.7.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 5.7. That's what we measured it as.
MR. NIELSON: Five-and-a-half feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There was originally five pilings on this?
MR. NIELSON: There was originally four, as I understand it; two on
each side, east and west.
TRUSTEE KING: That's a lot of the concerns.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The pilings. Is the five needed?
MR. NIELSON: Well, the advantage to the tie-off piles on both sides
are when the wind is from the east, it's better to be on the west
side of the pier and vice versa. And their location here you can
see boats out in the distance, they get very strong northwest
winds, cold front winds, and they can get strong northeasterly
Board of Trustees
15 April 16, 2008
winds and so our general approach on this would be put tie-off
piles on both sides. However I realize there is more eel grass on
the east side so if that is your primary concern, Mr. Meyer is okay
with just the one set of piles on the west.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you know what size boat he's tying up there?
MR. NIELSON: I believe it's a 26-foot Grady. Although the day I
was out there, there was a 32-foot lobster boat there.
TRUSTEE KING: Because I know they are making these whips off the
docks now, they are pretty -- they have them now up to 20,000 pound
capacity for holding the boat off the dock. Something like that
might be a consideration. Even though it's off the dock itself.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Where the dock has the width.
TRUSTEE KING: It's something to think about. Are they going to be
driven piles, I hope?
MR. NIELSON: Yes, they'll be driven.
TRUSTEE KING: It's less disturbance with a driven pile than with a
pumped in pile.
MR. NIELSON: We would probably want to have battered brace piles
underneath the pier, at least on half of the vents as additional
bracing because, as I said, I have been out therein rough water
and the dock has a tendency to sway.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there an opportunity here to use the open
grating surface for the material on the top of the dock to help
allow more light through to help mitigate the eel grass situation?
MR. NIELSON: There certainly is an opportunity, and the only issue
that I'm concerned with on the flow-through type grating, I have a
sample of it here, if you have not seen it up close, that's it.
The problem with it is this is not very strong and in order to use
this you have to have, you have to use, they have pre-drilled holes
in it and you have more stringers under this than you will under
wood. So some of the advantage of the flow-through grating is lost
to the extra stringers to hold it in place.
TRUSTEE KING: They have some other ones, too, fiberglass, that are
much stronger than that. I have seen some, maybe inch-and-a-half
high, two-inch squares and almost aquarter-inch thickness. It's
pretty strong stuff. Different styles. I'm familiar with that
and, like you say, you need more support under it. But the rest of
the material, you don't need that much.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, Jim, like you said, you got the phone call
today so I think we need to maybe table this until we get a report
from Chris Pickerall and see if he concurs with the survey that shows
where the eel grass is. Because according to this survey, the
pilings are not going to be placed in the eel grass. But we
really, Chris has been doing extensive eel grass surveys and trying
to replant and trying to reestablish areas throughout the town and
actually throughout --
Board of Trustees
16 April 16, 2008
TRUSTEE KING: His comment to me was the whole area is one of the
most pristine eel grass sites in New York and he's very concerned
about what is going on there. So I think it would be prudent of us
let him get over there, he said he would be over there in the next
few weeks and do a survey. 1 think it would be prudent on our part
holding this off until he gets that completed and we get his report.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments from the Board?
(No response.)
Any other comment from anybody?
MR. NIELSON: One other thing. I have the mailing cards and I
E-mailed some photographs.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Number four, Pat Moore on behalf of SPYRO AVDOULOS
requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #6553 and Coastal Erosion
Permit #6553C to demolish the existing second floor and construct
new second floor landward of the CEHA, new two-story addition
landward of existing residence, and alterations to the east side of
the foundation wall. Located: 54985 North Road, Greenport.
Is there anyone here to comment on this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Good evening. I have with me this evening the
architect Angel Turno, Mr. and Mrs. Avdoulos are here and Joe
Fischette here to discuss, to address some of the issues that were
raised with respect to the original permit.
I'm going to defer to him because you have heard from me and I
know you've gotten lots of correspondence from me, so I'm going to
ask him to speak, and then after he's completed his presentation
then if there are any additional issues, I'll ask to be heard.
Thank you.
MR. FISCHETTE: Good evening, I'm Joe Fischette, I'm an engineer,
private practice, in Southold. I'm a board certified structural
engineer and I had been a builder for about 30 years.
I would like to put something up on the wall so we can all be
on the same page.
I read the transcript. Pat had hired me to be the expert for
the Zoning Board to discuss the bluff issues at the Zoning Board.
I got involved at that point in the structure itself because there
was a section of the structure, that foundation that needed, one of
the builders at the site said there was no footing under the one
section. So I was asked to go over there and evaluate the
structure, which is what I did. I wrote a letter to the Trustees
at that point saying the existing structure was sound and was able
to hold the new design.
Board of Trustees
17 April 16, 2008
The one -- excuse me, not the Trustees. The Zoning Board. I
wrote a letter to the Zoning Board. Sorry -- that the structure
was sound at that point. The wall to the foundation wall on the
east side, which is this section here --
TRUSTEE KING: When you talk about the structure, do you mean the
foundation or the first story?
MR. FISCHETTE: The foundation right now is what holds up the
house. It's the foundation I'm talking about now. So the
foundational structure essentially holds up the house. So this
wall right here was the one that there was a question about that
had no--
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Along here.
MR. FISCHETTE: Yes. Did not have a footing under the foundation
block wall. So there was some concern whether that section needed
to have an additional footing put underneath and that's what was
the request. There was some question about, on this Board had,
when I read the transcripts as to stories and floors, and I just
want to try to clarify that.
One of the Board members was talking about whether a story
could hold up a second story. Now, a story is basically a term
used in the building code for building code issues. Not really an
architectural or engineering term. And a story is really that
portion of the structure defined in the building code as that
portion of the structure from the first floor above the floor, to
the next floor. It's a term used for dwelling areas, living
areas. It's not really a term used technically by engineers. Now
floors, first floor, second floor, as you see on architectural
drawings is basically what we use. Now, the first floor is
basically the floor structure and all the walls of the first
floor. The second floor would be the second floor structure, that
structure that is holding that, and the second floor walls. That's
pretty much what the terms are.
So there was some confusion in the transcript that one person
was talking about stories and Pat was talking about floors, but
we'll just leave that for now.
What I would really like to discuss here is the building --
can you hear me? If I could go ahead and talk then I can talk to
here. The permit itself is pretty specific as to specific items
that need to be done and I'm going to read right from the permit.
And it says here: Remove and demolish a portion of the house
within the CEHA and retain existing foundation and revert it to a
patio. And this is from here, the back of the house with new
walls. Now, that's this structure right here. That was within the
coastal zone erosion line. What was happening there is that
structure -- now, the red lines are the existing house. The
existing exterior walls of the house. When we take that out, we
Board of Trustees 18 April 16, 2008
are left with no back wall. Now, there is also another section in
here that was taken out, it says this portion of the existing house
to be removed. So if that little section is taken out, now we have
no back wall here because it's just not there. We have to take
that out.
Now, the second part of this permit says: Construct outside
of the CEHA with alteration, repairs, modifications to the existing
basement and first floor of the house landward of the CEHA and
landward of the proposed demolition. Basically that just means
this section here which is the hatch lines which is the two-story
portion of the house that is existing. And we are talking about
modifying those floors. Because it's modifying the first floor of
the house, basically taking out the walls that are in there now.
Now, the third part of this is demolish the existing second
floor. Now that means the floor structure itself and the second
floor whatever walls are up there. And that has to be demolished
because it doesn't hold anything up now because we have taken out
the walls downstairs.
Now, the third part of this permit is to construct a new
two-story addition landward of the existing residence. That's this
section. Now, if we add a new addition that took off the back to
the front, we have to take off the front of the wall. So this
front wall has to come out, because we are building a new portion
of the house here. So to put the volume in here, we have to take
off that rear wall. So we are left with this wall and this wall.
Now just for purposes of this, we have hatched lines going
this way, that's the new two-story structure. This is the existing
house, existing first floor and the new second floor, and this
clear area over here is a one-story structure that is off the side
of the house. It's just part of the architecture. And that's what
is used. So when you look at that picture and you say he's taken
everything down. We have to. There is no way to do it without
taking that down. We are trying to comply, the architecture was
trying to comply with the coastal zone erosion and make this compatible.
Now, there has been questions about can the first floor hold
the second floor. Well, yes, it will. Because we are designing it
to. These walls here that are left, there is one wall on one side
and one on the other, is 2x4 walls with existing windows and
existing whatever is left that was taken out. We have to comply
with building codes, we have to comply with the new wind loading
requirements and we have to comply with the new building codes
because it's more than 50% renovation, which is a level three
renovation, which requires us to comply with all parts of the code.
So those walls have to be turned out to 2x6 walls to get R-19
insulation, but those walls are still there and they'll be used
again. When the building is done and designed, the first floor will
Board of Trustees
19 April 16, 2008
be able to hold the second floor. And the floor that is there now
is actually the floor structure is not being removed. It is
existing floor structure. It's in good shape. It may need another
piece of plywood layer to level it all off. And the foundation
below that is in good shape.
Actually, Pat wrote you a letter, when I reviewed the
structure, I found that because this section here is only a
one-story structure, all the problems about putting a footing
underneath there is not required because there is no load on that
wall. It's only aone-story wall and only has two feet of roof
load that is on it. So actually you don't even have to repair that
foundation wall. It can stay just the way it is. And I would be
glad to answer any questions.
TRUSTEE KING: In my mind, when you have a second story, it's added
on to the top of the first story.
MR. FISCHETTE: Yes.
MS. MOORE: I understand that is your position. I understand what
you believed. But in fact, and I think that's why I had Joe
explain to you the different aspects of this application. My
application right from the beginning was cutting away parts of the
whole house. We essentially took the house and imagine it was a
piece of cake. We were taking half the cake away.
TRUSTEE KING: This is not a piece of cake, that's for sure.
MS. MOORE: No, it's very complicated. I understand the complexity
of the construction of asingle-family dwelling. It's very
complicated and what even confuses or complicates the matter more,
is when you are dealing with the second floor and you are dealing
with cutting away part of the house and building on the other, the
entire house now has to be in conformity with the state building
code, and I think that's where, when you see the frame that is
there, and on the other side it was a porch, so that when the frame
is left with the windows taken out and the sheathing and all of the
parts that don't conform with the state building code, that's what
you have left. And I recently gave you a letter because
unfortunately when you have the duplication of permits, the Zoning
Board went through this in very great detail with all of the
aspects of the construction that were discussed.
In your, with your Board, there was less detail. It was
described but I didn't realize that you didn't -- you and I were
not communicating. So I take the responsibility for not
understanding that you did not, you didn't understand the same
terms as I did and I knew what this was going to look like at the
end, but you obviously were thinking more of a second-floor
alteration where you were taking a first floor and doing a second
floor addition/dormer. Anything more than adormer -- now, that's
not what was described to you. And that's where I was perplexed
Board of Trustees 20 April 16, 2008
because I would never have realized that's what you believed.
Because that's not what I applied for. That's not the description
I gave you. The surveyor, we had him redo the survey probably
three or four times in order to make sure that all the annotations,
all of the changes were on the survey. I even gave you have a set
of construction, well, drawings, elevations, that the Zoning Board
required because with the photograph that showed the before and the
after.
So I really did try, I was not trying to put anything over on
you. Believe me, this is, I have been here long enough. We ask
for things right up front, because it only hurts everyone in the
end. I had contractors, supplies, my client, I mean all of us,
have been on pins and needles because this project has now been
stopped for two months, a month, whatever. Time flies. So that's
where we are presently.
I resubmitted to you to keep the process going because we need
to get this project done. We have builders, we have contractors,
this is all local. This is hard economic times. Don't let me kid
you. If are you are out in the business world there is significant
recession going on. So everybody is impacted.
I'm here to answer any questions. Again, I apologize for not
understanding what you were saying and not realizing that you and I
were talking about two different projects, and, again, please go
back and look at how the application was described to you. What
you believed it to be was not what we described. So, and I had Joe
come in and try to explain. In the meantime, I do want to let you
know, the Zoning Board faxed me the their decision. That has all
been approved. Again, they had a clear understanding of the extent
of the construction. There was no issue there. It was just a
question of whether the foundation needed alterations and nowadays
the Zoning Board does put some language in their decision that
says, hey, a small alteration doesn't make you have to start over
when it's clear from the application what you are doing. And in
this case we said, we understood, we had a $78,000 foundation here,
and let me tell you, for any of you who are doing construction, if
you can save $78,000 on a project, you do. And that's what we had
here. The foundation is usable. It's valuable. And we want to
just continue with the project as it was proposed.
I will get you, this is Joe's file. I'll get you the Zoning
Board decision to put in your file so you can see it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think this is a lot of information and I'm
wondering if it should be not an amendment to the wetland permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, what did you say? I didn't hear you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a lot of information to go over. It's more than
an amendment, I think.
MS. MOORE: No offense, but my permit asked for it. In your head you
Board of Trustees
21 April 16, 2008
believed it to be a second-floor alteration. That is not what we
applied for.
MR. FISCHETTE: It says in here, demolish second floor and build new
second floor.
TRUSTEE KING: Demolish second floor.
MS. MOORE: And build three walls of the first floor. Please don't
stop reading there. Igo through line by line. I said, I even
said alterations to the basement. Because we knew we had, we were
cutting away, as Joe described, a corner in this coastal erosion
line. We have to build new when you cut away. If you are cutting
away the foundation, you have to put a new one in.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, let Jim.
TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bergen was very explicit in the questions he
asked in our testimony here. He asked, we don't want to run into a
situation where the whole house, when you remove the second story,
all of a sudden the whole house has to come down to the ground
because the first story couldn't hold the second story.
MS. MOORE: I understand that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let him finish.
TRUSTEE KING: You said the architect looked at it, an engineer has
not. I know it's been looked at several times for that issue
because I always emphasize that with everyone. To our knowledge it
can, it's structurally sufficient. The house is in good shape, the
foundation is a sturdy foundation.
MS. MOORE: There you go. The foundation is a sturdy foundation.
TRUSTEE KING: The house is in good shape also. In my mind that
means the Hirst story, you take off the roof and put a second story
on top of the first story.
MS. MOORE: But you didn't read the part of my application that says
I'm cutting the house away from the coastal erosion. Remember the
line of the house.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We understand you are demolishing that one
portion. That's one wall. That's not all four.
MS. MOORE: That's this wall here. This wall here is the new
portion, the new addition. There is no wall, you don't leave a
wall when you are doing a whole new foundation. And the outside of
the house now is here. We are flipping, essentially, the house.
And essentially pushing it back by seven-and-a-half feet. Okay?
That's what the whole description -- and it's not so easy to say
pick up and move back because you are not picking it up. You are
actually cutting away, keeping the walls that you can, keeping the
foundation and putting the new part of the house on the landward
side. On the landward side of the property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: As an addition.
MS. MOORE: Exactly.
MR. FISCHETTE: That wall gone. Because you are putting a new
Board of Trustees 22 April 16, 2008
addition in the front. So the two walls that are left. And again,
when you take that, the first floor consists of the floor structure
and the floor walls. The second floor consists of the second floor
and the second floor walls. So when you take off the second floor,
it's not just taking off the roof. It's taking off the floor.
Because it has to support -- the new floor has to support properly
and be the proper structure. The old building was an old, it's,
this is the first floor. The second floor basically starts at the
first floor structure and the second floor walls. So it's really
what you understood to be a second floor is not just a roof.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think your premise is wrong, and I'll tell you
why. What happened here is exactly what we thought was going to
happen. I think we fully understood what the scope of the job is
going to be and the questions that we asked looked to get that out
of the testimony. We wanted somebody at that time to say that this
is what was going to happen. I think as a Board when we discussed
it, we all knew that these were things that were going to need to
be done. Being in construction, I know that this needs to be done,
which is why we asked the questions that we asked. And we said at
the time that if this happens, that we would like to see the whole
structure moved back. We have done that in the past. It's
consistent with things that we have done.
So I think your premise that we didn't understand is wrong. I
fully understand it. Now the question is what are we going to do
about it. That's where we are at.
MR. FISCHETTE: If you understood it at the last meeting why didn't
you speak up if you didn't understand Pat?
MS. MOORE: And my answer was --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We did. Your answer was --
MR. FISCHETTE: You just said you understood this was going to
happen.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I knew it was going to happen and it was just a
case of this is going to come back to us. I knew it. I even said it.
MS. MOORE: Are we again doing one of these?
MR. FISCHETTE: This is pretty specific. I mean these are pretty
specific in here. It's pretty specific words, but the words that
are said in here doesn't seem to be the words that you understand
or you say you understand them.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I understand it but I think as a Board we felt we
wanted -- that if all the walls are going to come down, and this is
where we were going to start from, that we were basically going to
start from the ground up --
MS. MOORE: But you are not. That's the whole point. You have
78,000 of a seven-foot basement, eight-foot basement? It's a full
basement, a full structure. So when you are using, when you are
doing work on a house, again, your issues are related to how is the
Board of Trustees 23 April 16, 2008
waterfront affected. Remember, setbacks and things of that nature,
the Zoning Board has addressed. And the Zoning Board understood
all the issues and said, no, you are keeping the foundation. We
understand you are mitigating the setback to the top of the bank,
which in fact in this case there is a bulkhead, it's a 25% slope,
there is a jetty. So there is no issue of top of bank being
dangerous in any way whatsoever and if you want Joe, we had this
whole testimony at the Zoning Board hearing, we can repeat it here,
but the bottom line here is there is absolutely no impact on the
bank here. And that's one of the issues that you typically
address. So I would be happy to go over that. But understand that
when you are -- and I hate to -- I don't want to use you as an
example, but you've had significant problems with your own home and
so you know construction. It's not a secret. When you take the
second floor out and you start taking out the sheetrock, because of
fire damage or age, not meeting code, you take out the insulation
for all those same reasons, you come down to a structure like
that. And when you see that structure, you have to assess it for
purposes of meeting the requirements of the code on the framing to
see if the framing is going to meet the code. Because again, you
have to go back to the strapping, the hurricane standards, all the
things. So when you are saying you understand that a house is
going to go down this to this. Absolutely. And that's where I
thought you and I understood each other that, no, the foundation,
the floor structure and the foundation is staying in place.
Because, again, the contractor is here, actually. We have a value
to this structure of approximately $78,000. So it is a significant
structure. Now we have determined it is structurally sound in all
respects. We would prefer that one wall. I think everyone would
have preferred to have the one -- which was the outside porch
wall. There is still the interior wall of the foundation. This
was an exterior, now becomes the exterior wall of the house.
That's the one that doesn't have footings. But now we have
alternatives. If you don't want us to touch it, we won't. We had
alternatives from the beginning to show the Building Department to
keep the process moving.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Sorry, Pat, with all the conversations we are
having of who said what at the last meeting and you said our
understanding and what our understanding was, at what point could
you not have said, yes, we are taking that down and the walls.
Because I think they were pointed questions to you but we never got
you to say this is what is going to happen. And maybe that's what
led us to this confusion.
MS. MOORE: And I'm sorry about that. Remember the way the hearing
went is that you addressed, for a significant part of the hearing,
the sanitary system. I had Health Department approval already and
Board of Trustees
24 April 16, 2008
you wanted me for 15 feet or so to push the sanitary beyond where I
had already gotten Health Department approval. Your survey showed
it but you said, no, we want you to push the sanitary at least 100
feet away. So I'm dealing with that question and thinking to
myself, oh, crap, I have to go back to the Health Department
because I had Health Department approval. You know what, that's
fine. We'll abide by that. So I'm thinking of that issue and I'm
still thinking that our description of the project with taking
walls down, because remember, that's what I described right from
the beginning, was never a question that you understood that the
walls were coming down, so.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm still saying, the questions asked by Bob and
Dave were pointed enough that at some point if you said, yes, we
are taking this down, I think that would have taken care of this.
MS. MOORE: Again, it's Monday morning quarterback. Could I do it
differently. Yes, today I would. But also understand that to us a
demolition, taking the house down, is taking a foundation out.
That is what historically the town has determined, the Building
Department at least, and Zoning Board in the past, has said if you
are going to take the house down, that is the entire foundation has
to be taken out. Then at that point there is nothing left to argue
that you have a vacant piece of property. And therefore we are
dealing with issues of the property and its setbacks and so on as
if it is a vacant piece of property. That's not what we had here.
So I apologize, I really do, that I didn't understand that when you
were asking questions of the first floor, that you were thinking
this while I'm thinking taking the house down is the foundation.
Because if you see my response is, no, the foundation is fine, we
are going to use it. That's, you know, paraphrasing what was read.
So I'm thinking one way and you are thinking another. And
that's why I asked Joe, because I'm like, Joe, obviously I didn't
hear them and they didn't hear me and, again, I had a full
application with the whole description. So understand my position,
I think that what I wrote, somebody has read, you know.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Again, our concern is if this is what was going
-- well, this is what happened, we would have possibly asked that
house to be moved back and if I could just --
MS. MOORE: I think I would have objected then --also understand I
read the decision after, remember, we have a permit that says
exactly what my application requested, which is walls down,
everything, but keeping the foundation. Altering the foundation.
The permit asked for that. The permit said it. So I didn't
realize that you were going to read this as start over because
again, historically, and again, I go only, I mean this is six
months ago or eight months ago. Historically, you don't treat a
house that is keeping a foundation the same as a house that has
Board of Trustees 25 April 16, 2008
taken out a foundation. There is a significant value. And, again,
I know I said it already, but we don't want to take out something
that has value.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I can speak for a minute, since I was the one
who has been quoted here. I know what my intention was with my
line of questioning. And I know my intention was to make sure that
it was clear that we were not going to see this happen. My
intention was it was just going to be a second floor taken off, and
I understand there was a wall coming out on the seaward side
there. And that there would be a structure still left. And the
first time I drove past this, one of those two walls you see
there wasn't there. In other words -- let me finish -- they had
taken everything down except for a few 2x4s, I think, I'm not sure
which side it was. I'm being honest. I don't remember which side
it was, and when it was brought to somebody's attention, one of
those old walls suddenly reappeared and was put back up there. So
essentially this thing was taken down to the floor, which is what I
was trying to state that we wanted to make sure we didn't see that.
I agree with a lot of what Bob has said here today. We were
concerned at the time whether the foundation could hold a second
floor structure.
MS. MOORE: Exactly. Right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I wanted to make sure that question was asked
because we didn't want to approve something where all of a sudden
they put a second floor on it and the foundation can't hold it and
now everyone is pointing fingers as to who is responsible for
that. So we were concerned about that also as far as the foundation goes.
Now, I understand the issue that the foundation is worth money.
Absolutely it is. But we are also dealing with the LWRP and we are
dealing with, right or wrong, whether you agree or disagree with
it, it is law right now, and when structures come down to a point
where we feel the entire structure can be moved back to comply with
the LWRP or to at least move it back so it's in line with the
neighbors or something to help address the LWRP issues, we try to
address that. And I think that if we had known last time that the
intention was to take this structure basically down to the
foundation, with, yes, the decking of the first floor is there and
yes there is a chimney there for the fireplace, that that might
have been taken into consideration at that time is this the
opportunity to move the entire structure back.
But because we were left with the impression what we were
going to see is a first floor still there, we didn't go there. So
that's, that was my take on it.
MS. MOORE: I understand. I know. And here we are.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Here we are now, the entire structure is down
except for two flimsy pieces of walling left.
Board of Trustees
26 April 16, 2008
MS. MOORE: Just so you know, what I did is, again, you don't have
the benefit, and this is duplication because we had the whole issue
and the LWRP addressed at the Zoning Board level. And I sent you a
letter that most of you probably haven't read because it came to
you yesterday or the day before.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just got it.
MS. MOORE: Yes, sorry. I was trying to catch you while you picked
up your mail and I didn't catch you in time. When you read all of
the issues of the LWRP, we actually are consistent. And the Zoning
Board, when you read this decision, you'll see, that they also
agree that the issues that we are dealing with here are consistent
with the LWRP. The LWRP takes different policies --and remember
that bringing a house into conformity with the state building code
and all the other codes that are applicable, is making it
conforming with the LWRP. So it's not I as simplistic as, oh, move
the house back. It's much more complicated, as you know, and there
are lots of policies and we actually went through each of the
individual policies and how we actually do conform to the LWRP.
So I have the Zoning Board decision which I was pleased to get
faxed to me today because timing wise, you know, you'll have the
benefit of it. So I'll give that to you as well.
TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing.) It's beyond an amendment, in my mind
MS. MOORE: I would object to that because we are delaying it
another month. And plus the fact I have a permit for what we did.
That's why I had Joe read to you line by line the request. The
fact that you and I did not communicate well enough doesn't change
the fact that what we asked for is what the permit says. So, and
keep in mind that this is really a hardship on anyone that is, has
a construction project going on. So --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with Jim. I think it's beyond the
amendment and I think we need to probably reword the description so
it's clear to everybody and so it's --
MS. MOORE: How do I make it any clearer? In fact I actually, what
it says, it allows us to do what we did. So if there is --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Apparently we didn't think it was the same as you.
MS. MOORE: But there was no other way for me to describe it because --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are reconstructing the entire house, the way it
was sectioned off.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: To us it's not a renovation. You are
rebuilding. I'm just saying, this is how we are seeing it.
MS. MOORE: I understand. But please look at the way the law
reads. And the law reads under the Coastal Erosion Law,
maintenance is inkind/inplace replacement. Believe it or not. And
it doesn't require even a coastal erosion permit. That's the
definition of maintenance. So keep in mind, I have to live with
the way the code reads, not subjective interpretation, so. Well, I
Board of Trustees 27 Apri] 16, 2008
actually did ask for an amendment. You are telling me we need a
whole new permit? I don't agree.
MR. FISCHETTE: Don't ask for the permit. We'll live with what we have.
TRUSTEE KING: This has turned into a nightmare. I think it would
have been a lot easier if it was just submitted as a demolition of
the existing house down to the foundation and rebuilding it. That
would have solved a lot of aggravation here. But this wasn't. This
was proposed as a second-story addition. That's all that was proposed here.
MR. FISCHETTE: Let me clarify a couple of things. Again, it was
not a demolition. Pat tried as best she could to conform. The
reason it was done in the sections it was done is to show she was
removing areas that would conform. That was not trying to put
anything over on anybody. It was the best she could do to move
this out of here, to move those out, to build a new structure on
the landward side. It was done in that way so you would know they
were making an effort to comply here and not making an effort to
subvert something or make it more complicated. We were hoping you
would understand what was going on here and, again, the
terminologies are the terminologies.
TRUSTEE KING: Why was the stop work order issued by the building
inspector? It says here town discovered work pursuant to the
building permit, variance and other permits had gone beyond the
scope of authorization.
MS. MOORE: I'm told that the Trustees directed the stop work
order. I don't know where it comes from. As soon as I heard that
a stop work order was issued I went to Mike and I said, Mike, the
permit says what we are doing. I don't know what else, you know.
And at that point, someone had given them the directive. Why have
you issued a violation, you know. Why are we at this point?
Because it comes from you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, the stop work order is separate from the
violation. Stop work order is from the Building Department and
they would not have put a stop work order if it was not
non-compliant with their permit. You can't put a, the Building
Department can't put a stop work order on a Trustee permit.
MS. MOORE: But they directed me to come back to you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, because now you are not in compliance with
our permit.
MS. MOORE: We had a set of construction drawings so the Building
Department, of all of them, should understand how a permit works.
We had construction drawing that had a building permit. Those
construction drawings show exactly what is taken out, exactly what
is being left behind. So for him to issue, for Mike to issue a
stop work order absolutely floored me because I mean that's what we
have, not only verbally, because, you don't have construction
drawings. It's premature to do construction drawings with you. I
Board of Trustees 28 April 16, 2008
do the best I can which is if the ZBA is asking for elevations, I
give them to you. Which in this case you have. So I give you the
drawings, which is more than most of your standard boxes of we are
building here and we are building there. The next place is court
to tell, to rescind the stop work order. I don't want do go there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The stop work order is with the Building
Department. MS. MOORE: I understand that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So let's stay on the Trustee --
MS. MOORE: Okay. Then don't ask me about the Building Department
MR. CORCORAN: I would say I don't think that the taking down and
rebuilding of a part of the house is normal maintenance under
coastal erosion law. It says normal maintenance is periodic
replacement or repair of same kind structural elements. Whereas
restoration, which is a regulated activity, is substantially
differently defined.
MS. MOORE: And I'm saying to you I took the conservative position,
which is restoration.
MR. CORCORAN: I know. I'm just defining what you just said that we
don't need a coastal erosion permit to take down part of the house
and rebuild it. I would disagree with that.
MS. MOORE: Okay. And I'm reading the language of the ordinance.
MR. CORCORAN: That's what I just read.
MS. MOORE: Okay. Structural elements to an engineer --
MR. CORCORAN: Periodic replacement as opposed to restoration, which
is rebuilding.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to deny this amendment without prejudice and
table the coastal erosion permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(Trustee King, aye. Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Dickerson, aye.
Trustee Bergen, aye.)
(Trustee Ghosio, nay.)
TRUSTEE KING: For the record, Trustee Ghosio votes nay. The rest of
the Board votes yes.
MS. MOORE: See you in court.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: We'll move on to wetland permits.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number one, Suffolk Environmental on behalf of
LLOYD KAPLAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a swimming pool
with a surrounding patio and attendant pool equipment, pool drywell
Board of Trustees 29 April 16, 2008
and pool fencing, landscaping, landscape retaining wall and
entrance gate. Located: 105 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
We have all been there and seen the property. The LWRP has
found it to be exempt. Exempt action. CAC resolved to support the
application. There were no recommendations made. There was a
violation for some cutting of plants on the bluff. I believe
that's been taken care of.
Is there anybody here who would like to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for
the applicant Mr. Kaplan. I really have nothing to add to that
other than to let you know that the violation was resolved. I'm
told that I can obtain an Administrative Permit to maintain the
vegetation at the top of the bluff, which is the client's interest
in, this but I've elected to make that application later so this can progress.
This application includes all of the components that are shown
on the survey prepared by John Ehlers which is before you as well
as the landscape plan which we prepared for you. And I'm just here
to answer any questions you may have. Obviously all the activities
are between the house and the road, which is what the regulations
seem to encourage.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I like the digital pool you put in the pictures here.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As I recall, there were not that many comment on
this. We seemed to be okay. We looked at the bluff and seen some
of the cuttings and we saw what was happening there, but the pool
itself was fine. Does anybody else on the Board have any comments
or questions?
TRUSTEE KING: No, the pool was no problem.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Then I would make a motion we close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion we approve this
wetland permit on behalf of Lloyd Kaplan requesting to construct a
swimming pool with a surrounding patio and attendant pool
equipment, pool drywell and pool fencing, landscaping, landscape
retaining wall and entrance gate. Located at 105 Soundview Avenue,
Southold.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, good night.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, Peconic Associates on behalf of
STIRLING HARBOR SHIPYARD AT GREENPORT, INC., requests a Wetland
Permit to replace in the same location as the existing
approximately 535 linear feet of deteriorated bulkhead on "D" dock,
Board ofTrustees 30 April 16, 2008
on "C" dock and on the "work" dock and remove/replace 1,000 cubic
yards of material behind the replaced bulkhead, replace 4,100
square feet of fixed dock with 4,300 square feet of floating dock;
replace 205 existing pilings in conjunction with the fixed docks
with 32 pilings to secure the proposed floating docks. Construct a
four-foot retaining wall approximately 16' landward of existing
bulkhead. Located: Stirling Harbor, Greenport.
The Board went out and looked at this, and it is consistent
under the LWRP, and the CAC resolved to support the application.
Is there anybody here to speak for or against this application?
(No response.)
I know when we looked at it -- sorry.
MR. ROCKER: My name is John Rocker, Latham Sand & Gravel. If you
have any questions I would be happy to help you out.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We went out and looked at this and we had very few
issues with this. We wanted to make sure, and it is depicted, I
noticed on one of the plans, there was afour-foot retaining wall
about 16-foot landward of the existing bulkhead. That was, I
believe, along the "D" dock area, as they called this out.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I had Lauren add that to the description because
it was on the survey but it was not in the description.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I'm looking at sheet five of six of the plan
submitted February 13, page five of six. It does show a four foot
retaining wall 16 feet from the existing bulkhead. And I know out
in the field we had talked about that being anon-turf buffer area
along there that we wanted to see that whole 16-foot area as a
non-turf buffer.
MR. ROCKER: I'm sure you've seen the other projects that have been
renovated down there. Basically we are cutting it and moving it
back and making it usable land. That's the reason for the
retaining wall. And underneath that walkway has been placed clean
sand for drainage purposes to prevent any sort of spilling of any kind.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, you hvae here afour-foot wide pathway in this
16-foot area with crushed stone underneath. And again, just to be
more specific, I think we are saying here is the entire 16 foot
width can be a non-turf buffer. So what I'm hearing you say is
that four-foot wide path would be a non-turf buffer and what we
asked for in the field is the entire 16 foot area can be a
non-tougher buffer. There is no grass since there is sod put in that area.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we said we would check the previous permit
to check the one section that was completed and I think we did that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You're right. I remember that being said in the
field but right now, you know, I'm just dealing with what the
request is before and us I'm asking the applicant if the applicant
is okay with that entire 16 foot walkway path, whatever you want
call it, area, to be a non-turf buffer.
Boazd of Trustees 31 April 16, 2008
MR. HOCKER: That I can't answer for them. I'm not the lead on this
permit. I know it would be, it would make it completely different
than the rest of the projects that have been going on there. That
area is, you know, kind of, the whole idea behind it is obviously
to prevent the drainage problems that you have as is, and I mean
all the runoff is going directly right over the top and right down
and it makes that area usable for a picnic table or something, you know.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It could still be used exactly as you are stated
without that sod being there. But I'm open to opinions of other
members of the Board on this.
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to look, just make it consistent with
what we had in the first permit as far as the buffer goes. I don't
remember whether we said all non-turf or just the one section with
the walkway over it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: 1 do recall, actually my memory is coming back to
me on this one, because I remember this because of the pool area
and at that time we had talked about non-turf under the walkway and
we specifically stated under the walkway we wanted it to be
non-turf. We did not address the rest of that area other than
under the walkway.
MR. HOCKER: And it is.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I'm confident that you complied and you built
what was approved in the last permit. So if the Board feels
comfortable with making everything consistent in appearance here
with just the four-foot wide non-turf rather than 16 foot, that's
fine also. That's why I'm opening it up for comment from the Board.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have a problem with it.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a huge problem because with what they
are doing. It's a vast improvement over what is there now. So it's
going to do away with a lot of runoff. And I think they want to
use that for picnic tables or something along that area.
MR. HOCKER: It makes it usable space. If that's sand, they could
still use it, but they'll be tracking it all over the place. 1
just can't answer that for them.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When we were out there, Jesse Gaffga said
that people who have their boats there prefer the grass over
anything else.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a problem if they want to make that
boardwalk a foot wider to increase the size of the non-turf.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We could do that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's on the plan depicted as a four-foot walkway.
TRUSTEE KING: I wouldn't have a problem with five feet wide.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think what I'm hearing Jim say is make it a
five-foot wide walkway, right, Jim, and underneath it's gravel.
TRUSTEE KING: It would increase the area by a foot. I don't have a
huge problem with it.
Board of Trustees 32 April 16, 2008
MR. ROCKER: If you want to mandate it, if we are going to be going
around the corner from a four footer, if you want it wider, it's
just a wider walkway.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's that big a deal either way.
MR. ROCKER: I don't know if it makes a difference. It's pitched
level in that area.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm fine with leaving it at four.
TRUSTEE KING: Leave it at that, then.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Another thing we noted out in the field was that
135 foot of existing bulkhead that is near the work area, near the
travel width area, that we wanted to make sure we include it in the
description it would be the inclusion of water and electric along
that bulkhead. Because it currently has water and electric and you
said you wanted to maintain that because it's a work dock. So we
want to make sure in the description it includes in there that in
that 135-foot bulkhead length, that water and electricity would be
included in there.
MR. ROCKER: Yes, thank you. Because it's old service and it would
be replaced with new.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. And other comments?
MR. ROCKER: I also wanted to make note of the existing floating
work dock in front of that bulkhead which there are no plans for
work done to it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's depicted on the plan and we measured it to
be 6x120 foot float. So the same float would be maintained there.
Being no other comments, I make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve number two, Peconic
Associates on behalf of Stirling Harbor Shipyard at Greenport, as
described, with the only change to it being we want to include
water and electric on the 135 foot of existing bulkhead that is
depicted as a work dock next to, adjacent to the one-story building
that is on the plan. And that that float, the 6x120 feet in front
of it would be maintained. And it was found consistent under LWRP,
so we would determine this to be consistent.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. ROCKER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number three, Costello Marine Contracting on
behalf of THOMAS GIESE requests a Wetland Permit to remove the
remains of existing wooden dock, cut down 32' of existing
bulkhead to grade level. Construct a 4x12' walkway onto a 4x34'
Board of Trustees 33 April 16, 2008
fixed dock with a 3x20' "L" section decked to 46" wide at offshore
end. Located: 5860 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue.
Is there anybody here to speak for or against this application?
MR. COSTELLO: My name is John Costello. I'm with Costello Marine
Contracting. We are the agents for Mr. Giese on this application.
And if the Board has any questions, I just want to reiterate that
since the original application was submitted to this Board, we have
eliminated putting the bulkhead in and what we are requesting is
basically either leaving the existing bulkhead cut down at the
lower stringer or installing a low sill bulkhead. We mitigated it
by eliminating the bulkhead.
What we did, we had originally had asix-foot wide float that
was going to go out. We have eliminated the float because I know
that the Board has had previous litigation and they won,
eliminating the float on an adjacent dock. What we did is come up
with athree-foot wide, instead of a six-foot wide float, we come
up with a three-foot wide "L."
We've have also mitigated by trying to get a flow through
decking placed on all of the docks. We have eliminated any
offshore piling being placed at the location but we did stake it
out showing the width of a boat laying broadside to the fixed
dock. There was some discussions of cutting down the retaining
walls that are adjacent to the railway.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: John, when we talked in the field, Jim was
suggesting since that property is the widest property there, to do
a "T" instead of an "L."
MR. COSTELLO: We could do a "T." It wouldn't bother putting a "T"
on the dock. The only thing is where it is so wide I was just
trying to maintain the 15-foot buffer from the projected property
line as normally recommended by the Board. That's the only reason
it is in an "L."
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we did a "T" could you do the "T" part 15 feet
instead of 20?
MR. COSTELLO: I wouldn't recommend it. We had an application here
for 6x25 float. I'm trying to make it 3x20"'L" or "T." I probably
would need at least possibly one more piling out front in order to,
not going offshore, but in line. And that was mentioned but not, I
did not come up with any plans until the Board makes its
recommendations. But we did, one last item we did discuss was
cutting down the two perpendicular retaining walls alongside the
repel way. I discussed that with the owner. He said fine, cut
them down just above the beach level so it doesn't disturb the
beach. But eliminate as much --and when Peggy suggested less is
better, certainly we did less than that. We lessened -- I don't
know. We lessened the size, we lessened, we added flow-through
decking, we lessened the mooring piling.
Board of Trustees
34 April 16, 2008
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Was there any discussion as far as redoing like a
little low-profile retaining wall?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, he wants me to give him a price before he makes
up his mind. But 1 think that would be a wise investment only
because it would give longevity, it would stop the erosion that is
occurring because that bank is eroding and it's going out into the
creek. So I didn't give him a price yet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What do you feel about the "L" to a "T", Jim?
MR. COSTELLO: It's just of a matter of what you want to keep.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just asking the Board. Do you remember
seeing this, Bob?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I remember seeing it. To me, the square footage
coverage will be the same whether it's a "T" or an "L." So if he
wants an "L."
TRUSTEE KING: Unless he shortens the "T" up.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think one of the comments we discussed, too,
is this is one of the larger spans of property in the area where
most of them are smaller along that stretch. This has more.
MR. COSTELLO: It did have a second dock on it to the south. There
is a piece of that. But, you know, I'd hate to come back in and try to get two docks.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC recommends the existing bulkhead be removed
and area be cleaned up and revegetated and that the shoreline
should be left in its natural state. That was the CAC's recommendation.
LWRP has it inconsistent. It is stating policy five; protect
and improve water quality and it mentions chemically treated lumber
but also that it is Cutchogue Harbor wetlands is a significant fish
and wildlife area. It also recommends a silt boom.
MR. COSTELLO: I think the silt boom with the amount of mud is
possibly a wise move.
TRUSTEE KING: That would be my suggestion. If we made that a
20-foot "T" it reduces the overall length by the width of the
catwalk, which is four feet, and it also shortens the catwalk up by
making this a "T", right, John?
MR. COSTELLO: If you carry it through the dock, yes, it lessens it
by four feet. But, you know, I'm not so sure -- the depth of
water, there is not a lot of water.
TRUSTEE KING: It should be the same. It's in the same location.
MR. COSTELLO: I don't have that with me.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In actuality, where the right side of the "T",
you'll actually have more water.
TRUSTEE KING: We are actually shortening the catwalk putting the
"T" on the end and that's all going to be flow-through grating.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, I'll certainly try to mitigate it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And showing it on Saturday the way we should do
the property line, it should go straight out and then he would
Board of Trustees 35 April 16, 2008
still meet the 15 foot.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We are just talking.
MR. COSTELLO: Jill is talking to herself? That's nothing new.
TRUSTEE KING: That's my suggestion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Would you be agreeable to that?
MR. COSTELLO: I want to find out if the Board agrees to it. I
mean, it's not my dock. Four foot, if it has the same depth of
water, I see no objection. You are taking my profit away, but I'll
make it up with the town.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll cut down those two -- almost like a
bulkhead/groin type.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have the cut downs. The four foot by 12 foot
walkway on to a 4x30?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: With a 3x20 sill but it will be a "T" off the end.
MR. COSTELLO: Right.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else here this evening --
MR. COSTELLO: That's the consensus of the Board? Before I draw it?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Six-inch piles?
MR. COSTELLO: Well, six, six-and-a-half. Six inch piles are fine.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I want to see if there is anyone else here this
evening who would like to speak to this. If not --
MR. COSTELLO: Let me just ask, would that allow for one additional
piling in front so that --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Where do you mean by in front?
MR. COSTELLO: Over by the railway. If we are going to put it in a
"T", in line with the dock, that's all.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it has a "T" with the piling, offset piling.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. Again, that could be a six-inch piling.
TRUSTEE KING: This was found inconsistent, right? But we are
cutting stuff down and trying to naturalize that shoreline so it's
kind of a restoration, too.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do we want to add plantings?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Beach grass?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think it's well vegetated above that bulkhead as
it is. The proposed cut down bulkhead.
MR. COSTELLO: The low sill bulkhead you have to put alterna flora
in because the tide will come in on it every day.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If your client will do the low sill bulkhead he'll
have to come back to us anyway. You can come back and discuss it
at that point.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: At this point we are just saying cut it down to
grade, what's existing.
MR. COSTELLO: I would have to come back to put a low sill bulkhead
in there?
Boazd of Trustees
36 April 16, 2008
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. COSTELLO: Why don't you just approve a low sill bulkhead now,
if he'll buy it.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll approve a low sill now --
MR. COSTELLO: And I'll try sell it and make my profit back.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We knew we would get you there.
TRUSTEE KING: That will get the profit back up, see. We'll plant
it with spartina alterna flora behind the low sill bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have a dimension on that section of low sill?
MR. COSTELLO: It's on the survey, on the drawing there.
TRUSTEE KING: Low sill bulkhead is 30, 34 feet.
MR. COSTELLO: I have to come back with the plans.
TRUSTEE KING: Give us a new set of plans.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And I'll make a motion to approve Costello
Marine Contracting on behalf of Thomas Giese for a wetland permit
to remove the remains of an existing wooden dock. We won't do the
bulkhead because they're going to replace it. And cut down the two
retaining walls, and we are going to permit you to construct a
4x12' walkway on to a 4x30' fixed dock with a 3x20' "T" and with
six-inch tie off pile to the south of the tee.
We are also going to permit a low sill bulkhead, 30 foot bulkhead
with plantings of spartina altema flora subject to new plans being
brought into the office. And this is all with grated decking. And
with all of these mitigations we feel this will bring it into
consistency with the LW RP.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. COSTELLO: Thank you. You did a good job on doing something real
positive for Southold. I think the low sill bulkheads, in order to
protect that road, may be a way to go all along that shoreline. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Docko Inc., on behalf of WILLIAM GAILLARD requests
a Wetland Permit to construct a 6x20' timber and pile supported
pier extension and an 8x20' float with associated restraint piles,
hinged ramp and one tie-off pile all waterward of the apparent high
water line. Located: Bell Hill Avenue, Fishers Island.
It's found consistent with the LWRP and the CAC doesn't have any
comments since they didn't go out there. Is there anyone here to
speak on behalf of this application?
MR. NIELSON: My name is Keith Nielson with Docko Inc., and I
prepared the application documents before you tonight. The
application documents include a rather extensive narrative which
Boazd of Trustees 37 Apri] 16, 2008
deals with all the pertinent points of the law and coastal resource
policies. And I believe that the purpose of the project most
simply stated, the Gaillard's are striking the ground when they
bring their boats into the pier at low tides and they wanted to get
out far enough that they were in three to four feet of water. The
reason for the unusual configuration of this structure is because
Mr. Gaillard was afraid of creating what would look like a cut off
for the views of the other folks in this southeast quadrant of Hay
Harbor. So the extension and the ramp laying on the float which
extends just beyond that tie off pile shown in the picture and the
float is angled slightly to the north. That way it will be able to
deal with the worst-case waves coming into Hay Harbor which come in
just to the right of this picture and at the same time provide tie
off stability and everything for his boat.
It will put the dock broadside to some of the prevalent
wind-generated waves in the harbor. We would recommend an
eight-foot wide float, if you can approve that. If not, 6x20 will
be somewhat unstable broadside to the waves. We would prefer the
eight-foot wide width.
I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have
on the project. While we do not quite reach four feet of water,
the reason, again, is in deference to the other applicants in the
southeasterly corner from Chris Breiteran (sic) to Patterson.
So if you have any questions I would be happy to answer them.
Here are the mailing cards.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Keith, are you aware, they have a previous permit
from 1992. In that permit it says, it's a grandfather permit for a
5x58 foot dock damaged by Hurricane Bob and the condition is the
dock must not go further seaward than existing docks. That was a
condition of the previous permit. Your proposal makes this
structure go further seaward than the existing docks. And I
understand you just explained the depth. So that's something that
the Trustees have to review.
It's found consistent -- okay. Vegetation, trim to three
foot -- Jim.
MR. NIELSON: You mean the vegetation along the bank?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. The vegetation along the bank had all
been trimmed down.
MR. NIELSON: You want it to go to natural height.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And not to be trimmed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not to be trimmed.
MR. NIELSON: Is there a dimension to the buffer where that would
apply? I mean landward of the high tide line 20 feet or --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm not sure. We didn't measure it. But
basically that bank, I guess you would call it.
MR. NIELSON: Well, the bank has a rather abrupt drop off. Right in
Board of Trustees 38 April 16, 2008
the vicinity of the stairs it's fairly consistent. Is that where
you are concerned with the vegetation not being trimmed?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, the whole area, any trimming along the bank
in that whole area needs permission from us before you do it.
MR. NIELSON: And right now you are saying you are not giving --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. There was some trimming done without
permission. So I don't know how the Board feels if you want to add
that into this permit or have them come in for an Administrative
Permit with a plan or just say don't trim it anymore.
MR. NIELSON: If I could make a suggestion here. I really did not,
I was not focused on the brush on the bank and so on. But if you
are concerned with the preservation of the bank and at the same
time preservation of habitat, because their lawn starts right at
the back side of the bank, could I recommend we go for a
landscaping plan, because some of the brush there is, I can't say
that it's really attractive, but 1 think we can get something
attractive and functional in there because I know one of the things
they'll want to try and do here is preserve their view.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. If you want to come in with a separate
Administrative Permit.
TRUSTEE KING: We could do that. Some trimming to a certain height,
but we want to see at least non-turf in there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think that's what Keith means by landscape the
non-turf area. Is that what you are meaning?
MR. NIELSON: Right, like bayberry and other suitable salt-tolerant
native, non-invasive species, and at the same time preserve their view.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we can just add, like Jim was just saying, add
a non-turf buffer to this application and you can come in with a
planting plan on how you want to do it, as long as it's not turf.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: How about 15-foot, non-turf buffer along there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 15 foot, you want to see, okay.
MR. NIELSON: That goes from the high tide line, 15 feet. Is that
what you are thinking?
TRUSTEE KING: Usually it's from the top of the bank there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Top of the bank.
MR. NIELSON: Okay, I'll pass that along.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I know in the field we talked about the tie off piling.
TRUSTEE KING: We talked about it. What's the need to go out that
far? That was one of our first reactions when we got there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought the depth of water continued about the
same level going out, now I'm hearing tonight the depth of water at
the end of this would decrease to three-and-a-half feet,
approximately. I thought when we were out there in the field we
were told that depth of water really doesn't change. It's two,
two-and-a-half feet at the end there and where the proposed dock to
go out to is still going to be two to two-and-a-half feet. So then
Board of Trustees 39 April 16, 2008
the question came up, what's the need of the tie-off pile because
for that limited depth you won't have any big boats in there so we
didn't see the need for tie-off piles. I don't have the plans in front of me, but.
MR. NIELSON: This is the plan and the existing pier ends at about
negative two, two feet below apparent low water and where we have
the float right now is positioned at three-and-a-half feet so that
we are sure the motor won't hit and the boat won't hit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I see that now
MR. NIELSON: And I think the Gaillard's, if you don't want a new
tie-off pile out there, I think the Gaillard's will not argue with
that. It's a customary provision that we have for berthing
maneuvering and security and so on and I don't think they'll argue with it.
TRUSTEE KING: It still puts them in three foot of water.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim is saying shorten the ramp, which would move
the float in.
TRUSTEE KING: Can you use the existing pole now as a tie off pole.
If you move the float and everything in, in line with that existing
pole; shorten the dock, shorten the ramp, slide everything
landward? It should still give you three feet of water, by the looks of it.
MR. NIELSON: Would that be your preference to have the float over
the negative three contour?
TRUSTEE KING: Sure, you can use the existing pile as a tie off.
MR. NIELSON: So move it in eight to ten feet.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. NIELSON: I think, if that's your strong preference and everything --
TRUSTEE KING: It kind of pulls everything landward.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree and it also helps keep it in line or behind
the neighbor' dock that is on the plan.
MR. NIELSON: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to go for the eight-foot float or would
you rather have a 6x20? That's allowed in the code.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Like you said in the past, I think 8x20.
TRUSTEE KING: There is a lot of 8x20 foot floats on Fishers Island,
I know.
MR. NIELSON: In this case, I think it's --
TRUSTEE KING: If the need can be shown.
MR. NIELSON: Yes, I think the need is demonstrated here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think it's a compromise if he's going to move it
in eight to ten feet. 8x20. Because he's taking away some.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: ff you move it too much you might have him into
the two foot depth.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm comfortable with remaining 8x20 with the
condition that it's moved back so the float is about ten feet. Is
that what you measure it out with a ruler there?
TRUSTEE KING: About ten feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That way you can use the existing piling as a tie
Board of Trustees 40 April 16, 2008
off piling so there is no need for the other tie off piling. I
would support that.
TRUSTEE KING: That's my suggestion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Sounds good.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, are there any other comments?
(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
Docko Inc., on behalf of William Gaillard to construct a 6x20
timber and pile supported pier extension and 8x20 float. Did you
have asize --
MR. NIELSON: Yes, if you don't mind. I believe the proper
dimension for the float restraint piles would be ten inches but for
the dock, the pier, eight inches is acceptable.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You need a specific length of the hinged ramp.
MR. NIELSON: Oh, sorry.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: To represent a decrease of ten feet in length.
MR. NIELSON: If it's okay with you what I would like to do, the
Gaillard's are a little on the elderly side. I would like to maybe
make this a combination of shorter pier and shorter ramp to get to
the proper point. We'll make it work.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Then I'll make a motion to approve the
application for asix-foot wide timber pier and with a ramp and
8x20 float and one tie-off piling subject to new drawings showing
the whole structure to be landward ten feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought we were eliminating the need for an
additional tie-off piling by moving it back, he could use the present one.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's why I said one tie-off piling.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just want to make it clear. I'm interpreting
what you are saying is they can add the tie-off piling.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. So a timber dock ramp and float and the
existing tie-off piling, no additional tie-off pilings, subject to
new drawings showing it to be ten feet landward of the existing
proposed structure and have a 15-foot non-turf buffer along the
whole front edge of the bank. Is that acceptable to everybody?
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. NIELSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: And submit new plans showing all that.
MR. NIELSON: Yes, sir.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll take afive-minute break.
(After a short recess, these proceedings continue as follows.)
Board of Trustees 41 April 16, 2008
TRUSTEE KING: Number six, Docko, Inc., on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND
YACHT CLUB requests a Wetland Permit to replace an existing 6x95'
main float with a 6x95' concrete float, construct a 6x30' main
float extension, install four new 3x24' finger floats with
associated restraint piles, add a 30 square foot pier extension and
three braced fender/tie-off piles to an existing fixed pier, all
waterward of the apparent high water line. Located: Central Avenue,
Fishers Island.
We have new plans here that reflect what we discussed in the field.
MR. NIELSON: Right, and there is a new description attached with
those plans to add the 12x20' concrete float for the launch to the
mooring field and the eight-foot wide by 130 foot wood deck on the
shore end, the shore side of the revetment for the ten-foot
non-vegetated buffer. It's the last sheet in the letter of the
14th. I'm sorry for the date.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do we have a copy there of the old plans? Can I
see that for a second?
MR. NIELSON: That plan you'll be looking at is the survey of
existing conditions. Are you looking for the original application drawings?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just curious because on the, what was submitted
was to include four new finger floats and we were concerned that
they were going to extend out, with four of them, and you still
have four new floats here.
MR. NIELSON: If you look at the dimensions you'll see the slip
widths have been changed from 13 to ten feet, so that has moved it
in so that it's no longer part of an extension beyond the property
line. By the way, I'm Keith Nielson from Docko, Inc., and I
prepared these documents. For the record.
The larger scale drawings that I brought in, I was hoping
would be easier for everybody to look at since they don't have
matched lines and you can see the entire layout at the same scale.
Basically there are four elements to the proposed work. One is
this reconfiguration of the floating dock along the north side of
the property. And that's going to be replacing the existing wood
floating dock system with concrete for stability, longevity and so
on, and the finger piers and slip width, like I said, have been
changed to pull it in. This was a direct response to one of Chip
DuPont's concerns about infringing into the utility dock. And so that
has been done.
The other thing is that you can see there is a small fixed
pier modification on the starboard side of the sea stretcher which
is over where the dock box is on the right side of the boat there.
And this is important for the loading of the sea stretcher as well
as security of the sea stretcher. There is a better picture. And
it's not a structure of great consequence but it's important to the
Board of Trustees 42 April 16, 2008
function and access to the boat and so on. The size and location
of the slip is not changing.
The next element is the replacement of the launch float
adjacent to the main pier and substituting concrete for that wood.
If you got to walk on "A" dock, which is the far right-hand side of
the picture, it's actually out of the picture, you'll notice the
difference in stability of the concrete floats and everything and
it's important for the use of the facility and longevity and that's
why that float is being replaced.
And the last element is what we talked about beginning last
August and subsequent visits. The walkway which is going to take
care of a ten foot, non-vegetated buffer back to the flagpole on
the back side of the revetment and that will utilize driven wood
piles to support horizontal wood planking which will form a hard
face for the backfill. There will be geo-textile fabric behind
that to contain the gravel so there will be no leaching or loss of
soils into the intertidal zone and then at a later date the walkway
will be added and that's to make the property usable and to stop
this incessant erosion behind the revetment.
I have the details on the drawings, to aid in your
understanding of the project. I have made all the necessary
certifications and the applicant has acknowledged all of the Board
of Trustees rights of access an inspection and compliance
determinations and I would be happy to answer any questions you may
and I have the mailing cards for the public notice. And I
previously provided a photograph of the poster.
TRUSTEE KING: The walkway, is that raised above grade? How high is
that?
MR. NIELSON: The walkway will be, it will be kept as low as
possible but it will probably be a foot, maybe two feet. It's in
the profile.
TRUSTEE KING: Isee across-section. Okay. I see the steps.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, sheet three of six.
MR. NIELSON: Obviously, although I have shown rails, and the rails
are absolutely essential on this, there is some flexibility on how
the rails can be made. If you are familiar with Dr. Campbell's
pier down at the east end, at East Harbor, you'll notice that we
used cable rails there so from a distance you don't really see
them, for people on the club property you won't have a visual
impairment but at the same time they are stout enough to stop
anybody from inadvertently falling into the rocks, or what I have
shown in the plan which is a wood rail system.
The necessary notes are on the plans for no CCA treated
decking. This will, when the walk is built, it will no doubt be a
very nice looking deck surtace.
The piling in this case, these should be 12-inch piles because
Boazd of Trustees
43 April 16, 2008
they are structural to the deck support and they are going to
utilize a concrete footing or grade beam on the inside; one to
secure it against imbalance and also for low distribution on the land side.
TRUSTEE KING: I think you covered everything. And with the
mitigating factors, I find it is consistent with the LW RP.
So are there any other comments from anybody?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted
with the new plans indicating the changes. There's a new
description right here that says it all. Replace an existing 6x97
linear feet main float with a 6x100 linear feet concrete
float, install four new 3x24' finger floats with associated
restraint and tie-off/fender piles, add a 30-square foot pier
extension and three braced fender/tie-off piles to an existing
fixed pier, replace an existing 12x20' concrete float all waterward
of the apparent high water line, construct an 8' CT wide by 130
linear foot wood deck landward of the apparent high water line.
I'll make a motion to approve the new plan as has been submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. NIELSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number seven, Docko, Inc., on behalf of HAY HARBOR
CLUB requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct and relocate two
16x16' floats with new restraint pilings and one 14x16' float,
install one new 14x16' float and new 10x42' float with associated
restraint pilings. Reconstruct 400 linear feet of fixed wood pile
and timber access walkway and pier of variable width, conduct
maintenance dredging, 25 cubic yards of sand from the diving area
for upland disposal at the beach, on site. Add new restraint
pilings to an existing float waterward of the apparent high water
line. Located: Fox Avenue Fishers Island.
This was found consistent with LWRP. CAC did not get out
there so they don't have comment.
All right, first we'll start with the swim area. On the
description you said 25 cubic yards. On the plans you say dredge
70 cubic yards of sand.
MR. NIELSON: That was a mistake. The 25, we went back and
recomputed it. 25 yards is the right amount.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. So we'll need the plans revised for that.
MR. NIELSON: Yes.
Board of Trustees 44 April 16, 2008
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In that 300 square foot area that you are showing,
that's shaded --
MR. NIELSON: Right. Keith Nielson, for the record, Docko, Inc.,
and I prepared all the application documents on behalf of the Hay
Harbor Club.
This is the entire stretch of the shoreline for the Hay Harbor
Club down to the tennis courts and the beach. And from the north
end what they call the tank, which is where they swim, it's got a
net around it, fishnet and so on, so people can swim without being
harassed by animals.
The diving area has filled in due to accretion of sand and is
now less than eight feet deep at low tide and so in order to make
the diving area usable again we have to take out sand right beneath
the diving board basically. Right where they are going to jump
in. The fulcrum for the diving bothered is right there. It's that
4x4 post on the dock. And so we are anticipating this will be done
with hydraulic dredging with a discharge pipe that will run, be
placed and buoyed over the water or on the water and come down to
the beach by the tennis courts on the east side of the tennis court
building. And they will go down with a grade all first and they'll
create a low basin and they'll then pump the sand and water in
there. The water will seep out through the soil, then they'll
regrade that and finish up the dredging so they can do it in two
parts. It should be a fairly quick operation. And then the beach
will be regraded in time for seasonal use. That's really it for
the dredging. It's a small project. It's not going to take long
and should not be very complicated. In the past they tried to do
this with a barge mounted crane and steel baffles on the side,
retaining walls and so on. That's a very tough way to do this and
sand and water is oozing out all the time. It's a mess, so. I
think we are better off with the hydraulic dredging.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does the Board have any questions on this part of
the application?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE KING: No, this is pretty simple.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Moving to the dock, we have a number of questions.
MR. NIELSON: If I could address this photograph first. You'll
notice that in the underlying part of the deck of the pier going
out to the tank, the first part where the man is walking, you can
see that the decking is undulating. Those sections of the pier are
basically laying on stone and so we have two options; one is to pin
to larger stones. Another is to physically drive piles through the
stone and attach the pier to that because in high tide wavy
conditions north storms, the two tanks on the top of the horizon
there from Groton and the airport is just beyond the dock, the
white buildings, so when the wind is coming in from the north, at
Board ofTrustees
45 April 16, 2008
high tide, this whole pier is moving. And so they want to
stabilize that so it stays in place. And that's the purpose of the
north pier modifications and the purpose of the pinning detail.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The first comment we have of the existing
structure you have on the other side is it extends out to the
neighbor's, in front of the neighbor's, it extends beyond the
property line of the extended property line of the yacht club. So
that's one of our concerns.
MR. NIELSON: If we have a letter of no objection from the neighbor,
is that adequate for your purposes?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are just concerned for the next one. I know
it's existing so it's something we have to work through.
The other question we have, there seems to be a lot of pilings
along here. Is there any plans to remove some of them as you
reconfigure?
MR. NIELSON: As this pier is rebuilt, the piles will be removed.
If you are looking to decrease the number of piles, we can change
the spacing to diminish the number of piles, but the maximum we
could probably do is maybe between ten and 20%, and it starts to --
we could diminish the number of piles if that's your objective.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It just seems like there is a lot. Does the Board
have any questions on this section? It's a rather large
structure. We know it's pre-existing. Bob, just so you -- Bob
wasn't at the field inspection. I just want to explain it to him.
What you see there now is this and this (indicating.) We have all
these series of floats that are upland right now and what they want
to do is the two end floats that normally are placed here, they
want to put them to here and they want to add new floats there.
This is their sailing.
MR. NIELSON: Sailing, wind surfing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it's shortening that. The property line is
somewhere along here. And then it actually, it's shortening a
little bit as far as going out that way. He's saying he can get
permission from the neighbor but what if she sells it and the next
guy doesn't want it. I don't know if that has any weight.
MR. CORCORAN: It's not really a problem with the neighbor. It's
sideways. It's in front of their property.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So that's what we are talking about here.
MR. NIELSON: I would just like to make another point here. We
received comments from the DEC that have led us to reconfigure the
wind surfing float. The DEC comments were they didn't want the
float to be grounded out at low tide and so the whole float system
has been moved about 30 feet, 25 feet south. And in addition,
rather than having two sets of floats adjacent to the pier, the
floats are all now in a linear layout going out perpendicular to
the pier in a westerly direction. And so the club was okay with
Board of Trustees 46 April 16, 2008
that and so these plans reflect now what we are trying to get
through the DEC.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could, to clarify the total length of this
structure. Compared to what has been there in the past and what is
proposed, it looks here what you are proposing with the two floats
being flipped around, that it actually shortens the structure going
to the south.
MR. NIELSON: That's true.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
MR. NIELSON: By about 30 feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other questions from the Board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I believe there was, I had a question going back
along the wood pier that's in the foreground of this picture, back
to the beach, there was one set of steps on one side to allow
access but there was not another set of steps on the other side and
I was wondering if we could add the steps on the other side so we
have public access to the beach there.
MR. NIELSON: Absolutely.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
Was there an opportunity here to use any type of open grating
material on the wood pier part that is going through what is listed
as phragmite wetland?
MR. NIELSON: You're asking me?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm asking the Board first off, if the Board would
support that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It doesn't sound like it would be a bad idea.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sounds like the Board wants to see open grating
over this wood pier area, for environmental reasons.
MR. NIELSON: For environmental reasons, I'm sure the Hay Harbor
Club wants to do everything they can to make this environmentally
as possible. So let me say I'll go ahead and stipulate to that and
if I never show up again, you'll know what happened.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We appreciate you throwing yourself on the sword
for that one. But specifically from the mean high water line
landward is what, just to be very specific about it, ask for that
to be all open-grate material.
MR. NIELSON: Okay. And now, this flow-through grating, I presume
is what you are thinking about.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is another type also, beside what you are
holding up here, that we have seen used. I think we have samples
of it in the office.
MR. NIELSON: This is the fiberglass square grating, about an
inch-and-a-half thick. It comes in different colors.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Comes in sheets, I think you can order it in 6x4
foot sheets. Something like that.
Board of Trustees 47 April 16, 2008
MR. NIELSON: I don't think that that would be an operational
problem for the sail boat carts or anything like that. That
grating is difficult to walk on. And one of the thing that I'm
apprehensive about is the tripping hazard that can be created from
it. And if you would be agreeable with the through flow, I would
feel a little better about that because I know that --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can say grated material and you can pick
whatever one.
MR. NIELSON: That would be great. Thank you. No pun intended.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That answers my concerns.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: No. So it's actually a shorter proposal.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Same coverage but shorter. Any other comments?
MR. NIELSON: I would just like to provide the mailers. Something
happened with one of our letters and it kept coming back. I don't
know what else to do with it. We tried contacting both neighbors,
we have one successful card and one unsuccessful. We previously
provided the photographs, postings and the affidavit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Was the successful one the one we were talking
about?
MR. NIELSON: Let me see (perusing.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In front of the house, that vista of the dock.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The property owner immediately to the south of the
Harbor Club property.
MR. NIELSON: Taylor is the one that is south of the Hay Harbor
club. Taylor is the card we got back.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. That's what we want to hear. I'll
make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Docko, Inc., on behalf of Hay Harbor Club -- this will be
difficult. The new floats on the landward end of the wood pier is
approximately 30 feet seaward of what you proposed with us?
MR. NIELSON: Right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application
subject to receiving the new drawings and as submitted with the
three floats, 30 feet seaward, and to add steps on both sides of
the catwalk on the landward side there, and flow through grating to
be used from mean high water landward. It can be used over the
whole structure but definitely used on the mean high water
landward. Open grating type. And reduce any amount of pilings
that you can. And to stipulate that the -- it will be 25 cubic
yards of dredge material on the swimming platform, near the
Board of Trustees 48 April 16, 2008
swimming platform. And that's it. And this is consistent with
LWRP. I find it consistent. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. NIELSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number eight, Nancy Dwyer Design Consulting, Inc.,
on behalf of ARIELLE S. GEROSA requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a new full second-story addition to the existing
one-story dwelling, reconstruct existing deck and increase the size
of the existing septic system. Located: 415 Aquaview Avenue, East
Marion.
The Board did go out and look at this. The CAC supports the
application with the conditions of drywells and gutters are
installed to address the roof runoff and installation of ten-foot
non-turf buffer. fn the event the first floor cannot support the
second floor addition, the CAC requests the opportunity to revisit
the site for further review of the project. And I don't have any
LWRP evaluation. So stand by forjust a second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lauren, is there an LWRP on that?
MS. STANDISH: No.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I'm looking for is, on the application, the
date that it was submitted for the LWRP.
MS. STANDISH: They are all submitted on the same date.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: March 13? It's a suggestion. We should have on
the application for the LWRP a set a date. There is nothing on
there that asks for the date. I'm just suggesting that.
I see a short environmental assessment form submitted on
February 20, 2008.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe the LWRP was, the request for review for
LWRP was sent up on the 14th of April.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But when was it submitted by the applicant?
Because there's a 30 day --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the 13th. That whole packet came in on the
13th.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, that's what I originally said. March 13 is
when it is dated.
MS. DWYER: It was submitted with the original application.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The original application. So the town has had it
for 30 days. Just so people understand what is happening, the town
has a requirement written into the LWRP process, and correct me if
I'm wrong, counsel, that there is a thirty-day period to review
it. And if it's not done in that period of time, it's not the
applicant's fault.
MR. CORCORAN: It's 30 days from when it was referred to the
Board of Trustees 49 April 16, 2008
coordinator by the agency.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. I apologize. Thank you for the
clarification. What you are saying Lauren, it was just provided to
him this week?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. April 14.
MR. CORCORAN: April 14 is two days ago.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Exactly. Do we know when this was provided to
Mark?
MS. STANDISH: They all get sent the same date.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The reason this is important is we can not even act
on it -- if LWRP does not have sufficient time to review it, we
can't act on it. But we can still go ahead and discuss it tonight.
Any other Board members need copies of plans? I have extra
copies of plans here.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes
TRUSTEE BERGEN: These are all written on (handing.)
All right. Just so we understand, it's not going to be acted
on tonight because of that. But we can still discuss it.
Now, as I was saying, the Board has been out to observe it in
the field. And our question -- I'm trying to think how I can
phrase this appropriately -- our understanding is this is, as
described, this is to add asecond-story addition to the existing
one-story dwelling. So is the intent of the applicant to take down
that first story?
MS. DWYER: The first story?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. To the floor, the foundation. You were
probably here earlier for the long discussion.
MS. DWYER: No, I was not here for that. No, the existing first
floor is going to stay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With the walls?
MS. DWYER: Yes, with the walls. The walls will stay. And the
second floor will be constructed on top of that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
MS. DWYER: The existing roof and dormers are all coming off.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The proposed second-story addition as depicted here
is right on the footprint of the existing first story, correct?
MS. DWYER: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is a reconstruction of the deck out front.
We are interested in an engineering report to see if this foundation can
structurally hold asecond-story addition.
MS. DWYER: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Since there will be a hold upon this anyhow, if we
could please obtain that for our consideration for next month.
MR. CORCORAN: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Board wants
to make it clear to the applicant that their decision may very
well, not that they made one yet but their deliberations may very
Board of Trustees 50 April 16, 2008
well be different if in fact the walls of the first story are not
maintained, and if they come down, as experience has shown, they
may require the applicant to come in with a whole new application.
Just so it's perfectly clear. Is that how the Board feels?
(Board members respond in the affirmative.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But you have the opportunity, once you are in the
midst of construction, before the walls come down, to come in for
an amendment, and we might consider an amendment to that before the
walls come down.
MS. DWYER: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, we wanted to make sure we included gutters and
leaders and drywells for the roof runoff on this. I know you have
a location of a proposed drywell here landward of the house.
The septic. I'm looking on the plan here and I don't see on
the plan where the proposed septic is going to be located.
MS. DWYER: The proposed septic is going on the landward side of the
house between the house and garage. There should be a Health
Department survey up there, the one that was submitted to the
Health Department. I have a copy of it here if you need it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I do not see it here, so if you have something,
that would be great.
MS. DWYER: Yes. (Handing).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, we noticed right now there is currently a
septic pool under the deck on the seaward side of the house. There
is a second one located in the middle of the lawn area between the
seaward side of the house and the top of the bluff. Is the
intention to abandon those?
MS. DWYER: Yes, to abandon that system, yes, and utilize just the
new conforming one in the front yard.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: By abandon, you mean fill in or remove the whole
thing?
MS. DWYER: No, just filling it in.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We also noticed while we were out there it appeared
as though there was some trimming done at the top of the bluff.
That's not supposed to happen. So if you can please tell your
client they are not allowed to be doing any clearing at the top of
the bluff. Or trimming.
You have a line of hay bales along the top of the bluff. What
we'll probably require also is a non-turf buffer. I would
recommend one, given the width of the property there, at the most
seaward side of the bluff, the most northern part, 15 foot wide,
and as it gets around toward the east of the current structure
where I notice the house is 22 feet from the top of the bluff, I
would have no problem decreasing that down from 15 down to ten
foot. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels about that.
Boazd of Trustees 51 April 16, 2008
TRUSTEE KING: That makes sense.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That makes sense
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So you understand with the new plans how to show that.
MS. DWYER: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And that's all I have in the field notes. Was there any
other comment from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: No, I think the biggest concern is whether the first
floor walls will remain standing or not.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. Given that, I'll make a motion to table
this application pending the review under LWRP and we can then come
back and hopefully that will give you a chance during this month to
get an engineering report to submit the revised plans that shows
the non-turf buffer and it include the location of the septic.
So I'll make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. And we're sorry we didn't have LWRP
evaluation done yet.
MS. DWYER: That's okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can we keep this survey plan that has the --
MS. DWYER: Yes
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number nine, Shawn Kruk, Absolute Improvement on
behalf of HANK & SUSAN RUGGIERO requests a Wetland Permit for
as-built poured concrete retaining walls and new 22x30' stone
patio. Located: 425 Calves Neck Road, Southold.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this
application?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before, I just want to explain to Shawn that the
whole Board went out there and we re-measured and that's why the
description is a little different from when you added. It's
actually not all the way up to the house. It's just halfway into
the patio.
MR. KRUK: I understand.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's why we took out that portion of the house
under the description because it's out of our jurisdiction.
MR. KRUK: I understand. My name is Shawn Kruk.
Basically we obtained a building permit October 6 of 2006. We
did the construction, we completed on October 1, 2007, and we got a
summons on October 5, 2007, a Sunday, I believe, and we were due to
just seed on the 6th, and that was it. The building permit had the
retaining walls on it. It didn't have the patio on it. So I guess
basically we are just doing it backwards. But we were not aware we
Board of Trustees 52 April 16, 2008
needed a Trustees' permit at the time. Nobody brought it to our
attention from the building department and nobody caught it for
that length of time. We also want to make you aware that we
shortened the walls of the retaining walls by 27 feet off of the
permit and I have a before and after survey that shows, and I also
have pictures. We put hay bails along the bluff. It's been a long
time since we have been back there, but they are still there and
everything has grown. In after we resolved the summons, they told
us to go ahead and seed, and we did.
The existing or the previous survey that we had, and the new
survey that we have here, do you have copies of that?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We really didn't have any problem as far as the
patio and the walls. The only thing we would like to see, you did
have the hay bales but normally what we would have done if we came
and did an inspection for this patio is we would have given you a
buffer here so the lawn doesn't go all the way down to the hay
bales. And the purpose of this last picture is the irrigation
really shouldn't be that close. I assume that's an irrigation spout.
MR. KRUK: Looks like it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: To mitigate this, it is deemed inconsistent with
LWRP and to mitigate that to be consistent, we'll require you to
put a buffer here. I know you just seeded.
MR. KRUK: We seeded six months ago. It took us this long to get here.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: With the grass line going down that far, the
fertilizer is up against that bulkhead and with a heavy rain it
will go right into the creek there. So since you have a nice, big
lawn there, we want a 20-foot non-turf area landward of the
bulkhead, and that could be gravel, it can be anything but turf.
Anything but grass.
MR. KRUK: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the hay bales can be removed at that time.
MR. KRUK: We also want to note that we replaced the asphalt
driveway, which is also in your jurisdiction with a permeable pea gravel.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We noticed that. So, do you understand that?
MR. KRUK: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Anyone else from the audience want to speak?
(No response.)
Any other Board members?
(No response.)
I think that's our only feeling. 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 Permit
for Hank and Susan Ruggiero for an as-built poured concrete
retaining wall and new stone patio but to mitigate this from an
Board of Trustees 53 April 16, 2008
inconsistent LWRP we'll require a 20-foot non-turf buffer landward
of the bulkhead, which would bring this into consistency.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number ten, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of
CLEAVES POINT POA requests a Wetland Permit to resheath sections,
totalling up to 32 linear feet maximum, of the landward side of
existing bulkhead using vinyl, T&G plank sheathing with filter
fabric liner, and backfill with 20 cubic yards of clean sand
from an upland source. Located: 345 Osprey Nest Road, Greenport.
We have all been out there. CAC has resolved to support the
application, however recommends rebuilding the bulkhead a foot
deeper than the existing in order to minimize scouring boat wakes.
TRUSTEE KING: They want to push the sheathing down further than the
existing sheathing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
MR. FITZPATRICK: I don't understand that unless they dug it out to
find out how deep it was. I hope they didn't do that without a permit.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If I you look down from the other side you can see
how it's scoured underneath.
MR. FITZPATRICK: Well, yes. The additional planks we are proposing
will go down below --
MR. MCNAB: 1 didn't inspect this location but Mr. Hardy did. He
did see evidence of scouring a foot or so off the dock and was
looking to have the sheathing go down, the new sheathing go down to
a deeper depth so it would not be undermined.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: LWRP finds it consistent. The only other issue
that I have noted, and we all noted while we were out there, is
there was some cutting down of trees, and there has been a
violation on this. I don't believe that's been resolved yet. It
looks like they are going, that's going to be seen in court on
what, the 18th of April?
MR. FITZPATRICK: I don't know anything about it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: April 18. So it has an outstanding violation that
has not been taken care of yet and, in general, the policy is
really not to move on anything --
MR. FITZPATRICK: A violation against?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Clearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There was clearing. Somebody went down and
whacked everything off on the Association property. We are trying
to figure out who did it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 14 cedar trees were removed.
MR. FITZPATRICK: Probably vandals.
MR. GRANDINETTI: My name is Ralph Grandinetti. I'm the vice
Board of Trustees 54 April 16, 2008
president of Cleaves Point Property Owners Association.
First of all, we have nothing to do with the cutting and
whether or not the cutting has anything to do with approval or
denial of this permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our policy is if there is a violation on that
property, whether it's directly related to the project or not, we
do not move on the approval of it until that violation is cleared
up in court.
MR. FITZPATRICK: Jill, who was the violation issued to?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Robert Cooper.
MR. GRANDINETTI: The association has in its bylaws and its rules
and regulations there is to be no cutting. So we acknowledge that
to all of our membership. For an individual to take such action,
he did it on himself and certainly should not reflect a community
action to repair a bulkhead. It's two separate items.
TRUSTEE KING: Right. But what we found in the past is if we do not
move on the permit, it gives us the leverage to force people to fix
the problem. In other words, if we issued a permit and we can't
get whoever did all the trimming, it just all goes away.
MR. GRANDINETTI: Apparently you have somebody. You have --
TRUSTEE KING: It's my understanding the gentleman has admitted to
doing some of it but not all of it. We are still trying to track
down who really did it, and I think we need some help from the
association to identify this person.
MR. GRANDINETTI: Well, the association has, as I said, in it's
rules and regulations, there is to be no cutting without the
approval of the board. Since I'm on that board I'll tell you no
one has come to us for permission to cut.
TRUSTEE KING: But as the property owner you are the liable for the
actions that were taken on your property, which is a violation.
You are liable for that action.
MR. FITZPATRICK: You mean if somebody throws a rock through my
window, I'm liable?
TRUSTEE KING: I think that's a little different.
MR. FITZPATRICK: But Jim, he's saying that some person or persons
unknown, without the authority of the association, came along and
thought it would be nice --
MR. CORCORAN: Let's not try the case here because this is not the
court that it's pending in. If it turns out, if the investigation
turns out --
MR. FITZPATRICK: Sorry. I didn't mean to talk while you were talking
MR. CORCORAN: That's fine. If the investigation turns out and the
credible evidence indicates that the association had nothing to do
with it and somebody came on the property unbeknownst to them and
did it and that person is at large, then we have another
circumstance. Then I'm sure this Board might view it differently
Board of Trustees 55 April 16, 2008
if that was the recommendation of the prosecuting attorney. I don't
think we are there yet.
MR. GRANDINETTI: To mitigate this situation, if the association so
deems it possible, could we plant a few, four, cedar trees and call
it even and get on with repairing the bulkhead?
MR. CORCORAN: You have to deal with the prosecuting attorney, which
is not me. It's Lori Hulse. And she is our assistant town
attorney who prosecutes Town Code violations and she does so with
the assistance and input of this Board. But this is not the venue
to negotiate a plea arrangement, if that's what you are --
MR. GRANDINETTI: I'm just trying to see what could effect the
repair to the bulkhead and --
TRUSTEE KING: If they want to come in and do a restoration, you
know, it's immaterial to me who does the restoration but I think
the guilty person should be the one held liable. You guys are left
holding the bag
MR. GRANDINETTI: That's apparently what the case is.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think this has to be straightened out and we can
make a decision on this next month.
MR. GRANDINETTI: May I take a step back in terms of scarfing. What
you can see as daylight through the planking is not the end of the
plank. Those are knot holes and where the knot has fallen out and
water can pass through. The sheathing goes much further down than that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All right. That was just a recommendation anyway.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think any of us had a problem with what they
want to do.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, absolutely not.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there any way we can approve this and hold it off
until it's taken care of?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's something that 1 have supported in the past.
TRUSTEE KING: They catch the guy, pays the fine, does the
restoration, then they get their permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I've supported in the past the ability to act on
the permit but not release the permit until the issue is, the
violation is resolved in court.
MR. CORCORAN: You can do that. If you are so inclined you can
approve it pending resolution of the criminal proceeding, the
violation proceeding.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What about the restoration? How do you want to
deal with that?
MR. CORCORAN: That could be part of the negotiation of the violation.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what I would like to do.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm all in favor of that. Always have been.
TRUSTEE KING: That way you don't have to come back to us for
anything.
MR. GRANDINETTI: It will be approved pending the outcome --
Board of Trustees 56 April 16, 2008
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It can be approved. I don't want to get ahead of
ahead of ourselves here, but it could possibly be approved --
MR. CORCORAN: This is somewhat of a peculiar situation. It's
different than if someone goes and builds something and you violate
them for it and they want the permit for it. That's a little,
that's not your situation.
TRUSTEE KING: This is a very straight-forward project. There was
no problem with this, but we came across a problem.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Being no further comment, I'll entertain a motion
to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion that we approve the
application of the of Cleaves Point to resheath sections totaling
up to 32 linear feet on the landward side of existing bulkhead as
described, with the stipulation that the permit not be issued until
the violation has been taken care of in court. And in doing so it
will be consistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. FITZPATRICK: It was your intention to in effect say that the
application was approved as submitted?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes
MR. FITZPATRICK: Because you didn't finish reading all the stuff.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. As submitted.
MR. FITZPATRICK: Thank you. Jim, just one another thing, do I
understand correctly now that the Board will release the permit
when Ms. Hulse, Attorney Hulse says to you that the matter is
resolved?
TRUSTEE KING: We'll work with heron that. We'll probably want to
see some restoration plan.
MR. FITZPATRICK: And the only thing that concerns me is, first of
all, finding out who did it.
TRUSTEE KING: I think people know, they are just not telling. One
guy was seen, evidently. A lot of this is hearsay, but. One
person was seen doing the clearing. One person admitted to doing
some of it but said he didn't do all of it. So we don't really
know what the true situation is. Why doesn't somebody out there
play detective and figure it out for us. It would be very helpful.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 11, Catherine Mesiano, Inc., on behalf of
MICHAEL & HEATHER GILL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
second-story addition; one-story garage addition; reconstruct
existing deck; abandon existing cesspools and install new
conforming septic system. Located: 1325 Lupton's Point Road, Mattituck.
Board of Trustees 57 April 16, 2008
It's consistent with LWRP and we don't have a CAC report.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. I think
the description that you read clearly describes what the applicant
would like to do; construct asecond-story addition, cone-story
garage addition, reconstruct existing deck, abandon the existing
cesspools and install new conforming septic system and all existing
setbacks will be maintained.
If the Board has any questions I'll be glad no answer them.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. When you say you are constructing a
second-story addition, are you touching the walls of the first
story on the first floor?
MS. MESIANO: There is no intention to demolish the exterior walls
of the first floor.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you
MR. CORCORAN: The foundation will stay in place, as well, right?
MS. MESIANO: And we won't pull the foundation out from under it,
no. The walls stay where they are.
MR. CORCORAN: So you understand that if the walls come down or the
foundation is in play, that whatever happens, this Board does, will be at risk.
MS. MESIANO: The only change to the existing footprint is described
by the one-story garage addition. The rest of the activity is
either within the existing walls or added to the second story. I
understand and I'll make every attempt to make my client
understand, whom I hope will make their contractor understand.
MR. CORCORAN: Maintain chain of custody.
MS. MESIANO: Been here before.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The only other comment we have is we would like to
see anon-turf buffer along the top of the bank.
MS. MESIANO: Excuse me. When we discussed it, I thought the
comment was to not cut anything that is on the top of the bank or
over the edge of the bank. Are you -- you are not proposing to
disturb the ground, just to not cut what is beyond the edge of the bank.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct, yes.
TRUSTEE KING: No-mow zone.
MS. MESIANO: No mow.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would say follow the ten-foot contour line
around the property. Anything seaward of the ten-foot contour line
shall remain natural and not be mowed. Any other comments?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Michael and Heather Gill as submitted with the condition that there
Board of Trustees 58 April 16, 2008
is a no-mow zone seaward of the ten-foot contour line.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was consistent with LWRP. We find it
consistent with LWRP. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: I think what we need to do in the future on some of
these older homes is establish what year, like if it's a 40-year
old home or 50-year old home, maybe we should look into the
engineers report. If it's a ten or 15-year old home, chances are
it's pretty sound if they want to do a second story. I think we
need to establish an age for the house.
MS. MESIANO: Can I make a suggestion? You might ask for a copy of
a CO or pre-CO because in order to get a building permit, that has
to be established on an existing structure at any rate. So if you
asked for a CO, whether it be pre-CO or a regular CO, that would
tell you whether the house predates zoning and if what is there is
conforming or nonconforming, you would benefit by having a copy of
the CO.
TRUSTEE KING: Because some of these are just really very
troubling.
MS. MESIANO: In the instance of this particular one, the main
structure is coming down and we clearly state that and the other
structure is being moved and that -- with a new foundation.
TRUSTEE KING: We have that coming up.
MS. MESIANO: Right. You haven't started yet, so I'll let you do
your thing.
TRUSTEE KING: Number 12, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of LEWIS
TOPPER requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing 31x49'
frame house located 15' north of the existing bulkhead and
construct a new 15x60' two-story dwelling 40' north of the
bulkhead; relocated and renovate the 18x37' accessory structure
presently located 126' north of the bulkhead to 154' north of the
bulkhead; abandon the existing septic system and install a new
sanitary system 125' from the bulkhead and 125' from AHW; install
drywells for containment of storm water runoff, and create a
10-foot non-turf buffer. Located: 3605 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MS. MESIANO: Catherine Mesiano on behalf of the applicant. One
thing I would like to correct, it was brought to my attention after
my submission, the legal address of the property is 120 -- I
believe I wrote it on the paperwork, 120 Terry Path, Private Road
Boazd of Trustees 59 April 16, 2008
#17. I want to correct that.
And I believe in the recitation of the description of the
project, the dimensions of the structure was incorrect. Could we
just go over it again.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MS. MESIANO: So demolish the existing two-story frame dwelling,
demolish existing one and two-story 31x29.
TRUSTEE KING: I said 49. It says 31x49.
MS. MESIANO: You're right. 31x49 frame house located 15 feet north
of the existing bulkhead and construct anew --
TRUSTEE KING: That's where it is wrong. It shouldn't be 15x60,
should it?
MS. MESIANO: It should be 18x60. If you have this survey with the
red outline, if you look at the south line, south wall of the
proposed dwelling, that's 18.
TRUSTEE KING: I see it.
MR. CORCORAN: Cathy, have you been to the ZBA yet or no?
MS. MESIANO: No, I'm working on that application. They just
developed the site plan to a point where I can go to them.
So the structure is 18x60, two-story dwelling, 40 feet north
of the bulkhead. 18x37 was correct on the second structure. And 1
see a correction I should make. It appears there is a six-foot
deep deck on the south side of the house. That is setback at the
40-foot setback line. The house itself would be 46 feet from the
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it's 40 feet back, including the deck.
MS. MESIANO: Right. The deck is at 40. The house would be at 46.
We denoted a ten-foot non-turf buffer; drywells, and a conforming
septic system. It should be noted that the existing septic system
does not conform with your regulations or the Health Department
regulations. I think everything that is being proposed is
beneficial from the perspective of the Trustees, and if you have
any questions.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What's the distance from the septic?
MS. MESIANO: The existing septic is less than a hundred feet. I
have to find an old survey to point it out. And the new septic
will be 141 feet from high water, which I believe is your
measurement, is it not?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll measure from the bulkhead.
MS. MESIANO: All right.
TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing). I have 120.
MS. MESIANO: I know it's significantly more than 100.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim and I went out there. We realize it's out of
our jurisdiction.
MS. MESIANO: Right, the septic is out of your jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. What are you doing going to zoning for'?
Board of Trustees 60 April 16, 2008
MS. MESIANO: Because I can't maintain 75 feet off the bulkhead.
I'm going to zoning because the side yards are nonconforming, and
even though I'm improving everything, it's still nonconforming.
MR. CORCORAN: Why can't you maintain 75 off the bulkhead?
MS. MESIANO: The septic system, now the existing setback is 15 feet
and to make the septic system conforming and to service both structures -
I should back up and say there are CO's on all of the structures for their
present uses. So what they are and where they are, are compliant insofar
as the CO's are concerned. We are asking to reconstruct the principal
building and increase the setback from 50 feet, essentially, to 46 feet.
Make sure I say that correctly. 15 to 46.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are keeping the second structure there, that's
why you can't move the septic back further, correct?
MS. MESIANO: The second structure is being moved back as well.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
MS. MESIANO: Everything we are doing places us behind the line of
the existing dwellings. We are improving all of the conditions as
far as this Board is concerned.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. LWRP is inconsistent because 4.1, which is
flood zone. And it lists all the conditions there. It says the
proposed use is residential and does not meet the required criteria
above and it lists all that.
MR. CORCORAN: I don't want this to be a ZBA hearing. ZBA is
different and they do what they do and you do what you do. But
this will require a 50% variance from the ZBA. So I don't know
what you want to do. If you want to hold it and wait, or act.
We are trying to coordinate and not bounce people back and
forth. I don't want to tell you what to do but this is not a slam
dunk variance application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I was going to get at with the LWRP
report. A lot of the LWRP report might be answered depending on
what ZBA does.
MS. MESIANO: If I could comment on the things you mentioned so
far. You talked about the FEMA requirements. Because what is
being done is greater than 50%, it will be constructed pursuant to
FEMA regulations. It will be constructed pursuant to a DEC
permit. It will be constructed pursuant to a Health Department
permit. So I think those issues answer a lot of the points that
would be raised in the LWRP report.
Again, everything that is being done is a benefit from an
environmental perspective and I just would like to say, too, that
it's been my experience with this Board for the last 15-plus years
that the Board has maintained their autonomy and made their
decisions independently of any other boards or agencies, and now
I'm seeing that the Board is acting in deference to other agencies
Board of Trustees
61 April 16, 2008
on matters that are not pertinent to your purview.
MR. CORCORAN: Well, my point is that if this Board wants to approve
the 40-foot setback, that's fine, but know that the ZBA has denied
various applications at that level and --
MS. MESIANO: I understand that.
MR. CORCORAN: And if you are going to get an approval here, I'm not
saying this Board is going to approve it, but if this Board does
approve it and the ZBA is then going to go deny it and then you
have to come back here, then we get applicants often complaining
about being ping ponged back and forth between agencies. So as a
town we have been trying to coordinate that, and I don't view that
as taking anybody's autonomy away from anybody else.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't think, Cathy -- we are saying we are
trying to defer to the ZBA, we are trying to save you and your
applicant time from going back and forth so there is less
mitigating that you will have to do, so that we --
MR. CORCORAN: The Board may want to consult with the ZBA and come
up with a coordinated decision to avoid that.
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to table this.
MS. MESIANO: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: The frustrating part to me, Cathy, if this bulkhead
wasn't here you would not be going before the ZBA„ would you, for
a setback?
MS. MESIANO: No.
TRUSTEE KING: That's fnastrating forme. These are things I think
we should change because you are taking a developed lot and putting
more restrictions on it than an undeveloped lot. It doesn't make sense to me.
MS. MESIANO: Doesn't make sense to me either.
TRUSTEE KING: We are trying to work our way through this the best
we can.
MS. MESIANO: The other issues that are problematic as far as I'm
concerned is when you have a previously developed lot, whether it's
bulkheaded or not bulkheaded, if you are improving the
circumstance, and it's reasonable, I know where you are going with
your question, why can't I get 75 feet back, well, I would say with
all due respect why should I.
MR. CORCORAN: Because you don't want to. I understand that.
MS. MESIANO: And it would ruin what is there because now I'm 75
feet back. Nobody on either side of me is ever going to see and
now I have tunnel vision.
MR. CORCORAN: Believe me, I have been through these applications
with the ZBA that's why I'm raising, because I seen the decisions
they've made and the decisions have been to deny these types of
applications. At least their recent decisions. I can't say
they'll come with a consistent decision.
MS. MESIANO: You are absolutely right on that point.
Board of Trustees
62 April 16, 2008
MR. CORCORAN: I'll remind them of their prior decisions and they
have treated existing homes and additions to existing homes much
different than if you knock down the home and start from scratch.
They are asking the question, why can't you meet the setback.
There is room on the lot. Come a lot closer than 40 feet is what
they have been saying. I'm not saying that to you. I'm saying
that's what I have heard and that's the decisions I have seen.
So I'm just predicting into the future that even if this Board
wants to approve the 40, then we'll have this hearing in the ZBA
and you'll say well the Trustees said it's fine, and we'll get a
big fight going back and forth and that's what we are trying to avoid.
MS. MESIANO: I understand that. But if you don't mind hearing my
take on that. I'm almost asking that the Board look at it in a
vacuum because I'm looking for the Board's outside --
MR. CORCORAN: I know. I'm asking the Board not look at it in a
vacuum.
MS. MESIANO: Therein lies the problem. Because the issues the
Board are considering are outside of their purview. And I
understand it's the ping pong effect and the back and forth, but I
think the Board loses -- and this is just my opinion -- I think the
Board loses its strength, its control, over those things that it
should have control over.
If the Board looks at this and says, you know, this plan, this
is a healthy plan, regardless of the fact that it doesn't comply
with the zoning setbacks, this is a healthy plan, it's good for the
environment, it doesn't hurt anybody's esthetic quality on either
side, and the things they are doing are beneficial, we like the
plan, we can live with it.
MR. CORCORAN: I understand that. In a vacuum, that sounds great,
but my experience is when both boards stand their ground, the only
loser is the applicant because we all go home and the applicant has
no approval. So I've seen that with the LPC and the ZBA and the
Trustees and the ZBA and other overlapping jurisdictional issues.
MS. MESIANO: How well I know that. I'm just expressing my opinion.
MR. CORCORAN: So, when you need two approvals, one is not good
enough.
MS. MESIANO: I'm just expressing my opinion, and that's all it is,
is my opinion, that 1 thought that things ran better when the Board
maintained their independence from the other agencies of the town
and made their decisions based on the criteria set forth in the
wetland code. I think that's basically what I'm trying to say.
That's just my opinion. And I respect yours.
MR. CORCORAN: I respect yours as well.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have another comment.
MR. DANERI: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Gene
Daneri, I live at 200 Terry Path. I would just like to -- I came
Board of Trustees
63 April 16, 2008
here tonight just to offer a few words in support of Mr. Topper's
application. I live right next door on the east side. I have no
objection whatsoever to what he's looking to do. And I also would
like to point out although it's probably unnecessary, since I'm
sure you are aware, I, too, came before you back in August of 2006
presenting a similar application, actually with slightly less
setback from the bulkhead. My application was, seems to me,
greeted with open arms by this Board. It was deemed to be in
compliance with LWRP and consistent with LWRP and I realize there
is a problem, which I have presently right now, with it not meeting
Zoning Board of Appeals approval.
But it seems to me that you folks preside over different
issues, and obviously there is a problem because I'm confronted
with that problem right now. But I think in order to maintain your
integrity, you need to decide the case based upon what is in front
of you and what you think will be down the road with the Zoning
Board. I think that obviously we have a group of people here
instead of a single individual making a determination as to whether
or not something is consistent with LWRP, which in my opinion is a
much better approach than when you get to the Zoning Board of
Appeals when seemingly you have one individual making a
determination as to whether or not a proposedd project is consistent.
The other issue, and I'll only touch on it for a second here.
I've spoken more than I expected to in the first place. I really
just wanted to come down here and express my support. But that is
the 75-foot setback, and I know it's not a Trustee issue, but the
reality is if you have been to the site, and I'm sure you have,
there is not a single house up and down that beach from James Creek
to the airport with the exception of the Norris mansion that has a
setback from the bulkhead any more than 30 feet. To force someone
to build their house twice the distance, more than twice the
distance from that is ridiculous. And that's, I appreciate your
time. Have a good night.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
MS. MESIANO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
(No response.)
I would like to make a motion to table this.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll express my thoughts to the ZBA on this also.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: And I think the rest have been postponed, correct?
Board of Trustees 64 April 16, 2008
(Board members respond in the affirmative.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There was a motion to adjourn and a second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
RECEIVED
~~.`~'
~Q200~~~ ~ ~ Dp.,~ .
Southold Town Clerk