HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-04/22/2009 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 (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
6:00 PM
RECEIVED
MAY 26 2009'
v/n Clerk
Present Were: James King, President
Jill Doherty, Vice-President
Peggy Dickerson, Trustee
Dave Bergen, Trustee
Robert Ghosio, Trustee
Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant
Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney
Call MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE Of ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, May 6, 2009, at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, May 20, 2009, at 6:00 PM
WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of March 18, 2009
TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone, welcome to our
April meeting. I see a few faces I don't know, people
that don't normally come to our meetings. My name is
Jim King, I have the honor of being Chairman of the
Board of Trustees.
I would like to introduce the rest of the folks
here. To my far left is Dave Bergen, Trustee; next to
him is Peggy Dickerson; we have Jilt Doherty is the
vice-chair; myself; Lauren Standish manages the office
for us; Bob Ghosio is the last Trustee. Our Assistant
Town Attorney, Lori Hulse, normally sits in that
chair. She is coming in later as our legal advisor.
We have Wayne Galante down here keeping track of what
everybody says.
If you have any comments during the public comment
Board of Trustees 2 April 22, 2009
period, come to the microphone and identify yourself so
he can get it on the record.
From the CAC, we have Jim Eckert. They go out and
do many of the same inspections we do and give us their
input on situations. With that, I guess we'll get going.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can I just mention, the Power Point,
we go out and take slides to help us, for many reasons,
and at times we are going to start out with lumping
some of them together, so when you see me going past
some of them it's simply because there were not any
issues, and because of different things that happen in
the office, sometimes I'll have to go and search. I
try very hard to get them in order but it's almost
nearly impossible, so I just wanted to explain that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I just want to mention, this is a
forgotten holiday, it's Administrative Professionals
Day, and I just want to mention that we as a Board
really respect Lauren and are grateful for the work she
does for us, and Elizabeth also. They are the ones
that keep us together. Thank you, Lauren.
TRUSTEE KING: Everyone in the office, what a good staff
we have in there. They're terrific.
We'll set the date for the next field inspection.
May 6, 8:00 in the morning.
· TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Next meeting, Wednesday, May 20 at 6:00
with our work session at 5:30. Motion?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor.
TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve the Minutes of March.
I haven't read them yet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I haven't either.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I read them and only found one
mistake. If I'm the only one who read them I would
recommend tabling it until everybody had a chance to
read it.
TRUSTEE KING: rtl motion to table.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for March, 2009. ^ check
for $4,891.55 was forwarded to the Supervisor's office
for the General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin
board for review.
IlL STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
Board of Trustees 3 April 22, 2009
We have a number of State Environmental Quality
Reviews.
Resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Southold hereby finds that the following applications
more fully described in Section VII Poblic Hearings
Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, April
22, 2009, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to
SEQRA rules and regulations, and are not subject to
further review under SEQRA.
There is a number of them listed here.
Timothy & Deborah Beaumont - SCTM#3-18.20
Kelly Myers - SCTM#15-12-23.2
Madelyn Droege - SCTM#14-2-24
John & Kathleen Berkery - SCTM#37-4-2
Iskender Erey & Angelica Bengolea - SCTM#38-6-7
Jim & Denise Martin - SCTM#16-4-31
Hope Schneider - SCTM#67-7-11
New Suffolk Shipyard LLC - SCTM#117-5-29.1
Silvana Cadeddu - SCTM#35-5-23
Don Jayamaha - SCTM#140-1-8
Lewis Topper - SCTM#123-6-13
William & Mary Steele - SCTM#58-2-10
Susan Tsavaris - SCTM#30-2-53
Jay Mandelbaum/1690
Bayview Association, LLC - SCTM# 70-12-37
Phillip Stanton - SCTM# 64-1-1
TRUSTEE KING: Do we have a motion?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: We have a couple of cancellations, too,
before I forget. There are two cancellations on page
nine of the agenda;
Number 18, 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:
4673 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck, has been postponed.
And Number 19, Samuels & Steelman, Architects, on
behalf of JIM & DENISE MARTIN requests a Wetland Permit
to construct a new one-story beach shed on the
southwestern corner of the property. Located: 129
Suter's Row, Mattituck, has been withdrawn.
So we won't be addressing those tonight.
And page six, 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 April 22, 2009
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: We have a number of resolutions and
administrative permits. What we try and do to move
things along is group them together, the ones we don't
have any problems with, that are very simple.
So numbers one through seven we have no problems
with any of those. I make a motion to approve those.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to lump in the rest of
them?
TRUSTEE KING: We'll leave that for the next section.
So numbers one through seven read as follows:
N&J MANAGEMENT LLC requests an Administrative Permit to
install an eight-foot high deer fence. Located: 4735
Westphalia Road, Mattituck.
Number two, DEBORAH DOTY requests an
Administrative Permit to remove a diseased tree
adjacent to the wetlands, with the stump cut to grade.
Located: 670 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue.
Number three, DIANA DELUClA requests an
Administrative Permit for the asbuilt replacement of
the windows and door with sliding glass doors. Located:
4573 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck.
Number four, PETE & GAlL SCHEMBRI request an
Administrative Permit to maintain.the overgrowth on the
bluff to one-inch in height. Located: 1425 Soundview
Road, Orient.
Number five, MARY ZUPA requests an Administrative
Permit to place approximately six cubic yards of 5-10
pound quarry stone on filter fabric behind bulkhead and
return; regrade steep slope to approximately three on
one using onsite fill and plant slope with Cape
American Beachgrass 18" on center and stabilize slope
with jute mesh until plants are established. Located:
580 Basin Road, Southold.
Number six, ERWlN & HEATHER GRUBER request an
Administrative Permit for the clean-up of the overgrown
bushes, shrubs, removal of the small trees and one
grown tree, addition of top soil and seed for grass,
add a post and rail fence along the street and a
privacy fence along the side yard bordering the golf
course. Located: 4955 Moore's Lane, Cutchogue.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: And number nine through 13, and number
16, read as follows:
Number nine, Creative Environmental Design on
behalf of KEVIN BARR requests an Administrative Permit
to construct an 80' long retaining wall
approximately eight feet from western property line to
level ground to structure and reduce runoff from
property. Located: 200 Basin Road, Southold.
Number ten, GreenLogic LLC on behalf of WILLIAM
EDWARDS requests an Administrative Permit to install
Board of Trustees 5 April 22, 2009
roof mounted solar photovoltaic system and upgrade
electrical service. Located: 1600 Park Avenue,
Mattituck.
Number 11, Mark Boeckman on behalf of NICK
DECROISSET requests an Administrative Permit to remove
existing grass/lawn seaward of the dwelling
approximately 25 feet at west end and approximately 11
feet at east end of property and plant beachgrass,
construct a patio with pervious base approximately
15x30' at grade, move existing driveway/parking area
landward approximately eight feet north using pervious
gravel and relocate existing outdoor shower connecting
drain to new precast drywell. Located: 20 Third Street,
New Suffolk.
Number 12, Gian Mangieri on behalf of RICHARD
GREENE requests an Administrative Permit to replant
area where vegetation was destroyed in order to prevent
land erosion and control water runoff into creek.
Located: 3392 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold.
Number 13, Frederick Weber, Architect, on behalf
of BRIAN FRAWLEY requests an Administrative Permit to
conduct construction activity within 100 feet from the
top of the bluff for the demolition of a single-family
dwelling, construction of a new single-family dwelling
with screened porch, front and rear porch and terrace,
new detached garage, driveway, paths and swimming pool,
surrounding patio and reuse or reconstruct sanitary
system. Located: 4545 Hallock Lane, Mattituck.
And number 16, Creative Environmental Design on
behalf of DENNIS HICKEY requests an Administrative
Permit to remove the existing garage doors and reframe
wall with windows; open up north wall, remove windows,
reframe and install a garage door. Located: 175
Clearview Lane, Cutchogue.
TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion on number eight to
table it until Lori gets here because we have some questions.
MS. MOORE: Until who gets here? Sorry.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The Town Attorney.
TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, we'll wait on that until
legal counsel gets here.
Number 14 is PAMELA MAINO JOHNSON requests an
Administrative Permit to hand trim the phragmites to 12
inches. Located: 7617 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
I think the Board had an issue with the size of
the area to be trimmed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have the file to refer to.
TRUSTEE KING: I think the Board's issue is just the
size of the area that is to be trimmed, so in my mind
it would just be this one small area on the western
side of the property.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what we discussed.
Board of Trustees 6 April 22, 2009
TRUSTEE KING: So I would make a motion to approve the
application but downsize the area to be trimmed to just
the western side of the property and have them submit a
new drawing showing exactly where they are going to do it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Number 15, JAMES GIVEN requests an
Administrative Permit to trim brush and maintain sight
to water. Located: 159 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk.
Is there a violation issued on that?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, there was a violation issued.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what precipitated him coming to
apply.
TRUSTEE KING: So I don't want to move forward on this
until we get the violation cleared up.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are we planning on approving this
amendment? Because we talked, I mean it was such a
devastating cutting. We can move ahead if we want to.
TRUSTEE KING: Or we can simply deny it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I'm trying to get at.
TRUSTEE KING: Is that the feeling of the Board?
(Board members agree.)
TRUSTEE KING: I11 make a motion to deny this permit to
trim brush and maintain sight to the water..
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to explain, that was one where the
applicant had clear cut the bluff and cut numerous
trees down, shrubs down, bushes down. So that's why
there was a violation and that's why the Board voted no
to grant him permission after the fact to do it.
TRUSTEE KING: There were trees anywhere from two inches
in diameter to 14 inches in diameter cut down, right on
the bluff. I guess he wanted a good view.
TRUSTEE KING: Number 16, that was okay, we lumped that
in.
V. RESOLUTIONS: MOORINGISTAKEIDUCK BLIND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All the moorings applied for are
replacing moorings in creeks. People have been on the
waiting list for quite a while, and there is one duck
blind for Corey Creek. That was fine. They read as
follows:
Number one, JON RAND requests a Mooring Permit in
Cedar Beach Creek for a 19-foot boat, replacing Mooring
#129. Access: Private.
Number two, DOUGLAS CARLEN requests a Mooring
Permit in Deep Hole Creek for a 23-foot boat, replacing
Mooring ¢K)02. Access: Private.
Number three, PHILIP WANAT requests a Duck Blind
Permit in Corey Creek. Access: Public.
Board of Trustees 7 April 22, 2009
Number four, JOE MELLY requests a Mooring Permit
in Little Creek for a 22-foot boat, replacing Mooring
#110. Access: Public.
Number five, JOHN DVVYER requests a Mooring Permit
in Gull Pond for an 18-foot boat replacing Mooring #3.
Access: Public.
Number six, DAN MALONE requests a Mooring Permit
in Mattituck Creek for an 18-foot boat, replacing
Mooring #102. Access: Public.
Number seven, VICTOR RERISI requests a Mooring
Permit in Gull Pond for a 20-foot boat, replacing
Mooring #14. Access: Public.
And number eight, EVANGELOS LOUKATOS requests a
Mooring Permit in Gull Pond for a 19-foot boat,
replacing Mooring #12. Access: Public.
I'~1 make a motion to approve number one through
eight.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
VI. RESOLUTIONS - OTHER:
TRUSTEE KING: Number one, application for the Harvest
and Relay of Shellfish for the Town of Southold from
Uncertified Areas for Transplanting Purposes.
The Town applied to the DEC. This is in
Hashamomuck. There is an uncertified area. We are
going to take the clams out of the uncertified area and
plant them in a seasonal area, which means it's open in
the winter time. So it's a way of utilizing a resource
that otherwise would not have been able to be
utilized. So the Town supports this and we have the
DEC permit for it. So we are good to go. I think it
will be around the 0th of May, if I remember right, and
some of these clams will be also transplanted into
Goose Creek.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that your motion?
TRUSTEE KING: That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
VII. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Again, we'll be lumping some of
these together.
Number one, DAVID SHAMOON requests a One-Year
Extension to Permit #6620, as issued on May 16, 2007.
Located: 2404 Camp Mineola Road Extension, Mattituck.
Number two, ELIZABETH CANTRELL requests a One-Year
Extension to Permit #6589A, as issued on April 18,
2007. Located: 2125 Grathwohl Road, New Suffolk.
Number three, ANTHONY GRAZlANO requests a One-Year
Extension to Permit #6622 as issued on May 16, 2007.
Located: 915 Lakeside Drive North, Southold.
Board of Trustees 8 April 22, 2009
Number five, THE BARGE AND ASSOCIATION requests a
One-Year Extension to Permit #6606A as issued on May
16, 2007. Located: Old Main Road, Southold.
Number six, CARL REITER requests a One-Year
Extension to Permit #6607A as issued on May 16, 2007.
Located: Old Main Road, Southold.
Number seven, CAROL DENSON requests a One-Year
Extension to Permit f16608A as issued on May 16, 2007.
Located: Old Main Road, Southold.
Number eight, JMO Environmental Consulting
Services on behalf of GEORGE CARTER SEDNAOUI & STACEY
CAYCE SEDNAOUI requests a One-Year Extension to Permit
#6618 as issued on May 16, 2007. Located: East End Road, Fishers island.
Number nine, JMO Environmental Consulting, Inc.,
on behalf of BELVEDERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC requests
a One-Year Extension to Permit #6565 as issued on April
18, 2007, and Amended on January 23, 2008. Located:
Robins Island, New Suffolk.
Number ten, Pat Nelson on behalf of ANN MARIE NELSON requests
the last One-Year Extension to Permit fl6354 as issued on April 19, 2006.
Located: 1420 9th Street, Greenport.
Number 11, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on
behalf of JILL & CAROL RIDINI requests a One-Year
Extension to Permit #6646 as issued on June 20, 2007.
Located: 805 West Road, Cutchogue.
Number 12, John R. Lynch on behalf of WILLIAM CHRISTENSEN
requests a Transfer of Permit #3694 from Anthony & Carolyn Leggio to
William Christensen as issued on March 30, 1989.
Located: 2300 Glenn Road, Southold.
Number 13, Patricia Moore on behalf of TOR & JOAN TORKELSEN
requests a Transfer of Permit #2251 from Joseph Graddowski to Tor &
Joan Torkelsen as issued on January 29, 1987.
Located: 3675 Wells Avenue, Southold.
Number 14, Gary Steinfeld on behalf of JAY MANDEI. BAUMI1690
BAYVlEW ASSOCIATES, LLC, requests a
Transfer of Permit #2040 from Roger Lamour to Jay
Mandelbaum/1690 Bayview Associates, LLC, as issued on
August 28, 1985. Located: 1690 North Bayview Road, Southold.
And number 15, Gary Steinfeld on behalf of JAYMANDELBAUM/1690
BAYVlEW ASSOCIATES LLC requests a
Transfer of Permit #620 from Roger and Dorothy Lamour
to Jay Mandelbaum/1690 Bayview Associates, LLC, as
issued on May 27, 1988, and to Amend Permit ~620 to
correct the condition of floating dock contacting
bottomland during Iow tide by moving pilings and dock
an additional six feet from the bulkhead, and to run
new underground electrical power line to edge of
bulkhead. Located: 1690 Bayview Road, Southold.
We'll stop there. I'll make a motion to approve
those that I just mentioned.
TRUSTEE KING: You lost me.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. One through 15, excluding
number four. I'll make a motion to approve those.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
Board of Trustees 9 April 22, 2009
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number four, GREGORY MAZZANOBILE
requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #5631 as issued
on April 28, 2008. Located: 1460 Lake Drive, Southold.
I make a motion to approve, give this application
a One-Year Extension. I'll do a roll call vote.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: First, I'll second it.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Dave?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Peggy?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Nay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Myself, aye. Jim?
TRUSTEE KING: For the extension, aye.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Bob?
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Abstaining.
(Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee King, aye. Trustee
Dohedy, aye. Trustee Dickerson, nay. Trustee Ghosio,
abstaining.)
TRUSTEE KING: The vote is carried; three in favor, one
against, one abstaining.
TRUSTEE KING: Just a little bit on that; this was a
very, very difficult application we had. It ended up
it went to court and the town lost, and we lost the
appeal also, so we were forced to issue a permit on
this, and they just started construction. But it was a
one-year only permit, so it's going to expire and he
would not have had time to build the house. He
actually started it, so we gave him the extension on it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Now we are up to number 16.
MR. STEINFELD: I have a question on number 15, if I
could ask it. Gary Steinfeld, agent for JAY MANDELI~AUM.
The way it's worded, the approval includes
the pilings being moved six feet out. The revised plan
has pilings on the center of the floating dock, which
has them nine feet out. I'm not sure if that's, if you
need to put a clarification in or if it's okay with the
Board.
TRUSTEE KING: We need to took at the drawing.
What are you going to do, put the piles on the outer
side of the float?
MR. STEINFELD: I want to put the piles on the six-foot
ends of the float.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, I understand. That's fine.
MR. STEINFELD: Do we need to change that wording?
TRUSTEE KING: No, I don't think so. I don't think so.
This is pretty clear. The original piles were in two
corners, now they have the piles in the center of the
floats. It's a three-foot difference of where the
piles went. It doesn't affect the location of the
float. That was the concern.
MR. STEINFELD: Thank you, very much.'
TRUSTEE KING: You're we{come.
TRUSTEE KING: Number 16 DAWN CARROLL requests a
Board of Trustees 10 April 22, 2009
Transfer of Permit #1880 from Nellie Simonson to Dawn
Carroll, as issued on August 31, 1984, and to Amend
Permit #1880 to replace the temporary poles with wood
piles to secure the floating dock. Located: 1650 North
Bayview Road, Southold.
This was the one where nothing conforms to the
permit. Nothing is the same.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anyone here on behalf of
this?
TRUSTEE KING: The permit is for a little, short
fixed-dock where we are standing and an "L" shape off
that. There was no float or anything on the original
permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can we approve the transfer but not the
amendment; table the amendment?
TRUSTEE KING: We could approve the transfer but what
she will get transferred is that "L" shaped dock. She
would have to come in and apply for a float.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct, that's what I'm thinking.
TRUSTEE KING: We can do that. I'll make a motion to
approve the transfer of the permit and to deny the
amendment. They would have to apply for that float at
a later date.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Deny without prejudice.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, without prejudice.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: We'll lump numbers 17 through 24
together. They read as follows:
Number 17, CLAIRE MATHER requests an Amendment to
Permit #653 to install underwater patch consisting of
HDPE sheets jetted 12" into mud. Located: 805 Osprey
Nest Road, Greenport.
Number 18, JOHN SEVERINI requests an Amendment to
Permit fl6989 to add a second set of stairs to the
retaining wall and a second set of stairs to the deck
attached to the dwelling. Located: 565 Gull Pond Lane,
Greenport.
Number 19, MARY ZUPA requests an Amendment to
Permit #6214 to include water and electric service to
the docking facility. Located: 580 Basin Road,
Southold.
Number 20, DOUGLAS ROSE, SR., requests an
Amendment to Permit #5150 to install wooden bollards
and decorative plantings in front of existing fence.
Located: 580 Basin Road, Southold.
Number 21, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of ROBERTA JAKLEVlC requests an Amendment to
Permit #6999 to secure a 30' section of the proposed
reconstructed bulkhead along the southern wall of the
existing boat basin using helical screws/anchors,
instead of the approved pilings, in order to minimize
the impact to the immediate intertidal marsh. Located:
900 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk.
Board of Trustees 11 April 22, 2009
Number 22, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf
of PERI HINDEN requests an Amendment to Permit #6732 to
install three eight-inch mooring pilings on the south
side of the existing dock. Located: 1255 Woodcliff
Drive, Mattituck.
Number 23, Mark Schwartz, AIA, on behalf of STEVEN
TENEDIOS requests an Amendment to Permit #6973 to
reduce the house footprint and shift the house location
36' to the south. Located: 17327 Main Road, East
Marion.
Number 24, Patricia Moore on behalf of GABRIEL
SCIBELLI requests an Amendment to Permit #7027 for a
three-foot modification (toward existing bulkhead) of
the proposed connection between the addition and the
existing dwelling, connecting to an existing window
rather than construct a new opening. Located: 450 Cedar
Point Drive East, Southold.
I'll make a motion to approve numbers 17 through
24. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MS. MOORE: If I could just, I think you are up to 25
now. Both Mr. and Mrs. Koyler are on their way. I
don't want them to miss the meeting. They are coming
from the city. If you could just push me toward the
end.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay.
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You just need to remember, Jim, to
close the public hearings at that point, because that's
not one for a public hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, number 26, Proper-T Permit Services
on behalf of DON JAYAMAHA requests an Amendment to
Permit #6437 to increase the length of the fixed open
walkway from 55' to 83'. Located: 243 Maiden Lane,
Mattituck.
This is one that -- I don't know. Very troublesome.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim, so you know, you see the angles
on this. (Indicating.) We also went down to the dock.
I'll back up again. But there is that other dock we
stood on. That's from the dock.
TRUSTEE KING: I have to look at the original permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is a note on here. We approved
90. That's what this handwritten note is here. From 12/06.
TRUSTEE KING: The original permit was for a fixed open
walkway 4x55', 3.5 feet above grade, with a hinged ramp
3x20, floating dock 6x20. That was the original
permit. It was not supported by the CAC and I don't
remember us ever amending that. One-year extension
they got. They extended it August 20, 2008.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: The overall length was 90 feet from the
landward end of the catwalk to the seaward end of the
Board of Trustees 12 April 22, 2009
float. We went round and round with this one before.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What is the proposed overall length?
MR. FITZGERALD: May'l see your --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have the walkway from 55 to 83
feet.
MR. FITZGERALD: That's on the drawing, but I think the
important point is that we went to the DEC after you
folks had approved the original application and they
said they were really sorry but there was no way that
they would approve it because it was only a
foot-and-a-half of water at that point. And we said --
well, actually we said a ~ot of stuff back and forth to
arrive at this, which is the minimal length that the
DEC would approve because of the need to get to four
feet of water where the boat is, or at the landward
side of the float, two-and-a-half feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we are at 83 plus 20 plus six.
That's 108 overall.
TRUSTEE KING: Somewhere I thought we had an aerial of
this.
MR. FITZGERALD: What may I get you?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: An aerial -- no, we have it here.
Sorry.
TRUSTEE KING: It's not a very good one.
MR. FITZGERALD: I have a good one.
TRUSTEE KING: We don't have anything that shows the
other new dock. That's what I'm looking for. I'm trying
to find something that maybe shows that other new dock,
the next door neighbor to the east that was approved
last year.
MR. FITZGERALD: There is nothing.
TRUSTEE KING: It was approved last year.
MR. FITZGERALD: There is nothing on here more recent
than this.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll have to do a new survey then,
maybe.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What about this.
TRUSTEE KING: That was back in the 80s.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, how about that. 1986. And we are
not sure that it complies with that.
TRUSTEE KING: We reviewed the files on that and --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Now, with the overall 108 feet, where
is the one-third? What is the width of that area? And
we are going from shoreline to shoreline or pier line
to shoreline?
MR. FITZGERALD: The code defines it as being a line
perpendicular to the shoreline at the point, and a line
perpendicular to the shoreline extends into Mattituck
Creek and misses the boats and what have you by 50 to
75 feet. You follow?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. What do you mean by "misses the
boats"?
TRUSTEE KING: We need to look at the property to the
east that had that dock. Because that dock was
extended a little bit. Remember, it only went out to
the edge of the marsh and they came in last year or the
Board of Trustees 13 April 22, 2009
year before and put an extension there?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. That was the one we walked out on
to take a couple of these pictures.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That dock.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup, that's it.
MR. FITZGERALD: This mooring is perpendicular to the
shoreline. This piece of rebar is the end of the dock,
and you can see that it goes down the creek. It
doesn't go over here.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, but I think what is very
deceiving is if you look at that picture, to me, it
looks like it is here.
MR. FITZGERALD: Funny, I have some other pictures here
you may need to see.
TRUSTEE KING: What we need, we need to see this dock.
MR. FITZGERALD: This is what the dock looks like
looking down the channel.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have that, too.
MR. FITZGERALD: Let's look at that.
TRUSTEE KING: It's very different.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. That's why I suggested to Mr.
Jayamaha to suggest to you if you look at this from the
dock next door.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is where we were standing.
TRUSTEE KING: The thing, one thing I want to point out,
they have a dock to the east of this property now, a
new dock. This dock right here will be shorter by 30
feet. So what we need to do, you want to draw a line
from the existing dock.to the east to that dock at 100
feet and make sure this stays in that pier line.
MR. FITZGERALD: Please take into account that --
TRUSTEE KING: That's something this Board has
traditionally done is to maintain pier lines.
MR. FITZGERALD: It's my understanding that the dock to
the east is not compliant with the code either because
the float is on the bottom at Iow water. So what we
ought to do is figure out where that would end. I mean
if we are going to adjust the length of that one, to
have a pier line, then we ought to adjust the length of
the other one.
TRUSTEE KING: The other one is not in violation.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, it is. The float is on the bottom
at Iow water.
TRUSTEE KING: Where does it say that's a violation?
MR. FITZGERALD: Well, it doesn't say it's a violation.
It says it shouldn't be on the bottom.
TRUSTEE KING: There is a lot of floats on the bottom
that are not in violation.
MR. FITZGERALD: I know, Jim, but this is the one we are
concerned with,
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's pretty much Iow tide there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If we could go back to that picture
with the dock to the west that will be shortened, for
just a second. Sorry, Peg.
Okay, we were standing on the dock to the east,
taking that picture, so we are essentially at the end
Board of Trustees 14 April 22, 2009
of the dock on the east there, and if you move that
other dock to the west, it's going to be reduced.
Wasn't that by court order, Jim?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So that will be reduced by at least 30
feet. You know, just looking at that picture, this
proposed extension, to me, is going to be out beyond
the pier line. Now, I mean we can certainly make the
applicant wait. I don't know how long it's going to be
before that dock to the west is adjusted, but I don't
know that that is fair to the applicant, making him
wait because we are waiting on them to comply with
this. So what rm saying, if you could just picture
that dock reduced by 30 feet, this is taking it out
beyond the pier line, to me. The proposed.
MR. FITZGERALD: I don't understand why you are saying
that dock does not meet the code standards and
therefore we'll presume it should be shorter and have
an affect upon this. But the dock to the east, which
doesn't meet the code standards either, is not going to
be adjusted.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right now the dock to the east is
built to the permit that they got. The dock to the
west is not built to the permit they have.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, okay, I mean I hear what you are
saying, but the broad picture is that you are
artificially changing how you look at this from the
standpoint of what that should be, but not from what
the other one should be. And I understand that it's,
what it is permitted to be, but that doesn't make it
right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are telling us there is a
violation there. We don't know that.
MR. FITZGERALD: I'm telling you the dock is on the
bottom. The cede says docks should not be on the
bottom.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, but this is the first we are
hearing of it. We have not seen it on the bottom, so
we can't really go by that at this moment. At least
that's how I feel. I don't know how the rest of the
Board feels.
TRUSTEE KING: This is a case where, it's like we are
going back in time. This Board issues a permit for a
dock, float and ramp, they go to the DEC and DEC says
no, no, you have to go out further. Then they come
back to us.
MR. FITZGERALD: Jim, what would you have us do? The
permit that you gave us with the float puts the float
on the bottom. It was a foot-and-a-half of water there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I remember this discussion when we
approved the initial permit and, as I recall, this
Board labored over and over about the total length of
this structure, and we agreed at that time that was as
far as this Board could approve a structure to go.
Now, I understand the frustration, because the DEC
has said, sorry, we will not give you a permit for
Board of Trustees 15 April 22, 2009
that; the structure needs to go further out. And you
are coming to us and asking for us to amend the permit
to go further out.
MR. FITZGERALD: That's exactly what we are doing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And we spent, as I said, a lot of time
in discussion in the first go around and agreed that
was absolutely as far as this structure will go. So
for me, there is nothing to change my mind between when
this was discussed several years ago and where we are
today, for me to go along with extending this structure
farther than we already did.
MR. FITZGERALD: Would you explain to me why you are
requiring an overall length limit? Or getting ready to?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, as I recall, last time we looked
at the width of the channel, we looked at the one-third
rule and we also took into consideration the fact that
there is a marina across from there and they need to
have navigation around that marina.
MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, gee. I mean, you know.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, you are asking me so I'm just
trying to explain to you. Last time that's how, as I
recall, we made our decision. And what I'm saying is
that I know we labored intensively over this before and
I have not seen anything change between that time and
today, for myself, to say, okay, I changed my mind, I'm
fine to let it go further in length than what it is
now. That's all.
MR. FITZGERALD: The difference is that even now at this
length it meets the one-third requirement on our side
of the channel, of the creek. If there is -- and as
is indicated here, who could not get a boat through that?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You would be surprised.
MR. FITZGERALD: And the other thing is that we have
come back with the requirements of a presumably
reputable regulatory agency and you are saying we have
-- we, have been through this kind of thing. And I
tell you, we have been through this kind of thing, too,
where you folks have one standard and the DEC has
another, and both of you sit back and say, well, that's
tough, you work it out with the other guy. There is
plenty of room there and the only reason to extend it
is to get to water that is deep enough for the boat.
And as a matter of fact, one of the items in the code
says that the length shall be only that which is
necessary to get to four feet of water. So that means
that the four feet of water must mean something to you.
TRUSTEE KING: What happened to two-and-a-half feet of
water? We worked for years to get the DEC to give us a
seasonal float for two-and-a-half feet of water.
MR. FITZGERALD: Your code says four feet.
TRUSTEE KING: Our code says four feet?
MR. FITZGERALD: Right. And to directly address --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Docks in the bay says four feet.
TRUSTEE KING: 275 doesn't say four feet of water for a
float. There is --
MR. FITZGERALD: I think so. I learned along time ago
Board of Trustees 16 April 22, 2009
-- but as I indicated before, Jim, this is right at
the edge of the channel and the landward edge of the
float is in two-and-a-half feet of water. What's a guy
to do?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have to say my biggest issue was
the safety issue. I look at this aerial and the amount
of boat traffic that is going through this extremely
narrow area, I just hesitate with navigation. Again, I
completely understand the third, completely understand
the depth of water. I understand all of that. But
when I look at this, I see an accident waiting to
happen. And it's tough.
MR. FITZGERALD: Peggy, when you are done with that, can
I have it back.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yup. (Handing).
MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know, maybe there is a -- I
would like to introduce Dr. Jayamaha.
TRUSTEE KING: I wouldn't have a problem extending that
if they can maintain the pier line between 100 feet
from the dock to the west and the one dock to the east.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim was saying if you could maintain
the pier line, we'll let you go out as far as the pier
line of the two docks. So you have to tell us what the
pier line is, show us what the pier line is.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We need to determine what the pier line
is. Not the applicant.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I'm saying. He has to
show us on the survey though, after we determine it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: But it's going to be different than
what we know, what we are going to use for reference
because the existing dock on the west is longer than it
really is supposed to be.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll just take it from the file. We
can measure it off the file what it's supposed to be.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll excuse myself for five minutes.
This is so exciting.
MR. FITZGERALD: But we are not driving boats around in
the file. We are driving them around in that. And
there is plenty of room there.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm not a boater, so I'll defer to
boaters.
MR. FITZGERALD: Let me say this, with or without our
dock, there is plenty of boat traffic to provide enough
opportunity for those people, wherever they may be, to
drive into one another, especially when they are trying
to put --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But if we approve this then we are
exacerbating the situation.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the code even states we have to
take into consideration safetyand navigation. That's
right in the code under "docks."
MR. FITZGERALD: I would be disappointed if you didn't.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. Again, to me, when you pull that
dock to the west back 30 feet, clearly this will be
outside the pier line. That's my view. And I've
stated that already, so.
Board of Trustees 17 April 22, 2009
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This might be one application where
we need to meet at the site with DEC and discuss all of
our concerns.
MR. FAULKNER: My name is David Faulkner. I represent
the applicant Don Jayamaha. And just to answer, Mr.
Bergen, answer some of your questions regarding the
marina across the channel. And it would seem to me
that, by my calculations, you know, you mention the
one-third rule. And they are in violation of the
one-third rule. And it would seem that my client is
being unfairly punished by what we have is a
nonconforming dock and a floater across the channel.
And Ms. Dickerson, you again spoke of safety
issues. We are adding one more boat. We are adding
one boat to the dock traffic here and when you have,
again, the marina that is violating the one-third rule,
across the channel, it would be, in my opinion,
arbitrary and capricious for this Board to punish my
client and take away his riparian rights because of the
fact that the person across the channel is in violation
of the one-third rule.
Now, we made a FOIL request for the, on the two
floaters that stick out on the southward end of the
Matt-A-Mar Marina and we never received a copy of that
permit. We have a copy of the latest permit, which I
believe is permit number 5083 which is to Matt-A-Mar to
construct a basin of 16,900 square feet, average depth
of 15 feet, with 325 feet of bulkhead and 355 feet of
floating docks, and I have a photo here I would like to
put into evidence that we received from the DEC, and on
this scale it works out that all the floaters here are
300 feet. And if you were to add these two floaters on
the end here, that would be 380 feet. So we submit
that these two floaters on the southern end are not
permitted, should be removed, and if they in fact are
removed, all of your issues concerning the navigability
of the channel, the one-third, would go away.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just want to clarify something. I
was actually i~plying it would be unsafe navigation
would be from the marina. I was not implying from your
client.
MR. FAULKNER: But my client cannot bear the
responsibility of the marina creating unsafe conditions
in this location. And it would be a derogation of my
client's rights if they were forced to bear that
responsibility. Now, I could give you a copy of your
permit 5083, but I would like to make that part of the
record in this application. I would also like to make
my FOIL request part of the record and the fact that we
did not receive any permits that cover those two slips
at the southern end of the Matt-A-Mar Marina. We got
one in 1986 but that '86 could not have covered those
two floaters because those floaters were built -- the
only way it makes any logical sense is if those
floaters, which you see that boat right there, that
those floaters were built after the 1989 permit because
Board-of Trustees 18 April 22, 2009
that's when those floating docks were actually built in
that area.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I suggest something. This is not
a public hearing. This is an amendment and there is a
lot of questions of what is in this file. There has
been a lot of history of it. I would like to recommend
that we table this for our attorney to look through all
our files to determine what is approved, when it has
been approved, what has not been approved.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: My concern is why all this was not --
didn't this come out in the original hearing?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought we went all over this.
TRUSTEE KING: Originally we approved a dock, ramp and
float. It went to the DEC. The DEC said no.
MR. FAULKNER: And we are getting administrative ping
pong now where you guys say we gave you a permit and
our permit is actually, in essence useless, because DEC
won't give us a permit for that structure. They want
to get us to four feet. So now my client is essentially
caught in an administrative ping pong between the two
agencies. Now, we have come back with the minimum that
the DEC will approve, and they have approved that. We
have come back with the minimum size dock that was
approved and we submit that this dock meets your code
requirements and the DEC code requirements and that
it's a reasonable application. And to deny it --
TRUSTEE KING: I think we have gone far enough on this
tonight.
MR. FAULKNER: It would be no basis in the record to
deny this.
TRUSTEE KING: You made a recommendation to table this.
I'll make a motion to table this. I would like to go
by boat myself and see what is going on up there. I'll
take my boat and go up.
MR. FAULKNER: And I would ask, Mr. Chairman, again we
could find out if those two slips, those two 80-feet of
slips are permitted.
TRUSTEE KING: They were there in the 1986 site plan. I
reviewed the file. I have seen it.
MR. FAULKNER: We did not get a copy of that. And we
made a FOIL request.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The site plan would be from the
Planning Board.
MR. FAULKNER: Again, they were not permitted by this
Board and we did not receive that in response to our
FOIL request.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We had a motion and a second on the
table.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim made a motion to table. I second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. FAULKNER: When will it be next on?
TRUSTEE KING: Next month
MR. FAULKNER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: May 20. I think we should have Lori
here.
Board of Trustees 19 April 22, 2009
We can go back to Koy~er now.
TRUSTEE KING: Now moving on to Koyler.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 25, Patricia Moore on behalf of
STEVEN & ANDREA KOYLER requests an Amendment to Permit
#5672 to reconfigure the existing dock, ramp and float
20 feet to the north and extend dock five feet seaward.
Located: 4075 Paradise Point Road, Southold.
MS. MOORE: At the last hearing it was a little
chaotic. I hope this will be a little more controlled.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's an amendment so --
MS. MOORE: We'll try. What we did is we did add the
depths of the water around, as the Board had
requested. This drawing reflects less than what we
asked for before, which is 11 feet --
MS. KOYLER: I'm Andrea Koyler. I missed, I got here
late and I was not sure exactly what transpired. I got
bits and pieces. But I thought I had gotten a handle
on what the concerns were of the Board and our adjacent
neighbor, and I contacted Mr. Zupa and we discussed a
couple of things. He sent me some options that would
work for him. What I gathered is that the structure of
flipping the dock was the most onerous part of that.
That's what I understood. And so we decided that we
would keep it the way it is, we would move it out five
to get the water and we would just move it, as you
know, that we are not going to get into here on
anything having to do with zoning, that's not what this
is for, but we just want to move it over 13 feet. And
I would like to say that at the time that we got our
last amendment, the issue of why that boat was not
moved to the best position possible was because the
Association docks were two-thirds across and we did
what we could to get our boat in there. And I think
it's a reasonable request, we have come way far back
than we were last week, and we think it's reasonable
and we think we have addressed all the concerns and we
would like to see this passed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What you are requesting now, from the
description we have written on the agenda, is to move
the structure --
MS. KOYLER: 13 to the north and five feet seaward.
MS. MOORE: Five to the west.
MS. KOYLER: And it's an uber-minor change. The last
you called a minor change. This is uber-minor.
TRUSTEE KING: Why don't you just move straight offshore
with the existing structure?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just go five feet and not move over.
MS. KOYLER: We want to get away from the property
line. We want to get '~ 5 feet away from the property line.
TRUSTEE KING: Isn't this the property tine right over
here?
MS. KOYLER: We are like two feet off of it right now.
And the way that --
TRUSTEE KING: This is one lot.
MS. KOYLER: No, maybe you are determining it's one
Board of Trustees 20 April 22, 2009
lot. We are not here to talk about it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We went through it last time.
MS. KOYLER: And I was not here and my property should
not have been discussed. The way we are going, with
all that's talked about up here, this is how it goes.
We just want to move it over there.
TRUSTEE KING: That's not just a simple' move out because
you have deeper water here. You are moving it to
shallower water.
MS. KOYLER: How can we get this over here a little
more? Do you want us to go out straight here?
TRUSTEE KING: No, I say leave it where it is. If you
need more water depth, just go out. You already moved
this right, if I remember right, offshore.
MS. KOYLER: We moved it but it was when everything was
out here and we had concerns from this person.
TRUSTEE KING: I thought the move was to get more water
depth.
MS. KOYLER: And we tried and got a tiny, tiny bit.
TRUSTEE KING: Now you are going out another five feet.
MS. KOYLER: But I'm asking while we are doing this, we
don't want to ever come back here again. We want to
get off of this, off that property line.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't understand.
MS. KOYLER: It's not that complicated.
TRUSTEE KING: It's not a property line there. That's
the thing.
MS. KOYLER: Are you telling me it's not a property line?
MS. MOORE: Andrea, come back. Thank you.
MS. KOYLER: I know.
MS. MOORE: Relax. If I could just clarify.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do we have in the file a survey that
has all the water depths? Because there is an area
there between the proposed dock and the Zupa's dock
right now that doesn't list any depths.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MS. MOORE: That's right off of the Zupa's property
line. I think we were trying to honor Mr. Zupa's
request, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. But there is also an area here
that doesn't have any depth that is in front of the
Koyler,s property.
MS. MOORE: No, it's going the other way, the other
property line going south.
MS. KOYLER: I'm trying to think. Where is it missing?
I'm missing it.
MS. MOORE: Sorry, so I understand what you are saying --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This area.
MS. MOORE: That's Zupa's property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I'm looking for this area.
MS. MOORE: Let me see if the original had it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If not, that's okay. I'm just curious.
MS. MOORE: We are trying to stay away from that area.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have one now, thank you. It's dated
3/29/06.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Question. We had proposed the float
Board of Trustees 21 April 22, 2009
going south. What was the objection to that?
MS. MOORE: We had no objection to it. The Zupa's were
the ones who were objecting.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Going south?
MS. MOORE: Not south from the original position you are
at now. Originally, in the field, my notes reflect we
were going to be 15 feet from the Koyler common
property line and then it was going to be moved, the
proposal originally was going to be moved south ten
feet so that it would sit in between -- I have my
drawing. It's a little difficult to describe, so.
In the field what you suggested was ten feet down
and 15 feet, keeping that 15 foot. We proposed that at
the last hearing, all hell broke ~oose, excuse my
language, but that's what it was, and it didn't seem to
be something that Mr. Zupa -- or the Zupa's were
objecting to.
MS. KOYLER: We were ready to accept that, what you had
given us. We wanted what you offered.
MS. MOORE: We are only coming back trying to reach a
compromise.
TRUSTEE KING: We didn't have any soundings on this area
here on that first drawing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have the soundings here. I don't
know why it was not done like this.
MS. MOORE: It would have been nice.
TRUSTEE KING: My point is you have more water here if
you simply come straight out. I'm sorry, is there a
tax map number on the application?
MS. MOORE: Please don't go into the zoning issue.
TRUSTEE KING: It's not a zoning issue.
MS. MOORE: It's merger by virtue of financing. There
are lots on the subdivision. Let me put it on the
record since it's becoming such an issue.
TRUSTEE KING: It's one tax map number. How could it be
two lots?
MS. MOORE: If I Could clarify.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we should belabor this.
These simple amendments are turning into a circus.
MS. MOORE: Okay, we have asked for a proposal to try to
make it the best design possible. The issue of
property line/no property line, my client -- there are
two lots on the subdivision. When they purchased, they
had financing. The bank required that the mortgage be
placed on both properties as collateral. That's the
only reason they were put together. We do have the
right to go in now and, now that the mortgage is
satisfied or through a refinance, we don't have that
limitation anymore, we can go back in and grandfather
and get a waiver of merger of that.
TRUSTEE KING: So the motive for moving the docks is not
to get more water, it's to get away from the property
line so we can unmerge the lot. Why don't we be honest
about this. I think it's a little disingenuous.
MS. MOORE: You could have more than one motive. The
motive is to keep the property separate.
Board of Trustees 22 April 22, 2009
MS. KOYLER: The motive is to never come back·
MS. MOORE: We also have an existing ramp on the
property,
MS. KOYLER: If you go straight out with the dock, that
interferes with the ramp.
MS. MOORE: That's inconsistent with all of the policies
you usually follow, which is keeping the docks away
from, assuming a property line, but we also have a ramp
there, and you guys have been there before and there
have been suggestions on how to make the ramp more
usable. And it is being used now as a boat launch for
small crafts. So it really doesn't make sense.
MS. KOYLER: And all lights are down that way, not the
other way.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Where are you with the DEC on this?
MS. MOORE: We have not submitted our amendment yet to
them.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because as I see, as you are doing
this, you are at a depth of -- no, you're at four.
MS· MOORE: We are at four on the outside. Which is the
optimal.
MS. KOYLER: We do need more water. And we have lights
going down, I mean down the side of that property and
electricity, it would not really make sense to start
moving it in the direction where none of that exists.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I guess the only question I have,
really, is whether or not the placement of the dock in
relationship to the lot line is really something we
need to consider for this or if that is something that
would be considered when it comes up to be subdivided.
MS. KOYLER: It's just a merger. It's not a
subdivision. And it's also, you know, you never know
what else --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Pat, would this be considered a lot
line change or just --
MS. MOORE: No, it's just a waiver of merger. It's a
Paradise Point subdivision that I have, you have a copy
of the filed map, so.
TRUSTEE KING: We need to talk to Lori about this one,
too. Because my crystal ball tells me the lot gets
subdivided and another application comes in for another
dock. That's the bottom line. Right now we have one
dock per lot. Rights now that's what is on this, one
dock per lot now.
MS· MOORE: We understand your position. But it's two
lots. Technically, it's two lots. We want to keep
them as two lots. She has two children.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If you are that concerned, Jim,
table it so we can check with Lori.
MS. KOYLER: I would have to say, with his concern about
another dock coming in, first of all, that's not in our
plans. Second of all, that second lot is probably, if
somebody were to put a dock there, that is the most
unobtrusive spot in the whole basin. No one would have
an issue with that. But it's not in our plans to do
that. We did buy those two lots for our two children.
Board of Trustees 23 April 22, 2009
That was the intent. That was the investment.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim, I hear what you are saying and I
would not want to see another dock in this small basin
but I don't know if that gives us a legal right to not
approve something because we think, you know, if this
becomes two legal lots then that gives the person who
owns that other lot the right to apply for a dock.
Whether we approve this amendment or not, one really
doesn't have to do with the other.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Even if it was closer than 15 feet,
they would still be able to apply for a dock.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's my point. Whether she moves
this or not and it's legally approved it's two lots,
they could still come in and apply for a dock whether
we approve this or not. So this amendment really has
no bearing on whether another dock is applied for. So.
TRUSTEE KING: Somebody make a motion then.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. Zupa, you saw this plan and this is --
MR. ZUPA: May I approach?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, you may.
MR. ZUPA: I didn't want to speak unless I was asked to.
MS. MOORE: This was E-mailed to him today.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me, he's trying to look at
this.
MR. ZUPA: I received this late today. I don't have any
objection to this.
MS. MOORE: If he's talking, can you put it on the
microphone so I can hear?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He's saying he has no objection to
what is proposed.
MS. MOORE: That's wonderful, then. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, I'll make a motion to -- first
of all, we worked with them, we asked them to move it
over. My first concern when we went out there was what
effect it was going to have on the larger association
dock, and it really doesn't have any effect on that.
It's still far enough away. And I already explained
how I feel on the lot line, whether it's there or not,
so I make a motion to approve the application of
Patricia Moore on behalf of Steven and Andrea Koyler.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: How far is it going to be moved?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 13 feet to the north and five feet to
the west, as per drawing last dated April 17 --
MS. MOORE: No, April 22. It's under the New York State
PLS number on the right-hand side bottom. It's very
small. We are getting a hard copy. We just didn't get
it today.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's not on this one that I have.
She has three lines on there. I only have two.
MS. MOORE: That's weird. Here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because I saw right next to it, it
says April 13. No that says 4:13:05 AM. Okay. I'll
make a motion to approve as per the drawing as amended
4/22/09 and it even says the time 4:13:05 AM, to move
the dock 13 feet north and five feet to the west.
Board of Trustees 24 April 22, 2009
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Dickerson, aye. Trustee
Bergen, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee King, nay.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lori is not here. Do you want to move
on to public hearings?
TRUSTEE KING: We may as well. I'll make a motion to go
off regular meeting and go on to public hearings.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: All right, folks we are into the public
hearings now. Hang on, I make a motion we go back on to
our regular meeting.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: We'll go back into the Resolutions and
Administrative permits first.
Number eight, page two. Patricia Moore on behalf
of WILLIAM HAMILTON requests an Administrative Permit
to selectively clear the buffer seaward of the existing
fence line by removing the non-native plant species and
replanting the area with native plants. Located: 2674
Grandview Drive, Orient.
What were the questions on it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lori, on the Hamilton, we have come up
with C&Rs from the Planning Board. Can you explain
what's going on?
MS. HULSE: My understanding after speaking with Scott
Hilary is there were C&Rs that were not realized that
were in the first permit application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And they are Planning Board C&Rs.
MS. HULSE: Yes. And it apparently has to do with the
language there is to be no clearing in the area where
the applicant is requesting certain vegetation be
cleared and replanting to be done. So it seems that
the language of it was pretty clear that it was not
supposed to be any clearing in that particular area.
Also, I would advise the Trustees if there was a permit
issued that is in conflict with that, then it should be
reconsidered.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Were there other C&Rs also?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's the one we are dealing with
tonight, that was the clearing.
MS. MOORE: This is the Reeve subdivision, right?
MS. HULSE: Yes.
MS. MOORE: It was Reeve was the developer, as I
recall. I just want to be sure we actually -- because
I had him check. I'm trying to remember way back when,
I may have had him check his title to see if there were
covenants and I don't recall him saying there were any.
MS. HULSE: It was in the eady '80s, Pat.
MS. MOORE: I know when the subdivisions were done back
then, so it was the old Grandview Estate subdivision, I
Board of Trustees 25 April 22, 2009
think. Do you have a copy of those?
MS. HULSE: I don't.
MS. MOORE: Lauren, did you get it?
TRUSTEE KING: it was Grandview Estates.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it's Harold Reeve.
TRUSTEE KING: It doesn't say "nothing" can be done.
MS. HULSE: It doesn't say "nothing." You have to read
the language.
TRUSTEE KING: Clearing and cutting of vegetation within
100 feet of the top edge of the bluff shall be limited
to that necessary for maintenance.
MS. MOORE: That's different from what has just been
described.
MS. HULSE: Well, I said no clearing.
MS. MOORE: That's not what it says.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Your description says clearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Another interesting thing, no sanitary
disposal facility shall be installed or constructed
within 100 feet of the top of the bluff. That's already
there.
MS. MOORE: Pardon me?
TRUSTEE KING: That's already there, the sanitary
system.
MS. MOORE: It's close. It's really close. I don't
know. The drywells but not -- remember you had
approved sanitary but then we came back and modified
it.
TRUSTEE KING: I think the original sanitary was within
100 feet. But that's, sounds like it's history to me.
But it doesn't say you can't cut any vegetatior~. It
just says shall be limited to that necessary for
maintenance.
MS. MOORE: Right. And I think that's actually what Dave
has been proposing.
TRUSTEE KING: I think if you selectively go in there.
MS. MOORE: Why don't you put on the record what you
want to do. But I know you talked about it in the field.
MR. CICHANOWlCZ: Dave Cichanowicz from Creative '
Environmental Design. Our total intent is to cut down,
defoliate invasive pants that the Trustees, Town of
Southold, do not want to see. They are very invasive
plants. We are looking to eliminate and replant,
revegetate with acceptable native-style plants, as far
as the Trustees would allow us to go. Now, that's the
only intent.
MS. HULSE: I think very carefully, you could do that.
MS. MOORE: Again, it's maintenance. It's actually
environmentally --
MR. CICHANOWlCZ: We are not looking to clean cut and
put a lawn in. That's not the intent.
MS. HULSE: It was just unclear in the application as to
how much additional plantings you were putting in. I
think the Trustees --
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to see a planting plan of
exactly what will be done there.
MS. MOORE: What you guys -- what ~ have from -- that's
Board of Trustees 26 April 22, 2009
what I got.
MR. CICHANOWICZ: How about if we give you a better
clarification on planting detail and limits. Right now
we understand, well, the fence line, we addressed, I
think, outside the office about seeing if that was a
possibility of moving and it was understood that could
not be touched. Okay, so going toward the bluff we
need to know how far the Trustees would allow us to go
to revegetate with native plants, then we can draft up
a plan to go to that extent. We would like to go as
far as possible because it would be better for
everybody's interest in this case.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would just like to see, you have
already heard that the C&Rs say maintenance only, so
scale down as much as possible the invasive species and
a planting plan that specifically shows those removals
and what you are looking to put in and then when we
have that planting plan it would be a lot easier for us
to move forward with this.
MS. MOORE: I just gave you for the pool permit
application. Joe Fischette, you asked me to have Joe's
plan showing the fence. To do that I had to call the
surveyor to go out to the field to locate the fence and
that way we could then transfer it to Joe's plan. You
have that, and in the pool permit application, it's the
big oversized one, what I might suggest is that would
be helpful to you is why don't you work with this as a
scale drawing, if that's okay. I think it's large
enough that it might be easier to read and work with.
So if that's okay with you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure.
MS. MOORE: Do you want to carry this on for the next
meeting? Can we have it for the next meeting?
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Easily.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to table number
eight, Patricia Moore on behalf of William Hamilton.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off our regular
meeting and go on to public hearings.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Number one, JMO Environmental Consulting
Services on behalf of DAVID WlLMERDING requests a
Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct
a 5x46' fixed dock onto an existing 8x88' fixed dock,
to redeck the existing 8x88' fixed dock and to
construct two steps on the existing fixed dock.
Board of Trustees 27 April 22, 2009
Located: Private Road off of Equestrian Avenue, Fishers
Island.
Is there anybody here to address this?
MR. JUST: Glen Just, JMO Consulting. I have gone back
to the applicant at the site there last month. And at
the time they just wanted to replace the decking. And
as you can see from the pictures, the piles are shot.
It's basically going to come down to complete
reconstruction.
TRUSTEE KING: What about the concrete there, Glen?
MR. JUST: That's always been a bit of contention. I
told the owner that's what the Trustees are requesting,
and probably the DEC, and that's where we are going to
go. There might have to be some rock work done under
that dock, Jim, to retain the shoreline where the
concrete comes out. There is a big drop there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think we had a problem with
it. We just wanted to see that concrete removed.
TRUSTEE KING: Can we see new plans showing that -- we
have on this one I'm looking at here now, fixed dock
over existing concrete ramp.
MR. JUST: I just wanted to hear your comments tonight
before we had the plans modified.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We also suggested that you apply to .
replace some of the pilings.
MR. JUST: All the pilings.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you amend that?
MR. JUST: We'll come in for complete reconstruction
with removal of the concrete.
TRUSTEE KING: We have, I would kind of like to see an
open-grate walkway over that concrete that is being
removed.
MR. JUST: Again, after the concrete is removed, maybe
some plantings, things like that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's all concrete?
TRUSTEE KING: That's all concrete underneath.
MR. JUST: It's solid concrete.
TRUSTEE KING: So it's basically all existing. It's
just going to be rebuilt. We didn't have any huge
problems, removing the concrete and using open-grate
walkway where the concrete was.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why not the whole thing?
MR. JUST: I'll come back to you next month with revised
plans. I was just waiting for any other comments.
TRUSTEE KING: It's just my concern over the wetland
area to have open-grate.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Not over the bay?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's high enough, I think.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was just questioning. I never
heard doing just a section of it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's three feet high, so.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was just curious.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't see why we can't approve it
subject to receiving those plans, right?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any reason you can't use the open-grate
Board of Trustees 28 April 22, 2009
for the whole dock?
MR. JUST: I'm just looking at how high the dock is and
the waist line of the guy standing there -- that's got
to be three feet right there. What happens when you
take out that concrete wall? You have to retain all
that fill that is behind there in some way. That's
something we have to address,
TRUSTEE KING: It was found exempt under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any CAC comments on that?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think they got out there,
TRUSTEE KING: CAC did not make an inspection, so no
recommendation was made.
Are there any other comments, anybody?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing,
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: I think we can move ahead and approve the
application until we get a new set of plans showing the
open-grate catwalk where the concrete that is being
removed is.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Number two is postponed. Moving on to
Wetland Permits.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number one, SUSAN TSAVARIS requests a
Wetland Permit to demolish the existing sunroom facade
and replace with a new sunroom. Located: 2170 The
Strand, East Marion.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this?
It's exempt from LWRP. I need to see the CAC file,
Lauren.
MS. TSAVARIS: Susan Tsavaris.
MR. TSAVARIS: George Tsavaris.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: CAC does not have a recommendation and
I'll read what they say why. A vicious dog prevented
CAC members from entering the property and therefore no
recommendation was made. That's a first. At least put
in writing, anyway. So I really don't have any
questions or problems with this. Do you have any
comments?
(No response.)
This is basically a simple, straightforward replacing
what is there. There is gutters and leaders to
everything and there is landscaping, there is a pool,
then landscaping, and the slope goes up toward the
bluff. So it really, there is no impact on it. So
rll make a motion to close the hearing
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 29 April 22, 2009
(ALL AYES.).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the
application of Susan Tsavaris for the wetland permit to
demolish the existing sunroom facade and replace with
new sunroom with drywells, leaders and gutters.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And it was exempt under LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number two, WILLIAM & MARY STEELE
request a Wetland Permit to remove a portion of the
existing rear deck and construct a 16x18' addition to
the dwelling. Located: 1895 Leeton Drive, Southold.
William and Mary Steele are here.
CAC supports the application with the condition
that gutters and drywells are installed and all
undisturbed areas to remain undisturbed. So the
addition will have gutters and drywells. This has been
reviewed as inconsistent with the LWRP because of the
wetland behind you. As read from the review, the
distance from the wetland boundary to the proposed
action, which is difficult to see here, but there is a
wetland that runs behind you right here, and the
addition is, I didn't take a picture in the back, but
the addition is mostly what we were concerned with.
This was the new cesspool that was put in. This is
basically where your poles are, where your stakes are,
this one and this one. The field notes show there were
no problems or questions from the Board and I believe
that in following the CAC's conditions of gutters and
drywells would bring this into consistency.
Do you have anything else you wanted to add or
questions or comments?
MR. STEELE: No. Only to state that we already got
approval of the DEC. We have a permit, so it's all set
to go.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Good for you.
MS. STEELE: It came this week.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Actually that cesspool was just
moved and upgraded, so that would also bring it into
consistency. Any other comments from the Board?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the
wetland permit to remove a portion of the existing rear
deck, and that will bring it into consistency.
Recently the cesspool was upgraded and there will be
gutters and drywells on the addition. Do I have a
second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Dickerson, aye. Trustee
Bergen, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye.)
Board of Trustees 30 April 22, 2009
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Please note for the record Jim King is
out of the room for this vote.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Number three, 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 continuation of a hearing that has been
open now for a few months. At the last hearing we
tabled it and then when it was, we postponed it in
March because basically I had requested that the
homeowner give me the opportunity to try to see if we
couldn't do something with land preservation and
perhaps preserve this parcel. I did do that with the
support of the rest of the Board as well as Supervisor
Russell. So I went ahead and pursued it.
MS. MOORE: Sorry, are you talking Grace Hawkins or
Baxter?
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: No. Baxter. In any case, it went into
the land preservation committee for discussion and then
further discussion with the Town Board. And Mr. Baxter
was issued a letter dated April 20 from the Department
of Land Preservation, and I'll just read that so
everybody knows what the outcome was of our efforts.
Dear Mr. Baxter, the Land Preservation Committee
and the Town Board reviewed your offer to sell the
above-mentioned property to the town for preservation
purposes. It's understood that the property is on the
market for $475,000 and that you are willing to sell
the properly for something close to the asking price.
The Land preservation Committee and Town Board reviewed
the property in regard to purchasing it for open space
purposes. Both the committee and the Town Board
believe there are environmental and public benefits to
preserving the property, however the town does not feel
that spending $475,000 to purchase it is co~t effective
or in the best interest of the town. The Town Board
will be willing to discuss a purchase of the property
at significantly reduced purchase price of
approximately $60,000, assuming that this value is
supported by an appraisal. Please contact me if you
are interested offering the property tb the town at the
above-mentioned purchase price.
I don't think I need to say anymore. So with that
being said, and understanding that this has been batted
around for seven years, we have gone through a lot of
the issues concerning letters of non-jurisdiction,
where wetlands are, where the septic is, drainage
issues, potential for flooding. This was a subdivided
parcel, the man was issued a building envelope. Now I
think the only question is how big a house we'll allow
them to build and whether or not it can have a pool,
where the septic will go, how large the septic would be
and such. And with that, I'll open it up to any other
comment.
Board of Trustees 31 April 22, 2009
MR. CUDDY: Charles Cuddy for the applicant, Mark
Baxter, who is also here. I'll try and make it a
little bit less onerous because what we'll do is
withdraw the request for the pool, for the deck and for
the catwalk. What we are basically looking for is a
single-family dwelling, three bedrooms, three
bathrooms, the septic system. We believe the dwelling
is beyond the 100 foot setback as shown on the plans.
We would like the footpath, which is existing here.
And we would like some ability to get to Goose Creek,
whether we put down chips or something on the ground so
we can get there. But we are taking away, as I said, the
question of the pool, taking away the question of the deck,
taking away the catwalk. And I would hope by reducing it down
to that level, that the Board would find this an acceptable application.
I believe it's appropriate. I think you have, and if you don't, I would
certainly give to you the October 17 letter from the Town of Southold
which approved this site for this particular lot. And as the Board member
just indicated, there has been extensive review of the wetlands and that
resolution reviewed the wetlands from the point of the DEC, Town
Trustees, the Suffolk County Department of Health and the Planning
Board and found it to be appropriate. So if that's not part of the record,
I would just hand that up so it would be. But again, we are basically
asking for the dwelling at this point.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. Cuddy, when you say you want a footpath,
do you plan on improving the footpath or just maintaining what is there now?
MR. CUDDY: Just maintain.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just wanted to make that clear.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Just to summarize, for my own good, we eliminated
the pool and deck. I'm looking at the survey as I'm doing this. We are taking what was
originally proposed as a five-bedroom house, changing it to a
three-bedroom, which would then substantially reduce the size of the septic.
MR. CUDDY: It should. I can't promise you, but I would expect that it would.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: The Department of Health would allow that to be
downsized. And we are eliminating the 82-foot catwalk.
MR. CUDDY: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I know you said the size of the house is now three-bedroom.
MR. CUDDY: The size is approximately 2,500 square feet.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: As compared to.
MR. CUDDY: That's the house as it would be with the three bedrooms.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO~ The original was 54X31. It's a downsize a bit on
the house. It's a two-story house. Based on what I see here, it was roughly 2,800 to 3,000
square feet. With the reduction of the bedrooms, reduces the house a little bit'but not substantial, in
terms of footprint.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you, Bob.
MR. CUDDY: May I just hand this up as part of the record?
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: My biggest concern, I think, was the sanitary system
and the amount of fill that would have to go in there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: First off, I would just like to thank the applicant for
those adjustments that were made. Those are significant adjustments that you made between
last month and this month. So thank you. I think the only thing that we need to talk about a little
bit is the sanitary and the amount of fill that needs to come in to construct
that sanitary system. If there was any opportunity at all here to move that sanitary system a
little bit farther away from the wetland, so I'm looking at a little farther south, almost. But I don't
know that there is, with the driveway and the setback from the next piece of property there.
Board of Trustees 32 April 22, 2009
MR. CUDDY: We can certainly ask the engineer. It would seem to me it's
pretty close to where it would probably end up. The wall itself, Mr. Baxter reminded me, can
be lowered a little bit. It was a higher wall, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Last month there was some discussion about the wall being lowered.
MR. CUDDY: It would be lowered by about a foot, according to the engineer.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I also wanted to thank the applicant for doing what
we requested. But I think I would feel more comfortable if I see the new plans first and the
new dimensions of the septic, how much that will change, and the fill before I move ahead on a
decision. That's how I feel. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels.
MR. CUDDY: We can certainly show you that. I don't have it with me
right now. But we can get that to you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If the applicant is okay with that, I would certainly
welcome to be able to see the actual changes on the drawing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would also like to ask that LWRP review make
sure they look at those plans when they come in and give us a review of those as well.
TRUSTEE KING: That wall around the septic, will that be right on the edge of the
driveway?
Looks like it's right on the northern, or western edge of the driveway.
MR. CUDDY: That's the way it's designed.
TRUSTEE KING: It will be right on the edge of the driveway.
MR. CUDDY: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comment or questions from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: No, this was just a tough one.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So we'll table it to next month to get the drawings.
MR. CUDDY: If we come back with those drawings and they are
satisfactory, I assume the Board would make a decision?
TRUSTEE KING: I would say yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's just a sensitive area. I'm just uncomfortable.
MR. CUDDY: I understand.
TRUSTEE KING: It's kind of put the Trustees in a bad position. It was
subdivided. It gives you a right to build. You have gone to the DEC and gotten a permit,
gone to the Health Department and got a permit. What are we supposed to do, you know?
MR. CUDDY: And we are trying to comply with your requirements.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You have done everything the right way.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Again, I was involved in asking Mr. Baxter to
consider the preservation and, for the record, the price, I happen to know what the price
would have been, because Mr. Baxter and I discussed it, and it was certainly considerably
less than what the current asking price is. Considerably. But certainly not
as considerable as $60,000, so. The efforts were there. I want everybody to understand that.
TRUSTEE KING: The only comment I have, like I said, the septic was my
biggest concern. Could you change the expansion pools and put them to the west and put the
regular pools where the expansion pools are? You know what I mean?
It gets it away from the area. It gets it away from there.
MR. CUDDY: You want them placed further to the west? Is that what you are saying?
TRUSTEE KING: You have a cesspool in the western, northwestern part.
MR. BAXTER: I'm not sure the footprint of that can change because of
the distance away from the side yard.
TRUSTEE KING: Can't you put the expansion pool where that septic pool
is, closest to that little wetland there? Kind of a trade off?
MR. CUDDY: I don't think either one of us can say yes or no. We can
certainly go back to Young & Young.
TRUSTEE KING: That would help, in my mind. If we get an active pool
further this way and an expansion pool over there.
MR. CUDDY: Can I just step forward?
TRUSTEE KING: I really don't think there is any more that can be done with this property.
Board of Trustees 33 April 22, 2009
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to table this to next month so we could review the
revised plans.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. Cuddy, if you could get the plans to us as
soon as possible so we can get them the LWRP coordinator so he has them in time for the meeting.
TRUSTEE KING: Number four, 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 s sub base, replacing old culverts
with new larger pipes, grading and repaving, with two
courses of bituminous concrete. Existing unpaved storm
water leaks offs will be improved with rip rap in areas
not adjacent to freshwater wetlands and stone trenches
and landscaped swales 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.
The CAC did not make an inspection, therefore
there was no recommendation from CAC. And it's found
consistent with the LWRP policy standards and therefore
is consistent with LWRP, which was a plus.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Scott Hilary did have one best
management practice recommendation. The areas where
you are doing the open grating over the wetlands, he
asked if there was some pervious surface that you could
use between out of our jurisdiction reaching up to that
wetlands that is within 100 feet of our jurisdiction.
So not just the one area over the wetland but expand
that to be pervious pavers or something, just to kind
of extend that grated area. It doesn't have to be
grated. It could be some other material, but something
pervious.
MR. JUST: I want to note, we were going to revise the
plans so it's four feet wide instead of eight.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's good.
TRUSTEE KING: He has the following best management
practice: Hay bales, silt fences.
MR. JUST: I want to just point out, too, this is a
major project for Fishers Island. In part there will
be about 135 acres of property donated by people whose
Board of Trustees 34 April 22, 2009
property is on the bike path donated to the museum. So
it's a big plus/plus.
TRUSTEE KING: I have been over there several times and
looked at it. We all went over there.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Last year.
TRUSTEE KING: And went through it.
Where are we with the DEC on this one?
MR. JUST: We had quite a few meetings in the last few
weeks, believe it or not. And they are waiting for
revised plans as well. When they get the revised
plans, they say they'll approve it, based on the
reduced size of the walkway to four feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Glen, what's the total mileage on
this?
MR. JUST: Regrading of the read is a little over five
miles and the exercise/bike path is a little over
three-and-a-half miles. The lot on the side of your
jurisdiction is going to run through the woods and
along the roadway. The basis is try to keep bicyclists
and joggers off the road.
TRUSTEE KING: I was there several times. We reviewed
it with DEC and Freshwater DEC. They were there every
time we went.
MR. JUST: A lot of the path will be interpretive signs
to let you know you are going through wetlands, fresh
water wetlands, let you know what you are looking at.
It should be pretty interesting.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The bike paths within our jurisdiction,
are they going to be pervious?
MR. JUST: No.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: They won't be a pervious material?
MR. JUST: Some parts where they widen the road will be
pervious. Where the bike path is on top of the
shoulder of the road. Where it's over the wetlands and
things it will be grated material. Some areas of the
road that are within your jurisdiction that just will
be redone and widened a little bit, and that part of
the widened part of the road will be the bike path. We
made every possible attempt to put the bike path on the
side opposite the wetlands.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what Scott is asking, that
section, it will be repaved, if he could look into
making that pervious. It doesn't have to be the whole
thing in our area, but as much as you can, as practical.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the
application as submitted, and there will be new plans
coming showing the narrower walkway.
MR. JUST: There will be quite a few more additions
requiring hay bales and things like that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
Board of Trustees 35 April 22, 2009
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five 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.
I'm trying to see why he has it inconsistent.
MS. MOORE: It's less than 100 feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that the only reason?
MS. MOORE: I think so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lauren, is the LWRP in there?
MS. STANDISH: There are two files. It's the original
LWRP that should be included into the new file.
MS. MOORE: You have a separate file for the original
proposal.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is some stuff mixed up. This
says 2006 and underneath it says 2009.
MS. MOORE: It's been since 2006, though. This is a
night for old applications.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's all it says. Inconsistent due
to 100-foot setback. And I assume, let me look, that
the CAC didn't make a comment because I don't think
they got over there.
MR. ECKERT: We did. We got there with a big boat. In 2006.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The report from '06, CAC recommended
approval for the application however urges scrutiny of
the location of the sanitary field.
Is there anyone here to comment on this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Good evening. Patricia Moore on
behalf of Mrs. Hawkins. I have Grace Hawkins here.
She came all the way out, well, from Florida, but also
from Fishers Island. I also have Mark Burns who
prepared the coastal assessment report, Applied Coastal
Research Engineering, Inc. I'll have Mark provide
testimony for me just to, for the record, but I do want
to get started just to clean up some paperwork that you
have. The original plan, if you recall, had the house
much closer to the water. What we did is we revised
the plan. The house was reduced in size to 20x40. It
was, the plans that you should have, the original date,
1/17/06, and then the last version was done March 24,
2009, which is limit of disturbance, it's showing as
number six revision. What date do you have?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It shows number four revision. That's
the latest we have.
MS. MOORE: You should have the cross-section. I
delivered the survey, the same survey, but it also
added the cross-section. If not, we'll provide an
additional print for you. But it's been incorporated
into Mark Burns' report. If you don't have it, just
keep what you have in front of you for now.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's pretty much the same?
MS. MOORE: It's the exact same plan, it just adds the
cross-section of the slope which is actually very
Board of Trustees 36 April 22, 2009
important for the DEC, to provide guidance for the DEC.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can we see a copy of that now?
MS. MOORE: Mark, why don't you come up. I'll refer you
to the page, the reduced version that is in the report
so that way you'll have it in front of you. Here it
is. Page nine. If you pu~l out the report, have that
in front of you as well.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's where you gave us --
MS. MOORE: Yes, that's probably where it was then. I
have additional larger copies, but I don't know where
they went. If you turn to page nine. Now you can see
there, and Mark will go over the report for you, but
that's also been added, that's what was added to the
survey, so that's the only, and then what we also
provided for the DEC, that was the last version in
March 24 of 2009, the DEC asked us to identify the
limit of disturbance at the 15-foot contour line.
Elevation 15. And that's their limit of jurisdiction
as well. So all, what we propose to you, the house and
certainly the sanitary system, is all landward of that
limit. Sorry, I don't have more (Handing). If you
could see, the DEC limit of jurisdiction there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They are saying what contour line is
that?
MS. MOORE: 15-foot contour line. Ordinarily 10-foot
contour is their limit of jurisdiction. But they
wanted to establish 15 as their limit of jurisdiction
and we conceded. It was fine. It worked with the plan
in either case so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just can't believe that's 15. We
were out there, it didn't seem like it.
MS. MOORE: That's why the cross-section was actually
very helpful. It appeared much steeper. All of
Fishers Island is developed the same way, and this
showed the topography. Let's see what else I have for you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are merging just two of the lots
or all four?
MS. MOORE: All four lots.
TRUSTEE KING: Isn't there one tax number now?
MS. MOORE: Yes, this one~ This has been, just a little
background again. Grace Hawkins can provide a little
more history here, but she acquired the property in
1974, so in 1974 the property owner, Mrs. Hawkins,
would have been able to develop four houses on this
property. She chose to hold off until her children
were adults, and her lovely daughter is here as well,
kept her company. ,And here she is and obviously the
law has changed and she is building one house on what
is four lots of the Fishers Island development.
Do you have any padicular questions, because I'll
have Mark Burns discuss the report that has been
submitted to you, if that's all right with you at this
point.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you could summarize the report.
MR. BURNS: Five minutes; is that okay?
Board of Trustees 37 April 22, 2009
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes
MR. BURNS: Thank you. Mark Burns, Applied Coastal
Research Engineering here. I'll refer to the report I
believe all of you have a copy of. What we were asked
to do or the purpose of the report is, one, describe
the property and the adjacent natural resoumes and;
secondly, to evaluate whether the site meets regulatory
standards for development. So we charged forward at
that point and of course the first thing that we do is
what most people do is go out and conduct a site
visit. We went there in January of this year to visit
the property, took many pictures that are included in
Appendix A of the documents. So we wanted to visually
document the whole area. A couple of things about the
site, Darby's Cove, we found right away, was a very
well protected area, very small waves, even though we
were there on what we would consider a very windy day.
There were just very small waves at the surface. It's
very well protected in that area. As stated a moment
ago, the property is composed of four adjacent lots.
The proposed dwelling is going to be on a couple of
those lots, but all of them are together. The ground
elevation at the proposed site is about 17 to 18 feet.
There is thick vegetation growing all the way down to
the water line, literally right to the water's edge,
which indicates the general stability of the area.
Wetlands fronting the property are classified as
intertidal marsh. That's the classification the DEC
gives in their 1974 mapping. Finally we looked at,
just real quickly, at an overlay of the 1948 shoreline
in this area in relation to the 2007 aerial topography
and found that the relationship between the shoreline
in 1948 and the position of the wetland boundary of the
shoreline in 2007 were basically on top of one
another. So again it just indicated stability of the site.
We then went to regulatory considerations. We
first looked at coastal erosion and how this area is
classified and found out quickly from the DEC coastal
erosion map that this portion of Darby's Cove is
outside the coastal erosion area, it's not classified
as such. It is classified as intertidal marsh, and
maybe that's the reason why. And therefore the site is
not subject to the coastal erosion regulations.
Now, in terms of tidal wetlands regulations, what
Pat had said just a moment ago is the DEC
jurisdictional boundary is defined as being plus
ten-foot elevation mark. Unless the ten-foot contour,
the ten-foot contour down to the water line makes a
slope of greater than the angle of repose. Now, the
angle of repose is just a simple way of discussing how
the sediment stays naturally in formation, and what we
found, actually what people have found that publish
this is 33 degrees is typically the angle of repose at
this area. We are at an angle less than that and
therefore the claim was that DEC doesn't have
jurisdiction in this area. They have since written a
Board of Trustees 38 April 22, 2009
letter saying, yes, that's true, they don't, and
requested 15 feet be the elevation rather than ten.
Pat discussed that as well.
However, the Chapter 275 regulations require a
permit from the town when the proposed residence is
within 100 feet of the wetland, and the proposed
position of the residence is at about 65 feet. That
would be the bayward most position of the proposed
residence. So we brought that up and that's why we are
here looking at the, or requesting a variance. There
are a whole series, as shown on the report, and I'll go
to the page number here in a second. There are a series
of considerations given on page nine that need to be
considered when evaluating for variance on the permit.
I have them listed here A through J. I won't go through
each of them. I know you have seen them and know them
well, but what I will say is this; that lot clearing
and construction, in my opinion, will not have a
negative affect on the adjacent tidal wetlands and, as
I stated in the report, none of these items listed are
affected or will be affected by the proposed
construction.
And in final summary, just a couple of final
observations, there is a Fishers Island growth plan.
We looked through that real quickly and found there are
three items of particular concern to the group as
stated in the plan. One is that efforts must be made
to slow growth of the seasonal population there.
Secondly, the island should remain a residential
community and; three, the natural environment must be
protected. To that extent, just a couple of final
comments here. The proposed structure will be used by
Mrs. Hawkins and her family. There will not be any,
it's not seasonal, they have been thero many, many
years, and plan to use it that way. The proposed
construction, in my opinion, will not affect natural
tidal wetlands in the area. And third, the proposed
construction should not significantly increase property
values in this area. So the reason for bringing that
up is that it's consistent with the plan that has been
designed. And that's all have I to say. Thank you,
very much for your attention.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We do have a letter in the file.
Before I ask anyone else to speak, I'll briefly read
it. It's from Karen and Robert Logrippo, Peninsula
Road, Fishers Island. They state what was just said.
I'm writing to you as a property owner on Peninsula
Road. We've been there 50 years. The challenges in
planning is urgent to solve the island's problems and
improve island life in the community to work together
to create the Fishers Island Strategic Plan 2007-2017.
The holding company FIDCO retains majority ownership.
The property lots 71 through 74 is one of the numerous
subdivided lots on Peninsula Road not regulated by
FIDCO and therefore needs the Board's protection from
over-building for seasonal use. Although these lots
Board of Trustees 39 April 22, 2009
are unimproved, the threat of development for seasonal
use is a main goal addressed by the community action
plan. West Harbor and Darby's Cove are a main maritime
center in Fishers Island and is the focus of
water-dependent use and recreational boating activity.
It contains the three marinas located on Fishers Island
and the largest single concentration of moorings in the
Town of Southold. Fishers Island oyster farm, a
commercial aquaculture company and several commercial
lobster fisherman are based in West Harbor. The most
significant harbor management issues on Fishers Island
occur in West Harbor as a sometimes divergent interest
of recreational boaters and marine and shellfish
producers all converge within a harbor that is
increasingly congested with boat traffic. Any
development on Darby's Cove would encourage additional
boating and docking. Nesting birds in the cove's
environment will be impacted by this. He has photos
showing the environment birds. Island life requires
not just self reliance, strong community networks and
civic spirit, it also requires a keen understanding how
to live within these environmental constraints photos
of egret birds which lives in Darby's Cove -- and that,
again was from Karen and Robert Logrippo.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak?
Sir?
MR. AHLGREN: I'm John Ahlgren. Good evening. I have a
house on Fishers Island, Darby's Cove, immediately
adjacent to the two lots where the proposed
construction of a dwelling and sanitary system is to
occur. Both I and various members of my family also
live on Darby's Cove. I have written letters to the
Trustees objecting to the proposed construction, to,
(a) the potential degradation of this unique ecosystem
and the fact that the proposed construction does not
meet the hundred-foot setback requirements as set forth
in town and state processes. As you know, this is the
second submission for a wetland permit to construct a
house. The original was 21 feet from the shoreline. I
understand that from the applicant the original
proposal was reworked, however I believe that the
proposed dwelling and septic system still do not meet
the minimum hundred-foot setback requirement as set
forth in the plot plan provided to me in January of
2009. What benefits would there be in granting a
wetland permit that overrides current state and town
setback regulations and place new potential source of
pollution, i.e. sanitary system to Darby's Cove, which
was cited in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront
Program Report as a locally important coastal fish and
wildlife habitat? No sanitary system can guarantee
100% containment, especially in the event of misuse,
severe storms or hurricanes. The lots in question are
steeply sloped toward the cove. Leaching of
contaminated water is a strong possibly. The granting
of a wetlands permit would set a dangerous precedent
Board of Trustees 40 April 22, 2009
for other development on this fragile environment. The
salt marsh and hardwood environment that surrounds the
cove is one of the few areas in the west end of the
island that have not been developed. I urge you to
consider the applicable government regulations that
oversee the construction of buildings on a unique
wetland such as Darby's Cove. In particular, I appeal
to you to reflect on the possible degradation to the
cove due to the proposed activity that requires the
placement of a sanitary system on the property. The
Town of Southold has a world-class reputation where the
protection of the environment is a priority and I ask
you continue this legacy. I want to thank you for the
chance to state my opinion on this matter and my thanks
especially to Lauren Standish and Elizabeth Cantrell
for their outstanding assistance toward me over the
past few months.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sir, I'm sorry, I missed your, name.
MR. AHLGREN: John Ahlgren. That's my home right there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are the existing residence adjacent
to lot one.
MR. AHLGREN: Lot 71.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Lot 71. Sorry.
MS. MOORE: Adjacent seasonal resident, right? Are you a
seasonal resident?
MR. AHLGREN: Well, April through October.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So you are, one of the reasons I heard
you objecting is because the proposed house is less
than 100 feet from the wetlands?
MR. AHLGREN: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And your house, is it more or less
within 100 feet from the wetlands?
MR. AHLGREN: It's less. It's a cottage built in 1880.
It's an old fishing camp.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And is your septic more than 100 feet
fr(~m the wetlands?
MR. AHLGREN: No, it's not. It's grandfathered in.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just want to note, his property doesn't have the
slope that these three other properties -- this changes dramatically. It's
kind of hard to believe unless you see it because it's right next to each
other. It really does just go flatter.
MS. MOORE: But I also would point out that what you are dealing with
is setbacks from the wetlands and in fact Mr. Bergen accurately.
put on the record that Mr. Ahlgren's house and in fact all the letters
that you received are all from one family, and the entire family, there
are four lots -- no, three lots, and four homes on those properties.
And I appreciate that they are all pre-existing nonconforming,
but when my client bought the property she too would have been
pre-existing non-conforming had she developed immediately~
Unfortunately, at this point in time, she is having to develop four lots
as one piece of property. I also want to provide for you an aerial
photograph that I have that shows on this aerial, marked in pen our
parcel. And then to the left of the drawing, I don't know, I guess it's south,
are the homesteads of Mr. Ahlgren and his sisters who are the ones that
Board of Trustees 41 April 22, 2009
sent letters of objection. But you can see.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just found the other two letters you
are talking about and I will submit them for the record
so they are in the minutes. One is John Ahlgren and the
other is from Harriet McNamara. I'll give these to
Wayne to type into the record.
MS. MOORE: You can type those into the minutes. I have
no objection.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They are basically saying what Mr. Ahlgren
said. We'll have them in the record.
(INSERT)
MS. MOORE: Mr. Ahlgren's house also appears in our
report at page, Exhibit A-l, which is Mr. Burns had
provided the photograph, the numbers for the
photograph, but that's an aerial and it actually does
show the location of their house in relation to Grace
Hawkins' p~oposed house. Did you have any particular
questions you want me to try to answer, or?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have a question. I was not there~
But on the page nine cross-section, from the edge of
the road to the house, there is a proposed grade.
What's the purpose of that?
MS. MOORE: That's backfilling the foundation.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So it will kind of leave a little gully.
MS. MOORE: You typically have to grade back the
foundation, so a slight. I mean that's a theoretical.
The grade could be a little less or, you know --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because it has to conform with Chapter
236.
MS. MOORE: Exactly. And we do provide roof drains,
gutters, leaders, would be required here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the water?
MS. MOORE: Public water. FIDCO is the supplier of the
water, the utility is Fishers Island.
TRUSTEE KING: It says Fishers Island Water Company.
MS. MOORE: They provide water and electric.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have in our notes a test hole for
the septic. Is there one done?
MS. MOORE: There was. Yes, it should be here
somewhere. The soil conditions appear to be good from
our surveyor, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How far away is the septic from the
wetlands marsh?
MS. MOORE: The septic tank appears to be, by
measurement, because we have, the surveyor gave a
measurement to the house, which is 53, plus 20 is 73.
And then it's further over, so it appears to be at
least 80 feet or approximately 80 feet. Our requirement is we
have to maintain ten feet from the street, from the property line, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are measuring from the rack line
of the water?
MS. MOORE: No, I'm measuring from the edge of wetlands.
If we are talking rack line of the water, then we are 94.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
MS. MOORE: I believe 94 is the expansion ring that he's showing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, I'm glad to see all four lots
John Ahlgren
Box 342
Fishers Island, NY 06390
Ma~h 3, 2009
To: Town of Southoid, Board of Trnstees
Re: Hawking, Efface Burr Public Hearing: March 18, 2009
Dear Board Members;
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed site use of lots 71 and 72 on
penln~ula Road, Fisbers Island, New York Tbe proposed construction of a singie family
dwelling and sanitary system requires a wetland permit variance due to the proximity of Darby's
Cove. However, the granting of a variance to build a sanitary system would set a damaging
precedent for potential future development on a fragile landscape that is best leR in a natural state
for all to enjoy forever.
As cited in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, The Trust for Public
Land has identified Darby's Cove as a locally important habitat area on Fisber's Island. The cove
is a spawning ground for numerous species such as snapper, bass, shiners, minnows, eels,
horseshoe, green and fiddler crabs and is bordered by a noteworthy salt marsh and a coastal
hardwood forest. The cove ecosystem is home to osprey, red tailed hawks, herons, egrets, owls,
ducks, kingfishers, song bird's, box turtles and muskrats.
My concern is that the introduction of a new sanitary system, no matter the safeguards taken, will
introduce a new potential source of pollution to the cove ecosystem. A hurricane, heavy rain or
improper use could lead to leaching into the cove watershed, damaging this unique maritime
ecology.
When reviewing the environmental impact statement please remember that the Peninsula is a self
contained environment and any changes impact the entire ecosystem. When the Board views the
site this winter, please envision the woods and cove not only in its' winter dormant state but as a
vibrant marine and marsh nursery for dozens of species.
I urge you to consider the applicable government regulations that oversee the construction of
buildings on a unique wetland such as Darby's Cove. la particular, I appeal to you to reflect on
the possible degradation of Darby's Cove due to the proposed construction activities that require
the placement of a septic system on the property.
The Town of Southoid has a world class reputation as a place where protection of the
environment is a priority and I ask that you to continue this legacy. Thank you for the chance to
state my opinion on this matter.
Sinc~ly,
Property Owner, Lots 68 and 69
860-.490-5760
Harriet J. McNamara
20 Kalmia Street
East Northport, New York 11731
631.757.9109
Board of Trustees
Town of Southold
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
March 10, 2009
Dear Sirs;
I appreciate the oppommity to comment on the proposed construction on lot no.71
fi'onting on Darbie Cove on the Peninsula. This Fishers Island property is owned by
Grace Burr Hawkins.
I do not feel that there should be an easement of the current environmental regulations.
The stipulations preventing septic systems from being put within a certain distance of the
cove were created to prevent damage to the environment. They were arrived at after
considering data provided by evaluating many previous construction projects. The
scientific conclusion was unequivocal- damage results. The regulations were crafted with
this in mind.
The cove is a very small body of water and hence, I suspect, very fragile. There does not
appear to be a compelling reason to put the area at risk.
The lot in question and the adjoining ones (72-74) have been offered for sale to many of
us on the ponins~a at different times over the past few years. The current regulations
seemed to preclude any building and so they were considered over valued when offered
and no buyers were found. Certainly having a house built would solve all the speculative
problems but at what environmental cost?
I oppose any variance being given.
Sincerely,
Harriet J. McNamara
Town of Southold, Board of Trustees
P.O. Box 1179 ::
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Hawkins, Grace Burr Petition,
Lot 71 -74 Peninsula Rd. Fishers Island, NY
Public Hearing, March 18, 2009'.
MAR I 6 2009
Dear Board Members:
I am writing to you as a property owner on Peninsula Rd, Fishers Island, NY
As a long time observer of the island development. I have been keenly
aware of the island's environmental concerns for over 50 years.
The challenges in planning is urgent to solve the Island's problems and improve
island life, This community worked together to create the Fishers Island Strategic
Plan 2007-2017.
website: http://www.fishersisland.net/strate~c_nlan
The holding company, FIDCO retains majority ownership (60%) of the
Fishers Island. This property Lots 71-74, is one of numerous subdivided lots
on Peninsula Rd. not regulated by FIDCO and therefore needs the boards protection
from overbuilding for seasonal use.
Although these lots are unimproved...the threat of development for seasonal use is a
main goal addressed by the commtmity action plan. Seasonal population increases
and building would negatively impact the environment and infxastmcture of the
island which centers around a year-round residential community.
West Harbor and Darby Cove
"West Harbor is the main maritime center on Fishers Island and is the focus
of water-dependent use and recreational boating activity. It contains the three
marinas located on Fishers Island and the largest single concentration of
moorings in the Town of Southold. Fishers Island Oyster Farm,
a commercial aquaculture company and several commercial lobster fishermen
are based in West Harbor.
The most significant harbor management issues on Fishers Island occur in
West Harbor, as the sometimes divergent interests of recreational boaters,
marinas and shellfish producers all converge within a harbor that is becoming
increasingly congested with boat traffic" (LWRP, Sect II J. Reach 10-38)
Any development on Darby Cove would encourage additional boating and docking.
Nesting birds and the cove's environment will be impacted by this. (see photos)
"The Fisher's Island community is keenly aware of the trade-offs they have made
for their unique lifestyle. Island life requires not just self-reliance, strong
community networks and civic spirit, it also requires a keen understanding of how
to live within these environmental constraints."
Photo of Egret bird which lives in Darby Cove - picture taken on lots 71-74
Quotes taken from Fishers Island Strategic Plan 2007-2017
Thank you for listening.
Sincerely,
Karen and Robert Logrippo
Peninsula Rd. P.O. Box 34
Fishers Island, NY 06390
Board of Trustees 42 April 22, 2009
were being merged. When we were out in the field it
was unclear to us if that was happening.
MS. MOORE: And a really significant portion of this
property is being left natural, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we do have a problem from the
15-foot contour line seaward, making that a
non-disturbance area. I mean we'll let you have a
four-foot wide path down to the water.
MS. MOORE: I don't see a problem with that. I think
it's a natural, it's nicely vegetated. It would be a shame to --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Switching the septic around, would
that make the expansion tank further away?
MS. MOORE: I'm not sure. Yes, because the hundred feet
is the road, so, and no matter where you put the sanitary.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I mean switch it around to get it
closer to the house.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm saying if you move the cesspool
to the 94, I don't know if logistically that can be done.
MS. MOORE: No, cesspools have to be next to the house.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, I was just thinking moving it
to the farther distance.
MS. MOORE: No. I actually had Dick Strauss tryto give
me the best sanitary design possible, and we actually
created a linear system here. The expansion pool is
further out, so they are showing the two rings.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are just thinking if we have any
other questions.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. I know Grace wants to say
hello. You guys have been very kind to her over the years.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: While we are reviewing, you may get up
and speak if you want.
TRUSTEE KING: So on the seaward side of the foundation
you'll have about eight feet exposed, according to this drawing?
MS. MOORE: We are not backfilling on the seaward side.
It would allow for like a walkout level. Because of
the slope you might as well have the light and air, you
know, on the seaward side of the house.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It is a fairly small house.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: My concern was just, again, keeping
with our standards, to address the erosion
possibilities, and I think with that non-disturbance
buffer at the 15-foot contour line, that will address
that. You are making every effort to eliminate any
damage from erosion from the property.
MS. MOORE: Mark Burns' report was very helpful to us in
dealing with DEC in particular because that's an issue they always
consider. So Mark did a good job. Very thorough report.
TRUSTEE KING: I would almost like to see this limited
clearing a little smaller.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They can't. They have to put the
cesspool in there. If you look at the drawing --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question Jim was asking, if the
~imited clearing could be reduced at all from the
15-foot contour to maybe a little bit ~ess than that.
MS. MOORE: I think it's unrealistic to be able it to do
construction. We are, the 15-foot is a
Board of Trustees 43 April 22, 2009
non-disturbance. I mean that's pretty set.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: These trees that are here, are you
planning on keeping the ones that are *-
MS. MOORE: We are trying to keep as many as possible,
the ones that are showing. Inside the building
envelope, the ones to the south of the house, I just
don't know. They may be jeopardized with the foundation.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are not just going to go in and
bulldoze down everything.
MS. MOORE: As little as possible.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand you can't really say.
MS. MOORE: We have created a really small clearing
area. Really small.
TRUSTEE KING: With the hay bale line about the same as
the limited clearing.
MS. MOORE: It is. You can see the drawing. Sorry,
your drawing may not be as visible. The map that I
have, the DEC actually asked us to place the hay bale
line at the 15-foot contour to assure we would not go
beyond that point, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is DEC. I think if we do
non-disturbance, hay bales and silt fence during
construction, that would bring it into consistency.
MS. MOORE: Silt fence would be a good idea.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Gutters and leaders. Because I see the
drywell for roof drainage. Just mention that on the record.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. Are there any other comments?
(No response.)
Hearing none, I'll close the public hearing. I'll make a motion to close.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the
application of Grace Hawkins with the map dated as revised 3/24/09.
TRUSTEE KING: Is this going to be a two-story house?
MS. MOORE: Yes, it's only --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The bottom floor will be showing out.
TRUSTEE KING: You'll have an exposed basement, almost a third floor.
MS. MOORE: The basement area will allow some living
space but the number of bathrooms is limited by the
sanitary design, and it's designed for four bedrooms at most, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought it said three bedrooms up here.
MS. MOORE: Didn't it say four?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It may have somewhere else. There is
so much information.
TRUSTEE KING: It shows two cesspools, right?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to reopen the public hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: This is a four-bedroom home, proposed?
MS. MOORE: Sorry, three bedrooms, you're right. I
stand corrected. The septic system is based on a
three-bedroom residence. That was the design.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With the overflow.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just thinking back at another
Board of Trustees 44 April 22, 2009
application where they have eight pools.
MS. MOORE: This is a -- that may be a shallow system.
Shallow system requires at least five, sometimes more.
TRUSTEE KING: That solves that problem.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other questions?
(No response.)
Motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the
application of Grace Hawkins, survey dated March 24,
2009, as revised, with the condition that there is hay
bales and silt fence at the 15-foot contour line during
construction and then from the 15-foot contour line
seaward on the rest of the lot will remain undisturbed,
non-disturbance area. There will be allowed a
four-foot path which I would like to see on the, shown
on the survey. And gutters, leaders into drywells, and
to conform with Chapter 236 of the code, the drainage
code. And this makes it consistent, by doing the
non-disturbance area, makes it consistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: Can we make that a covenant with the county?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And if the non-disturbance area can be
some restrictions on the deed.
MS. MOORE: Not a problem.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And also, for the record, that it's,
not that it really matters, that it's a
non-jurisdiction on the DEC. Not that it really matters with our permit.
But that's my motion. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MS. MOORE: Thank you, very much.
MS. HAWKINS: Thank you, very much. Sorry I'm so
emotional about this. I read your minutes, as many as
there were, since last November so I could understand
your work. And when I did, I was very gratified because
I know your hours, I know that you go out and you look
at everything, and I know how you understand the
responsibility, and it opened me up to the
responsibility of individuals when we approach you as
well. I came up here to see you because we felt like
it was good to have a face on the work that you do for
us and for me to see you, even though your pictures
were up there. And I tried to remember all your names,
and I know that is Jim, and that's Jill and that is --
just a minute; Peggy; and that's Dave and that's Bob.
And that's Lauren, the secretary, right? And then
that's the attorney, and I don't know her name.
MS. HULSE: Lori.
MS. HAWKINS: And this is my daughter. She has been
part of this legacy of our lives, since the early 1900s
we have been doing this. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was I thinking it's nice to see a
face from Fishers Island, because we usually meet the
Board of Trustees 45 April 22, 2009
consultants and not the applicants.
TRUSTEE KING: This is difficult because it's a very
small, sensitive area, and I for one was very glad to
see it all combined into one lot. To me that made a
big difference.
MS. HAWKINS: That's where we have been my whole life.
My family has been on the peninsula since the early
1900s. I understand the Ahlgren's, we were family
friends forever. So I understand a lot of thoughts
that people have. Thank you, again.
TRUSTEE KING: Number six, Docko, Inc., on behalf of
SHEILA KENNEDY requests a Wetland Permit and coastal
Erosion Permit to construct a 4x55' wood pile and
timber pier including four tie-off pilings and an 8x20'
floating dock with associated hinged ramp and restraint
pilings. Located: Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island.
MR. NEILSON: Good evening. On behalf of Sheila Kennedy,
the applicant. We prepared the application documents
you have before you. Before I get too much into the
details of discussion and description of the project,
after my conversation yesterday with Ms. Doherty, I
went back to the drawing and found a way to satisfy
some of the concerns that had been raised, specifically
re-orienting the pier more toward the path. We have
already maintained an offset off the 15-foot offset
from the north property line. It did, a re-orientation
does make the pier structure a little longer. We have
been able to maintain our height over the existing
bottom sediments and so on. But I thought it would be
important to let you have these revised plans so that
you could see what this reconfiguration looks like and
I think that this will help you visualize it. There is
a letter that summarizes the change to the drawings and
there is copies of the drawings here for all of you.
The yellow mark on the, adjacent to the pier shows the
original configuration that we had laid out for this
project. And so I don't think it's necessary to dwell
on all of the special characters of this pier but I
think it is important to summarize what we have changed
so that you can see how we feel that this is better
complies with your specific desires and so on. I would
also note that we have already received the Corps of
Engineers permit and I believe we satisfied all of the
concerns of the DEC. I'll be coordinating this new
drawing almost immediately with them. First of all,
questions that had been raised, I mentioned the
realignment and you can see in the yellow hilighting
where the old pier was. It's a very light
realignment. We do keep most of the structure in the
old footprint of the stone wharf so it's in a disturbed
area to maintain a clearance ten feet off the wetlands,
as a minimum. The wetlands to the south. The end of
the floating dock is in the same position as it was
before. The floating dock has been changed to.8x16 in
accordance with the previous conversation with Mr.
Board of Trustees 46 April 22, 2009
King. The yellow lines that I have shown here on the
drawing is 25% of the waterway between the mean Iow
water line and Tennis Racket Island, if we stay within
that. So we are even closer to shore than the
one-third waterway. But this is the Corps of Engineer
standards. That's what we dealt with. There is a float
suspension on the detail. The Corps of Engineers
originally asked for chocks or feet on the float to
keep it off the bottom, but we suspended the float with
nylon shock cords so that the float will maintain
adequate clearance. We have used mooring whips. You
can see these curves, looks like bent-over fishing
poles, and those will take away the need for the tie
off piles, again, as to satisfy one of your concerns.
Vertical clearance over the sediments, I mentioned, and
the float size. That about covers it. I also attached
to this letter is the coastal erosion application sheet
that you requested and included was a $250 application fee.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I failed to mention this is also being
considered under coastal erosion hazard area.
MR. NEILSON: Did I give the return receipt cards?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. NEILSON: I would be happy to answer any questions
you may have as a result.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think you answered all my
questions. Does anybody else on the Board have any questions?
MR. NEILSON: We made the necessary call out to the pile
sizes, eight-inch to the pier, ten-inch in the float,
restraint devices, non-pressure treated wood.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you know what size piles we used on
the Baker dock?
MR. NEILSON: Eight inch.
TRUSTEE KING: Eight inch? I want to be consistent with that.
MR. NEILSON: I do, too. This is a little high. I want
it to be, I didn't want it to be too exciting.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's consistent with LWRP? Sorry, I
was looking at the wrong one. It's inconsistent. Jim
will look at it in a minute.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there a consideration for a grated catwalk?
TRUSTEE KING: No CAC comments either. CAC didn't make
an inspection.
MR. NEILSON: What was the basis of the inconsistency?
TRUSTEE KING: It was found inconsistent. Within
coastal erosion hazard area, to be constructed on both
near shore area and beach. All development is
prohibited in near shore area and beach pursuant to
111-11. But I think docks --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought when it was a water dependent
area that that would supercede no new structure in
coastal erosion area.
TRUSTEE KING: He has, under 111-6, allowable activities
may include open timber piles or other similar work
supports with a top surface area of less than 200 square feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is more than 200 square foot.
TRUSTEE KING: I thought that you don't need a permit if
it's less than 200 square feet. But you do need a
Board of Trustees 47 April 22, 2009
coastal erosion permit if it's over. That's my understanding.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lori, can you clarify this for us? If
it's over 200 square feet, that you need a coastal
erosion permit. It doesn't mean it's prohibited. It
means you need to just go through the process.
MS. HULSE: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The way Scott is warding this, it
sounds like he's saying --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have it right here, Jim. The
definition of unregulated activity:-Docks, piers,
wharfs or structures built on floats, columns, open
timber piles, similar open work supports for the top
surface area of less than 200 square feet or which are
removed in the Fall of each year. Unregulated.
TRUSTEE KING: But this is over 200 square feet. So it
requires a coastal erosion permit. It's not that he
can't build it. It's simply the fact he needs a permit.
MS. HULSE: He was citing the definition for unregulated.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So just because it's regulated doesn't
mean it's consistent. Is that what Scott is saying?
TRUSTEE KING: What he's saying, all development is
prohibited in near shore areas unless specifically
provided for by this chapter, and I think it is
provided for by coastal erosion. All development
prohibited on beaches. I never seen this used in a dock before.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any consideration using open
grating on the dock, the entire dock?
MR. NEILSON: I would personally not have an objection
to it. I have not really talked to Ms. Kennedy about
it. But the open-grate decking is a pretty decent product.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is so many different varieties.
TRUSTEE KING: So this is a permitted structure. Under
coastal erosion, you need a permit for it.
MR. NEILSON: The way I read the LWRP and New York State
DOS coastal management policies, there is no
prohibition against this. And while our first
alignment was offered really to keep the pier away from
what looked like it could be a beach where we did the
survey out there, that's not really a usable beach.
The sediments are sandy silts and pretty mucky and so
on. That's one of the reasons that we were so quick to
move the pier closer to the path.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: If it's in a structural hazard area, it
falls under the definition of erosion hazard area.
Volume restrictions apply to regulated activities
within structural hazard areas. Under 111-10, under
structural hazard area, the following restrictions
apply to regulated activities within the structural
hazard area. The construction of non-movable structures
or the placement of major non-movable additions to an
existing structure is prohibited.
TRUSTEE KING: That's more like houses. Not a dock.
MR. NEILSON: That's something that's occupiable. Docks
are almost always excluded from this because it fits by
their function their real purpose is to transition from
Board of Trustees 48 April 22, 2009
land to water. So they have do be in a hazard area.
MS. HULSE: I think it's just a size issue. You approved it before.
MR. NEILSON: I think in support of this position, I
think it's also important to realize that one of the
federal government issues is coordination with FEMA and
FEMA regards these as fixed, by their function, exempt
from their regulations, and since the Corps of
Engineers already issued a permit, that would take care
of that federal purview.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it's, he's referring more to a
house or building rather than a dock. I think that's
his rationale on this. Should we talk about open-grate catwalk?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, he's amenable to that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That further brings it into consistency.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we have no problem with the
proposal. I think that's the right spot for it. As best as you can get.
MR. NEILSON: If I could ask a question. The way we have
the drawings now, we have an elevation of five foot of
clearance so that people walking the beach, as few as
they are. We would feel better, and I think
esthetically, it might be a little more appropriate if
we were allowed to slope the end down a little bit and
maybe get down to an elevation of six feet instead of 7.8.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that the only reason you are going
the height is for traversing?
MR. NEILSON: Yes, and also because I know one of your
concerns is the amount of light getting through the
pier structure. And if we are going to the grated
decking, I would also like to go a little lower.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With the grated decking you could
lower it and you could do stairs up and down if that's --
MR. NEILSON: I'm okay with the height here. It will
just be from this, the middle pile out two and drop
down two feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Where would a person walk?
MR. NEILSON: The person would walk in this area here.
We'll maintain the five-foot clear between the bottom
of the fingers and the sand so that wherever they are
walking they'll be able to get under it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Could you start the catwalk out
further, out toward Iow tide further so they could walk
on the beach more and then start it out further so the
person instead of walking under the catwalk can walk
around it? I don't know if they would have to go on
the property above mean high tide, but --
MR. NEILSON: I'll maintain the five-foot clearance
between the bottom of the fingers and the sand.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand that. I'm just trying to
think of a different way this would be easier.
TRUSTEE KING: I think Jill is saying start the catwalk
further seaward so you walk around the landward end.
MR. NEILSON: Oh, up here. Yes, we can do that. We
started this at the sixth contour. It's pretty close
to the sixth contour, so we could leave a gap between
the path. I mean it's not like there is a wall there.
They can, there is a little gap between the path right
Board of Trustees 49 April 22, 2009
now. The vegetation kind of disperses between the edge
of the path and they can easily walk beyond the end the pier.
TRUSTEE KING: If they have five feet there, they can
walk right there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can start five feet out seaward.
That eliminates worrying about the five-foot height,
then you could lower the whole thing if you wanted to.
MR. NEILSON: We'll do that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because if you are doing the open
grating then the dock can go down to three feet
height. With the grated decking.
TRUSTEE KING: It's not in the code.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But if we brought it down there to the
three-foot elevation, that would be significant.
MR. NEILSON: We'll generally keep it up five feet so
the pier is not under water.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there a mooring out there?
MR. NEILSON: I think --
TRUSTEE KING: I just have a concern as to how close the
float is to the mooring. I think we have to have a
minimum of 50-foot separation by code, I believe you
have a mooring plan over in Fishers Island that is
separate from the town.
MR. NEILSON: When we did our survey, that was not
therel We don't have an indication for a mooring. If
it's anybody's mooring, it's Rousch, who is Sheila
Kennedy's mom and dad. So I'll get that straightened
out, okay. And if it is their mooring, I'll put that
on the drawing that I send back to you with these revisions,
TRUSTEE KING: Okay. Are there any other questions?
(No response.)
We downsized it from the original application and we
are going to the open-grate on the dock and provided
access around the landward end for pedestrian traffic.
And I think this brings it into consistency with the
LWRP. So I'll make that motion to close the hearing first.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: Any comments?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE KING: Motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the
application based on new plans coming in showing the
changes we have made and the changes we did make brings
it into consistency with LWRP. And it would be proper
separation between the mooring and the float.
MR. NEILSON: 50 feet.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it's 50 feet in the code.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I can't find anything in the code to address it.
TRUSTEE KING: It's right in the end under "boats and wharfs,"
rm pretty sure that's where it is.
MR. NEILSON: Okay.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 50 April 22, 2009
(ALL AYES.)
MR. NEILSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: So we'll get new plans
MR. NEILSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number seven, Docko, Inc., on behalf
of FISHERS ISLAND YACHT CLUB requests a Wetland Permit
to dredge 13,000 cubic yards of sandy silt with a
one-foot overdredge allowance of 6,000 cubic yards of
145,000 square feet by clamshell bucket for open water
disposal at New London. Remove existing "A" dock with
sailing program float, "B" dock with floating "T" end
and dinghy dock, construct 36 linear feet of seven-foot
wide main pier extension and seven 30x4' fixed fingers
with associated support and tie-off/fender piles.
Install 228 linear feet of eight-foot wide main float
with eighteen 20x3' finger floats, 216 linear feet of
eight-foot wide main float with thirteen 20x3' finger
floats, two 20x4' finger floats, two 13x42' sail floats
all with associated ramps, restraint piles and
tie-off/finger piles. Reconstruct or replace an
existing 12x20' floating dinghy dock waterward of the
apparent high water line and install a small boat crane
landward of the apparent high water line. Located:
Central Avenue, Fishers Island.
As Mr. Neilson will explain, we have some zoning
issues in reviewing this file. We found the yacht club
is zoned R-80. So he has to resolve those issues with
the Building Department and Zoning Board. So we will
not be moving ahead on this application tonight, but we
will open the hearing.
MR. NEILSON: On behalf of Fishers Island Yacht Club I'm
Keith Neilson with Docko, Inc. We are a licensed
professional engineering company in the State of New
York and we prepared these applications documents on
behalf of the club in order to show you the increase of
size that they would like to reach for docks A, B and
C. This being B, that being C. In previous
applications you have already approved replacement of C
with concrete float, the launch dock, the transient
dinghy dock and modifications to the C structure
facility, also a walkway along and behind the revetment.
The walkway was disallowed by the DEC. They said
that a non-vegetated buffer could be installed there
and we showed originally crushed stone. At the request
of the club, after rethinking, they have requested that
that be Belgian block or pavers so that kids are not
throwing rocks into the water and at the boats and so
on. The main thrust of this project, and this is a
fairly complicated application because the dredge spoil
for this project are supposed to go to a New London
open water disposal site off Ledge Light in New London
in Fishers Island Sound and it actually falls under the
jurisdiction of the Connecticut DEP and the Corps of
Engineers for the New England region. So we have six
agencies that are all working together, we hope, to try
Board of Trustees 51 April 22, 2009
and allow this. But one of the complications is that
the dredging material, you have received copies of the
testing results, requires capping, and the 13,000 cubic
yards requires a four to one capping. So we have
almost 60,000 cubic yards of material that has to go on
top of this. The only source of that capping material
right now is from the Navy dredging
project in the Thames river in New London, which is
supposed to go in September, some time between
September and December of this year. So we are
urgently and respectfully requesting your approval of
the dredging as soon as possible. But I'll talk about
both of the issues tonight. First of all, with regard
to the zoning, I don't know how this ever got zoned
residential. But here is a copy of the Fishers Island
Yacht Club in the '30s. And it is a yacht club.
That's one of the same buildings that is there now. So
I can't leave this book for you as an exhibit but I can
make copies of this. I was just given this an hour
before I came over on the ferry today and so I'll get
copies and we will work toward resolving the zoning issues.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think you would need to give
us copies. Just give them to the Building Department
and Zoning.
MR. NEILSON: We'll make sure the documentation on the
final is complete meet. Let me just flip over one page
real quick. It's easier to see what the modifications
to the dock system looks like on this sheet, and I have
11x17s, again, for you to, for all of you. If you pass
those atong. The bottom line is that they are going to
make their sailing program quite a bit more extensive.
Right now they are providing one of two sailing
programs on Fishers Island, Hay Harbor Club also
provides one and almost all of A Dock is going to be
reconfigured and instead of having one linear sailing
access float, there will be a sailing access float and
-~ do you have them? Okay. There is repetitions.
Each drawing is a set of two. So this is going to be,
the south end of the A Dock is going to be a sailing
program. "B" is going to remain almost all 20 to 30
foot motor boats. "E" is 30 to 40-foot motor boats and
the larger boats are on the outside of the existing
pier structure. The water depth varies from two feet
to six feet throughout the dock facility basin and so
that is what is driving the dredging program. And
because contaminants were found in the sediments
beneath the shoreline dock facility and B Dock, the
Corps of Engineers has dictated we have to have this
capping program and the cadsell (sic) is the best
option we have. I believe there was some interest
expressed in knowing how far beyond the piles or the
existing docks system the dredging would be extending,
and it's about 30 to 40 feet beyond these piles. These
piles right now are about 40 feet beyond the end of
this concrete float. So the edge of the dredging would
be right about where my hand is going. The club has
Board of Trustees 52 April 22, 2009
said they would put out marker buoys so you'll be able
to see the full extent of the dredging and be able to
visualize it. If you'll tell me when you are going out
there I'll make sure the markers are out there in time
for that trip. The dredging goes from four to five to
six, seven, eight feet and back down to about four to
five in this area, except where the sea stretcher goes
and we are just trying to maintain bottom clearance for
the boats. The sea stretcher has a three-and*a-half
foot draft so in order to operate at all tides, which
is mandatory for the ambulatory services they provide,
they have to have deeper water. This pad of West
Harbor is a trap. It receives a lot of marsh wave
action in nor'easters and sandy sediment comes into
this area and there is no way for them to get out.
There is no littoral flushing. There is no long st~3re
sediment transport currents that will take the sands
out. They come in here and get stuck. The only way to
deal with it is dredging. And the last federal project
for dredging was in the 1970s and I can't tell you from
the map that the Corps of Engineers gave me exactly
what the extent of dredging was done and which parts of
the project were not completed. But the dredging
project came all through this area.
TRUSTEE KING: I think one of our concerns is just the
northwest corner. How close is the dredging going to
go to that shoreline? That was one of our concerns.
MR. NEILSON: We are about the negative one foot
contour. It's about five feet off the apparent Iow
water line. We are five feet waterward of the five
foot water line. What we are trying to do there is
stay about where the lowest predicted tide is to that
so with a that we are sure that we are not running into
bottom sediments or characteristics that would be
classified as intertidal flats, okay? So we are below
that. We are below that lowest predicted tide.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are you requesting a ten-year
maintenance dredging?
MR. NEILSON: Well, we were actually asking just for a
one-time dredging permit. The maintenance dredging is
a nice convenience and so on but with the complications
of this disposal issue that we are going through with
the Corps and the DEP and DEC and DOS, it's too much.
So simple is better here. We'll just get the one permit,
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you, when do you anticipate it
would need dredging again? I know you probably thought
about that.
MR. NEILSON: Well, since the last dredging project by
the Corps was 1970, I think.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll be dead.
MR. NEILSON: It probably won't be this group that's
dealing with it. And the way the boat design is going
right now, I think with these depths we are providing a
lot of flexibility for the' yacht club. And the yacht
club really does provide a major service to the whole
community there. Because I think they have something
Board of Trustees 53 April 22, 2009
in the order of 700 members; So, I mean.
TRUSTEE KING: They don't have any haul-out facility
there, do they?
MR. NEILSON: Well, as a matter of fact, they do.
TRUSTEE KING: I mean for large boats, for washing
bottoms and that type of thing?
MR. NEILSON: No.
TRUSTEE KING: I wonder where the contaminants came
from. Usually it's bottom paint from the marinas.
MR. NEILSON: When the waters are this shallow and the
boats bump off the bottom, they do drop flakes and particles.
TRUSTEE KING: Enough to show contamination?
MR. NEILSON: The contamination barely exceeds the Iow
level criteria. And this was, and mercury was found to
be the contaminant that brought the problem on. And
that's almost never the case. It's usually copper and
cadmium. But now that you bring that up, one of the
issues that we do have here is in order to make the
hauling of the small sail boats and everything more
efficient, they do have a, we have added a 2,000 pound
boat crane here on the side and it's telescoping and
everything. It will look a little ungainly but it does
have a retraction/folding capability, so it won't look
like a monster over there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How does the Board feel about moving
ahead with the dredging? We should go out and see it
again, so we need to do that as quickly as possible.
And in the meantime he might resolve the zoning issues
by the time we get to what we have to do.
TRUSTEE KING: We can look at anything. We can at least
go through there and look at it so we know what's going on.
MR. NEILSON: We don't have to discount the dock
facilities, I would urgently request that you don't,
and give us a couple of days to see what we can work
out with the building official and zoning official.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: From what you told us, Mike told him
he has to approve it was a yacht club prior to '1957 and
that photo shows'that. I don't know if that's
sufficient proof for him.
MS. HULSE: That's up to him. I'm sure if he brings any
kind of something that is credible, he would be fine.
He just needs some proof.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What Ilm hearing you say is you don't
want to separate out the dredging from the rest of the
project right now?
MR. NEILSON: Not if we don't have to. If we do have
to, we need the dredging as quickly as possible.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to table.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Could I ask a couple of questions
first? With regard to, I know we talked a lot about
the dredging. I want to talk about the docks for a
second. I remember us going out there last summer and
there was a description given of, my term, a sailing
center out on the water. What I'm looking for here, I
remember in the discussions it included a structure
that was going to include kind of an office for the
Board of Trustees 54 April 22, 2009
sailing structures and bathroom facilities. Is that
still planned in here?
MR. NEILSON: Okay. No, it's not in here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, because I didn't see it here and
that's why I was asking.
MR. NEILSON: These are fairly broad floating docks here
that are slopes so a sailboat could be pulled up fairly
quickly and easily. And we have a cutaway diagram of
what they would look like. And the sailing center plan
has been dropped for the time being.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. That was my only question.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other questions?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to table this application so the
Board can go out and inspect the property again and
that the zoning issue can be resolved
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number eight, Catherine Mesiano on
behalf of HOPE SCHNEIDER requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a second-story addition to the existing
dwelling, renovation of existing first floor, reduction
and replacement of the existing deck, replacement and
extension of the front porch and installation of a new
septic system. Located: 1960 Mill Lane, Peconic.
We all went out there and looked at this. And
LWRP finds this to be exempt. The CAC resolved to
support the application with the following conditions:
Gutters and drywells are installed to contain roof
runoff, open spacing on the deck, ten-foot, non-turf
buffer and pervious driveway. There is, I believe this
is a continuation of a hearing. I just want to point
out there is a letter here from a Sonia Stein. I
believe we read that into the minutes at the last hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We did. I remember that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I know when we were out there we also
took a look at that, we had the file with us. We also
noted the letter from Mr. Fischette to Mr. Gerringer
about the fire issues there.
Is there anybody here who would like to speak on
this application?
MS. MESlANO: Yes, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of Hope
Schneider. You are correct. I had first come to the
Board in October of 2007 on this. The Zoning Board of
Appeals has approved the application as I have
submitted it to this Board. Very briefly, we intend to
raise the house by lifting it and adding a couple of
horses to the foundation, set the house back on the
foundation, then do a second-story addition. The
reasoning behind that is that FEMA requirements are
such that any improvement of greater than 50% requires
FEMA compliance. So the first floor, existing first
floor elevation of this structure is eleven feet, and
if we look at the survey we'll see that the flood zone
Board of Trustees 55 April 22, 2009
is an AE11. Therefore FEMA requires that the first
floor, finished first floor elevation, the base flood
elevation of eleven plus two, which is 13. So that is
what is driving all of this. Anything that we were to
do to this house would most likely constitute 50%
because of the way the calculations need to be done.
So simply repairing the roof or doing any kind of work
on the house constitutes that percentage thereby
necessitating all of this other work. So in essence we
are raising the house, keeping the existing first
floor, as you see, Mr. Fischette has also certified the
foundation and the first-floor structure, that it would
support a second floor. The reason for the second
floor is that the existing calling heights on what we
would consider the second story of this house are not
to code. So in order to do anything, everything has to
be brought to code. We are reducing the size of the
deck. We had originally asked the Zoning Board to
grant us relief for the front porch to extend across
the entire front of the house. They cut that back. I
think I have that described in my application to you.
It's shown on the survey and it's written in the Zoning
Board approval.
Now, I understand that when you were at the site
there was some questions that came up concerning the
Zoning Board's approval, but I never got more
information than that. Have you satisfied yourselves
as to what that issue is or is it an issue at all?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think there was a question, it
concerned the right of way and access for fire fighting
equipment.
MS. MESIANO: That piece of property to the south of
this subject property is not a right of way but it's a
ten-foot strip of land that is owned by the county.
And there is a drainage pipe that runs from the road
into the creek, yes.
TRUSTEE KING: How would I know that.
MS. MESIANO: Just in case you didn't hang over the edge
and look. That's a drainage --
TRUSTEE KING: There was talk there, Cathy, about
clearing that and going across the bulkhead or
something. I'm trying to find where that language was.
MS. MESIANO: Jim, it went on.and on and on and we
finally resolved the whole issue by my suggesting to
Mr. Gerringer that we take away the exterior chimney,
which is a projection on the south side --
TRUSTEE KING: That's the language I'm looking for.
MS. MESIANO: (continuing) and that chimney would then
be built inside the structure so it reduced the
projection on that side of the house.
TRUSTEE KING: Because they recommended going across the
top of that bulkhead. That's what I didn't understand.
MS. MESIANO: I didn't understand either.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have it here.
MS. MESIANO: I'll give you a little more humorous --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have it here. It was one of the
Board of Trustees 56 April 22, 2009
following conditions were to remove the proposed
chimney stack in the southerly side yard to eliminate
possible obstruction for access by emergency equipment.
MS. MESlANO: It just leaves you speechless. And the
other one, I have to share this with you. We had to
raise the elevation of the pervious driveway because as
Mr. Gerringer stated their new million dollar fire
truck can't scale curbs that high. You could read what
I said in response.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Concerning raising the grade of the
driveway and ramping over the retaining wall on the
southerly side of the yard for emergency access, they
wanted to build a ramp over the retaining wall on the
southerly side yard for emergency access by fire
fighting equipment.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I guess to put out large vessel fires.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He's talking about the fire truck that
is in his district? This house is not in his fire district.
MS. MESlANO: I know that.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Be that as it may.
MS. MESIANO: Yes. You didn't read my response though.
I'm disappointed.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm looking for it.
MS. MESlANO: Okay, I'll tell you if you really want to know.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I see it. I don't know if I could say this.
MS. MESlANO: It was very polite.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have a response from Joe Fischette
here. I don't see yours.
MS. MESlANO: I told him for a million dollars, I
thought the fire truck should fly. Anyway, the
retaining wall that is proposed is required by the
Health Department because this is a shallow system and
as you well know in the case of shallow systems, where
the fill grading is in excess of 5%, then the concrete
retaining wall is necessary for Containment of that
fill. And that is the only reason for the retaining wall.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: There is a letter here from Joe
Fischette that does state, based upon Fundamentals of
Firefighters Skills, there is a book called
Fundamentals of Firefighters Skills, fire ladders
should be placed at 75 degrees vertical. Using that
guideline we have 6.8 feet side yard. The distance to
the edge of the roof is 24 in height. Bottom line, the
fire department should have no problem placing a ladder
on the side of the proposed structure and still keeping
within the recommended fire guidelines. So I'm good
with that.
MS. MESlANO: Me, too.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Are there any other comments or
questions or concerns?
TRUSTEE KING: As long as the house doesn't fall apart
when they pick it up and it's a demo.
MS. MESIANO: With all that it's cost to get this far,
we are praying that doesn't happen, because it has been
so costly to get to this point that the project has
almost become prohibitive. In getting this into
Board of Trustees 57 April 22, 2009
compliance, the structure itself into compliance with
the code and complying with all of these Zoning Boards
many requirements, every time have you t° have a letter
stamped by an engineer, you write a check with lots of
zeroes on it. So we are at a point now where the roof
has leaks so seriously that the ceilings have
collapsed, the mold is growing in the house and it's
just been dragged out and dragged out. Despite the
fact that there was an alarm system in the house to
trigger a call to the owner at a remote location should
the temperature drop, that failed. Everything in the
house froze. So the water pump, the tank, everything
has to be replaced. And it was just a matter of, well,
you know, come back in three months and we'll revisit
this in the Zoning Board. So there has been a lot of
frustration with this and the truth of the matter is we
need to do this to save this house because it's just
going to be a pile of rubble. But just the tarps alone
trying to keep the roof from caving in has cost over
$1,200. So nobody wants more than us for the house to
survive the lift.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If it doesn't, you know to stop, come back.
MS. MESIANO: We know that.
TRUSTEE KING: That was the point I was trying to make.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any problem with the ten-foot, non-turf buffer?
MS. MESIANO: My only problem is they don't intend to do
any disturbance to the land except where the septic
system is going to go. I mean, it is what it is. What
do you want in non-turf? You know, we have the area
that is beyond the inflection of the --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's a real small backyard.
TRUSTEE KING: This is what is frustrating for me. Here
you have a county pipe draining all the roads and we
are worried about a non-turf buffer. It's so
frustrating for me. You just don't know.
MS. MESIANO: What can we save with a ten-foot, non-turf
buffer when we are trying to save the house.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, we created a non-turf buffer on
the neighbor's property.
MS. MESIANO: We had planned no disturbance in the back
except for the pilings.
TRUSTEE KING: Either that or just a no-mow area. Leave
it alone. Rather than disturb it.
MS. MESIANO: A ten-foot non-turf buffer can go from the
little bluff area back. Can you live with something
like that? Non-turf meaning something you don't fertilize.
MS. SCHNEIDER: At this point, anything
MS. MESIANO: Yes. If you want poison ivy, we'll give
you poison ivy.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have to do something to be consistent.
MS. MESlANO: Only if you do something to take the drainage pipe out.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I wish I could. We've tried that before.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll keep trying. It's a county
line. It's not on our list.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, I'lt make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
Board of Trustees 58 April 22, 2009
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve this
application for Hope Schneider, finding it's exempt
from LWRP, with the stipulation that there is to be the
addition of a five-foot non-turf buffer along the
bulkhead and that drainage, roof runoff is taken care
of and drywells according to the town drainage code.
TRUSTEE KING: It's just rip-rap on the shoreline, isn't it?
MS. MESIANO: Right. It's old, you know, whatever was
them, stones up on the edge. It's all sort of grown in.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number nine, En-Consultants on behalf
of $1LVANA CADEDDU requests a Wetland Permit to
construct approximately 70 linear feet of vinyl
bulkhead in place of existing timber bulkhead;
temporarily remove existing ramp and float and
reconstruct (inkind/inplace) existing 4x4.5'
cantilevered deck; incidentally dredge to a maximum
depth of -5 ALW an area up to eight feet off the
bulkhead; and remove existing patio over abandoned boat
ramp to be filled with approximately 18 cubic yards
resultant sand/silt spoil and approximately seven cubic
yards clean sand to be trucked in from an upland
source. Located: 1380 Wiggins Lane, Greenport.
The Board did go out and look at this. First off,
it is found as exempt under the LWRP. The CAC supports
the application with the condition that the pipes on
the property that are draining into the creek are
addressed. The runofffrom the roof, patio and pools
are addressed and a ten-foot, non-turf buffer is installed.
As I said, the entire Board went out and looked at
this. And first off, is there anybody here to speak on
behalf of this application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of Eh-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant. It is a pretty straightforward
application, except for the drain pipe. This bulkhead
had been permitted by the Board previously in the
mid-90s to be resheathed and the platform will be
reconstructed and the floats reinstalled. So there a
permit history pretty much for everything we are
dealing with. One of the things, I'm not sure why they
did this, but there was, the boat ramp was previously
bulkheaded across, and that's where that pipe comes
out. But the area between grade and the bottom of the
bulkhead was not filled in. They just actually got a
permit from this Board to just deck over the whole. So
part of the application here is to remove that
previously permitted deck and to fill that void where
the boat ramp was and replace the bulkhead as it
exists. I'm not really sure what to do about the
pipe. The pipe does, it's a 12-inch corrugated pipe.
It does drain Wiggins Lane from the grate that you just
Board of Trustees 59 April 22, 2009
showed on the screen. And I don't really know what the
homeowners, well, whether it's their responsibility or
whether it is or it is not, what the consequences would
be of closing the drain; probably the flooding of the
road and the properties that are up there, including
their own. Now, the tax map shows Wiggins Lane there
is a private road but I have to assume that it's a
municipal drain pipe. I mean it doesn't look like a
project that was done by a couple of weekend warriors.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We talked about this in the storm
water run meeting and Pete Harris said it's not a town
drain. That it's private.
TRUSTEE KING: Some of these old subdivisions, they put
their own drains in and instead of keeping one lot
aside to take care of runoff they just pipe it into the creeks.
MR. HERMAN: Is that something that would have been
approved on a map by the Planning Board?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Possibly. And Pete Harris also did
say further up they are re-doing the drainage there. He
didn't know what their plans are for here. So hopefully we can
kind of persuade them to upgrade that drainage.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, because since this is private
property, we are looking to eliminate that pipe, and as
we all know, in doing so that means the water will back
up and create an issue there for the read and the
neighborhood. So the neighborhood will have to address
that. There is an opportunity for maybe some type of
catch basin there, filter system. I know that we
talked about in the town putting a filter system into a
drainage system in other places also, which will fill
the water to the extent within it could, what comes out
of the other side of the pipe, the seaward side of the
pipe is clean enough to empty into the creek. That's
another option to think about. But we do want to at
least address there drainage issue in some way, shape
or form.
A couple of other things, there is a slope,
obviously, going from the inground pool down to this
bulkheaded area, as you could see in the picture. So
we were looking for a ten-foot, non-turf buffer along there.
MR. HERMAN: My only reluctance on that is just the
narrowness of the lawn area that is there. I don't
think it would actually be ten feet but if you look at the --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I apologize. That's what is in the
field notes. I know Jill just pointed to, that's where we had
talked about.
MR. HERMAN: If you look at the plan, there is a
seven-foot contour line there that probably, I'll just
get the scale out. It probably varies from about four
feet to about eight feet going from west to east. So
we can follow, we could just follow that point and just
call it -- I mean, I think we both probably want to
qualify the location in some way. But I would think if
you went back probably five feet, you cover it pretty
much across the extent of the bulkhead. I know what
you mean. It's just on that slope.
Board of Trustees 60 April 22, 2009
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. We also thought about, if them
was an opportunity, as we have done in other locations,
to raise the bulkhead to help eliminate that steep
slope, but then it's going to create issues for the
adjoining properties, because right now the bulkhead
meets with adjoining properties. So we were trying to
be creative out there in the field also to see what we
could do. I could live with the seven-foot contour line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I could, too. On the map I'm looking
at it says 8.1 -- no; 7.6.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, I'm looking at the seven-foot
contour line there.
MR. HERMAN: You could just call if five feet or the
seven-foot contour line.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let me just ask you this, with the
pool. The pool patio area, is that a pervious patio area?
MR. HERMAN: Dave, I have to honest with you, I didn't
look very much at the pool.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's listed here as a slate patio, and
again, depending how close together that slate is, if
that's pervious it would assist us with the runoff
issue because that would then be pervious, so that's a
large square-footage area where the water would be
retained right there and not come on to the slope.
MR. HERMAN: They are not proposing to make any changes
to the patio.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
MR. HERMAN: What I was saying, you could make it the
seven-foot contour or a minimum of five feet where the
seven-foot contour is actually closer than five feet to
the bulkhead, just to maintain the proper separation
there. I don't think they would have a problem with that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, on the description here I didn't
see anything about, when we were down there, we saw
electrical, looked like plumbing down there on the
bulkhead. You could see the electric -- I don't know
if you could see it in that picture. But I seem to
recall there was electrical and plumbing. I just want
to make sure if they want that there, that we permit it
in so that your client doesn't lose that.
MR. HERMAN: I think the electric is going to those lamp
posts where if you see the white sort of globe. I
don't remember seeing any and I don't see any in my
photos any electrical on the dock.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's fine. I was just trying to
think of everything to help your client out.
MR. HERMAN: I appreciate it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, what's the Board's feeling on
this pipe?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think at this point all we can
really do is ask Rob to go back to the client and
pursue something with the association. I mean, I don't
see where we can make any conditions on it. It's like
the other one we tried to cap off and we ended up
removing that condition.
TRUSTEE KING: That was a town pipe.
Board of Trustees 61 April 22, 2009
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was a town pipe with an easement
that the town had, plus it was on a town road. This is
different. This is all private.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But it's a private association. It's
not the Cadeddu's. So how can we put the onus on the
Cadeddu's to fix the drainage problem?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's why rm asking what the opinion
of the Board is here. Is there any other feedback on the pipe?
MR. HERMAN: I don't have any productive input. I really
don't. I know what's going to happe~3 if you cap it off.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We all do.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We could write a letter to the
association and describe our concerns and ask them for
their feedback and if they have any future plans to upgrade it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Just a side bar. Do we have any
comments about that fence?
TRUSTEE KING: It's against the code and DEC also. What
are you going to do? It's such a huge problem. I just
get frustrated over it.
MR. HERMAN: What are you talking about, Jim? Sorry.
TRUSTEE KING: The pipe. The mistakes in the past are
catching up with us. That's what is happening.
MR. HERMAN: When I looked at it, I did honestly just
make the assumption it was a town pipe. But now that I
know it's not, it doesn't make it any easier for me to
figure out what the resolution is. I just went through
this on a property in Riverhead where there is a
property going out the side of a bluff and it was
causing erosion of the applicant's property, and they
thought that the pipe was just, you know, it was a
minor amount of water during storms. And they cut it
and took it out, they capped it off. And I mean it was
like the Everglades for about four properties. And
they had, you know, the neighbors were calling the
police and threatening to sue the woman and we had to
actually go back to the DEC and get an amendment to
reinstall the pipe further down the bluff with a
drywell bubbler. And that is on land. I don't know
where the option is here because it's going right into
the canal.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think one of the things, an option
that we have is to write a letter to the homeowners
association basically saying it's a violation of 236.
It's your property. It's private property, the
homeowners association, and require them to address it
under 236. That takes the responsibility off the
Cadeddu's and on to the association.
MR. HERMAN: The only thing I think you have to check is
the first question I asked Jim is was this somehow
approved by the town as part of the subdivision. And if it was --
TRUSTEE KING: I'm sure it was.
MR. HERMAN: Then I don't know what to do.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: At least with the option that I had
mentioned, that's putting the onus on the association
and it takes it off the private property owner. That's
what I'm trying to do here.
Board of Trustees 62 April 22, 2009
MR. HERMAN: I'll take that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: One last thing that was noticed in the
picture that there was a wire fence along the,
apparently along the ramp area. It looks like maybe a
goose fence, so to speak, but I'm not sure what the
purpose of that fence is.
MR. HERMAN: I don't think I thought about it when I was
there. It's either that or just because of the hill,
for safety, if they have grandchildren or whatever, you
don't want them going into the canal. Because it's deep water.
TRUSTEE BERGEN.: Okay. Is there anybody else here who
would like to speak for or against this application?
(No response.)
Is there any opportunity for the property owner,
as a recommendation, to address the roof runoff issue
while this work is being done?
MR. HERMAN: Well, that's all I could say. I don't know
how you want to do it, whether it can go into your
permit or not. I mean certainly in the ideal situation
would be between now and the time that the other
permits are obtained and the time he would actually do
the work, if there could be some solution like perhaps
they would have a different plan for the drainage.
Then we might learn that we could cap it. But I don't
know what that would be.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, I'm talking about, the CAC noted
the roof runoff situation. Not from the drain. The
CAC had requested the roof runoff to be addressed.
MR. HERMAN: I don't know if there are drywells or
French drains for the house now. Again, the questions
relating to the pool, patio and the house, to me are,
they are just unrelated to the application, so I can't
give you a proper answer on it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could just take back that
recommendation from this Board to please address that.
MR. HERMAN: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments from the
Board?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE KING: I also think the roof runoff is
insignificant compared to what is going out the pipe.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup. With that, I'll make a motion to
close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the
application of En-Consultants on behalf of the
Cadeddu's at 1380 Wiggins Lane in Greenport with the
condition that a non-tuff buffer be placed landward of
the bulkhead extending a minimum of five feet or along
the seven foot contour line. And as another, they had
asked, excuse me, it had been asked by the LWRP if a
silt boom could please be used in the reconstruction of
the bulkhead. So we would like to put that in the
permit requirement also. The LWRP coordinator has been
Board of Trustees 63 April 22, 2009
requesting this now for any bulkhead replacements,
particularly in Iow flow areas like this to help reduce
the sediments from going --
MR. HERMAN: Okay, well the contractor just bought one
for another job so I'm sure he'll be happy to use it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's my motion. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And, I'm sorry. Again, this was exempt
under the LWRP, for the record. Thank you.
MR. HERMAN: So we are on the same page, what do you
want me to do about the drain pipe?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We'll address that with the
association.
MR. HERMAN: But I'll make the owner obviously aware of
the issue.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number ten, En-Consultants on behalf
of PHILIP STANTON requests a Wetland Permit to remove
the existing dock and construct approximately 35' to
the east a new fixed timber dock consisting of a 4x53'
fixed catwalk, 3x14' hinged ramp, and a 6x20' "L"
shaped float secured by two eight-inch diameter
pilings. Located: 302 Town Creek Lane, Southold.
Is there anyone here like to spoke to this application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant. As the Board can, I don't know what
tide you visited the site at but I did submit
photographs with the application that shows the
conditions of the existing dock at Iow tide, and they
should be in your file. This is a dock, the existing
dock that is there was originally approved in 1981, and
it was for a shorter walkway. It was 3x10' dock, 3x12'
ramp and 5x14' float. And it would certainly appear
that over the years as this end of Town Creek has
silted and shallowed, that that catwalk was extended
farther out. I'm not sure who that is but I think you
are probably walking right there on that section of
where the original dock was. And that section was
probably extended over the years, and I can't find any
permits for it. But based on our investigation of the
water depths of the site and also based on the
hydrographic survey that was done by Robert Fox,
basically abandoning this dock and constructing a dock
about 35 feet farther to the east and extending it out
really not very much farther than the dock that is
there, maybe about ten feet, we can get into much
better water on that side of the property. So we have
propose a new dock at that location in the east that is
shown on the plan where the outboard side of the dock
would be in about four feet of water at Iow tide. And
the inboard side would be just over three feet of water
at Iow tide.
The structure was staked out in the field. I
think the stakes were shown in the prior picture. And
Board of Trustees 64 April 22, 2009
this is, the scope of the dock would be consistent
really with most of the other docks in this area. We
are well within the limitations for the width of the
canal. We extend out about 30 feet from Iow water and
the creek is about 213 feet wide at Iow tide according
to the hydrographic map, so we are about 14% out to the
end of the dock.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Rob, we just had a question. There
is a mooring over here. Do you know how close that
will be? That's the stake, right?
MR. HERMAN: That looks like the stake. That's probably
high tide. Um, let me see if I have it. Actually, you
can see it, Peggy, if you ~ook at the photos that were
submitted with the application, you can see it a little
bit more clearly in the first picture. Where you can
see it most clearly is in the second figure. The
mooring looks much closer to the proposed float than it
is in that photo. The second picture -
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I see that. It's much further out.
It was just a question when we were in the field.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I guess the code says 50 feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's interesting, the code reads: Nor
shall any boat be moored or anchored within 50 feet of
any dock. In other words it sounds like it's the
mooring that has to be moved, not the dock. I'm just
interpreting this in the code.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It is a legal mooring. I checked it.
MR. HERMAN: It's not the Stanton's, is it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, it's not the Stanton's. That's
down further.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So as I interpret that, if the dock
goes in, the onus is on the person who uses the mooring
to move the mooring, not the other way around.
MR. HERMAN: Again, I'm saying this without knowing what
the exact measurement is. Maybe I should not say
anything at all. But just from the photograph that
actually shows the side-view, it doesn't look to me
like it would be a problem.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, it was just a comment in the
field. That's why I bring it up.
MR. HERMAN: You guys are always coming up with
something I haven't thought of. I try to think of everything.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't want to make sure job easy.
Maybe I could suggest that Mr. Stanton speak to -- I
can't remember the name of the gentleman. Is it Booth?
MR. HERMAN: Just ask John Kramer.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If Mr. Stanton could just talk to Ed
Booth. Ed Booth has had that mooring there for quite a while.
MR. HERMAN: Off the record, John says it's not going to
be a problem.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC supports the application with
the condition the discharge pipes are addressed.
MR. HERMAN: What discharge pipes?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And the proposed dock alignment
doesn't exceed a third across the width of the creek,
which I already addressed. There actually was, I
Board of Trustees 65 April 22, 2009
didn't take a picture of it but there was actually a
small drain in the dirt read.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, did you want to address that at
all? You don't have to.
TRUSTEE KING: Are these six-inch piles all the way?
MR. HERMAN: We are proposing six-inch the whole way.
There is only about three pile sets that should be in the marsh.
TRUSTEE KING: it's something he'll have to address,
too, is jetting these piles in in the marsh areas. We
just saw one last inspection and it was a mess.
MR. ECKERT: I don't know what drains they were talking about.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
MR. HERMAN: And eight-inch for the float.
TRUSTEE KING: We have been staying with 4x4s through
the marsh.
MR. HERMAN: I didn't show it here only because the
width of the marsh was not --
TRUSTEE KING: I think that's going to change.
MR. HERMAN: You think what?
TRUSTEE KING: The 4x4s.
MR. HERMAN: To what?
TRUSTEE KING: Whatever you want.
MR. HERMAN: Oh, I know what you're saying. Jim, you are
getting jaded.
TRUSTEE KING: I know. You think you got something
worked out so everybody is on the same page. It's kind
of discouraging.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is consistent with LWRP. He
did mention that: It is a maritime activity in
Southotd traditionally has been concentrated in harbors
and less increased developed coast policy number one
promotes a continuation of the traditional patterns of
maritime activities supporting the economic base and
maintaining the maritime character of the town and
avoidance of the remaining natural shoreline and water
areas. So it is a consistency review. It just goes on
to talk about the water dependent uses. Is there
anyone else --
MR. HERMAN: It is a heavily wharfed area.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else who would like
to speak to this application?
(No response.)
Comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: The or)ly comment I would like to make is
any disturbed areas when they put those piles in those
marsh areas to be cleaned up and straightened out.
MR. ECKERT: The neighbors must have seen some discharge
pipes there.
MR. HERMAN: I don't think you'll have a problem with
that with this applicant.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll close the public hearing; make
a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. HERMAN: Jim, put it in the permit. If you put it
Board of Trustees 66 April 22, 2009
in the permit, it will be complied with. I'm fairly certain of that.
TRUSTEE KING: The disturbed area in the marsh where the
piles are put in to be restored and replanted as
necessary. Thank you, Rob. A lot of it is the
contractor. Some of them are great, some are just,
blow it alt up.
MR. HERMAN: It's an owner who is conscious in that area
and the site is pretty highly supervised by the people
that deal with it, so, it will be done right.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion that Philip
Stanton's request for a wetland permit be approved to
remove the existing dock and construct approximately 35
feet to the east a new fixed timber dock consisting of
4x15' fixed catwalk; a 3x14' hinged ramp and; a 6x20'
"L" shaped float secured by two eight-inch diameter
pilings. I would also like to make a stipulation that
there be a condition that any disturbed areas, when the
piles are put in, be restored, if necessary, to the
natural vegetation and; also that there be
consideration for the mooring that appears to not be
within the limitation to the proposed dock but that it
be considered by the applicant in this process.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the drainage pipe.
MR, HERMAN: You'll have to start coming to these sites
with me, and when you meet the people so we can send
you out to find all the drainage pipes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: CAC said he couldn't find that.
MR. ECKERT: I didn't see anything on the plans. The
guys that inspected it --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We did, but we didn't take a picture.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We didn't see that it was directly
discharging into the creek.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think we commented but we didn't
see it as a problem as much as the last one. So I
won't add it to this motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's fine. I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Rob, if you could just mention that.
MR. HERMAN: I'm going to.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number eleven, Mark Schwartz, AIA, on
behalf of ISKENDER EREY & ANGELICA BENGOLEA requests a
Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct
a first-floor addition on the landward side of the
existing dwelling and expand the second floor within
the existing footprint, create deck over the existing
sun porch and install new windows, exterior doors,
siding and roofing. Located: 680 South Lane, East Marion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry to interrupt you, I would like
to mention for the record I recuse myself from this application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We've been out there and looked at it.
The hay bale line has been set up already. Everything
-- it really is not that complicated an application
except for there is a discrepancy on the survey and
then on the DEC maps for where the coastal erosion line
Board of Trustees 67 April 22, 2009
is. As such, there is no LWRP report. And I know that
you talked to Scott. I spoke with you today. We'll
have to address that.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I was able to speak with Nathan Corwin
and get the information to him. So I do have revised
maps that show you the revised coastal erosion hazard
line. (Handing).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So it looks like the coastal erosion
line actually goes to the house.
MR. SCHWARTZ: It goes through the one-story sun porch
which is existing and we are intending to add a deck
over that a[ea, a second-floor deck over that area.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All right. This is good. We won't be
able to move on this tonight because we don't have the
LWRP. So I mean we can take comments if you like or we
can just table it to next month so we get the LWRP
report and get to analyze that.
MR. SCHWARTZ: All right, we can table it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just a question. Has it been 30 days or
under 30 days since they've had the LWRP --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They only applied for the coastal
erosion permit today, so it would be under 30 days.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to table this
application until next month.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.) (Trustee Doherty, not present for this vote.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 12, Mark Schwartz on behalf of
JOHN & KATHLEEN BERKERY requests a Wetland Permit to
remove the existing sunroom, create a porch area on the
south side, add an entry roof on the east side and an
outside shower on the west side, interior alterations,
new windows, doors, siding and roofing. Located: 250
Bayview Drive, East Marion.
The LWRP coordinator has found this to be exempt
from LWRP. CAC resolved to support the application
with the condition that gutters and drywells are
installed to contain roof runoff, non-treated lumber is
used and the installation of a ten-foot, non-turf buffer.
I have been out there and took a look at this
project, and I also had an issue on the drainage in
terms of drywells because I did find that all the roof
runoff appears to be going into a corrugated pipe, a
four-inch corrugated pipe that goes through the
bulkhead and into the creek. Primarily that was it.
The rest of the project was fine. Is there anybody
here who would like to speak for or against this project?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. Mark Schwartz, architect. We did
realize that we had the drainage pipe there that was
existing prior to the current owners purchasing the
property. So that's something we'll certainly address
with this project, and add necessary drywells for the
roof drainage of the existing, for the entire roof.
And the proposed new roof over the porch.
Board of Trustees 68 April 22, 2009
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments from the Board?
(No response.)
Any other comments?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSiO: I would like to make a motion we
approve this application for John and Kathleen Berkery
with the condition that the corrugated pipe going
through the bulkhead be removed and that a set of
drywells be installed to address the roof runoff on the
property, and just asking once you determine where
those drywells can go, just resubmit a drawing that
shows that.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Cedainly.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.) (Trustee Doherty not present for this vote.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just note for the record Trustee
Doherty was out of the room and not present for the
vote. She recused herself from eleven but I didn't
hear her recuse herself from 12. We'll get that from
her directly when she returns to the room.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KING: Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of TIMOTHY & DEBORAH BEAUMONT requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and
attached garage containing 7,565 square feet; proposed
detached garage, 506 square feet; entryway, 260 square
feet; covered terrace, 585 square feet; rear terrace
with retaining walls, 4,500 square feet; four pergolas,
masonry retaining walls 326 square feet; bluestone and
cobble entry court, 375 square feet; gravel court,
3,500 square feet; asphalt court, 2,400 square feet; a
porte-cochere, 200 square feet; gravel driveway, 7,500
square feet; gate house, 225 square feet and; a wood
bridge, 760 square feet. Located: E/S Stoney Beach
Road, East Marion.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting for the applicants, the Beaumont's. You
folks looked at this property with us some time ago. I
want to say about a year, maybe two years ago, at the most.
TRUSTEE KING: A couple years ago now.
MR. ANDERSON: At that time it was owned by Chico; Jean
and Franco Chico. And the setbacks and the wetland
setbacks before you as shown on this project are
identical to the setbacks that were granted in the
Chico application. Just so you know. So there are no
setback issues different from this plan as opposed to
the previous plan that was approved. You may recall
that when the subdivision was processed and regulated
Board of Trustees 69 April 22, 2009
by the town and DEC, a problem arose in that the
wetland boundary was never actually delineated on the
filed map, and there is sort of a pod area where you
see the 75' setback and you see that wetland portion
that extended into the property was never identified in
the filed map. And that's what caused great confusion,
consternation, frustration in working with this
property.
This property is an eight-plus acre property of
which five acres of which are preserved in an
easement. And it was developed this way and it was
planned this way to be an estate lot. So what you are
looking at here is an estate-type development being
built on a lot designed for estates. Having said that,
one of the things we did in the previous application
that I have not done in this, maybe is an interest to
you, is to show a planting plan between the front
portion of the house and the bluff, which we did for
Chico, which may be appropriate in this. And I'll
leave that to you. But from a setback standpoint, this
is really an identical, it's a repeat of that previous
permit application. It also is obviously a very
expensive development plan, as you see, and a great
deal of effort has gone into it. I can tell you that
we have not hired a contractor for it yet but we have
made inquiries into the architect and so forth that if
we bid this out among local contractors and give them a
shot, because jobs are becoming tight. The economy has
been stressed out here. So there is that aspect to it,
which may be of importance to you.
Other than that, I think the application basically
speaks for itself. I will say also that you'll notice
on your survey that a very formalized drainage plan has
been designed for this and this will comply in all
respects with the town drainage law.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm looking for the septic.
MR. ANDERSON: The septic is where you see the gravel court.
TRUSTEE KING: There was a separate planting plan on
that first one.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, there was.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The LWRP is the same one that was
originally submitted with the other application that we
had, that will address the inconsistency in that application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can just note for the record that
the other, that we addressed it already and that could
be part of this.
MR. ANDERSON: I would request obviously that the prior
record be made part of this record.
TRUSTEE KING: This was found inconsistent. It was inconsistent
but it was found consistent because we put in hay bales, silt fencing
along with limited clearing, grating and ground disturbance area,
drywells and gutters to contain roof runoff and a revegetation of
areas north of the proposed dwelling. And that brought
it into consistency.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I say we go with the same
conditions.
Board of Trustees 70 April 22, 2009
TRUSTEE KING: It's basically the same.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Did you hear that list of requirements?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. You agree to that list?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. It's almost an identical project.
It's bigger but it's the same from a setback standpoint.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody have any questions?
(No response.)
It's really not any different from the first one.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I say we just do the same conditions
as before.
TRUSTEE KING: If there are no other comments, I'll make
a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the
application as submitted. We want a row of staked hay
bales, silt fence along that. Limit the clearing and
ground disturbance. It shows gutters and leaders to
drywells on the plans. We need to see a revegetation
plan for that north side similar to what was done before.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Unless we can adopt this one. Bruce,
do you want to do a new plan or?
MR. ANDERSON: I think I better because if I insert the
old plan it will be confusing as to what is being
built. But we'll follow the basic premise.
TRUSTEE KING: Follow the basic design, give us a new one.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That would bring it into consistency, Jim?
TRUSTEE KING: That's as per the survey dated February 17, 2005,
revised February 25, 2009: And I think that's it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That would bring it into consistency
with LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. ANDERSON: And I have one dated March 19 which shows
the stake in; the last stake.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't.
TRUSTEE KING: This is the most recent one we have.
MR. ANDERSON: The difference is it just shows there
this. There is no change in the design. These are all
the stakes that have been pounded. We set the stakes
in the plans, so you may want to use the survey.
That's the most recent, but there is no difference.
TRUSTEE KING: I would rather use the most recent one,
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want the planting plan on this
survey or do you want it separate?
TRUSTEE KING: No. Separate.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Bruce, we'll need another copy of this
when you get a chance.
MR. ANDERSON: What was the date of that?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: March 19.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that your motion, Jim?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 71 April 22, 2009
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I voted no on the first permit so
I'll continue with my same vote and vote no.
(Trustee King, aye. Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee
Bergen, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Oickerson
nay.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before we go to the next one want
to note for the record I recused myself on number 12 also.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 14, Charles Cuddy, Esq., on
behalf of LEWIS TOPPER requests a Wetland Permit to
demolish the existing dwelling located: 15' north of
the bulkhead and construct a new dwelling 65 feet from
the bulkhead; demolish the existing accessory building,
construct a one-car garage, abandon the existing septic
system and install a new sanitary system and install a
new crushed stone parking area. Located: 120 Terry
Path, Mattituck.
This is an application that came before this Board
~3ack in March, 2008. It was tabled at that time
because the applicant was going before the ZBA. And so
now it is back before us. It has been before the ZBA.
The CAC went out and looked at it in March, 2008, and
they supported the application if there is a ten-foot
non-turf buffer installed and a row of hay bales and
silt fencing was used prior to construction, and
gutters and drywells are included to contain the roof runoff.
MR. ECKERT: I have a different address for that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what is on the application.
That's all I could tell you.
MR. CUDDY: That's what it is. Terry Path.
MR. ECKERT: Okay. The memo I have from last year is
Camp Mineola Road.
MR. CUDDY: Well, it comes down and makes a slight curve
at that point. It's one in from Mineota Road.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was reviewed under the LWRP back in
April of 2008. At that time it was found
inconsistent. And one of the reasons was due to the
setback, 40-foot setback where the requirement under
275 is 100 feet. There was a recommendation that a
vegetated buffer be included to help mitigate that
inconsistency. And again, mentions setback issue of
40-feet from top of bulkhead to minimum of 100. And
that's what is in the LWRP. And I know as a result of
going before the Zoning Board, the ZBA granted a
variance of 65-feet instead of 75-feet from the
bulkhead, which means that the home was in essence
moved back slightly.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. CUDDY: Charles Cuddy on behalf of the applicant. I
hand up the affidavit of posting.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
MR. CUDDY: Just a word about the posting. Thorton
Smith is an owner to the north of us. He initially
didn't get a notice. He did get the notice because we
Board of Trustees 72 April 22, 2009
mailed it to him. I know Mr. Smith. He talked to me
on the phone for a fairly lengthy time on Monday
evening. He supports the application. He had, as
Lauren knows, spent a fair amount of time going through
the file. Actually what Mr. Smith would prefer is that
we were back at the 40-foot or less level because he
owns property nearby. Let me explain to you something
about the 65-foot situation. We are back farther than
anyone along that whole bay front for over a quarter of
a mile. Our existing house is 15-feet back. There is
no one, and I have gone through there, that is more
than 20-feet back. They are pre-existing homes, and I
understand that. What we tried to do is take an old
home, demolish that home and create a new home and
create a septic system that will be back more than 100
feet, which it's not now. The garage we proposed is
back a long distance away. So what we have done is
essentially narrowed the focus of our sighting along
the bay, because what we can't do, we can't do what
everybody else does, and that is to stay completely out
of the bay setback at 65-feet. Yet we've agreed with
the Zoning Board of Appeals that we are willing to
accept the 65-foot setback. And we are asking this
Board to also permit us to have the 64-foot setback.
We've have to comply with FEMA. We put a
non-disturbance buffer. We are behind a bulkhead. I
have lived in that area for many, many years. I don't
recall any serious storm that has caused damage there
in more than 25 years. I think at this point that I'm
aware of the LWRP inconsistency but I think you'll note
in the Zoning Board of Appeals decision, which I
believe you have and is part of your file, that by
putting it back 65 feet, that Board indicated that
would be more consistent to the highest reasonable
degree possible with the LVVRP. So I would ask you to
also adopt that.
We have a non-jurisdiction letter from the DEC,
and I'll make that also part of the record. I believe
at this point that the application is clear, the
setback I think is appropriate, and I would hope that
this Board would adopt it so that the new home can be
built, the old one can be taken down, and I think it
will certainly do something for the neighborhood,
because this home is now in a deteriorated condition.
And I'll just hand this up. This is the DEC letter.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Just for clarification, you
had mentioned in your statement that your client had
agreed to a ten-foot non-disturbance buffer and what I
see here is a non-turf buffer. So that's what I would
recommend is a non-turf buffer there.
MR. CUDDY: I mis-spoke. That's correct. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I also noticed with this change in the
plan it now brings the septic as well as the garage out
of our jurisdiction. So the only thing left in our
jurisdiction is the home itself. On the plans it does
include drywells that I'm assuming are for the roof runoff.
Board of Trustees 73 April 22, 2009
MR. CUDDY: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So it looks like you have tried to
address everything under 236. I know for myself, and
I'~ look for input from the Board, I think as part of
the ZBA decision, moving this house back addresses the
inconsistency under the LWRP, so that because the only
thing mentioned in the LWRP was the setback of
40-feet. So now it's back to 65 plus the mitigation of
the water runoff to comply with 236 would bring this
into compliance with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As I understand with LWRP, once it's
brought into compliance with one agency, it doesn't
have to be done again. So we can just adopt what the
Zoning Board did.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, the only other topic here that was
in the CAC letter was if there was, again, a staked row
of hay bales and silt fencing between the house and the
non-turf buffer, and what I would suggest is doing
that, just looking here, along that ten-foot non-turf
buffer line, if that's okay with the applicant.
MR. CUDDY: That's agreed to.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, and to try to affect as few trees
as possible in the construction of this as, again, as
part of the CAC request.
Are there any other comments from the Board?
(No response.)
Any other comments from the audience?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: A~I in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve number
14, Charles Cuddy on behalf of Lewis Topper as
described at 120 Terry Path in Mattituck, with the
condition of a ten-foot, non-turf buffer, and a hay
bale and silt fence line that will be placed at the
landward side of that non-turf buffer. And as depicted
in the plans, that there will be drywells, leaders and
gutters to address the roof runoff under Chapter 236.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. CUDDY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 15, High Point Engineering on
behalf of NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, LLC., requests a
Wetland Permit to remove the existing (1) 4k gallon
single wall fiberglass storage tank; install (1) 4k
gallon double wall steel above ground storage tank; and
install two two-foot deep drywells and 153 linear
feet roof gutters with downspouts to redirect roof
runoff from draining into water beyond bulkhead into
drywells; and to install a new 21' bulkhead using
vinyl sheathing, behind the existing bulkhead (to be
Board of Trustees 74 April 22, 2009
left in place.) Located: 6775 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, Jill. Sorry, Mr. Cuddy, just for
a second, I have to go back to reopen. Just for a
technicality, the Lewis Topper application. Because I
didn't address it in the resolution the consistency
under the LWRP. So, I would like to make a motion to
reopen that number 14, Lewis Topper.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have to reopen the hearing?
Because you are making the resolution.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't want to reopen the hearing but
I want to go back to the application to address the resolution.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The motion is to go back to the
resolution?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under the resolution for number 14,
Charles Cuddy on behalf of Lewis Topper, 120 Terry
Path, that the changes that we described in the
resolution would then bring it into consistency under
the LWRP. I make that motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, for your patience. I
apologize for that error.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Continuing with number 15,
NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD.
The added thing with the bulkhead is the return to
the left of the bulkhead. We asked them to add it.
They did and submitted plans to do that. This is
consistent with LWRP, and CAC resolved to support the
application.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. TARTAGLIA: Yes. Chris Tadaglia with' High Point
Engineering on behalf of applicant.
The hour is late so I'll just get straight to the
point. The application is for an installation of a new
above-ground gasoline tank. Suffolk County Article 12
Regulations require that all single-wall tanks be out
of the ground and out of service by January 1, 2010, so
my client has made application with Suffolk County
Health Department, New York State DEC and of course
this Board, for that purpose, to secure the approvals.
As far as our status of those permits, starting with
Suffolk County, we finally got our response after about
eight months of being into the county. They wanted to
see a tank that had a protective dike around it. Just
by way of description, the tank that was proposed
before was a double-wall tank. The county has gone
through some changes recently with regard to the
interpretations of their code and they wanted to see
essentially tertiary protection around the outside of
Board of Trustees 75 April 22, 2009
the tank; a tank with a dike. So this Board should
have received last week, I guess we sent it in, the
amended plan showing the tank with the dike. The tank
is basically the same in all respects except now it has
a bathtub under it that has 110% containment capacity
of the tank.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We were all out there, actually a year
ago and also recently, and the only comment we had was,
which I had spoken to Mike on, there was, we noticed a
pipe, white pipe coming from the parking area toward
the water, and we asked that to be capped off.
MR. iRViNG: The pipe has been pulled out already.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And to include new sheathing, which
you did. The other thing that we requested is any other
further paperwork you have from the DEC or the Health
Department regarding the removal of the old pipe, that
we would please get that.
MR. TARTAGLIA: One more thing, I guess I didn't get to
finish, is the DEC has actually granted us a verbal
approval. They are just awaiting Suffolk County
approval, in order for them to give us their approval.
This is on the tank installation. The pipe is piece is
a little new to me, but I'll confer with Michael on
that to get the details on that. One thing I want to
add in support of the application, I have a letter here
from Larry Tuthill. Larry is the property owner of one
of our notified adjoining Suffolk County tax map number
117-5-47. Did you have a copy of that?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we have that. He supports the
application
MR. TARTAGLIA: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any questions from the
Board?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What has been planned to deal with the
rain water in the dike?
MR. TARTAGLIA: The dike itself, the tank itself is actually a
neat design. It's designed with rain shields around the outside of
the dike. I have a detail on it in the plans here. Long story short, the
dike is kept water tight.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Bob, do you want to see it?
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: (Perusing.)
MR. TARTAGLIA: I have a detail here if you wish to see it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's basically putting a roof over it.
MR. TARTAGLIA: The dike itself, the roof goes up the
sides and the shields are welded. If I may approach.
The rain shields themselves, this is a section, the
rain shields themselves are actually welded to the side
of the tank and goes over the top of the dike. It's a
pretty neat set up.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Great.
TRUSTEE KING: They can chain that down, too?
MR. TARTAGLIA: Yes, we have that in the detail, all
four corners of the tank.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments from the audience?
(No response.)
From the Board?
Board of Trustees 76 April 22, 2009
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: Ail in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. TARTAGLIA: Thank you, folks.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the
application of High Point Engineering on behalf of New
Suffolk Shipyard, as applied for. And it's found
consistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 16, Peconic Permit Expediting on
behalf of MADELINE DROEGE requests a Wetland Permit to
construct exterior stairs from the second floor deck to
grade. Located: 885 Perry's Drive, Orient.
I'm familiar with the application and the site. It has
been found to be exempt by the LWRP. CAC supports the
application with the condition that the existing gravel
non-turf buffer be continued across the top of the
bluff, setback on the grass line, non-treated lumber is
used and drywells installed to contain the pool
backwash and the roof runoff.
This is for a set of stairs that is on the back
side of the garage, roughly 60 feet from the top of the
bluff. I don't see any problem with this at all,
environmentally or otherwise. I'm not quite sure about
the non-turf buffer. I didn't go far away from the
bluff. I didn't even look, quite honestly. Has CAC
got any comments on that?
MR. ECKERT: I was not out there. Two other guys were.
MR. LEHNERT: It's about 60 feet from the top of the
bluff. It's within the line of the existing deck. And
the other question you brought up, the overflow for the
pool, there is already an overflow pool there from when
they did the original pool project, for the pool.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aside from that, I don't have any other
questions or concerns. Anybody else want to speak on this?
MS. WlCKHAM: Good evening. My name is Abigail Wickham
of Mattituck. I'm here tonight to behalf of the
adjoining owner immediately to the east, the Mallis family.
I would just like the Trustees to consider three
points before you make your decision. The first is
that this house exists in this location due to a very
substantial variance the ZBA granted quite a number of
years ago due to the insufficient distance of the house
from the bluff. The actual building envelope was
extremely small. They are now asking to further
increase the footprint of a non-conforming structure
for really no compelling purpose, at the point closest
to the bluff and even more closer to the bluff than the
existing structure. It is not behind the tine of the
existing house or the existing deck. I don't see a
compelling reason for the stairway. Obviously it would
Board of Trustees 77 April 22, 2009
be nice, probably, if they could get from the deck
down, but for all these years they have not needed to,
they have been able to go out the house to the ground
level. So I don't think, nor have they shown any
alternatives like putting something under the existing
deck, a spiral staircase or even assuming they needed a
stairway.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did you say the stairs were going
farther out to the b~uff?
MS. WICKHAM: According to the map, which I have, which
is very small, and the map that I looked at in the ZBA,
the actual line from the b~uff is closer than the house
line. The house line is at an angle. The deck ~ine.
And this is closer to the bluff, by a triangle.
MR. LEHNERT: The line of the bluff actually bends out
toward the house in that corner. The pool, toward the
west side of the house, is actually closer to the top
of the bluff, the edge of the pool.
MS. WlCKHAM: Either way, it's a very small building
envelope and now you are adding one more structure to
it. I don't know if the Board is aware that the impetus
for this application is probably the fact that they are
applying for a bed and breakfast, and that hearing will
be before the Zoning Board of Appeals tomorrow. So not
only are they expanding a nonconforming use but they
will be dramatically increasing the impact on this
property by the use of that deck to the tune of,
potentially for ten house guests at a time
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I would imagine if it's 'approved for a
bed and breakfast this will be their means for a
secondary egress. As far as the Trustees are concerned
whether or not it's a bed and breakfast has no relevance.
MS. WlCKHAM: Only in terms of usage.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Any other comments or questions?
MS. WlCKHAM: Yes. The second thing I would like to
point out, there seems to be an existing illegal sauna
built without any regard for the regulations out by the
bluff. I believe the town issued a violation on it
some time ago. Years ago. I don't think anything was
ever done with it. I think the Trustees might be
interested in exploring that; it's existence, it's
continued existence. And the third thing was that
since a bed and breakfast is proposed, and that seems
to be the only reason they want it, that perhaps if an
approval is granted by this Board that it be
conditioned on them getting a ZBA approval of the bed
and breakfast, otherwise that wouldn't need it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's in our permit conditions
already, on the back of our conditions, to get all
other permits necessary.
MS. WlCKHAM: That's a little different, Jill.
MR. LEHNERT: We don't need the ZBA for the set of
steps. So this should be completely separate than what
we are doing tomorrow morning.
MS. WICKHAM: I would disagree. I think it should be
contingent on that because that's why they want it.
Board of Trustees 78 April 22, 2009
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But for our Board, environmentally
speaking, I don't think what has been applied to us,
from our perspective, is a problem.
TRUSTEE KING: Do they need to go to Zoning for these
set of stairs?
MR. LEHNERT: No. The Zoning Board is a separate
question than the bed and breakfast use.
MS. WlCKHAM: I think that is a question as well, which --
MR. LEHNERT: We have the denial from the Building
Department.
MS. WICKHAM: I think they missed it. I think on your
application to the Zoning Board of Appeals, I don't
believe you showed the stairs.
MR. LEHNERT: We are far enough back. We meet all the
side yards, the rear yards.
MS. WlCKHAM: You are 100 feet from the bluff?
MR. LEHNERT: We don't have to be for the Building
Department. We have to be for here.
MS. WlCKHAM: Under the zoning code I think you have to
be 100 feet from the bluff.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: These are not issues for the Trustees.
That's a zoning issue, so.
MS. WICKHAM: Maybe you want to hold until we clarify
that with the Zoning Board and the Building Department.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Any other comments from the Board? Any
questions?
(No response.)
MR. LEHNERT: There is really no reason to wait for the
Zoning Board for a set of steps. The application here
has absolutely nothing to do with the bed and breakfast
application going forth tomorrow.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. No other comments, I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to
approve the application as submitted for Madeline
Droege for the set of stairs noting that it has been
found to be exempt by the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AY. ES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 17, Peconic Permit Expediting
on behalf of KELLY MYERS requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 633 square foot deck at the rear of the
dwelling. Located: 1730 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck.
This was found inconsistent with LWRP and CAC
supports the application with the condition non-treated
lumber is used on the deck. CAC further recommends the
clean up of the hazardous dock that grounded on the
bottom and the impassible rig.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. LEHNERT: Rob Lehnert, Peconic Permit Expediting.
Board of Trustees 79 April 22, 2009
Again, it's a small deck off the back of the house.
The bulkhead has been there for previous applications.
We have non-jurisdiction from DEC, which I believe I
included in your package. And it's basically just to
redo the small steps and little pieces of deck that are
there into something more user-friendly for the owner.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have a problem using
non-treated lumber for the deck? That would bring it
into consistency with the LWRP.
MR. LEHNERT: Not at all.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As far as the dock, I didn't pay
attention to it because it's winter. I just assumed it
happened over the winter and they'll be fixing the
dock. But I see in the picture here, the ramp is going
right in the water and it's not reaching the float.
MR. LEHNERT: The owner of the house that originally
hired me has passed away over the winter and his wife
is picking up the project. So there will be a couple
of repairs that have to be done this summer.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just a note to the rest of the Board
since I inspected it. There is plenty buffer; there is
a gravel buffer and behind the gravel buffer is
plantings, then the grass. So it's more than we
probably would ask for if there was nothing. And there
is, I didn't see the drywells on the plan. Do you have
drywells and gutters on the house?
MR. LEHNERT: I don't have drywells on the plans because
we are just doing the deck.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I see from the picture there are
drywells on this, so there is really no other
mitigation I could recommend. Are there any other
comments?
(No response.)
Hearing none, I'll motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the
application of Peconic Permit Expediting on behalf of
Kelly Myers with the condition that non-treated lumber
be used, which will bring that into consistency with
the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. LEHNERT: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
RECEIVED
2 6 2009