HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-02/18/2009 James F. King, President
Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President
Peggy A. Dickerson
Dave Bergen
Bob Ghosio, Jr.
Town Hall Annex
54375 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (6311 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
6:00 PM
RECEIVED
$:qOp. m.
k4AR 2 0 2009
Present Were: James King, President
Jill Doherty, Vice-President
Peggy Dickerson, Trustee
Dave Bergen, Trustee
Robert Ghosio, Trustee
Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, March 18, 2009, at 6:00 PM
WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of January 21, 2009
TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone, my name is Jim King. I'm the chairman of
this Board. I have the honor of being the chairman. And I would like to
introduce the rest of the folks that are here. To my far left is Trustee Dave Bergen; Trustee Peggy
Dickerson, and we have Jill Doherty is the vice chair; myself; Lauren Standish is our secretary,
she runs the office for us, and; Bob Ghosio is the next Trustee. We have Wayne Galante down
here keeping track of what everybody says. So if you do have comments, please come
up to the microphone, identify yourself so he can get it on the record. And we have Peter
Young from the CAC, which is the Conservation Advisory Council. They go out and do many of
the same inspections we do and give us their input on what we should do with the applications.
With that, I guess we'll get going, move things along. Do you want to set the date for the
next field inspection, March 4, eight o'clock in the morning?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Motion to approve.
TRUSTEE KING: Second?
Board of Trustees 2 February 18, 2009
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: Next meeting, March 18, at six o'clock, with the work session at 5:30.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't have a chance to read the minutes of January 21 yet. If anybody else
did, do you want to make a motion, anybody?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of January 21,2009.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE KING: The Trustees monthly repod for January 2009. A check for $5,209.55
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: Resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds
that the following applications more fully described in Section VI Public
Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, February 18, 2009, are classified
as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations, and are not subject to further
review under SEQRA.
We have a number of state environmental quality reviews, they list as follows:
William Hamilton - SCTM#14-2-3.6
Paul & Angela Salermo - SCTM#87-5-6
Peter Schembri - SCTM#15-3-16
Diana Delucia - SCTM#107-4-5
Joseph & Rita Denicolo - SCTM#70-4-6
Gerald Dicunzolo - SCTM#107-7-5
Gardiner's Bay Homeowners Association - SCTM#37-4-17
Peter Cosola - SCTM#7-3-43
Kevin & Alexandra O'Mara - SCTM#72-2-2.2
Sophia Antoniadis & Maria Xefos - SCTM#-31-14-7
Cleaves Point Property Owners Association - SCTM#35-6-30
Robert Swing - SCTM#63-6-24
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
IV RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: I think we said we can lump one, two, four and five together under Resolutions.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Under Resolutions and Administrative Permits, what we try and do, if they are
simple and no controversy or anything, we try and lump them together and approve them at once,
just to save time from the hearing.
Board of Trustees 3 February 18, 2009
We'll do number one, number two, number four and number five, which are:
Number one, LORRAINE CONNOLLY requests an Administrative Permit to remove portions of
an existing concrete driveway and bricked area and add a new gravel driveway and a letter of no-
jurisdiction to construct a new garage, renovate the existing dwelling by constructing a second-floor
addition, construct a porch addition and relocate the house entrance from the front to the side of the
house. Located: 3505 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck.
Number two, Joanne Liguori on behalf of ANNETTE GOLDEN requests an Administrative Permit
to repair inkind a portion of the waterside well of the existing gunite swimming pool. Located: 1445
Bayshore Road, Greenport.
Number four, Michael Hughes on behalf of THOMAS PULS requests an Administrative Permit to
construct a 17.2'x22.2' extension to the existing garage. Located: 135 Eugene's Road, Cutchogue.
And number five, Amend Administrative Permit #6794A issued to ALBERT MOYSE to remove
the condition requiring the installation of gutters and drywells. Located: 120 Rabbit Lane, East
Marion.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve those.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Is Glenn Just here?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, he's not. And looking at it, I don't think he has anything else on the
agenda. He may not even come.
Do you want to hold off on number three?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Why don't we move on it. Our only concern really was where they were going
to put the cuttings. We can stipulate something.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, we can do that.
All right, number three, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of PECONIC LANDING AT
SOUTHOLD requests an Administrative Permit to cut the phragmites to a minimum of 12" in height,
remove the phragmites and dispose of them. Located: 1500 Brecknock Road, Greenport.
I think, you're familiar with that, Bob. It's not a problem. We just had a question of where they are
going to dispose of the phragmites.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In general we like to eliminate invasive species. In the case of phragmites,
you are allowed to cut them down to 12" in height with a permit. This is two acres worth. As I
understand, they'll be doing it by hand. Our only concern is where they are going to put the cuttings.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's a lot of debris, yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, it's a lot of debris. And there was nothing said where they were going to
put it.
TRUSTEE KING: We can approve it subject to them telling us where they'll dispose of it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sounds fine.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make the motion we approve this with the stipulation they show us an approved
site for disposal.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, did you want to do postponements?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, thank you. Sorry. We have some postponements tonight. I don't want
to have anybody sitting here all night thinking something is going to come up and we don't
address it.
On page three of your agenda, number four under Coastal Erosion Wetland Permits,
MBB Architects on behalf of MARY BURNHAM requests a Wetland Permit and
Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a two-story addition to the existing dwelling, new deck and new
one-story fully detached garage. Located: Peninsula Road, Fishers Island, has been postponed.
Board of Trustees 4 February 18, 2009
And number five, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of DAVID WlLMERDING requests
a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a 5x46' fixed dock over an existing
concrete dilapidated ramp onto an existing fixed dock and repair as necessary portions of
the existing fixed dock. Located: Private Road, off of Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island, has
been postponed.
Under Wetland Permits, number five, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of
ROBERT SWING requests a Wetland Permit to construct an addition to the landward side of the
existing dwelling containing 627 square feet, removal of the existing septic system
and replace within an updated sanitary system within the front yard, installation of a retaining wall
(surrounding the sanitary system) measuring 118' in length x 1.3' in height, installation of a French
drain along the southern side yard property boundary and establishment of a five-foot non-turf buffer
a~ong the landward side of the bulkhead; remove and replace the existing floor plates of concrete
block on the foundation in order to protect the house from flooding and further structural
deterioration of the dwelling; construct a second-story loft/storage containing 580
square feet and retain the southern-most walt housing the existing sunroom and existing chimney.
Located: 4295 Bayshore Road, Southold, has been postponed.
Number ten, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT
CORP., requests a Wetland Permit to reclaim and repave East End Road which is a
private road extending from Oriental Avenue eastwardly approximately 4.5 miles to the east of
the island. The plan calls for reclaiming the existing pavement to create a sub base, replacing old
culverts with new larger pipes, grading and repaying, with two courses of rap in areas not adjacent
to freshwater wetlands and stone trenches and landscaped swa~es designed to accommodate runoff
from a design storm will be installed in areas near wetlands. Areas adjacent to the road disturbed
during the grading process will be Ioamed and seeded. In addition, proposed construction
of an eight-foot wide paved or boardwalk path to follow the road alignment for an approximate
length of 3.25 miles. Design plans proposed a corridor approximately 12-feet wide be cleared,
topsoil removed, processed gravel base installed and a final two-inch pavement course of
bituminous concrete. Any disturbed areas will be Ioamed and seeded. In areas where the path
crosses freshwater wetlands, an elevated boardwalk with open grating is proposed. Located:
Fishers Island, has been postponed.
Number 11, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of MILDRED DICARLO requests a Wetland Permit to
replace the existing dock with a Iow-profile 4x64' fixed dock on 16 eight-inch diameter piles 12-feet
on center, 3xl 5' metal ramp and a 6x20' floating dock affixed to two 10-inch diameter piles and
inplace replacement of 125 feet of bulkhead and 37' return landward of high-water.
Located: 1035 Calves Neck Road, Southold, has been postponed.
Number 12, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of ROBERT CELIC requests a Wetland Permit to
replace three existing wood jetties 68', 65' and 50' using 10x15' wood piles at six-feet on center and
C-Loc vinyl sheathing or equivalent. Located: 910 Park Avenue Extension, Mattituck, has been
postponed.
Number 13, Patricia Moore on behalf of GRACE BURR HAWKINS requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a single-family dwelling and sanitary system. Located: Private Road, Fishers Island, has
been postponed.
And number 14, MARY R. RAYNOR requests a Wetland Permit to replace the existing wood
bulkhead and wood retaining wall as exists, utilizing PVC bulkheading. Located: 575 Beachwood
Road, Cutchogue, has been postponed.
We won't be addressing those tonight.
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number one, PAUL & ANGELA SALERNO request an Amendment to
Permit #6939 to replace the existing 6x10' floating dock with a 6x20' floating dock, and to replace
two pilings at the end of the floating dock. Located: 700 Koke Drive, Southold.
We did go out and look at this just. For the record, it was reviewed under the LWRP and found
to be consistent. I don't see any recommendations there. And then the CAC looked at it and
supports the application with the conditions appropriate materials are used; in other words, non-
treated lumber. Like I said, we did go out and look at this.
Board of Trustees 5 February 18, 2009
Is there anybody here with this application? Sir, if you could just step up to the microphone for a
second.
MR. SALERNO: My name is Paul Salerno.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. We did go out and look at this, and the only challenge that we
had with this, this is a situation where the property line, you could see the stake there that marks the
property line, and if you go out, straight out, probably right now the way we looked at it, almost the
end of the current flow that is across the property line, so we were concerned if we were tO approve
this as applied for, this would go out further and it would definitely be over the property line.
What we were going to suggest, instead, was if this can be an "L" so that what you are applying
for with the correct float would go in this direction; in other words, towards, I believe the
west/northwest. That way the "L" extends in front of your property and does not infringe upon the
adjoining property owner's area.
MR. SALERNO: I believe when I applied for the initial application, the adjoining property owner, if
I'm correct, already authorized me to make improvements and changes to the dock. And there are
four owners of that property and they already sort of blessed it already. So if we need something
from the property owners, I can get that, but I think we have it already in the file.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The challenge we have with that, and that's not unusual for people to come in
with something like that, is what happens in the future, if and when the properties are sold. And it
could run into some title issues and just if we do this it makes it very clean and doesn't, would not
result in any potential problems for the future, and it would still give you, and again, we have not
heard your opinion of this, but in our opinion it would give you what you want. The
extension is just then directly in front of your property.
MR. SALERNO: Honestly, I didn't give it any thought until you brought it up today. I just think when
the water is coming in, the current is coming this way, and basically what will happen theoretically
here the boat comes in, it is just going to be banging into the dock.
And that's why we have it -- everyone's is like this.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I'm thinking is probably --
MR. SALERNO: If my son could just --
MR. SALERNO, JR.: My name is Paul Salerno, Jr. I do understand your idea here. I think one
of the problems that we may have is if you turn it to the right, it would be six feet going out from the
catwalk; is that correct? 6x207
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, it's a 6x20 float.
MR. SALERNO, JR.: The ramp might go out at the end of the six feet at high tide.
MR. SALERNO: And also you probably have shorter space from the docking standpoint. Now do
you go below the two-and-a-half, three inch, at the three foot spot there? So. If you bring it in you'll
be closer to the shoreline, from a water level standpoint. That's a good point. I didn't think about
that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We may have to change the length of the ramp.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I'm looking for.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you have it this way then the ramp will be too long.
MR. SALERNO: Is there something I could get from the neighbor that would satisfy this?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, again --
MR. SALERNO: If you look at the line right now, right now if you went straight, it probably lines up
with the second piling as it is now already. So it's already, if you are looking, it may be over that
already.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But what we don't want to do is --
MR. SALERNO: Make it worse, I guess.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. What we are looking for is a survey in here. And I'm not finding any.
MR. SALERNO: There is one. I could give you my survey. I think I have it with me. I do. If I can
hand this to you.
TRUSTEE KING: What you wanted to do is basically add ten feet seaward.
MR. SALERNO, JR.: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The survey that Mr. Salerno submitted does not reflect water depths.
MR. SALERNO: And there is, in the original application I filed there was something from Sea Level
Surveyors.
TRUSTEE KING: Do we have a tax map with that?
Board of Trustees 6 February 18, 2009
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Tax map 87-5-6.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm trying to look at -- we have an aerial of the whole area is what I'm trying to look
at. Because that's a cove shape, you may want to address probably how you extend the property
line.
MR. SALERNO: Is there a way to just angle the float a little bit to make the same -- I don't build
docks.
TRUSTEE KING: It could be done.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If he keeps the ramp and the catwalk the same, he would have to change --
TRUSTEE KING: Oh, no, that ramp could be angted more to the right so that --
MR. SALERNO: I guess there is a way to build it so the boats can go like this (indicating.)
TRUSTEE KING: The ramp doesn't have to be perfectly square with the dock. It could be on a 45. ·
MR. SALERNO: I could do that.
TRUSTEE KING: It brings up the question how do you extend property lines. Because --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are looking at an aerial photo that is in the file.
TRUSTEE KING: Because if have you a cove shape like that, supposedly you draw a line from
headland to headland, and then the property line is extended out so
its perpendicular to the line you've drawn and that changes the angle of that. In other words this
would go more parallel with his dock. If you look at it. You are supposed to draw a line here like
this. Then you draw, extend that property line out so it meets this at a 90 degree angle. That's to
benefit every property owner so some guy that is stuck in the middle doesn't have anything.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So if he just angles it -
TRUSTEE KING: I would say it would be fine if you could tip that at a 20 or 30 degree angle.
MR. SALERNO: Then go straight there after.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just angle it far enough so definitely it would not go on the neighbor's
property.
MR. SALERNO: In other words I would need a pole in the front and pole in the back.
TRUSTEE KING: That would work.
MR. SALERNO: As long as you are okay with it, I'm okay with it. I don't know if the guy who
knows how to build it.
TRUSTEE KING: Would that be a problem, Mr. Costello? I seen other docks where the ramp
comes down on an angle.
MR. COSTELLO: No, not a problem.
MR. SALERNO: So you'll give me your card on the way out?
TRUSTEE KING: I think that would be a solution.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Okay, are there any other comments from the Board on this?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We just need new drawings beforehand.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. What I would like to do then is make a motion to approve the
application of Paul and Angela Salerno as depicted at 700 Koke Drive with the
condition the floating dock will be angled slightly toward the north, as I look at this survey, so that it
doesn't --
MR. SALERNO: North is correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So none of the structure goes over the extension of the property line of the
neighbors and it would be subject so, to new plans being submitted that depict that first.
MR. SALERNO: Sure, subject to that.
TRUSTEE KING: And two eight-inch piles holding the float in place.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And on the survey I'm looking at, it shows two piles, so we would have two
eight-inch piles to hold the float in place as shown on the survey of property dated July 14, 2008.
MR. SALERNO, JR.: Similar to what we have here in the picture.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. And this was consistent under the LWRP.
MR. SALERNO: And it would be a new pile in the front and back.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. So to hold the float in place, yes. So I make that motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. SALERNO: And I would just submit that to the
office?
Board of Trustees 7 February 18, 2009
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, submit the new plans to the office.
TRUSTEE KING: Just to make a point, these are not public hearings. These are applications for
amendments. But anybody, if you have a comment to make, please help yourself. Come up and
make a comment about them. But these are not public hearings.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number two, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of PETER COSOLA
requests an Amendment to Permit #5909 to install four two-pile mooring dolphins at the offshore
end of the existing dock. Located: 2880 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold.
The LWRP has reviewed this as inconsistent, and actually the review reflects the concern of the
entire Trustee Board. The proposed action of four two-pile mooring dolphins may cause the
following impacts: Impair navigation of the body water, interfere with the public use of the waterway
and bottom land, impairs views and watersheds important to the community and establishes a
precedent contributing to the cumulative impacts caused by similar docking structures.
The entire Board, when we looked at this, there is a desire to, for an alternative, and Mr.
Costello, did you have a chance to speak to your client?
MR. COSTELLO: My name is John Costello and I'm familiar with the job and I have discussed it with
the client after a brief conversation with Jill saying that the Board did have some difficulties, and I
told him that other alternatives to secure the boat at that dock would be, as Joe suggested, the tide
whips would be helpful, and I suggested to him instead of the four dolphin pilings, if he put one
single piling. He's purchasing a larger boat. If he could get approval from the Board to put one
single piling eight-inch diameter, approximately 12 foot, right off the end of the dock, with the tide
whips, he would have no problem securing any boat whatsoever at the dock. He says,
well, you know more about boating than I do and I'll see what we could do.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim, that was your comment?
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't have a chance to look at this one.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just want to mention that actually that was the LWRP's recommendation.
The following best management practice is recommended as alternative to
the proposed action which is the use of a mooring whip as an alternative to pile mooring dolphins.
The CAC supports the application, however recommends an alternative plan of two double
dolphins on the same side of the dock. So we have a couple of alternatives here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sounds like the alternative with the least amount of structure is the one the
applicant has proposed now. You are asking for one mooring piling.
The do you know whether the applicant wanted that on the north or south side of the dock?
MR. COSTELLO: Directly in line with the dock. The mooring whips would hold the boat on. That
would secure the bow line or the stern line. That's all. Where the boat is, is 36 feet overall, and
instead of putting the stern in toward the beach, where the prop wash would have more influence,
my recommendation for him is to go bow in and have the whips holding it off the float instead of
piling holding it off the float, and have the one line out offshore.
TRUSTEE KING: How far seaward from the float?
MR. COSTELLO: 12 feet is more than enough.
TRUSTEE KING: That seems reasonable.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the channel in that area, how far?
TRUSTEE KING: The stern of the boat is going to be out there anyway.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a near shore channel along there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I was wondering.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I think that's fine.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments, Bob?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm all for it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. I will make a motion to approve Costello Marine Contracting Corp.,
on behalf of Peter Cosola's request to amend his permit #5909 but to change the request to install a
one single pile off the seaward, 12-foot off the seaward end of the dock, eight inches in diameter
with a tide whip instead of the pilings.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
Board of Trustees 8 February 18, 2009
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Which, if I may add, would bring that into consistency see with LWRP.
MR. COSTELLO: You are going to ask for drawings, I hope.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: With proof of new plans.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have them already?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: That was quick.
MR. COSTELLO: I wanted to find out what he was accepting. I still have an eraser.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, we can sign them now.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of STRONG'S MARINE INC.,
requests an Amendment to Permit #6907 to modify the proposed fuel tank replacement, specifically
the replacement of the existing fuel tank and pumps with one double-wall
fiberglass tank containing two (2) fuel storage compartments (6,000 gallon gas and 4,000 gallon
diesel.) Located: 2402 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck.
This was approved June of 2008 and it was found exempt at that time from LWRP, and
I believe it's really not much of a change in this. It's just to --
TRUSTEE KING: Is it the same location?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's the same location and it's just to come into compliance of what the
regulations are for these.
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants. Previously, what was approved was actually two
separate fuel tanks, and this is one double-wall tank with two compartments. So it's really a
diminimus change but we wanted to make sure it was consistent. It's a downsize, if it's anything.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, so the difference is these are attached as opposed to --
MR. HERMAN: Correct. They are contained in one unit as opposed to two separate tanks.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought that was what was approved in the beginning. That's why I was not
sure. I would make a motion to approve the amendment to Strong's Marina.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Number four, En-Consultants, on behalf of STEVEN & SUSAN BLOOM requests
an Amendment to Permit #6785 to eliminate the inkind/inplace replacement of 148 linear feet of
existing timber retaining wail in favor of the inkind/inplace replacement of 133 linear feet of existing
timber retaining wall and the installation of 35 linear feet of new timber retaining wall to create
landward cutout in retaining wall. Located: 7800 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
It sounds confusing, but it's very simple. They are just modifying the retaining wall to have a
square cut, an inland square cutout. It's just a minor modification. Jill and I looked at this. We didn't
have any problem with it. So Ill make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Number five, En-Consultants on behalf of ROSA HODGSON requests an
Amendment to Permit #6993 to reduce the length of the reconstructed pier by ten
feet, from 87' to 77'. Located: 4845 Pine Neck Road, Southold.
This is a dock and bulkhead permit that we issued several months ago. Work has begun. There
is a permit from the DEC to reduce it by ten feet. Reductions are always good. So I don't see any
problem here at all. Unless there is any other comment, I'll make a motion to approve the reduction
as applied for.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to go to public hearings.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
Board of Trustees 9 February 18, 2009
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have the first one. Before we begin with the public hearings, just a reminder,
if everybody would please keep your comments to the minimum, or be brief, and five minutes or less
if possible. The public hearings are the hearings where there is an
opportunity for the public to come up and give comment.
So I have number one, SOFIA ANTONIADIS & MARIA XEFOS request a Wetland Permit &
Coastal Erosion Permit to replace approximately 200' of bulkhead and 30' return on landward side,
an 18x24' deck and steps to the beach, and place toe armor along the southwestern
end of the new bulkhead and return. Located: 12500 Main Road, East Marion.
The Board did go out and look at this. It was reviewed under the LWRP and found
to be exempt, with certain best management practices recommended. Included in these
was the establishment of a 20-foot non-turf vegetative buffer; that the deck on top that
is being replaced is to pitch away from the bulkhead and; that we make sure there is
pervious material under the deck to allow for any runoff to drain down and not
go into the bay and; the use of a silt boom in front of the bulkhead for the work on that
during all intertidal operations.
It was reviewed by CAC. CAC supports the application with the condition of the
20-foot non-turf buffer and tropical hardwoods that are proposed must be certified.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? If you would like to step
up to the microphone.
While you are doing that, I would like to read one letter that came in on February 11.
It's from a neighbor. And I'm paraphrasing here. She is confirming receipt of the notification
of this. She says I'm deeply concerned with the choice of materials
that are planned for the use of this project, specifically treated lumber. Chemically treated
lumber used in an area that is consistently subject to aquatic wash and tide fluctuation
poses an enormous environmental impact. Furthermore, the chemicals in the
aforementioned materials directly threaten our marine and wildlife hereof.
Consequently, I hereby express my opposition to this project.
Now, in the proposed work that is listed on the plans that were submitted January 28,
it said materials to be treated lumber and vinyl sheathing. So I just want to confirm with the
applicant that the replacement of the bulkhead will use vinyl sheathing and not
treated lumber.
MS. ANTONIADIS: The treated lumber will be limited to the piles and the whalers.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Now, as you heard, there was suggestions and best
management practices from the LWRP coordinator, as well as the CAC, and the Board
also is recommending a 20-foot non-turf buffer along the top of the bulkhead. And we
wanted to know if this was okay. This is a standard -- non-turf buffers are
pretty much a standard requirement when we are doing bulkhead replacements now.
MS. ANTONIADIS: We don't have a problem with the non-turf buffer. I think 20 feet is a bit
excessive. We recommended I think a 12-foot buffer on the plans. And it will extend past
the deck line.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. We did note that it would extend past the deck line.
There is -- it's pretty expansive front lawn, and so we felt that a 20-foot
buffer was appropriate. But, again, you know, I would be interested in the feelings
of the Board on that. If you would tike to back it up so it corresponds with the
width of the deck, which is 12 foot, or if you would like to stick with the 20 foot.
TRUSTEE KING: If I could see the set of plans. (Perusing.) I'm looking at the row of piles.
It's not showing on here. I don!t know if the deck is right against those piles or not.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You are saying the deck is here.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't know if the deck is right against those plies or not. Is that the back
edge of the deck, along those piles?
MS. ANTONIADIS: It's about there. It's 18 feet from the bulkhead inward.
TRUSTEE KING: The non-turf buffer right in line with those piles would be fine.
Board of Trustees 10 February 18, 2009
MS. ANTONIADIS: I think that would look better also.
TRUSTEE KING: That would just kind of extend that line right atong there.
MS. ANTONIADIS: I didn't understand, or I didn't hear, something was mentioned about a silt
clothe?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The use of a silt boom during construction just offshore.
MS. ANTONIADIS: Sure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. In the intertidal area here, so when the w,ork is done,
particularly at high tide, none of the materials will go down into the bay.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Your contractor should be well aware of that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, we had a couple of other questions. We just wanted to make
sure, because you have a couple of sets of stairs to the beach on this
property, and you talked about the replacement of a set of stairs. We never want to make
assumptions. We are assuming you are talking about these stairs, replacement of these stairs
that are adjacent to the deck and not the other set of stairs further down the beach, correct?
MS. ANTONIADIS: Well, we'll be replacing both sets. The whole bulkhead is being replaced.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because it just said replacing a set of steps. So we took that as one set
of stairs.
MS. ANTONIADIS: That's a clerical error. It's two sets.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What's the purpose of two steps, if you could go down to the beach
on the deck area?
MS. ANTONIADIS: It's a 200-foot run. You know, that's how it is. I would prefer if we could,
you know, replace the existing. I mean you would have to walk
200 feet to get to the steps down.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's normal for us to only permit one set of stairs to the beach from a
property. Now, understandably, we deal with normal property tengths around 100 feet.
Maybe 150. So you are 200. That is a little bit farther. Personally, I don't see a hardship
created by one set of steps serving 200 feet of beach but, again, I welcome the comments from
other members of the Board.
TRUSTEE KING: A set of stairs in the middle.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, they have them off the deck. It makes sense to have it off the deck.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't see the hardship with one set of stairs either.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are trying to reduce structure that goes out here.
The other question we had was we noticed down here is there just a couple pilings that are the
remainder of what was a structure in the past, and what we would like is when this work is done, for
those pilings to be removed, because they are not serving any purpose at all. We would like them
removed.
Then we had a question regarding you have several electrical fixtures along the bulkhead that
are basically, looks like they are falling apart. One of them was just hanging down. And we wanted
to know if the plans were just -- because I don't see them on here
-- if the plans were to just eliminate them. Again, we are just trying to make this clean.
MS. ANTONIADIS: Well, I didn't think that far ahead but I would like to replace them when the new
bulkhead is in place, to have lighting.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, what would be the need for lighting off the bulkhead to the beach? It's
not something that is normally done.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does it fit into the code where it says about lighting?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The code mentions lighting on steps and they can only be lit while they
are being used and cannot be left on when the applicant is not at the house.
MS. ANTONIADIS: I mean those are not on during the evening. That would be on if you have,
want access to the beach in the evening.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I understand the need for some lighting for safety reasons, possibly at
the top of the steps here. I just don't see the need for flood lights along the bulkhead there, on the
beach. People are very concerned about light pollution out here, and I just --
TRUSTEE KING: It makes it difficult for boaters, too.
MS. ANTONIADIS: So you want to limit the lighting to the steps?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I think that's appropriate, for safety reasons.
Board of Trustees 11 February 18, 2009
MS. ANTONIADIS: I don't have a problem with that. But I do have a problem with reducing the
steps to the beach. I mean I really would like you to allow the two steps to be, you know, it's the
same size steps in the same, you know, location. I don't have to use treated wood for the steps.
I'll use non-treated wood or some type of tropical wood. But one is, you know, access
from the deck which is a whole different area than the east side.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, personally, I think one set of steps is fine for access to this beach,
but unless I hear anything different from other Board members.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: rll just reiterate what Dave is saying. One of the things we are trying to
do is reduce structure and even though, as you say, they have existed before, when applicants
come in we try and make improvements where we can. So to have access that you already have
and then, you know, say that you need the other is just, we are not seeing the need for it.
MS. ANTONIADIS: But it's already there. It's grandfathered. I'm not asking for an additional set
of steps.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But you are coming in for an approval for this bulkhead, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When we were out in the field, Jim had a comment about designing
this corner a little different. Jim, if you want to explain.
TRUSTEE KING: My thoughts were instead of having that come to a point like that, just
square it off, go in five or six feet and square it off. What's happening, when you get a breeze
of wind and the waves there, that's acting like the bow of a boat. It's causing all
that erosion there. If they was squared off I think it would be a better way of doing it. It's just
my opinion. That's definitely causing a lot of erosion there just because the design of that point.
It's a very severe point.
MS. ANTONIADIS: I think that's why we applied for the armor toe for that corner. And the erosion
only began when the neighbor removed the wall that was there. I mean I didn't have that much
erosion about 15 years ago. It was a wall that was removed and --
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just looking at it from a design standpoint, I think it would be a better way of
doing it. That's my recommendation. I would talk it over with your contractor and see what they
think.
MS. ANTONIADIS: Well, a professional engineer designed or reviewed everything.
TRUSTEE KING: Did he go out and see that?
MS. ANTONIADIS: He went out.
TRUSTEE KING: It's just an unusual design, in my mind. I seen a lot of bulkhead, a lot of returns.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think what Jim is saying, if you talk it over and if we do approve it this way
tonight you could always come back and amend it as well.
Do you have DEC already?
MS. ANTONIADIS: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: It's just a recommendation on my part to make a better job of it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's something to think about. You only want to do this once, you know.
TRUSTEE KING: Peggy, can you go back to the beach area there when we looked at it on the
beach. When we talked about taking those piles off. This debris, to me, looks like concrete.
MS. ANTONIADIS: That's the old concrete wall that stretched along the East Marion Bay.
TRUSTEE KING: My thoughts were I wonder if we could just pick that up and put it against the
bulkhead before you put the rocks in just to clean the beach up and it would give you a little more
material in front of the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It would help armor the bulkhead and possibly get more years out of your
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KING: It would certainly make a nicer beach area. It's not natural by any means.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It would definitely benefit you, in my opinion.
TRUSTEE KING: Just something to think about.
MS. ANTONIADIS: I don't think I would use -- I could move it, but I don't think we would use
that as the armor, because it's deteriorating.
TRUSTEE KING: No, I would use it along with the armor.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we are saying in addition to.
TRUSTEE KING: It would just give you a much nicer beach area.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we even have to put that in the permit?
TRUSTEE KING: No.
Board of Trustees 12 February 18, 2009
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can just do it while they are working, have them move the cement.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It would be a nicer beach for you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have one other question. Is the coastal erosion line on the survey?
I know she applied for the coastal erosion permit, but it's not on these.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, I don't see it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's something we usually --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't see the coastal zone erosion line on the survey.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not on this one either. She applied for coastal erosion, for reviewing it
under both. I just didn't know where the coastal erosion line was. And it's not something new, so it
is doable under coastal erosion. Should we make her go through the expense of getting the
surveyor to put it on the survey or can we somehow just have it drawn on? It should be on.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you understand what we are saying, we should have the coastal
erosion line on your survey. And I agree, if we were requiring a whole new
set of plans to come in, it could be placed on there, but we are not doing that. So we don't
want to make you go through the expense of getting a whole new survey done.
So what we would want to do is then determine, have the applicant determine where the
coastal erosion line is, place that on here and then we would, subject to receipt of that and our
concurrence with that, could release the permit. Do you understand that?
MS. ANTONIADIS: So in other words I don't have to go to Nathan Taft to have it put on, the
surveyor, I could put it on myself.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would recommend going to Nathan Taft just to confer with him as to where it
is and you can just put it right on here. We'll then check it in our office to make sure we concur with
and if we do, that's it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Maybe Nathan can hand draw it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. So you don't have to go through the expense of having a whole new
survey done.
MS. ANTONIADIS: That sounds fine.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was there anybody else in the audience that wanted to comment on
this application?
(No response.)
If not, are there any other comments from the Board?
(No response.)
If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN; I'll make a motion to approve the application of Sofia Antoniadis and
Maria Xefos as described at 12500 Main Road in East Marion, with the
following conditions: That it will be, as it states on here, just to confirm, there will be vinyl
sheathing used on this bulkhead. So the only treated lumber are the pilings and whalers; that
there will be a non-turf buffer, 18 feet of non-turf buffer landward from the bulkhead so it
corresponds with the dimension of the deck; that the pilings that are located out on the beach
will be removed from this project; that the electrical lights on the bulkhead shining toward the beach
will not be replaced with this project, but there will be appropriate lighting on the
stairs that meets code; with the wood deck, that there will be a pervious surface under that wood
deck so that water drains appropriately so this corresponds with Chapter 236 of the Town Drainage
Code. And we are also only approving the one set of wood steps going from the
deck down to the beach. So it would be the elimination of the second set of wood steps.
MS. ANTONIADIS: Is there any way I could appeal the steps? Because I really feel the 200-foot
span, one set of steps is really, it's not acceptable.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, as you heard, the Board does not agree with that and so the Board,
what I heard, was unanimous in they are only approving one set of steps.
So that's a condition.
MS. ANTONIADIS: And the piles, the only two that belong to me are the ones that are freestanding.
The others belong to --
Board of Trustees 13 February 18, 2009
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We would only expect the removal of the piles that are yours, and not your
neighbor's. And -- thank you, very much -- complying with the best
management practice for your contractor to use a silt boom in the intertidal zone area. So I make
that motion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number two, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of CLEAVES POINT
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION requests a Coastal Erosion Permit to re-sheath sections
totaling up to 32 linear feet maximum, of the landward side of the 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 looked at this at this prior. This application was actually held up
with a violation of clearing. That violation has been taken care of and the trees have
been planted that brings it into compliance with the C of C.
This was deemed reviewed consistent with LWRP and the CAC supports the application,
however recommends rebuilding the bulkhead a foot deeper than the existing
in order to minimize scouring from the boat wakes. Jill, I think you said you and Jim went out
and did a final check on this?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This has been sitting. Waiting. Is there anybody who has anything
they would like to add?
MR. FITZGERALD: What more can I say?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We do have one more question. We noticed, when Jim and I went out there,
we noticed another section was starting to fail.
MR. FITZGERALD: Another section where?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right around here (indicating.)
This is the dock. It's right around where the dock was. That first dock.
MR. FITZGERALD: There is a question with Jim McMahon about who is doing what to whom in that
area, and where we went through a big thing with him about who owned
the bulkhead in the area that we are fixing, and it was decided by him that the association owned
the area that we are repairing.
Thero is still some question about the other part of it. But I'll talk to McMahon about it and if that
is the case, what I would ask that you do is approve this, and if it's determined that that is part of our
property -- it's on our property, but it may be the Town's bulkhead, we'll put in an amendment.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. We just wanted to make you aware of it because it was not there the
last time we went out. It's something new. And being winter, I didn't know if anybody saw it and was
aware of it.
MR. FITZPATRICK: Okay.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else hero this evening who would like to speak to this
application?
(No response.)
If not, 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 coastal erosion permit to resheath
at the Cleaves Point Property Owners and, again, it has been reviewed consistent with LWRP,
as stated in the application. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of KEVlN & ALEXANDRA
O'MARA requests a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to construct 226 linear feet
Board of Trustees 14 February 18, 2009
of a double row of quarry stone on a hardcore stone foundation; backfill and revegetate eroded
bluff face with native vegetation and reconstruct (inplace with open-grate decking) and extend the
existing bluff stairs over the proposed stone. Located: 14345 Oregon Road, Cutchogue.
This came in consistent with LWRP, however he has some notes to stick with best
management practices and to ensure that this structure will not cause erosion on
any neighboring properties, and also to do some plantings, which you also have here revegetate.
Is there anyone who is here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman from Eh-Consultants on behalf of the O'Mara's. This is the project, the
Board may recall, you had originally approved in the Fall of 2005 as a more substantially engineered
rock revetment. After a considerable period of discussions back and forth with the State DEC, the
project morphed into what is before you today. You actually approved this exact project last
summer, as the original permit had been extended once through the Fall of '08.
The only problem is the work was not commenced and the permittee failed to extend the
permit this past fall. So since it's been the Board's practice not to allow an after-the-fact renewal, we
had no choice really than to present this all to you again as if it was new, but it's not. We are really
just asking you to approve exactly what you approved last July; nothing more, nothing less.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Rob, do you have a revegetation plan?
MR. HERMAN: Yes, the plans include specifications for revegetation. It has been a little bit of a
moving target because when the project was originally put to
all the agencies, whereas this Board acted fairly promptly, the state did not, dragged it out for almost
two years, so the bluff deteriorated over that period of time. The bottom half of the stairs fell apart,
which is why the stairs are now in the application. But basically whatever part of the bluff is denuded
of vegetation by the time the project is implemented, which is now hopefully imminently, it will be
replanted with native vegetation including beach grass, Bayberry Rose and Virginia creeper, all of
which is all spelled out in the plans. It's fairly typical plantings for Bluff face on Long Island.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't have a planting plan in this application.
MR. HERMAN: It's on the plan and made part of this application.
TRUSTEE KING: It's really some pretty serious erosion going on in that area, between that and the
next door neighbor. Somehow it has to be addressed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You say what you are going to use
here. Does the Board want to see more specific plans?
It says bluff face to be replanted with native
vegetation including beach grass, Bayberry Rose and Virginia creeper.
TRUSTEE KING: Any thoughts of any type of terracing or anything on there? That bluff looks really
bad. I think it needs some serious work.
MR. HERMAN: Again, I think you know how long we went
around with this with the DEC. It was originally reviewed by Matt Richards. We had asked for
Chuck Hamilton's involvement and eventually the regional director was involved. So I think we have
about as much structure here as we are going to get approved.
So I think what I would ask, virtually beg of this Board, is simply approve this again, what you
approved in July, and once the toe is stabilized, if they find they are not able to adequately get the
bluff face planted, I mean stabilizing the toe should enable them to do that. It's a very, very sandy
bluff. It's not one of the other bluffs, kind of bluffs that we look at
this area where there is a lot of clay and you have some of those blowouts coming out the face and
you really have to terrace up there and you have some good material to hold the terraces. This is
very, very sandy and I think we want to try a more traditional approach to stabilize the toe to see if
we can get the face planted. And if that's not sufficient we can come back for more structure. But I
would really try to avoid adding anymore structure to the plan at this time
because that would then set in motion perhaps another who knows how long period of review with
the state. It's something we could always come back to you with if
they find it's necessary. And if it turns out it's not necessary, well then that would probably please
you more. I mean it's obviously in their interest to get this thing permanently stabilized. They had
originally tried --
TRUSTEE KING: Did they try plantings before?
MR. HERMAN: They did. And if you look in the pictures, probably with the original file, and
I don't know if you have that there. But with the original application, you can actually see the
Board of Trustees 15 February 18, 2009
erosion control mats that were set on this entire face kind of cropping out and tearing apart.
I think for this area, and I don't recall why off the top of my head, but the Planning Board was
involved for some reason. I guess this might have been pad cfa subdivision at some time.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was. A C&R is on it.
MR. HERMAN: So the Planning Board had required the quote unquote soft approach to stabilizing
the bluff years ago. And the O'Mara's had done that. They had also put in a very extensive drainage
plan that was designed specifically not to be pushing drainage out toward the bluff, to slope it back
toward the upland.
So this is one of those sites where everything was done theoretically right. It was done in
concert with the town, through the Planning Board. At the time you probably didn't have jurisdiction,
but everything meets your current setbacks nonetheless, so it's been a bluff
problem and it has been a toe up problem from the get go. And that is one of the
issues we had had with the state is I think they were sort of, it was following
that period of time where there was a lot of bottom down erosion from some
of those micro-burst storms you were having, having the sheet flow runoff
and it was deteriorating the bluff faces from the top down. But
that has not been the case here. If you look at the chronology of photos, the
bluff has been denuding from the bottom up very slowly, and it, the situation
was in much better control when we started this process than
where it ended up. And really through no fault of the applicant.
We just could never get the DEC to cooperate with us. To put it frankly.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: I doubt that will change much.
MR. HERMAN: Yeah, I mean it was one of those instances,
I told you a long while back, it's funny, we were kind
of, really beseeching Chuck Hamilton to come out and
try help us because the analyst who looked at this
first did not seem to have any sort of conceptual grasp
of what was going on. And ultimately, through the
issuance of the permit, I think Chuck greed with us as
to what was happening. I think he just didn't agree
with what we had proposed as the scope of the solution.
So that's where this ended up into this more of this
Robins Island style, you know, double row of stone that
either John or George Costello could probably tell you
quite a bit about. So this design was really given to
us, imposed on us by the DEC. So we'll see how it works.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
MR. HERMAN: And I think you just approved an adjacent project --
TRUSTEE KING: Access will be from Duck Pond?
MR. HERMAN: Yes. And I think last time you mentioned
that there would have to be a bond or something for the
road access. It may not be the last time you see this
site, but we have to start somewhere and we have to
start soon. And we apologize we are here again,
because they should have really just extended the
permit. But I think because the amendment was issued
last summer, I don't think they realized that the
original timeframe was still in effect.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The CAC suppods the application with
the condition erosion control devices are installed at
the base of the supports of the stairs. I think they
are talking about the recommendation they had made a
few months back where they kind of put a retaining wall
in between the footings underneath the stairs. That's
how I describe it.
Board of Trustees 16 February 18, 2009
TRUSTEE KING: Like a 2x10 across, underneath the posts.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But you are showing plantings to go
under the stairs and--
TRUSTEE KING: If this is going to be open-grate with
plantings under it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: mean, try that. There is always the
CAC's idea as well you could consider.
MR. HERMAN: And remember, whatever portion of the
stairs that is still structurally sound, will remain.
So you may not see open-grate from the toe to the top.
It will just be open-grate over whatever section has to
physically be reconstructed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
MR. HERMAN: Which, again, is more so now than when we started.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the
application of En-Consultants on behalf of Kevin and
Alexandra O'Mara for a Wetland and Coastal Erosion
Permit as submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Numbers four and five are postponed. We'll
go into the Wetland Permits.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Number one, DIANA DELUCIA requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a 38x8' and 42x10.3'
attached wood deck to the existing dwelling, and
replace the steps. Located: 4573 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck.
Anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE KING: CAC resolved not to support the wetland
application. Does not support the application because
of the close proximity to the wetlands and the
structure seaward of the dwelling should be constructed
with non-treated lumber; drywells installed in
accordance to Chapter 236.
It's been found inconsistent with the LWRP policy
statements because of the distance to the wetlands,
approximately 24 feet.
Did everybody see this? This was obviously done
without any permits. I don't know what the Board's
desire is. I'm inclined not no move forward with this
until we get a little better understanding what it is
that's going on here.
Ma'am, do you want to make any comments on this
application at all?
MS. DELUClA: My name is Diana Delucia.
Board of Trustees 17 February 18, 2009
TRUSTEE KING: It's my understanding that no building
permits were obtained with for any of the work that has
been done recently.
MS. DELUCIA: From what we understood it was not
necessary. It was al~ cosmetic. We didn't change the
structure or make it any larger or build it any
higher. We did change the windows and put siding.
TRUSTEE KING: I think you are going to have to work
with the Building Department on this because, I'm not a
building expert, but I do know the only time you don't
need a building permit is if you replace exactly the
same size window. You made pretty dramatic changes
here. You have sliding glass doors now in place of
windows. I think the Building Department is going to
have to, you'll have to work something out with them.
And I would really like to see that taken care of
before we address the deck.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree with Jim.
TRUSTEE KING: That would be my recommendation. I would
like to table this until we find out what the Building
Department wants to do with this before we go through
with another addition.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm not disagreeing with that, but just
to, so the applicant can prepare for the next time
around appropriately; the CAC voted disapproval of this.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. Because of its proximity to the
wetlands. It's close to the wetlands.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So if there is an opportunity to pull
the deck farther back from the wetlands, it could help
you in the next time when you come before this Board.
And make sure there is no treated lumber that wilt be
proposed to be used on that deck.
MS. DELUCIA: Can I address that issue now or should I wait?
TRUSTEE KING: And what you should do also, I think you
should amend your application to include the new doors
and windows and everything so everything is on one page
and you fit everything together. But perhaps
downsizing the deck would help. Make it a little
narrower. Think about it.
MS. DELUCIA: Can I just address that now?
TRUSTEE KING: Sure.
MS. DELUClA: Because we have gone through the process
with the DEC.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay.
MS. DELUCIA: And since you people have been to the
site, it's been an area that's basically abused the
natural area there. We are not sure why. But there
is, there was all the grasses and everything,
everything was dead, so there is a tremendous amount of
runoff at this time. And the cottage has no gutters.
So what we offered, since adding a deck was not going
to damage any wildlife at all, because there is just
sand and gravel, what we offered to do to kind of
mitigate the fact that we were going to create some
impervious structure, was that we offered to put
Board of Trustees 18 February 18, 2009
gutters on the entire roof and to put either gutters on
the deck, but what they suggested was to install French
drains around the perimeter of the deck. So in that
sense we would actually be repairing a bad situation
and creating less storm runoff than is currently there now.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's a condition we would probably
put on anyway.
TRUSTEE KING: That's something we would probably ask
for anyway. But you do have a DEC permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the Building Department would also
tell you if you have to go to the Zoning Board for this
deck. You know, the side yard setback, side and front,
I don't know what, if they consider that backyard or,
you know. So the different setbacks, so you might have
to go to Zoning Board as well.
MS. DELUCIA: The house itself is already, I guess by
the new standards, is too close to the wetlands.
TRUSTEE KING: It's nonconforming, but it's been there.
Yes, we understand that.
MS. DELUCIA: And we are basically asking for a ten-foot
deck forward. And as I said, if you have been to the
site, or can see the pictures, it's basically gravel and sand.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are you willing to reduce the size of
the deck?
MS. DELUCIA: I'm -- yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Her issues with the Building
Department and possibly zoning are a lot more involved
than ours. Should we go ahead and move on this and
then if she has to come back to us or is it easier to
table, then she has to come back to us.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it's easier to table this and
address this next month. The Building Department
should be able to get this, at least let us know what
they want to do. Then maybe we can move forward with
this next month. I'm not trying to hold you up,
believe me. But I think it would be prudent on our part
to just hold this off until next month. Because the
Building Department, they just found out, you know. So
I'll make a motion to table this.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
MS. DELUCIA: Could I just ask a question. I'm curious
with the CAC, why would they have an issue against this
deck?
TRUSTEE KING: The DEC?
MS. DELUCIA: No, the CAC, I'm curious.
TRUSTEE KING: They feel it's too close to the wetland.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mr. Young, maybe you would like to
comment?
MR. YOUNG: The perspective that we have is it's
intruding and again it relates to the question Dave
raised earlier with the steps is to minimize
intrusion. So that was the thinking of the CAC.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay?
Board of Trustees 19 February 18, 2009
MS. DELUCIA: Okay
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number two, PETER SCHEMBRI requests a
Wetland Permit to construct an 18x18' addition onto the
seaward side of the existing dwelling, repair the
existing wood steps and deck inkind/inplace, and to
install a flagpole. Located: 1425 Soundview Road, Orient.
The Trustees were out there to take a look at
this. The CAC does not support the application to
construct a seaward extension to the existing dwelling,
however would support an application to construct a
second-story addition to the dwelling. The CAC
recommends the installation of a 20-foot non-turf
buffer, a drainage plan in accordance with Chapter 236,
non-treated lumber on the stairs and erosion control
devices on the bottom of the supports for the stairs.
So they do support the application to repair the
existing wood steps, deck and to install the flagpole.
But they don't support the addition.
LWRP has found that the proposed action is
inconsistent with the LWRP in that the proposed
remodeling of the existing home will go further seaward
of the homes on either side of the subject lot and
therefore is not in compliance with 275-11. The
distance from the proposed action to the natural
protective feature, which is the bluff, is 85 foot. A
minimum setback distance is 100 feet. But then finds
that the proposed action for replacing the existing
wood steps, deck and flagpole would be consistent with
LWRP because it -- as long as best management practices
are used.
Is there anybody here who would like to speak on
this application?
MR. SCHEMBRI: My name is Charlie Schembri, Pete's
brother. He's out of town this with week and couldn't
attend. But to address the extension, the CAC is
recommending a second-floor addition as opposed to a
ground level extension?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The CAC is suggesting they would
support an application for a second-story addition
MR. SCHEMBRI: And it's based on the setback from the
bluff area to the back of the house?
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Well, the CAC --
MR. YOUNG: And the site line. For it to be consistent
with the line of the other properties, structures.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You can see these posts, he's way
out ahead of these two houses.
MR. SCHEMBRI: Is that posts for the extension, Bob?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I have to say, that when I took, what I
did is I took the aerial, the aerial pictures of these
properties, and I drew a line from the furthest seaward
point from the eastern house and from the western
house, and when you draw that line, this addition is
inside of that line.
Board of Trustees 20 February 18, 2009
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We are visually seeing a different line.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I appreciate that. I saw the aerial
photo and I appreciate that. But we were out there in
person. You can see these pictures. It's clearly
forward. And when we were out there in person and
stood there you could see the stakes are clearly
forward. So I do appreciate the fact. I saw that
picture also, Bob, but being there in person and seeing
these pictures, it differs from the Google aerial
photo. I don't know if it was Google or not, but --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It was Goog!e.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we have a surveyor put that
line on a survey and see what that comes up with.
TRUSTEE KING: I think some of the houses are on an
angle, too. You are taking the most seaward point and
drawing a line from the most seaward point, it's deceiving.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: You can't deny the geometry of a
picture and the drawing. The line is the line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's why we have a surveyor who puts
the line on there and it shows what the aerial --
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I think, frankly, what the issue was
for most of everybody who was looking at it, is the
code doesn't allow for it to extend further than the
line from the two neighbors. Now, if we can show that
the two neighboring houses are further seaward than
what your addition would be, then I think we are okay.
MR. SCHEMBRI: And a surveyors line would indicate that?
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Yes, it would. And if the proposed
addition is to go further seaward than that line, you
may want to reconsider. As far as I could tell, it
should be within the line, but it could be a foot or two.
MR. SCHEMBRI: I'm sure he would be open to shrinking
that down to be within that line of sight.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think that's primarily what the
concerns were for most everybody.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's pretty clear in the code. If you
could show that on a survey that we would be approving
then that would be proof enough.
TRUSTEE KING: Does he have to go to ZBA if for this, too?
MR. SCHEMBRI: I believe so.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I believe so, because of these setback
issues.
TRUSTEE KING: They may change it too. In the field it
looks dramatically out in front, yet from the aerial it
doesn't. It's very deceiving.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct, it is.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So, unless there is any other comments,
I would like to table this until we can get that survey
line and just double check that.
MR. SCHEMBRh And the flagpole and the --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think the flagpole and the deck
are going to be an issue. I can't speak for the whole
Board.
TRUSTEE KING: The increase in the size of the deck was
an issue.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They took that off. Mr. Schembri
Board of Trustees 21 February 18, 2009
called me the other day and said go back to the
original and just, he didn't want that extra.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. That was on the table.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Proper-T Permit Services
on behalf of JUDIE L, IZlSWSKI requests a Wetland Permit
to construct a 4x26' fixed walkway, 3x12' hinged ramp
and 6x20' floating dock. Located: 145 Fleetwood Road,
Cutchogue.
The Board has been out several times to look at
this and it's been before us several times, including
last month, where it was tabled to this meeting because
we had asked for it to be staked. It was staked but
the ice took the stake away, so Mr. Fitzgerald, the
agent for the applicant, went out with a very
interesting device that worked very well to measure the
distance out as to how far the dock would extend.
Just to reiterate what has been said before, the
CAC, on October 8, the CAC inspected the property and
there was no evidence of an existing dock and the
proposed dock was not staked. This is October 8. So
no recommendation was made at that time.
It was reviewed under the LWRP dated October 6,
2008, and it was reviewed and found to be inconsistent
for the following reasons: It's located in a creek that
is labeled as critical environmental habitat area, and
so they did not feel that any additional docks should
be put in a critical environmental habitat area. The
proposed float is in a location of water depth ranging
.3 to 1.6, is what he placed on in his review. The
proposed action is private, non-commercial and is not
supportive of development that enhances the community
character or preserves the public access. And that was
basically the findings of the LWRP coordinator.
Now, we have gone out, as I said, and looked at
it. And, first off, is there anybody here to speak on
behalf of this application?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, yes Jim Fitzgerald for the applicant.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, on -- sorry, let me read into the
record one letter that came in dated February 9. And
again, I'll paraphrase, it's from a Thomas Lambed.
And he is, his property is located on the cul-de-sac
water which teads out to the main body water known as
East Creek. He and his neighbors keep pleasure crafts
in this body of water. Our primary concern with this
application is safe navigation. By its nature, the
cul-de-sac creates vessel maneuverability limitations.
If the Lizewski docks are approved in the present
configure would interfere with safe boating. The
potential for an incident would be heightened in bad
weather conditions.
The second concern we have is the accuracy of the
drawing submitted with the application. We question
the distance measurements in the drawing and the
Board of Trustees 22 February 18, 2009
location of two presently existing floating docks. We
believe these docks in question are actually closer to
the proposed Lizewski docks. We are also questioning
the shoreline representation. We observed over the
year how sand shifting and vegetative growth is filling
in the cul-de-sac. Current water depth listed on the
application drawing is most likely lower than
depicted. Upon viewing the application at your office
we noticed the original plans submitted in 2002 called
for a pole and not a floating dock. The plans reapplied
for in September of 2008 also call for a pole and not a
floating dock. The plans have been changed. The
application papers have not. Thank you, for your
consideration. Respectful yours, Thomas Lambert.
Now when we went out and looked at this, in
looking at the, where you have the present proposed
location of this dock -- excuse me, the catwalk leading
to the dock -- we had recommended in our last hearing
last month, that this be moved over farther toward the,
I'll say the northeast. And you can see in the picture
that is currently up on the screen here, there is an
area there where there is no vegetation. And we had
asked if there was consideration could be given to move
this structure over there so it doesn't, the
construction of it doesn't destroy as much habitat.
Has there been any consideration for the applicant to
move it over to that location?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. The only kind of significant
factor is that putting it where we are proposing it
enables us to use the remains of the former bulkhead
that was there as part of the supporting structure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
MR. FITZGERALD: So it means that we have to make fewer
holes in the ground. I don't think there would be a
particular problem if it makes a lot of difference to
the Trtlstees, to put it in that pathway, if you will.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, I'm looking at the plans received
February 4, 2009, stated revised January 21, 2009. And
the LWRP coordinator mentioned this would be located in
.3 to 1.3 feet of water. Where you currently have
the dock proposed is, you are in, it looks like really
the outer, well, excuse me, the entire float, anywhere
from 1.6 to 1.8 feet of water. So I'm not sure where
the coordinator felt it was only in .3 feet of water,
because here it's showing at the landward side 1.6
going out to almost three feet. Now, my concern though
is if we go with this recommendation to move this dock
farther toward the northeast, according to this plan,
that brings it into a little bit shallower water and
I'm just not sure, you know, when I'm trying to weigh
out the pros and cons of moving this, if moving it into
shallower water if we are better off leaving it where
the applicant has proposed.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The channel is also narrower.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And what Trustee Dickerson also pointed
out, it also brings it into a narrower portion of the channel.
Board of Trustees 23 February 18, 2009
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I just suggest, if he leaves it
where he wants it there and have him replant the area
that is bear and just make that part of the permit to
replant that area.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What she is recommending is, if we
allow this proposed dock -- and we are not saying we
are even approving it yet - but if we are allowing it
to stay where you have proposed it rather than move it
to the, farther to the east, if you would be willing to
vegetate, as part of the construction of this dock,
vegetate the small area that seems to be void of
vegetation right now, that will help erosion control in
that bank area.
MR. FITZGERALD: Sure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You can see it's a small area, probably
three or four feet wide.
MR. FITZGERALD: I'm familiar with it. In the summer,
there is Alterna Flora in that area, but as would be
needed to make it nice, sure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, also to address, one of the
neighbor's concerns here, where it's currentl.y located
it does meet the one-third rule, in other words it
would not extend farther than one-third across the
waterway. And the neighbor had also mentioned in his
letter that it is directly across from two other docks,
and according to this plan here, and as you can see the
picture here, it is not directly across from two other docks.
So are there any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: I have one question. Have you been to
the DEC with this yet?
MR. FITZGERALD: No, we haven't, Jim. We thought we
would wait until we had an idea of what we were going
to ask them for.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't know if you want to just
explain to the audience the little flags here.
MR. FITZGERALD: As always, we are trying to balance
your requirements with theirs, which are sometimes
mutually exclusive, okay. They would prefer the deeper
water and are not too concerned about with the length
of the dock and you would prefer the shorter dock and
are not as concerned as they seem to be with the depth
of the water. So anyhow, no, we have not. And the, as
it turns out, Mrs. Lizewski said you had stopped by and
asked about that.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. FITZGERALD: And the DEC permit that was obtained
for the construction of the house, although it showed
the dock on it, the DEC permit did not address the
existence of the dock. So that this will be the first
time they have seen it, and this is certainly in part
because there was a disruption of the process at that
time and one of the other consultants ended up doing
it, that part of it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Mr. Fitzgerald, your technique here,
this is the buoy that shows the extent of the float?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. It works in water, too.
Board of Trustees 24 February 18, 2009
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. And it had a little weight at
the bottom. But then it shows the distance here to this
little flag, correct? This is the distance from --
MR. FITZGERALD: From the bulkhead, it's 30 feet.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. I just wanted to explain
our little diagram.
MR. FITZGERALD: And that 30 feet scales correctly on
the drawing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Has there been any thought of the
applicant to return to the catwalk with a tie off pole
or is the applicant set --
MR. FITZGERALD: We gave a lot of thought to that and in
my discussion with Mrs. Lizewski -- Mrs. Lizewski, are
you here?
MRS. LIZEWSKI: Yes.
MR. FITZGERALD: She is here to tell you, if I can't do
it adequately, why she is opposed to that, and she said
she certainly would not feel comfortable walking down
steps to somehow or other get to the boat that was tied
to a pole and which had to be maneuvered over next to
the dock and held by somebody else while she got into
it. It's just, it doesn't seem to be practical in this
particular situation, all things considered.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Any other comments from the
Board?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just want to say that I could
understand Mrs. Lizewski's request, but my concern is
because it's a critical environmental habitat area and
because of the depth, that I would be more inclined to
approve the catwalk with the tie off pole because of
the LWRP's concerns.
MR. FITZGERALD: You are entitled.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's why I'm stating my opinion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Before I get to another comment, would
the applicant be willing to use grated material for the
catwalk.
MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, sure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, I just wanted to check on that.
Okay, is there anybody else who would like to speak for
or against this application?
MR. LAMBERT: Good evening. My name is Tom Lambert. You
read my letter into the record. Since I submitted that
letter, I've talked to some other neighbors who are not
permanent. I should say full-time, year-round
residents. They go to Florida or they just come out on
weekends. So three other, as a matter of fact, the
people who own the docks, they have the same concerns
that my neighbor Mr. Wetzel and myself have. And Mr.
Wetzel has taken measurement and he feels it doesn't
fall within the one-third rule. As you can see, when
the measurements were taken, it's frozen. You really
can't tell where the shoreline is and, as I mentioned
in the letter, the shoreline is filling in. And I want
to say something about the letter, also. You said that
I said the docks were across. I never said that in the
letter. I said they are closer than what is depicted
Board of Trustees 25 February 18, 2009
in his drawing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Thank you.
MR. LAMBERT: And if the photographs were taken from
both angles, you could see as it goes straight across
that there is another dock here to the left, and it is
closer.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. We saw that. And actually, we
have been out in the field when there was not ice
there. So as I alluded to, I think we have been there
the last three months of field inspections, so we have
seen this area, we have seen it without ice. We did
see it when it was staked without the ice, and then we
saw it this time since the ice was there, and the
stakes had been removed by the ice, we saw it with this
measuring, which was a very accurate measuring device.
So we did, we have looked at this very carefully.
MR. LAMBERT: Okay. And the other point I would like to
make is I feel it would be more neighborly if it
conformed with the existing docks. The existing docks
are not the same.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, I'm looking at the existing dock
that is in this picture.
MR. LAMBERT: That's the Dubon (sic) property and he
said in no way is his dock 6x20.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. So it's the size of the float you
are talking about.
MR. LAMBERT: Right. And the float, which you can't see
in the photograph, but to the left, is even smaller
than that. It's four by maybe eight.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't know the exact dimensions but I
agree with you, it is smaller.
MR. LAMBERT: And his concern is, he keeps a 23-foot
boat there, which is pretty large for this area, and he
doesn't know how he'll be able to maneuver and turn his
boat around.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else
who wanted to speak on this application? Yes, you had
something else you wanted to say, Mr. Fitzgerald?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. I'm sorry his boat is so big.
MR. LAMBERT: Pardon me?
MR. FITZGERALD: I said I'm sorry his boat is so big.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just address the Board, please.
MR. FITZGERALD: Please tell Mr. Lambert that I'm sorry
the neighbor's boat is that big, but you will recall
the initial or one of the most recent applications was
an attempt, and I stood here and said we would like to
make it just like those other docks, meaning with a
shorter walkway and a ramp and a float right up next to
the Spartina as it is on both of those docks directly
across the way, but the Board felt that that was not
suitable because of the depth of the water.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
MR. FITZGERALD: Now, if the water is that much deeper
on the other side, then it ought to make it easier for
the other boats to maneuver in that area.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And actually, again, this project plan
Board of Trustees 26 February 18, 2009
dated January 21, 2009, does show the deeper water is
on the other side of this creek; not on the applicant's
side of the creek but the other side of the creek. It
shows you've got between two-and-a-half and it looks
like 3.8 at the deepest. And it's both of those are on
the other half of the creek.
Would the applicant have any consideration to a
float that is maybe smaller than 6x20; in other words
6x15 or 6x10 float? I'm just throwing it out there.
MR. FITZGERALD: Sure.
MRS. LIZEWSKI: Sure.
MR. FITZGERALD: I'm sure Mrs. Lizewski is interested in
being neighborly, as the neighbors would like her to be.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That way it would more conform with the
other floats on the other side of the creek, if we
would take this down to a 6x15, that would at least
make it conform more with the float that I'm looking at
depicted in the picture on the screen. I don't know
how the rest of the Board feels about that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It makes sense. It's a smaller area,
to have smaller floats. And I just wanted to note,
once the structure is built, if it's found to be more
than one-third across the creek, we'll then have to
correct it at that point. But according to the survey,
it doesn't show that.
MR. FITZGERALD: I think the point which is perhaps
important, not only in this case but in many of the
situations that the Trustees evaluate, is frequently,
I've seen it and I'm sure you have, an applicant comes
in with a professionally produced survey, hydrographic
survey showing water depths and the underwater contours
and what have you, and a lot of effort has gone into
showing where we think the dock should be and the water
depth and what have you, and the folks who are
concerned about that generally don't have that kind of
evidence of the same value in commenting on their
perceived unsuitability.
So, I think that if we are concerned by the
situation as Mr. Lambed presented, and the efforts of
Mr. Wetzel has input, it would be good to see that
information on a drawing showing the water depths and
the width of the creek and so forth that are the
subject of the adverse comments.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Are there any other
comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: What's the depth of water at the end of
the catwalk?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The depth of water at the end of the
catwalk, it looks like is, it's hard to tell, but it
looks like it at most, half a foot. Then at the end of
the ramp, approximately 1.8. Excuse me, 1.6. 1.6 at
the end of the ramp. So the float is sitting anywhere
from 1.6 out to about two.
Now, the float has now been downsized a little bit
so, again, it would still be, it looks like it will
still be about the same range, 1.6 to two, even with
Board of Trustees 27 February 18, 2009
the downsizing of the float. Yes, sir, you had a
comment?
MR. LAMBERT: Just to say, his drawing, it appears to me
that his drawing is a copy of a copy. So if you are
going to question drawings, I would question the copy
of a copy. I don't know whose survey that is.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. If there are no other
comments, I'm make a motion to close the public
hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the
application of Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of
Judie Lizewski as stated at 145 Fleetwood Road, with
the following conditions: That there will be grated
material used on the catwalk; that the float will be
downsized from the proposed 6x20 to 6x15 using
non-treated lumber, and; that we would, the applicant
will revegetate that small area to ,the nodheast that
is currently void of any vegetation. And in making
those adjustments deem this to be consistent under the
LWRP.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee
Ghosio, aye.)
(Trustee King, nay. Trustee Dickerson, nay.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll vote nay. A~ I previously
mentioned, my concern for the critical environmental
habitat area, I don't believe the reducing of the float
is going to change that and I felt that the proposed or
suggested catwalk with a tie-up pole is adequate.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm also going tO vote nay. I was on
the Board the first time we reviewed this. We spent a
lot of time and there was a lot of concern about having
another float in that area.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So just for clarification, how about we
do a roll call vote.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Trustee Ghosio?
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Aye.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Trustee King?
TRUSTEE KING: Nay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Trustee Doherty?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Aye.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Trustee Dickerson?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Nay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Trustee Bergen votes yea.
TRUSTEE KING: So it carries.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It carries three to two.
TRUSTEE KING: How about we take a five minute break.
(After a short recess, these proceedings continue as
follows.)
Board of Trustees 28 February 18, 2009
TRUSTEE KING: Number four, Young & Young on behalf of
MARK BAXTER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
single-family dwelling, sanitary system, driveway,
pool, deck, footpath and 4x82' open grate catwalk.
Located: 5805 Main Bayview Road, Southold.
This is a project has been going on for a long
time. It's very difficult. It's turning into one of
these files we'll have to start weighing.
I'm looking for the CAC comments. CAC resolved
the support the wetland application to construct
single-family dwelling, sanitary system, driveway,
pool, deck, footpath, 4x82' open-grate catwalk, with
the condition the driveway is relocated north to
prevent removal of large trees; gutters and drywells
are installed to contain runoff. CAC also questions
the height of the proposed catwalk. That's that.
It's been found inconsistent for the LWRP policy
standards, and is therefore inconsistent with the LWRP.
The setback to the wetland boundary to the proposed
actions is less than 100 feet; a minimum setback
distance of 100 feet from the wetland line is required
pursuant to Chapter 275-3.
I'll just highlight some of this stuff out of this
report. Pursuant to 275-6 the applicant must show all
wetlands within a 200-foot radius of the area for which
removal and deposited material is proposed; sanitary
system as proposed will involve grade changes. I can't
read what that says. I guess it's to. Grade changes
to the subject parcel and construction of a permanent
concrete water wall which may alternate the existing
storm water drainage patterns, therefore redirecting
storm water flow to the neighboring property to the
south, southeast and west. The applicant may be
required to submit a drainage plan for the entire site
detailing how all surface water generated from the
impervious surfaces shall be kept on site through
infiltration or retention pursuant to 275-11, reference
below.
And did goes on now to address the proposed
catwalk, which is also inconsistent. The concerns are
habitat fragmentation, prop dredging of the bottom land
causing suspension of sediments and contaminants,
impairment with the physical loss of wetland habitat to
prevent the growth of vegetated wetlands. That's
pretty much it. It goes on. There is quite a bit of
detail here. Most of it concerns habitat
fragmentation. This is a critical environmental area.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, what's the date of that LWRP
evaluation?
TRUSTEE KING: January 12, 2009.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: And we got it today.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was received in the office today.
He must have started the, staded it on the 12th but by
the time he finished it. Because we didn't have it for
our last meeting.
Board of Trustees 29 February 18, 2009
Jim, we had asked at the last meeting, we talked
to Mr. Baxter and he told us he had some letters from
the DEC. Did he submit those?
TRUSTEE KING: There is a couple of letters here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Regarding the wetlands to the west.
TRUSTEE KING: They real~y don't address it. Just these
two letters here, I believe, are the ones he gave to me
in the office. And it doesn't really clarify too much.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: These are regarding the subdivision.
TRUSTEE KING: There is so much information here it's
really hard to go through everything. I have a letter
here from 2005, from the Trustees, concerning this
survey, where it was out of our jurisdiction. And I
think a lot of the reason is, I think the reason for
that is there was no mention of wetlands on the other
side of this property.
MR. BAXTER: I would like to speak on that. I'm Mark
Baxter, the owner. I have a lot of paperwork on this,
too. I think if we go back --
TRUSTEE KING: Like I said, this is a very difficult application.
MR. BAXTER: It's been seven years.
TRUSTEE KING: We've been way through this thing.
MR. BAXTER: It goes backs, the first letter I have here
is, let's see, the Town Trustees, Mark Terry, Town
Trustees, back in 2000 - April 25, 2005. The Trustees
have reviewed the above-reference application and found
the wetland line near the proposed house to be less
than 100 feet therefore a building or activity in the
area will need a permit. We started there, when
Heather first came out --
TRUSTEE KING: What was the date on that letter?
MR. BAXTER: 2005.
TRUSTEE KING: What month?
MR. BAXTER: April.
TRUSTEE KING: This is in June of the same year.
MR. BAXTER: I have a few more of those. What happened
is that's where the flagpole was, or is. So what
happened, she said that because of the wetlands over
there, that we would have to move it back ten feet to
get out of the hundred feet. So we just moved that line
on the plan. So that got us to 100 feet.
Then there was, May 4, we have, Southold Board of
Trustees reviewed the survey prepared by Young & Young
last dated May 4, 2005, and determined the proposed
location of the house with subdivision Mark Baxter of
Bayview, Southold, to be out of the wetlands
jurisdiction under Chapter 97 of the Town Wetland Code
and Chapter 37 of the Town Code. Therefore, in
accordance with the current Tidal Wetland Codes 97 and
Coastal Erosion Habitat Number 37, no permit is
required. Please be advised that no construction
sediment or disturbance of any kind may take place
seaward of this tidal wetland jurisdiction boundary.
So that was Al Krupski, President. That was back on
May 4, okay. So we progress here, to June. Let's
see. In June 8, 2008, this was some information that
Board of Trustees 30 February 18, 2009
you put forth to the Planning Board. The Southold Town
Board of Trustees reviewed the survey prepared by Young
& Young on May 4 and determined the proposed location
of the house for the subdivision at Mark Baxter,
Southold, to be out of the wetlands jurisdiction under
Chapter 97 of the Town Wetlands Code. There will be a
required 50-foot non-disturbance buffer landward of the
wetlands line. That was that part.
TRUSTEE KING: That's the letter -- I have that letter
in front of me now and I have that survey in front of
me now.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: What was the date of that letter?
TRUSTEE KING: The date of the letter was June 8, 2005.
MR. BAXTER: Now we'll go to April 17, 2006. Along the
way here, in the Planning Board, they held open the
meeting for about four months for more information to
come back. And I think this is when this fell into
this situation here. This letter here. You guys came
out again, because it was some talk about being
wetlands on the north side of the property. As a
matter of fact, I think I met you, Jim, out there, and
you were talking about it, and a couple of the
Trustees. As a matter of fact, Mark Terry was out
there with Heather Tetro (sic) too, and she was
measuring it on the north side of the property, and
didn't find anything there. But the Board of Trustees
inspected again, the above-reference parcel to verify
the wetlands delineation and found that the wetlands
are correctly identified on the survey. There are
concerns about the occasional flooding that occurs on
the location of the phragmites and on the dredge
spoils. The Board asked that you consider the
following recommendations. And this is you, Jim: No
disturbance of the phragmites in order to keep a larger
buffer area to the wetlands; placing the house on
pilings in order to decrease the need for fill which
would impact the adjoining properties; no tuff in the
area that floods; containment of all drainage and
French drain placed on site. That was April 17.
That's, you signed that, Jim.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Of what year?
MR. BAXTER: 2006. And I think this is the crux of it,
really, for the meeting that when the neighbors came
down to the Trustee meeting, that was, I think some
place in June, 2006, and they showed you a lot of
pictures and they had a lot of information and stuff,
and they said there was wetlands on the north side of
the property
TRUSTEE KING: It would be the northwest side, looking
at the survey. West, northwest side.
MR. BAXTER: And this is from you again, Jim. The Board
of the Trustees requests that the Planning Department
asked New York State to flag any wetlands on the north
side of the Baxter property and the Warner property
where the phragmites is growing behind the berm from
Goose Creek. This is when you met, the Board met with
Board of Trustees 31 February 18, 2009
some of the neighbor at the work session at the public
hearing. So they came June 21, I guess. The neighbors
expressed concern about flooding depth to groundwater
and reaching the berm. That also brings tidal water
into the area.
Now, last meeting that I was here, you asked me if
we could have the DEC come out and look at the
northwest part of the property so to see if there was
wetlands there. And I have a letter from them. And
she faxed it over to me. Mrs. Ackerman. Let's see.
And this letter was sent to nine of the neighbors. So
this one is June 26, 2006. And this one is July 13,
2006, from the New York State DEC. And all those
concerns that were brought up tonight about being
wetlands, you know, vegetation; vegetation wetlands,,
and this was addressing all those issues. The New York
State Department of Environmental -- and by the way,
they sent out five people, five biologists out to the
property and inspected the whole place. I mean they
went over it with a fine tooth comb. Five people came
out. The New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation is in receipt of your letter dated March
7, 2006 -- that was from the neighbors -- requesting
that the permit listed above be revoked pursuant to the
uniform procedures -- and it has a number there -- five
different grounds for modification suspension and/or
revocation of a permit by the New York State DEC. And
they go through the things. Materially false or
inaccurate statements in the permit application or
supporting papers. This is some of the issues they are
addressing. Failure by permittee to comply with any
terms or conditions of the permit. Exceeding the scope
of the project as described in the permit application.
And this is one of the big ones, because this was the
big issue about being wetlands on the northwest side of
the property. Newly discovered material information or
a material change in the environmental conditions
relevant technology or applicable laws or regulations
since the issuance of the existing permit. So this was
about there being wetlands over on the northwest side
of the property.
After careful review of the letter and its
attachments the department has determined the concerns
outlined in this letter do not constitute material
false and inaccurate statement pertaining to this
application. We also find the newly discovered
material information or material change in the
environmental conditions has not been found since the
issuance of the existing permits. We also find that
the other three sections do not apply.
Therefore~ the New York State DEC has determined
it's not appropriate to revoke the subdivision permit
as you have requested.
So they came out there and found no wetlands there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. Baxter, do you have a copy of the
letter the DEC letter is referring to?
Board of Trustees 32 February 18, 2009
MR. BAXTER: I brought that down to the office and put
it in the file.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. Only because this letter
itself doesn't really, I mean just reading this letter
alone and reading the number four, newly discovered
material information, doesn't say where it's referring
to. So if we have that other letter, that would help.
MR. BAXTER: I went down to the DEC this week and I
wanted to get from the biologist that actually went out
to look at it, I wanted to get their notes and stuff.
But what happens is you can't get it for like three or
four weeks and you got to get the file. But it came
back because of the letter that the neighbors sent, and
the actual -- do you have the letter the neighbors sent?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, that's what I'm asking you for
now. Because this to us doesn't really mean anything
because it is not specifying where.
MR. BAXTER: That's the letter they are addressing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, it says, in addition, the area
of the proposed house and sanitary system abut land
owned by Joel Warner, Jr., and this land consists of
phragmites and other vegetation where the land is often
water soaked, even during dry weather and less than 50
feet of the proposed sanitary system. And if you look
at map it shows you where Joel Warner is, which is the
one on the corner.
MR. BAXTER: That's the letter from the neighbors.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I know. That's what I'm saying. The
letter from the DEC is not saying northwest side.
MR. BAXTER: The Warner property is on the northwest side.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. But we need this letter to
coincide with this letter so we know what this letter
is talking about.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: The DEC letter is refuting the
neighbor's letter.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And having the DEC letter alone does
not tell us that.
MR. BAXTER: That's why I wanted to get the
clarification from them. It isn't very good. And I told
them that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because when I read this, I said,
well, this doesn't really tell me where. But if you
put it with that letter, it does specify where.
MR. BAXTER: Right.
TRUSTEE KING: Now, the original, if I go back to the
June 8, 2005, letter, they put it out of our
jurisdiction.
MR. BAXTER: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: And I'm looking at that survey. It's
quite a bit less, what's proposed then and what's
proposed today.
MR. BAXTER: No.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just taking a quick look. There was
no swimming pool. The sanitary system was nowhere near
the size. It was just at a proposed location for the
house. There was no retaining wall around the sanitary system.
Board of Trustees 33 February 18, 2009
MR. BAXTER: The retaining wall didn't come in at that
time. But it's still back more than 100 feet from the wetlands.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: (perusing.) What I'm doing is using the
flagpole, it's on both of these plans, as a reference point.
TRUSTEE KING: It's a good reference point.
MR. BAXTER: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Look at the size of the sanitary
system; four pools.
TRUSTEE KING: They have an expansion pool, a cesspool.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This sanitary system that's proposed
now is much larger than what was proposed back then.
What I'm more interested in though is the letters going
back to '05 and '06 determining wetland boundary from
the Board of Trustees. In particular because of that
northwest area.
MR. BAXTER: Now, the thing is, I could even sort of
see, if you guys made one trip out there and there was
an issue about maybe you missed it or maybe, gee whiz,
we didn't really go over there. But the complaint and
the real issue was is there any wetlands on the
northwest corner over there. That was no doubt about
it. It was people coming all the time. And I stood
out there with some of you and said, no, there is no
wetlands over there. It was not just something that
fell through the cracks. It was looked at a bunch of times.
TRUSTEE KING: That's the dilemma we are up against. We
had this on other properties where we have had the
consultant, the consultant, the DEC, and the town all
come in and everyone has a different wetland tine.
It's happening all the time. A lot of it is just interpretation.
MR. BAXTER: We are consistent. The DEC and you guys
were consistent with saying where the wetlands line
was. It wasn't any disagreements there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think Mr. Baxter makes a compelling
argument. I mean, how many bites of the apple can you
get? He's got at least three letters showing non-jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE KING: My biggest concern with this application
today is the swimming pool, the size of the retaining
wall around the raised sanitary system, the amount of
fill that will be brought in. Those are my primary
concerns. And also the catwalk. It's going to be in
completely undisturbed wetlands. That's the big
concern. I'm not so concerned about a house on piles.
I think it could be a more modest size. But all the
rest it of it really troubles me. This is a very
difficult application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think there is another factor
also, Bob, where we have a new, I think it's title LWRP
coordinator, Scott Hilary, who has looked at it through
different eyes and has been very concerned and has done
a very lengthy LWRP report and has spent a lot of time
on it since he started in January working on it, and
he's just getting it to us now. And I didn't make the
meeting last night but I believe his concern was that
was a wetland area. Which is a new factor in an old
sequence of events.
Board of Trustees 34 February 18, 2009
TRUSTEE KING: Scott is saying based on his knowledge,
his credential, that that's a wetland. He's convinced of that.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: And that may very well be the case.
The problem here is sequential in nature. He has a
letter from the Trustees that says it's out of our
jurisdiction. How many bites of the apple do you get?
If he had been, if the permit had been issued at that
time when the Trustees believed that this was out of
our jurisdiction, we would not be here today. I don't
know if it's fair after seven years. I mean, I
understand, you know, the environmental issues over
there are important to me as well. For example, I'm
not a big fan of the catwalk either, and the swimming
pool, but if the applicant was under the impression
based on letters he has from us and from the DEC that
he could build a house there, at this point, I think
the horse is out of the barn. I don't know, I don't
think it would be fair to say no at this point.
Whether or not we are right or wrong.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You are saying when new evidence
comes to light you should not take it into account?
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Yes. In this type of a situation, I
am. It's because it was not just, like he said, it was
not just a case of, well, we made a mistake. He has
several letters. He has a letter from our former
environmental technician. You know, so, I'm just
saying it's just not fair. If a mistake is made, you
know, I don't know how else to put it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, I have to say I agree with you.
You know, and in doing so, I'm contradicting what I
said last month in that I felt this was wetlands when I
went out and looked at it. But I have to agree with you
here, in all fairness to the applicant that with, with
these several letters from this Board and from the DEC
saying there are not wetlands there, that comes off the
table for me. So my concern for this application kind
of mirrors Jim's with the pool and then the amount of
fill coming in and the wall and the sanitary system.
TRUSTEE KING: Those are big concerns for me.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I'm agreeing what you are saying, Bob.
TRUSTEE KING: And I'm sure some of these pictures have
been here, they are from extreme, so I --
MR. BAXTER: One of the issues, that was when the
Planning Department was going through this. And it was
a big thing. There was a lot of people involved down
there, people yelling and this and that. And they were
saying it floods all the time. It doesn't flood all
the time. If we get a bad nor'easter, we get a little
water in the back, and that's because there is a little
pitch in the property. Otherwise it would not be
flooded. So it doesn't flood all the time. It doesn't.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The main thing that concerns me is the
sanitary system. It's huge. Maybe if the house is
reduced in size, the sanitary system can be reduced.
The other thing I noted, the C&R's in the planning
subdivision said the sanitary system must be 100 feet
Board of Trustees 35 February 18, 2009
away from the wetlands.
MR. BAXTER: Which was established by you and the DEC,
and that's why they had that, the stipulation that it
was. That's why they gave us the letter.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the east side. I have a problem
with the pool and the size of the house and the catwalk
itself, too, as well.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Would you be willing to remove the pool
and catwalk from the application?
MR. BAXTER: That's tough.
TRUSTEE KING: I wish we had an attorney here. I have a
couple questions myself.
MR. BAXTER: One of the issues was the DEC originally
wanted me to put a clothe business that you walk down
to the water with. Because I was trying to get it to
go a little bit different. Then you guys came out for
the review about the thing and you said that you didn't
like the idea of it being out there. And we actually
moved it back to the shortest part you could get to
it. And then in the midst of it, between that six or
seven months with the DEC, they came back and said they
are not allowing the clothe thing anymore. And they
were going to approve that part with the clothe. Then
they said we are not allowing that now. And they said
you'll have this. And I said that's pretty much what I
wanted to begin with. So I went to the shortest
distance and I went to the catwalk above the thing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we appreciate that.
MR. BAXTER: I mean the pool, I'm willing to do
something with the pool.
TRUSTEE KING: What's the Board's pleasure? I would
like to move along. This has been going on for a long
time, but I'm very uncomfortable with what has been
submitted, as submitted.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The way the project is submitted, to
me, it's just too big for that area. I have concerns.
MR. BAXTER: I don't want to be disrespectful or
anything. According to what, though?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, according to just that whole
area is sensitive, and personally I feel that it should
not be a buildable lot. But it is, and there is
nothing I could do about that. So we have to work with
it. And it is a buildable lot and I just feel that put
the minimum possible there. Meaning no pool, the
smallest house possible. I would like to see that.
TRUSTEE KING: Those are my thoughts also.
MR. BAXTER: No matter whatever house goes there, there
will have to be an elevated, they would at least two or
three feet underneath the cesspool. So no matter what
you have to have the cement there. It could be a
one-bedroom house. That's going to be there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was the question I had. Because
I'm not that familiar with the County Health Department
regulations. How many bedrooms is this house, proposed?
MR. BAXTER: I think it's four.
TRUSTEE KING: Five, I believe.
Board of Trustees 36 February 18, 2009
MR. BAXTER: Is it five? We could get that down to a
three-bedroom house.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If it was downsize it to a
three-bedroom house, my understanding is the sanitation
field would be downsized also. Maybe that would help
mitigate this.
MR. BAXTER: I think the house was three bedrooms. I
think the side walls would be about a foot less on the
thing. Instead of four it would be three. We could
put that in.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That would reduce the amount of fill
that is going it in.
TRUSTEE KING: One of my concerns, when you bring all
that fill in, what will happen when that property does
flood? Where is it going to go?
MR. BAXTER: It's going to go right out where it went
when it came in. Actually, most of the fill will be in
the cesspool thing and a little in the driveway and
actually that will level it out where it just settles
in like a sump almost.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That will actually be higher.
MR. BAXTER: It will be actually level. Because the
property kind of rolls from the back then kind of has a
dip in it. That's just basically going to be leveled off.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I wouldn't say it's going to be level
but I understand what you are saying.
MR. BAXTER: Because that's where the water lays, where
the dip is.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then where will it go?
MR. BAXTER: Where it came in.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But as it disburses, will it go on the
neighbor's property?
MR. BAXTER: No. first of all, there is a berm there. I
known there was some mention about a berm breaking
through over there. That berm was not put there to
save the property owners from getting water on their
lots. That berm was put there so when they pumped up
the fill on there, it kept the fill from going on the
neighbor's yard. And if you really look at it, that
berm is higher than anything else that is around there,
so when the water gets up there, it would be a foot in
my yard if it went over the berm.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What about the property to the south?
If you are building up your property, it's going to be
higher, it's going to the property to the south. You
won't be putting fill on your neighbor's property.
MR. BAXTER: No, but if you look at the property, it's
all pitched from Main Bayview Road. It's way higher
than me. They are about five or six feet higher than
the back of my property. So where the driveway comes
in, right at the first, that will be the elevation
there. Which is the Iow point for everybody's yard in
the back there. So it's not like if the water gets up
there, it will run right out where it came in.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. So you are filling that and
your neighbors are not filling theirs. So they still
Board of Trustees 37 February 18, 2009
have the lower pitch. So it will disburse that way.
MR. BAXTER: No, it's not. If you look at the property,
it comes back to where the first corner, when you walk
back there is a little right of way. Right at the
corner of the fence, that will be the elevation of the
property. Everybody's property there is higher than
that point. So I mean it's not like we are building up
higher so the water is going over there. It will be at
that elevation going back out because it's lower
there. And that's the Iow point of their yards.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm getting confused. I'm just looking
at this profile of the sanitary system wall, and it
shows inside finished grade and also sh6ws a finished
grade on the outside. And it looks to me like it's
going to have (perusing) -- that means exposed wall 80
inches high.
MR. BAXTER: No, I think it's four feet on the stakes
there. I'm not sure where it shows up. If you look at
the stakes we had out there, it's four feet.
TRUSTEE KING: If you look at the finished grade, it's
80. This is your interior finished agreed. That's
what I'm looking at. Maybe I'm confused.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The one side is 80 inches. The other
side it would not be.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The finished side, it would be around
30. That's about 80 on the other side.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So on the side facing the neighbor,
it's 80 inches.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But if the number of bedrooms are
decreased, so the sanitary could be decreased, you are
saying the wall may be coming down a foot.
TRUSTEE KING: You are looking at a wall that is
100-something feet long. It's tremendous.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's pretty long.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's big.
MR. BAXTER: One of the issues there, and I thought
about that, and I was not very happy with it, but if
you look at it that the phragmites are going to grow to
one side of that, you won't even see the one side you
are saying is 80 inches. The phragmites there are going
back to Smith Drive South. The other side will be like
three foot high. It will be like a planter and the
driveway coming in.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm getting a headache.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you want to give the applicant a
chance to redesign it and bring it back to us and table
it, as opposed to --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I mean, I like the idea of -- what is
being discussed up here is giving you the opportunity
to redesign this using some of the recommendations that
we have had. What I'm hearing is, okay, let's say you
elect to remove the pool, downsize the house and
bedrooms, checking with Suffolk County Health, seeing
how that affects the sanitary field. But it sounds
like you are going to be coming back, even with alt
that, with this sanitary field wall being 65 inches high still.
Board of Trustees 38 February 18, 2009
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
house.
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's a six-foot wall on the one side.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: On the one side. And about two foot,
maybe a little less than two foot, 26 inches, on the finished side.
TRUSTEE KING: 30 inches on the inside. I think we have
two choices. We can either address this and vote on it
or give him the opportunity to come back with something
different.
MR. BAXTER: I mean I don't mind coming back with
something different. But I don't want you to tell me
no next time I come back here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's exactly why I just made that
statement.
MR. BAXTER: I'll do what you want me to do to make this
pass. If we are talking about getting this done, I'm
willing to work with you.
TRUSTEE KING: My thoughts are a lot like Jill's. Small
house, downsize everything and we can probably work
something out. I'm concerned about 450 cubic yards of
fill coming in there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, that's a lot.
MR. BAXTER: I mean 450 yards of fill, I'm not trying to
make any light of it, but it's almost going to look
like no fill is in there, really. I mean, 450 yards in
that kind of a spread and this length is not much fill.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's my point. It's a huge area
that being fil~ed in. That's my point.
TRUSTEE KING: That's 45-ton, ten yard dump trucks.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's up to you, Jim. That's your choice.
TRUSTEE KING: What does the Board feel?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, I would recommend giving the
applicant the opportunity given the feedback he's heard
tonight, coming back with something we could look at
more favorably, hopefully more favorably next time, but
before we get there you may want to check to see if
anybody wants to make any comments from the audience.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else want to comment on this
application?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE KING: I'm make a motion to table this and give
the applicant a chance to come back with a downsized,
dramatically downsized version. Hopefully we can move
forward. I don't think the Board is interested in the catwalk?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No.
KING: Or the pool?
DQHERTY: No.
KING: Those are two big concerns.
DOHERTY: No catwalk, no pool and a smaller
KING: I'll make that motion to table it.
BERGEN: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. BAXTER: Thank yOu.
TRUSTEE KING: And the beat goes on.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number six, Patricia Moore on behalf
Board of Trustees 39 February 18, 2009
of WILLIAM HAMILTON requests a Wetland Permit to
redesign the swimming pool, extend the existing deck
and construct a wall to support the structures.
Located: 2674 Grandview Drive, Orient.
Anyone here who would like to speak for this
application?
MR. FISCHETTI: Good evening. My name is Joe Fischetti.
I'll represent Patricia Moore and the applicant. The
plans that were submitted to you were designed by me
and I would be glad to answer any questions. We did
meet out in the field. I would be glad to answer any questions
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. We have, I don't know if
these were in the file. The CAC supports the
application with the condition that the patio is
pervious and drywells are installed to contain pool
backwash. We all went, most of us went out to see this
and met with you on the 4th.
The LWRP report has been reviewed inconsistent due
to the distance of the proposed action to the natural
protective feature of the bluff to be approximately 80
feet. Minimum setback distance of 100 feet is required
pursuant to chapter 275-3.
The LWRP reviewer also has made quite a point
that, with aerial photos in his report, that your pool
and deck area are actually extending out beyond the two
eastern and western neighboring properties. The
proposed action is not a water-dependent use therefore
does not meet the above reasons to warrant maintaining
existing development within this area. The distance
from the proposed action to the bluff is approximately
80 feet. Minimum separation distance of 100 is
required pursuant to 280-116. I'm just trying to skim
through the report. Just bear with me. Part of it is
hidden under the clip. The distance from the proposed
area to the coastal erosion hazardous area is
approximately 18 feet. It is recommended that the
structure be located as far away from the coastal '
erosion hazard area as practical to maximize the
distance from the hazard area and minimize the
potential future structural loss.
MR. FISCHETTI: 18 feet did he say? Coastal zone
erosion line is on my maps that were taken off the
surveys. Most of those are not 18 feet. They look, to
me, to be 30 or 40 feet on the surveys that I had.
TRUSTEE KING: Do we have an old file on that?
MR. FISCHETTI: There was a file you guys approved with
the sanitary systems there that showed the coastal zone
erosion line.
TRUSTEE KING: We approved a pool over in the corner of
the deck, if I remember.
MR. FISCHETTh Correct.
TRUSTEE KING: Just out of my own curiosity, why was it
all just completely redesigned?
MR. FISCHETTh What was happening was we were
relocating the sanitary system and getting a pool in
the location that was not viable at that point. When
Board of Trustees 40 February 18, 2009
we looked at it, we said, we are disturbing all the
sanitary system, we are moving the pools, the new
sanitary system in the location. We said we would
prefer the pool, after discussing it with the client,
in that location, which is where we did it. So
basically the pool is in the location where the
sanitary system was relocated. So I think there is an
error in that.
TRUSTEE KING: No, just in my own mind, you go through
all this trouble to do this then you come back and it's
completely redesigned.
MR. FISCHETTI: When you get attorneys involved with
designs, we have a problem.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I won't say you said that.
MR. FISCHETTI: When the design came to me to work with
the client, I said why are we moving all these. This
is a real problem moving the sanitary system. The
sanitary system locations are right there. Right where
the new pool is. That was the other one that was
done. So we just redesigned it to work a pool that
would be more pleasing to the living area of the house,
and that's what we came in with.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My concern, my reason for voting
last time was that the pool was nicely sort of tucked
in here. And as you can see, your stakes here, this is
very deceiving because of the tree line, but if the
stakes, you could go right to that property, you are
bumped out farther than this easterly neighbor, and
also from the aerial and the LWRP report, also to the
westerly neighbor. So that's my concern. Again, I
approved the pool when it was tucked in nicely here but
I'm not inclined to approve any of the seaward movement
of this application.
MR. FISCHETTI: Again, the two houses are not visible
for visual purposes here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Actually in looking at this, I believe
the way the code reads is that the structure of the
house, in other words, an addition to a house or
structure of the house can not go out forward or
seaward of the other adjoining houses. This is a
pool. It's not a house. And we have approved pools
that have gone farther out than adjoining properties.
What I look at here is, where this was originally
approved, the sanitary system was out closer to the
bluff, and now what you are doing is you are leaving
the sanitary system where it is and making the pool
closer to the bluff. When I look at our code, we are
more restrictive on distances, setbacks, on sanitary
systems than we are on pools.
So for myself, it seems more critical
environmentally for me to leave a sanitary system back
farther from the bluff than the pool. So I personally,
I don't have a problem with this proposal.
MR. FISCHETTI: That was my feeling.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I agree.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree also.
Board of Trustees 41 February 18, 2009
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Anyone else in the audience who
would like to speak? Any other Board members?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE KING: This is hard to read, it's so small. Does
that say 52?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This looks like 80.
(Board members perusing.)
MR. FISCHETTI: I have a bigger plan here. Keep this.
This is a larger scale. I gave it to you because it
was easier to handle. But you can't read some of them.
TRUSTEE KING: You gave it to us so I couldn't see it.
MR. FISCHETTI: Those numbers are easier to read.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When I looked at the plans yesterday it
seems to me the smaller, surface plans of the pool are
actually smaller than the septic system.
MR. FISCHETTI: I didn't do an analysis on the old one
and the new one, but it is smaller.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The proposed pool is further away from
the top of the bluff than the approved septic system.
TRUSTEE KING: They were going to move the septic, it's
going to be 65 feet from the top of the bluff. And
this pool is 80 feet from the top of the bluff. So the
new sanitary system will go in here. The first one
that we had approved.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So actually everything is kind of
further away from the b~uff in this new plan.
MR. FISCHETTI: That's actually, when I looked at it,
when I did it, I used that same logic. I said why are
we doing this. We are disturbing more of that area.
And I said I can bring it tighter and leave everything
where it was and have a better design. That was my
feeling.
TRUSTEE KING: That's our choice, do you want a pool or
cesspool?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Somewhere on here is the backwash
for the pool?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it will make a huge difference.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, he has that on here.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The backwash wash for the pool?
MR. FISCHETTI: That's actually not on there. The
drywells that are there are existing drywells.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the pool will hook into the drywells?
MR. FISCHETTI: Yes, they'll have those as their --
those drywells are kind of just thrown there. They are
just saying they were existing drywells that are there
now that I had to relocate. We put them there.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do we want any restrictions on it?
I mean for distance.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to just put that in.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If there is no one else to speak
from the audience, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I have just one question. Do you know
if this is going to be a salt water pool or chemicals
used to sanitize it?
MR. FISCHETTI: It's not a salt water pool.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
Board of Trustees 42 February 18, 2009
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'1t make a motion to approve the
request for a wetland permit to redesign the swimming
pool and extend the existing deck and construct a wall
to support the structures on 2674 Grandview Drive in
Orient with the condition that there be a backwash for
the pool and since this new design is relocating
cesspools -- excuse me. Drywells.
TRUSTEE KING: It's not really relocating it. It said
septic system is staying where it was.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because of where the pool is being
redesigned, the drywells will remain, and therefore
improve this to be consistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we want hay bales during
construction on the top of the bluff?
TRUSTEE KING: You don't need it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just thinking to make it more
consistent
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You have the fence there, too.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it goes up.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. FISCHETTI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number seven. Eh-Consultants on
behalf of JOSEPH & RITA DENICOLO requests a Wetland
Permit to renovate the most seaward 20x19.7' portion of
the existing one-story dwelling to remain (including
roof restructuring and installation of new windows and
doors); replace portion of existing one-story dwelling
(inplace) with two-story dwelling constructed over
existing foundation; construct two-story addition
approximately 14 square feet of which will be located
within Chapter 275 jurisdiction; and construct a deck
addition on the easterly side of the dwelling. Located:
3475 Wells Avenue, Southold.
This was found consistent with LWRP, however the
following best management practices are recommended:
The ten-foot non-turf buffer to be a 204oot non-turf
buffer. And the CAC supports the application with the
condition of 204oot non-turf buffer, and gutters and
drywells are installed to contain runoff from the
existing and proposed structures.
Is there anyone here to speak on this application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of Eh-Consultants on behalf of
applicants. Did you read, Jill, that it was consistent
or inconsistent?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Consistent.
MR. HERMAN: Most of the footprint expansion of the
dwelling is actually proposed beyond the Board's
jurisdiction, except for a small pad of it. Primarily
the part of the work that is within a hundred feet of
the bulkhead is the renovation of that 20x20 portion of
Board of Trustees 43 February 18, 2009
house that is the most seaward portion. And also the
reconstruction of the existing dwelling into a
two-story structure that will mesh with the proposed
footprint expansion that again has all been directed
landward.
Drainage system of drywells is proposed to capture
and recharge runoff for the entire finished structure,
and a new sanitary system will be located about 150
feet from the bulkhead as shown on the site plan.
There is an existing ten-foot non-turf buffer that
was imposed by the Board as part of a bulkhead
replacement permit that was issued to a prior owner.
That non-turf area has been maintained and is in pretty
good shape there. I think the owners would like to try
to maintain that, maintain the status quo with respect
to that non-turf buffer. They have stewarded it in a
proper fashion and made sure it remained, and they do
have a certain amount of yard area between that buffer
and the house. And since it was incorporated into the
design to really push this expansion landward, um, we
were hoping try to maintain that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Rob, I inspected this. I did not
recall seeing much of a buffer at all.
MR. HERMAN: Really?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Really.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's hard to tell from these pictures.
MR. HERMAN: Because that really was just left
unmaintained when I was there.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Unmaintained, I mean, crabgrass is
there, but as far as I'm concerned the lawn goes all
the way down to the bulkhead.
MR. HERMAN: Well, remember when you used to issue these
permits with these non-turf buffers it was not the norm
to require some active establishment. It was really
you just had to stop mowing, you had to stop fertilizing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are right.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: They are mowing lawn down to crab
grass, so it pretty much looks like a lawn to me. So I
would condition that become some sort of pervious material.
MR. HERMAN: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the notes in our file say a
15-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's a big lawn.
MR. HERMAN: Maybe we can do a 15-foot buffer and have
some sort of actual rehabilitation of that area so it's
maintained as a more identifiable non-turf buffer. I
think we could probably agree with that. They are
actually proud of their efforts that they didn't keep
maintaining it, so. But certainly we can --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you.
MR. HERMAN: Have them take a more active approach to
that as a mitigation measure for the permit. I think
that's agreeable.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments from the
Board?
(No response.)
Board of Trustees 44 February 18, 2009
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comment from the audience?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the
application of Eh-Consultants on behalf of Joseph and
Rita Denicolo with the condition applied for, with the
condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. HERMAN: Now, do you have any specific direction as
to whether you want them to actually try to establish
sand there in place of the lawn or any particular
plantings, or just go with the sort of code definition
of a pervidus, completely non-lawn --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would say pervious, non-lawn,
non-crab grass. And this is consistent with LWRP. And
we have a 15-foot buffer on there.
MR. HERMAN: Yes, I can get you that.
TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, Costello Marine Contracting
on behalf of GERALD DICUNZOLO requests a Wetland Permit
to remove 76' of existing bulkhead and construct new
bulkhead inplace. Provide ten-foot wide non-turf buffer
landward of bulkhead. Install two 12"x30' long mooring
pilings on north side of existing floating dock.
Located: 1935 Westview Drive, Mattituck.
Jill and I looked at this. CAC supports the
application with the condition the roof drains running
through the bulkhead are removed and a drainage plan is
submitted. No treated lumber is used. The CAC
questions whether the additional pilings will interfere
with the dock on the adjacent property. And I believe
there were two pipes through the bulkhead, if I
remember right. Three, four-inch PVC coming through
the bulkhead, one on either side. Both LWRP -- it's
exempt from the bulkhead to replace existing bulkhead,
the applicant property is exempt. I think they've
addressed the piles as being inconsistent, but I can't
read it. Hang on (perusing.).
It is our recommendation that the proposed action
is inconsistent with LWRP standards. That's on the two
12-inch piles. And they have a number of concerns;
impair navigation, interfere with the public use of the
waterway way; bottomland, impair views and establish
precedent contributing to the cumulative impacts caused
by similar docking structures.
Jill and I went and looked at this. We both are
familiar with the area. I had absolutely no problem
with replacing the bulkhead in place. We would like to
see those drains done away with. But we did have a
problem with the two mooring piles. I don't see the
need for them so I would not be inclined to approve the
Board of Trustees 45 February 18, 2009
two mooring piles. I also have a call from the
neighbor, who unfortunately Could not be here, with her
concerns that would interfere with some of her
maneuvering around.
In looking at it, when we were out there, that
whole area, there is a lot more structures and floats
along that particular area than ever would be approved
today. I think they are very fortunate they have what
they have, and I don't think they need two more piles
on the other side of that dock. That's my opinion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Another spot for mooring whips.
TRUSTEE KING: And that's all I have to say.
(perusing.) I saw some literature, they are supposed to
hold up to a 20,000 pound boat?
MR. COSTELLO: They have a couple that are 30,000 pounds.
TRUSTEE KING: They are pretty rugged.
MR. COSTELLO: They are still breaking. If you don't
tie them up and don't use them properly, they do not work.
TRUSTEE KING: But that's my feeling. I don't know if
anybody else has any comments. I don't see the need
for them in that area. And it will be a ten-foot
non-turf buffer. That's consistent with what the next
door neighbor has.
MR. COSTELLO: And the only reason they wanted the
ten-foot is because underneath that tree, and I believe
even though the cross section shows that we'll put a
backing system in, we'll probably put helical screw
anchors, because the one thing they don't want is that
tree damaged. And I don't blame them.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a nice tree.
MR. COSTELLO: It's in good shape.
TRUSTEE KING: So any other comment?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with what you said, Jim.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Me too.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: And I'll make a motion to approve the
application with the exception of the two tie off piles
are not going to be permitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: What about the drains?
TRUSTEE KING: And the two drains will be blocked off
that go through the bulkhead. I guess it's for roof
runoff.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just to conform with Chapter 236.
TRUSTEE KING: It's been our policy to try and stop some
of these drains, however we are not having much success
with the town doing it. It always troubles me, you
know, we block off a four-inch PVC but we can't do
anything about a 22 or 24-inch pipe that the town is
using. It's very frustrating for me, personally.
MR. COSTELLO: You've done a good job on trying to get
some of it done.
Board of Trustees 46 February 18, 2009
TRUSTEE KING: Anyway, that's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it's exempt from LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, by removing the two piles it brings
it into consistency.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number nine, Costello Marine
Contracting on behalf of GARDINER'S BAY HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance
dredge (10-year maintenance) 1,000 cubic yards of sand
from main channel to -4' below mean Iow water and use
spoil as beach nourishment. Located: Gardiner's Bay
Estates channel/boat basin, Spring Pond.
The CAC has resolved .to support the application
and this has been found by the LWRP to be consistent.
The LWRP coordinator is suggesting some best management
practices such as deploying a silt boom surrounding the
immediate area of the project, and that the dredging
project should occur outside of the shore bird
breeding, nesting and fledging period, that would be
March 15 through August 15. And it says maintain the
existing shoreline slips, that dredge material will be
deposited to promote the use of the shoreline by
nesting birds.
This is pretty routine. Every ten years this
comes in, I have been told. This is just routine
maintenance of the channel. Would anybody like to speak
on behalf of this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, my name is John Costello. I don't
know who handled that last application, but we are the
agents for the Gardiner's Bay Homeowners Association,
and they have been maintaining this - they own the
bottom and they have been maintaining it. And they
only want a certain depth of water to be maintained.
They want to do minimal dredging, trying to keep the
cost down. And we deposited as much on that berm that
we can. We are not even sure of the quantity but we
are trying to allocate enough to cover whatever is
necessary to keep that four-foot depth in that channel
for all the homeowriers.
If there was any, if the spoil area was inadequate
for any reason, you know, we would probably have to
come back in to ask the Trustees or we could put it on
the other side of the jetty and let it act as a bypass,
but then we would need permission from the adjacent
owner. But that had been done once.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any problem using a silt boom on the
project?
MR. COSTELLO: We can put it around the dredging barge
but, you know, it's not going to be real good because
the sediment is almost all sand, which settles out. Up
in the upper creek where there is a little more muddy
sediment it would work better, for the environmental
reasons.
Board of Trustees 47 February 18, 2009
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Any comments from the Board?
(No response.)
Is there any mention to maintain the slopes where the
dredging material is going so it could be used by the
nesting shore birds there?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That was an LWRP recommendation,
best management.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, is the material location on the
down drift side of the littoral drift?
MR. COSTELLO: Would this Board allow that to be placed
into the down drift side? That acts as a bypass.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's where we want to have it placed
is the down drift side. I want to just check to make
sure that's where it is.
MR. COSTELLO: That would be an alternative. It's
logical, because it's just doing a bypass.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I can't tell from the pictures. Are
the spoils going to the down drift side?
MR. COSTELLO: Not now. It's being proposed to the east
side where there is a beach, and that's where it's been
placed on several different occasions. And then it's
graded off.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So if it's going to the updrift side,
we just have to make sure it's up above the intertidal
zone so it doesn't go back into the inlet.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what it's showing in the
pictures.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Any other comments, questions?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm familiar with the area and it is
sandy and I don't really see the need for a silt boom
there. I agree with ,John on that.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the
application for Gardiner's Bay Homeowners to do the
dredging as they applied for, and just ask that when
the spoils are put up that the dredge materials deposit
is made such that the shoreline area can still be used
by the nesting shore birds. And that's it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: I just want to go back to the hearing
before this one. I want to reopen it.
The recommendation from the LWRP was to use a silt boom
during reconstruction of that bulkhead in Mattituck.
MR. COSTELLO: Okay, not a problem.
TRUSTEE KING: That was it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that.
Board of Trustees 48 February 18, 2009
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to close the
meeting.
TRUSTEE KING: Motion to adjourn?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)