HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-06/24/2009 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
BOAP,,I) OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN ~4~n~THOLD
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
6:00 PM
Present Were: James King, President
Jill Doherty, Vice-President
Peggy Dickerson, Trustee
Dave Bergen, Trustee
Robert Ghosio, Trustee
Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant
P CF Vm
SEP - 3 2009,
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, July 22, 2009, at 6:00 PM
WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM
APPROVE MINUTES: May 20, 2009
TRUSTEE KING: Good evening everyone, welcome to our June
Meeting. My name a Jim King. For those of you who
don't know me, I have the honor of being Chairman of
the Board of Trustees. The rest of the folks here, to
my far left is David Bergen, Trustee; next to him is
Peggy Dickerson; next to myself is Jill Doherty, she
serves as vice chair; myself; Lauren Standish runs the
off~ce for us and; Bob Ghosio is the last Trustee.
Unfortunately we don't have our legal advisor here
tonight, Lori Hulse, she won't be here with us. And we
have Wayne Galante down here keeping track of what
everybody says. And Jack McGreevey is here from the
CAC, that's the Conservation Advisory Council. They go
out and do many of the same inspections we do and give
us their recommendations on different projects. With
that being said, we'll get going.
I think we have some cancellations and
postponements. I would like to go over those first.
Board of Trustees 2 June 24, 2009
Number 16 on page four the application of Seascape
Marine Construction Corp., on behalf of JOSEPHINE GElS
requests an Amendment to Permit #35 to remove and
replace a 3x4' platform, 3x8' catwalk, 3x12' hinged
ramp and replace existing float with a 6x20' floating
dock, Located: 3800 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck, has
been postponed.
And number 17, 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, has
been postponed. We won't be reviewing those.
Number six, Charles R. Cuddy, Esq., on behalf of
ARTHUR TORELL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
single-family dwelling, garage, sanitary system and
pervious driveway. Located: 365 Westwood Lane,
Greenport, has been postponed.
And number seven on page five, En-Consultants on
behalf of HAVEN AVENUE REAL'DY CORP., requests a Wetland
Permit to clear up to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area
boundary line or no closer than 25' landward of the
crest of the bluff, for the purpose of improving the
parcel with a single-family dwelling and appurtenances
located no closer than 100' from the crest of the
bluff. Located: 5205 The Long Way, East Marion, has
been postponed.
Number eight, En-Consultants on behalf of COYOTE
PROPERTIES, LLC, requests a Wetland Permit to clear and
maintain a four-foot wide path through the existing
buffer and construct a 4x40' fixed timber catwalk with
stairs over the tidal marsh. Located: 2000 Glenn Road,
Southold, has been postponed.
Number nine on page six, En-Consultants on behalf
of PHILIP STANTON requests a Wetland Permit to replace
(inplace) existing/previously existing 8" diameter
tie-off pilings. Located: 845 Maple Lane, Southold, has
been postponed.
We won't be addressing those tonight. I think that's it.
We'll set the date for next field inspection, July
8, eight o'clock in the morning. Motion?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: We have a meeting on July 22, at 6:00,
with a work session at 5:30. Motion?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: We have the minutes of May 20. I have
Board of Trustees 3 June 24, 2009
not finished reading them. Anybody else? I have a
couple of corrections so far.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I read them and they were fine.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I reviewed them and submitted my changes.
TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a motion?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the
minutes of May 20, 2009.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES.)
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
Our monthly report: The Trustees monthly report for
May, 2009. A check for $6,307.23 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.
III. 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 VIII Public Hearings
Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, June 24,
2009 10, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to
SEQRA rules and regulations and are not subject to
further review under SEQRA.
The list of these reads as follows:
Arthur Torell - SCTM#33-2-11
Elizabeth McNulty - SCTM#145-2-1.1
James Grace - SCTM#26-2-6.1
Joseph & Joanna Chemushka - SCTM#31-18-20.1
Adrienne Landau - SCTM#94-1-7
Paul Katz - SCTM#113-4-2
George Yatrakis - SCTM#51-1-14
Josephine Geis - SCTM#115-17-6.1
Coyote Properties, LLC - SCTM#78-2-37
Robert & Beth Anello - SCTM#58-2-13
TRUSTEE KING: Motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
Board of Trustees 4 June 24, 2009
TRUSTEE KING: What we try and do on the resolutions,
administrative permits is, to move things along, we
group them together, if they are simplified, if there
are no problems with them. These are not public
hearings or anything but if anybody does have a
comment, by all means we'll address your comments.
Number two, three, four, five, and six, are all pretty
straightforward. I don't think anybody had a problem and
I'll make a motion to approve those. They read as follows:
Number two, HENRY KAMINER requests an
Administrative Permit to trim the phragmites to 12" by
hand, as needed. Located: 250 Midway Road, Southold.
Number three, Samuels & Steelman Architects on
behalf of WALTER CHADWICK & MARK LOWENHEIM requests an
Administrative Permit to enclose an existing screen
porch with relocated windows, without changing the roof
or foundation, and no increase in footprint. Located:
6565 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic.
Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of JUUETTE
VASSILKIOTI requests an Administrative Permit to
construct a 9.5'x10.3' masonry patio within the
footprint of the existing wood frame arbor. Located:
2015 Bay Avenue, East Marion.
Number five, Patricia Moore, Esq., on behalf of
CLIFFSIDE RESORT CONDOMINIUM requests an Administrative
Permit to construct an arbor landward of the beach
stairs. Located: 61475 County Road 48, Greenport.
Number six, Robert Saetta on behalf of JOSEPH
CORRARINO requests an Administrative Permit to replace
the roof, siding and windows on the existing dwelling.
Located: 129 Inlet Lane, East Marion.
DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor.
(ALL AYES.)
MS. MOORE: I had one question. Number five, I also had
weeding for the maintenance.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was not part of the application
but we are trying to find that answer for you.
MS. MOORE: I have not been able to find any
prohibition, so, just to let you know.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Mark is researching the Planning
Board covenants and restrictions for us. He has been
thrown with all Scott's work, so it's going, even
though it's a simple request, it will take longer.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As soon as we find out, we'll let you
know.
TRUSTEE KING: And number one, OTTO FERCHAU requests an
Administrative Permit to install a trench for drainage;
clean and level area with approximately 20 cubic yards
Board of Trustees 5 June 24, 2009
of topsoil and plant grass; and plant bushes and trees
on embankment. Located: 345 Meadow Lane, Mattituck.
We went out there and I don't know if the bay
constable has been out there yet. There is a violation
on the property, so we are not going to move on this at
all tonight. Table it?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is anybody here?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He's not.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to table.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
V. RESOLUTIONS: MOORING/STAKE/DUCK BLIND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: We have to read resolution for
mooring/stake and duck blind permits.
Number one, PETER & STEPHANIE COSOLA request an
Onshore/Offshore Stake in Corey Creek for a boat no
larger than 18'. Access: 2880 Minnehaha Blvd.,
Southold.
Is this a replacement?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is the one -- No. this is the
one that has a dock. It's right here on the screen.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, okay. They have a dock and I
believe according to the code if they have a usable
dock you cannot also have a mooring.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it has to be a certain amount of
feet away from it, too.
TRUSTEE KING: Also in the code, the mooring has to be
50 feet from any dock, so I think this is a little problematic.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For the record, 275-11(c)(1) under
residential docks, Section A, only one catwalk may be
permitted, only one mooring or dock may be permitted
per residential lot. Unless showing of special need
due to Iow water. So that is what the code says.
TRUSTEE KING: That looks usable. So I would, based on
what is in the code, I'll make a motion to deny this.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: ROBERT DREWS requests a Mooring Permit in
Little Creek for a 20' boat, replacing Mooring #61. Access: Public.
I don't think we had a problem with that
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve that.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
VI. RESOLUTIONS-OTHER:
Board of Trustees 6 June 24, 2009
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Under resolutions, we have a
resolution for Chris Pickerel from Cornell Cooperative
Extension to mark off an eel grass area, in Hallocks
Bay near the channel and also in Gibbs Bay. As per the
pictures that he's submitted, the area to be specified,
specifically marked by the bay constable and Chris
Pickerel for the purpose of eel grass restoration.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that resolution.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The next one under Resolutions-Other
listed as number one, JMO Environmental Consulting
Services on behalf of JOHN INGRILLI requests a
modification to the resolution dated 12/10/08 to
install 250 cubic yards of clean sand along the toe of
the eroding bluff, which shall be trucked in from an
upland source. Cover with jute mesh and plant with Cape
American Beach Grass 12" on center. Remove the existing
irregularly shaped deck and construct a new 8x20' deck
with access steps 20' to the north of the location of
the existing deck. Abandon the seaward end of the
existing path and relocate to the north of the
relocated deck. Remove/replace the existing 4x4' steps
on the path with the slate steps on bluestone. Install
a French drain at the landward end of the existing
path. Located: 10375 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
This was originally found inconsistent under the
LWRP and that was when they came before us for a
permit. A permit was granted for this and so that
inconsistency was addressed in that permit process that
took place. July 16, -- sorry, no. (Perusing). Yes,
December 10, 2008, is when the permit was granted.
What Mr. Ingdlli wants to do is to amend the
permit so that he no longer wishes to include the rock
revetment that had been asked for, applied for and
granted in the original permit. The rest of the
permit, rest of the work as stated on the permit, he
wants to do. So in other words he wants to bring in
sand from an upland source and then plant with American
Beach Grass 12 inches on center, reconstruct the
existing deck and access steps 20 feet to the north.
TRUSTEE KING: Basically he's withdrawn the request for
the rock revetment.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct, which would make it
consistent. We found it consistent when we did the
original, we addressed the inconsistency and it would
certainly add to a finding of consistency under the
LWRP with the removal of that revetment.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that.
Board of Trustees 7 June 24, 2009
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
VII. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There are a few of these we can lump
together. Number one through seven and number 11
through 15 were straightforward applications that we
all reviewed. They read as follows:
ROBERT O'BRIEN requests the last One-Year Extension to
Permit #6420A as issued on August 23, 2006, and amended
on November 14, 2007. Located: 1955 Truman's Path, East
Marion.
Number two, SOUTHOLD PARK DISTRICT requests a
One-Year Extension to Permit #6677A, as issued on July
24, 2007, and amended on February 27, 2008. Located:
Founder's Landing Park, Terry Lane, Southold.
Number three, JOHN CORBLEY requests the last
One-Year Extension to Permit fl6405 as issued on July
19, 2006. Located: 680 Mason Drive, Cutchogue.
Number four, Talbott Noyes on behalf of ROBERT
NOYES requests the last One:Year Extension to Wetland
Permit #6410 and Coastal Erosion Permit #6410C, as
issued on July 19, 2006. Located: East End Road,
Fishers Island.
Number five, CATHERINE O'CONNOR SCHMIDT requests a
Transfer of Permit #3742 from Joseph Spitaliere to
Catherine O'Connor Schmidt, as issued on June 22, 1989.
Located: 950 West Orchard Lane, Southold.
Number six, NICOLAS DECROISSET requests a Transfer
of Permit #4698 from Newton Robbins to Nicolas
DeCroisset as issued on January 31, 1997. Located: 20
Third Street, New Suffolk.
Number seven, ANDREW SEMONS requests a Transfer of
Permit #2149 from Robert Gensel to Andrew Semons, as
issued on June 26, 1986. Located: 1580 Hobart Road,
Southold.
Number 11, Scott Kruk on behalf of THOMAS &
ISABELLA MESSINA request an Amendment to Permit #7044
to reconfigure the patio layout, install a fence at
perimeter of property and inside the privet hedge, add
plantings and a lawn area. Located: 1690 The Strand,
East Marion.
Number 12, Stanley Skrezec on behalf of JOHN XlKIS
requests an Amendment to Permit ~6655 to add a set of
wooden stairs from the existing bulkhead to the beach.
Located: 55585 County Road 48, Southold.
Number 13, Creative Environmental Design on behalf
of MARK MILLER requests an Amendment to Permit $7099 to
amend the platform attached to the existing beach house
from six feet wide by four-feet deep to 12' wide by 4'
Board of Trustees 8 June 24, 2009
deep, and change the material of the platform from wood
to natural stone. Located: 1000 Paradise Point Road,
Southold.
Number 14, Eh-Consultants on behalf of ELLIOT
BRUCE & ORA JEAN HEATH requests an Amendment to Permit
#6949 to include fencing and planting of Cypress trees.
Located: 500 Hippodrome Drive, Southold.
And number 15, Garrett A. Strang on behalf of 2000
BROADWATERS, LLC., requests an Amendment to Permit
~6916 to reduce the width of the proposed dwelling from
58' to 54' with an additional four feet added to the
west side setback from the property line, and to reduce
the size, shape and entry point of the driveway.
Located: 2000 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue.
I'll make a motion to approve, as submitted, one
through seven and 11 through 15. And they are all
found consistent. This was the original one which we
had found consistent. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number eight, ANDREW SEMONS requests
a Transfer of Permit ~1387 from Robert Gensel to Andrew
Semons, as issued on October 27, 1994. Located: 1580
Hobard Road, Southold.
I have looked at this. I had no problems with it
except for the fact that it needs a buffer. The
original permit requested a 20' non-turf buffer to be
placed landward of the retaining wall, and it is not
there. So I would make, I would like to approve this
transfer with the condition that the 20' non-turf
buffer must be in place to make it consistent with the
original permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you want to give a timeframe under
which they have to have the non-turf buffer installed?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I see, because it's a transfer.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would say the condition is they
have to have the buffer prior to -- they have to prove
they have the buffer before they get the transfer. In
other words they don't get the permit until they have
proof of compliance that they have the buffer.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's my condition. Is there a
second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of
Board of Trustees 9 June 24, 2009
STEPHEN MATTEINI requests a Transfer of Permit #3746
from Robert Keith to Stephen Matteini as issued on June
22, 1989, and to Amend Permit to install 4' wide
terrace-box steps to provide access from lawn area to
undeveloped area landward of the existing bulkhead, and
to maintain the existing bulkhead by installing
additional walers. Located: 1060 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient.
Are you representing them, Jim?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. May I represent them from here.
TRUSTEE KING: Sure.
TRUSTEE KING: The Board just wondered rather than
steps, could they put like a stepping stone type of
thing going down rather than stairs? It's just a thought.
MR. FITZGERALD: What he's talking about doing is in
effect building boxes which are open top and bottom and
filling it with dirt to make terrace steps.
TRUSTEE KING: Like a terracing effect.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's kind of what we were thinking.
MR. FITZGERALD: It's not intended to be wood on the
treads.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's kind of what we were thinking.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, that was the only question we had.
MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. The other stuff is all right?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, so we cleared that up. So I'll
make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Mark Schwartz on behalf of JOHN &
KATHLEEN BERKERY requests an Amendment to Permit #7070
to alter the existing patios and steps. Located: 250 Bayview Drive,
East Marion.
This was just a change based upon recommendations
and I believe also the DEC. We approved this last
month, so this was just a slight change and I believe -~
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For the record, I would like to recuse
myself on this one.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right, that's why we were separating
it. So I make a motion we approve this amendment as written.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(Trustee King, aye. Trustee Dickerson, aye. Trustee
Bergen, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye.)
(Trustee Doherty, recused.)
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Making a note that Jill recused herself.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off regular
hearings and go on to public hearings.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 10 June 24, 2009
(ALL AYES.)
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If some one else reviewed it, then why
don't you open the hearing, Jim.
TRUSTEE KING: Number one, 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.
I think what we were confused with was just over the
garage and what type of building it was going to be.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because the drawings were not specific
enough. It was found inconsistent, too.
TRUSTEE KING: We talked about concrete walls and so
forth. Those were removed. They have gutters and
leaders for the runoff and it will be on piles. And
it's all open here. It's not enclosed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: They were going to use them for storage
underneath.
TRUSTEE KING: This is what we were talking about and
nobody had a problem with it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the inconsistency?
TRUSTEE KING: The inconsistency is because it's within
jurisdiction of tidal wetland, 70-something feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Putting it on piles and having the
proper drainage brings it into consistency.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I can't remember if we discussed it
last time but the condition that it does not become
habitable space.
TRUSTEE KING: It's right to the plans, there is no
intention to install plumbing and/or kitchen
facilities. So I think they covered everything we
asked for.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a -- any other comments from
the audience?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to approve the application
as submitted with the new plans.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
Board of Trustees 11 June 24, 2009
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: JAMES GRACE requests a Wetland Permit
and Coastal Erosion Permit to remove concrete from
beach. Place a single row of 1,000 pound stone along
the toe of the existing slope and north and south sides
of the proposed access ramp and cover with 60 cubic
yards of sand to create a 10' wide dune. Stabilize dune
with native plantings. Install a 4x4' platform, 4' wide
access stairs to the beach, and 12' wide access ramp.
Located: 190 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient.
LWRP find this to be consistent. I don't see a
report in the file. CAC resolved to support the
application with the condition of a ten-foot
non-fertilized planted buffer landward of the boulders
and; ten-foot, non-turf buffer landward of the stairs.
Anybody here who would like to speak to this application?
MR. MCGREEVEY: Bob, the CAC would like to add to the
end of that paragraph where CAC supports, add two
words: "And ramp."
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Ten-foot, non-turf buffer landward of
the stairs and ramp.
MR. MCGREEVEY: And ramp.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay.
MR. GRACE: I'm at applicant, James Grace. This has
been approved by the DEC and was approved in a more
grander scale by you folks.
TRUSTEE KING: This is downsized from what we originally
approved.
MR. GRACE: That's right. This ten foot is going to be
on top of the stones. We are going to try to keep that
sand so we are not going to be too far landward of that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Does anybody have any comments or
questions on the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: It's been downsized from what we already
approved.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, so. Stabilize the dune with native
plantings. Fine with that. It was downsized from what we approved, so.
(Perusing).
I would make a motion to close the hearing then,
if there are no more comments.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve this
application, since it is downsized. It's consistent
with LWRP. And that's it. Motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Fairweather-Brown on
behalf of JOSEPH & JOANNA CHERNUSHKA requests a Wetland
Board of Trustees 12 June 24, 2009
Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to convert dormered
second-floor bedrooms into second-floor conforming
space, remove the existing chimney, lift the dwelling
to conform to flood plain regulations and install
gutters and drywells to contain roof runoff. Located:
580 Rabbit Lane, East Marion.
The CAC resolved to support the application with
the condition of leaders and gutters to address the
roof runoff, which of course is in the application. It
was found inconsistent under the LWRP under policy 4.1
because part of the structure is located within the
coastal erosion hazard line, and it was a request under
the LWRP to see if the structure could be moved back so
that it's landward of the coastal erosion hazard line.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MS. MARTIN: Amy Martin, Fairweather-Brown. I'm
confused because the pictures are not of the house we
are applying for. That's not it.
TRUSTEE KING: We were at the wrong place.
MS. MARTIN: There was 640 --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thers was no number on the front.
MS. MARTIN: Understood. The sign was posted, though.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: When we went out, we went out two weeks
ago and the sign was posted after we went out.
MS. MARTIN: Okay. There we go. It's a little cottage.
You're close.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's next to it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was in line with it, anyway.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is it in the background of this picture?
MS. MARTIN: It's the other side. You were probably
standing on their deck to take that picture.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: On the application, received May 13,
it's property location 580 Rabbit Lane.
MS. MARTIN: Understood. There was an older number
there, but it is 640. It originally was referred to as
580 on some older documents, but it is 640. And I
confused that, but this is the -- you have the right
pictures in your file.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, unfortunately, because of this
situation here, we have not looked at the house, then.
We looked at this house here, the 580, because that's
what was on the application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So essentially I'm standing at the
house, taking the picture.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. And it could very well be,
taking a look here, it could very well be the LWRP
coordinator also reviewed the wrong house.
TRUSTEE KING: Now I know why I couldn't find the big
propane tank.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I know the CAC had commented when
Board of Trustees 13 June 24, 2009
they were out there, there was a contractor going up
and down the street trying to find the house also, and
he could not find it. So, what we can do --
MS. MARTIN: It's the little white cottage.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you would like to, Jack, take a look
at the picture.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When I went down and looked yesterday,
that was the house that got torn down.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I hope the owners are not here.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm only kidding.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What we could do tonight is we could
certainly take public comment on the application, but I
don't know that we can act on it because we are going
to have to go out and look at it, plus we'll have to
double check to make sure the LWRP coordinator reviewed
the correct property.
TRUSTEE KING: He probably looked at the plans and
probably reviewed the right one. But we'll double
check to make sure.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because he found it inconsistent, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But in the meantime, we don't have any
notes on it because we didn't look at this piece of property.
MS. MARTIN: Understood.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, is this, I'm looking at the plans
that we received June 23, 2009.
MS. MARTIN: Basically it's a one-and-one-half story
house currently with two little dormers on either side.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Very much like this one.
MS. MARTIN: Like that but running south and north. And
what they wish to do is make the upstairs into a true
habitable space to meet code, so it has head reom
properly and whatever, which requires some
reconfiguration inside. There is no change whatsoever
to the footprint of the house other than the fact by
getting the head reom upstairs they then have to raise
it to meet the floodplain code requirements. So other
than removing the chimney and fireplace, which are part
of the current footprint, we are doing nothing to
change the footprint. We are minimizing, actually by
removing the chimney and fireplace. And then we still
have to go to ZBA because it's a nonconforming lot, it
has setback issues, of which we are increasing the,
because of going up, we are increasing the
non-conformance.
TRUSTEE KING: How much would they have to raise the
house to meet the new code?
MS. MARTIN: I believe we have to go up an additional
five feet. It's in a nine-foot and 11-foot
floodplain. I think it's currently three feet off the
ground. No, it's four feet off the ground now. But
I'm not sure, actually whether the new floodplain zone
Board of Trustees 14 June 24, 2009
might be better than that, but I'm not sure.
TRUSTEE KING: Just curious what the first floor
elevation ends up being.
MS. MARTIN: Unfortunately they would like to not have
to do that but once they do all the work upstairs, they
have to meet the codes downstairs for the floodplain.
TRUSTEE KING: Is that based on the value of the work
being done?
MS. MARTIN: I think because it will end up being 50% of
the size of the house by being a full second story, it
will be, yes, value-wise, the cost of construction.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And you had an engineer come out and
look at it and determine that it can be raised safely
without the house collapsing?
MS. MARTIN: Yes. It is on piers already and we am
just going to increase the amount of piers. It will
be, again, block piers, but more and taller, with new footings.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, just, I'm making an assumption
here, which we all know I shouldn't do, but I'm making
the assumption when the LWRP coordinator looks at this,
since he found it inconsistent or found a house
inconsistent because part of the house was seaward of
the coastal erosion hazard line, probably the same
thing, he'll come to the same conclusion hem. And
given how you have described this work to me, it
doesn't seem like there is an opportunity to move this
house back, or is there?
MS. MARTIN: There really isn't, due to there is a
garage on the little road, and to bring it closer
together, I don't think would be good for light and air
for the neighbors or whatever. There is a small
distance between the garage and the house.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is them anybody else who wanted to
comment on this application?
(No response.)
MS. MARTIN: The owners are here, if you had any other
questions.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't know whether anybody on the
Board has any additional questions. I think we
obviously -- we have to go out and look at it now.
MS. MARTIN: Understood. And the only other thing is
right now there is no roof runoff provisions and
obviously we'll put in drywells and all rainwater will
be captured.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I appreciate that. I saw that in the
application as stated.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is an ama that we have not
mandated drywells because of the sand. You do have to
conform to Chapter 236 and keep all the runoff on your
property
MS. MARTIN: Okay, so if them is another way to do
Board of Trustees 15 June 24, 2009
that, then --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. I mean you most certainly can
put drywells in but as long as you contain the roof
runoff on your property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there are no other questions from
the Board then I'll make a motion to table this
application so that the Board could go out and look at
this in our inspections on July 8 and put it back on
the docket for our July meeting.
MS. MARTIN: Okay.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MS. MARTIN: Sorry for the confusion
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So are we.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Number one, Costello Marine Contracting
on behalf of requests a wetland permit to remove and replace
57' of existing bulkhead inplace; backfill voids with approximately
38 cubic yards of sand; replace existing seasonal staircase with
new 3' wide staircase and provide 10' wide non-turf
buffer. Located: 415 Laurel Lane, Laurel.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jack Costello thanks us for finally
putting him first rather than last on the list, but
he's at his son's baseball game so he said he would
probably not get here in time.
TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this. I believe it's
inconsistent with LWRP. CAC resolved to support the application.
MR. DILLER: Excuse me, I am an adjoining property
owner. I want to comment on it.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, just hang on a second. CAC
resolved to support the application to remove and
replace 57 feet of existing bulkhead. Resubmit with
the condition the bulkhead is replaced with vinyl
sheathing and the existing buffer is maintained and a
ten-foot, non-turf buffer is installed landward of the
retaining wall. Does that mean you guys want a
ten-foot, non-turf buffer on the landward side of the
upper retaining wall?
MR. MCGREEVEY: I didn't see this property, Jim, but the
way it reads, it sounds that way.
TRUSTEE KING: This is kind of a typical bulkhead on the
bay. You have the main bulkhead and then you have a
second retaining wall, approximately -- hang on a
second. It's about 20 feet between the two, between
the bulkhead and retaining wall. That whole area was
an undisturbed area. Rather than install a ten-foot,
non-turf buffer, they should just leave the whole area
alone.
Board of Trustees 16 June 24, 2009
MR. MCGREEVEY: I agree.
TRUSTEE KING: I really don't think there is a need for
a buffer on the second retaining wall. It's unnecessary.
MR. MCGREEVEY: I agree.
TRUSTEE KING: Sir, you had a comment?
MR. DILLER: John Diller. So there is no misunderstanding,
we heartily support this application.
It's long, long overdue. It's a bulkhead that was in
place earlier than 1947. It still has the original
locust posts. I guess it was Rambo that built it.
The reason I'm here, the reason I'm commenting is
there was a 300-foot long bulkhead built before 1947
and probably 15 years ago about 240 feet of it was
replaced with a, let's call it a modern bulkhead, that
Tuthill did. These folks chose not to replace it and
it has deteriorated badly. When they, when Costello
removes the existing or old bulkhead and the fill goes
somewhere, the adjoining property has nothing to
protect its beach grass plantings on that level behind
our newer bulkhead. So I don't see anything in the
drawings that would indicate what Costello intends to
do to keep the adjoining property in place while they
go out and replace and then refill the new. I would
like to see some, whatever you want to call it, some
attention paid to that in terms of what they are going
to do.
TRUSTEE KING: They don't pull out a whole old one and
put a new one in place. They do it in stages, I
believe. They do a little section, then put in the new
section. They don't do it all in one shot.
MR. DILLER: The only experience I had with it, when we
did the 240 feet, I looked at a picture of it tonight.
Everything came out and they try and push the existing
fill, and of course this bulkhead had big holes in it
so there may not be a lot.
TRUSTEE KING: The holes are down more toward the west
end.
MR. DILLER: They push it back up against, in this case
the retaining wall, but it's totally torn up. They
didn't, at least at that point, Larry Tuthill didn't do
it in stages. I don't know how Costello intends to do
this. It's not a big deal but it takes a long time to
get the beach grass going. And if they put some kind
of temporary barrier up to sort of hold that in place,
and I hope they'll do this before September.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't know when they are scheduled to
do it.
MR. DILLER: If they open that up at a time that
presents any kind of hurricane danger, I would be
opposed doing it at that point in time. What we tried
to do when Tuthill put the new bulkhead in is to put
Board of Trustees 17 June 24, 2009
some laterals along so that in the event of a hurricane
you didn't just get water running right along the top
of the bulkhead. So there is some structure in there
now to drain whole stuff in place, but probably more is
needed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would think they are aware of the
situations and they have a way to handle that. But we
could put something into the permit saying that if the
neighboring grasses are disturbed, they would have to
replant them and reestablish that area.
MR. DILLER: I would prefer saying something in such a
way that you do not disturb the adjoining property. I
don't know how to rebuild, put the egg back together if
it's all broken apart.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure.
MR. DILLER: But as I'll say again, hurrah that they are
doing it and I don't want to do anything that will slow
it down. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Like I said, I looked at this and this
whole area - (Perusing). This is the read, but if you
look in the southwestern corner there, it says "eroded
area." All the rest of this over to the neighbor to
the east is all just a natural area. It's beach grass
and Rosa Rugosa. So to put a ten-foot, non-turf buffer
in there, it's not necessary because the whole area is
already a non-tuff buffer and that's going to remain in
its present condition.
Are there any other comments on this application?
(No response.)
I'll make a 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 and rather than a ten-foot, non-turf
buffer, the whole area between the bulkheads is to
remain in its natural state. The eroded area that is
going to be filled will be restored. And somehow we
have to assure that the next door neighbor to the east,
his property is not damaged during this replacement of
the bulkhead.
Sir, is there any kind of return going in there on the
western side of your bulkhead?
MR. DILLER: Well --
TRUSTEE KING: It almost looks like, on the plans, if
you look at the plans, it almost looks like there is a
little return there.
MR. DILLER: Larry Tuthill, Larry the elder -- what he
had done is every 50 feet or so he just put a lateral;
it was not intended to provide -- what it was really
Board of Trustees 18 June 24, 2009
intended to do was to break up water running along the
top. So I frankly don't know how deep, Jim, that goes,
but it was not intend to make each unit self contained.
TRUSTEE KING: By looking at the plans it looks almost
like a return there.
MR. DILLER: It looks almost looks like a jetty there,
but it doesn't go very deep. It's only for the surface.
TRUSTEE KING: I personally have a lot of faith in this
contractor that is doing this, that it will be proper job.
MR. DILLER: I don't mean to suggest Costello won't do a
good job. I just want to make sure the project
includes holding the adjoining property in place.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we word it that the job is
done in such a way that it holds the adjoining property
in place. Do it simply like that, and Costello will do
what he normally does.
TRUSTEE KING: All right, we can stipulate there will be
no disturbance to the neighboring property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
TRUSTEE KING: How is that?
MS. MOORE: Why don't you say preserve and protect the
adjacent property. He may have to do something.
TRUSTEE KING: We are getting a lawyer involved now.
MS. MOORE: That's what happens when you get free
advice. You get what you pay for.
TRUSTEE KING: We can word it so there is to be no
disturbance to the neighboring property, but if there
is, it will be restored.
MR. DILLER: If Costello has a problem, ask him to call me.
TRUSTEE KING: It will be restored to its proper
condition, okay? I think we covered it.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Was that a motion?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Existing buffer to remain as is.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And it's consistent, right, Jim?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. That was my motion.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number two, Patricia Moore on behalf of
GEORGE YATRAKIS requests a Wetland Permit to construct
a single-family dwelling, swimming pool, fence and
patio; construct beach stairs; install a bluestone on
sand walk to beach stairs; remove remains of existing
building and install a drainage structure 20' from top
of the bluff. Located: 18805 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
The LWRP finds this to be consistent, this
application, and the CAC suppods the application with
the condition that the proposed structures are properly
staked, gutters and drywells are installed to contain
roof runoff, establish a non-disturbance buffer
Board of Trustees 19 June 24, 2009
landward of the top of the bluff and erosion control
device constructed to support the beach stairs. I do
have a letter here because there was a question that we
had while we were out in the field, concerning the berm
that was on the plan.
In the above referenced application - this is
from Lori Hulse, our legal advisor. In the above
referenced application the Zoning Board of Appeals
granted a variance for the dwelling and swimming pools,
subject to the specified conditions: The conditions
with respect to the berm are to be regarded by this
Board as advisory only, as is the recommendations
included in the letter from the County Soil and Water
Conservation District cited in the decision. The
Trustees have the authority to deny the berm entirely
or, in the alternative, to attach conditions with
respect to placement, clearing or re-planting the Board
deems necessary. The ZBA decision does not confer
authority to the applicant to clear to the top of the
bluff. In fact, from the pictures in the file, it
would appear that a clearing violation has already
occurred. Should the Board grant permission for a
berm, the applicant should amend the survey and the
resolution should include any conditions the Board
wishes to require.
Is there anybody here who would like to speak?
MS. MOORE: Yes. We were all at the site. The location
of the proposed house and the pool and patio area were
all, went through thorough review with the Zoning
Board. We actually moved all the structures back
toward the road in order to maximize the distance to
the top of the bluff. The letter from the Town
Attorney, I think I would have to read it again to
understand exactly what she is saying, but I think what
she is saying is that the Zoning Board placed
conditions on our permit and they are advisory only?
Is that kind of the bottom line, rather than as a
condition of our Zoning Board approval? That sounds
inconsistent with the way they operate.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Advisory to us, not for you.
MS. MOORE: As a condition for us, but advisory to you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The way I took it, I might have to
read it again, too, is Lori is saying that the Trustees
don't have to do the same conditions as they do. It's
an advisory. We don't have to follow ZBA conditions if
it doesn't follow our code.
MS. MOORE: That just doesn't make sense because if the
Zoning Board has made it a condition of our permit, how
do I comply with the ZBA decision, the Building
Department will say did you do this, well, no because
it's advisory. No, it's a condition of the approval.
Board of Trustees 20 June 24, 2009
So we'll get that cleared up. But in the meantime,
we'll move forward with this application with you and
what I did after our meeting at the field is I asked
Derrick from Creative Environmental Design, what I
wanted him to do is, with Joe Fischetti's help on the
drainage design, what I asked him to provide is
something that would comply with at least the ZBA's
conditions. And we can take any, you know, aspect of
that with respect to your review, but I'm trying to
satisfy two masters, and we would like to, you know,
walk away from here understanding what we could do,
so. Derrick will describe it for you, because it's too
complicated for me to understand. So I defer to him.
MR. BOSSEN: Derrick Bossen, Creative Environmental
Design. I was there. As per Pat's instruction, she
asked me to design a berm to capture the runoff and
direct it to drywells, to catch basins to a drywell
that would be landward of the 75 foot setback mark.
You could see on the drawing there is existing
contours. Those are the dashed lines. That's the
lefthand drawing, and the solid lines are proposed new
contours. Where it says "berm," that line is the top of
the berm. Setback 20 feet back from the top of the
bluff. So from that point the water would be coming
back. The point forward of that would be the new
non-turf, non-disturbance buffer that we planted with
beach grass, Rosa Virginia, Bayberry, all plants that
would hold and keep that top of the bluff in tact.
Looking at the condition of the bluff below the top of
the bluff, it looks like it was already replanted with
beach grass and we wanted to maintain that as non-turf,
protect that bluff as best we can as far back as we
need to go back with it.
On the right-hand side of the existing trees that
need to be removed for the construction of the berm and
the drainage system, that would be installed to contain
this runoff.
MS, MOORE: I think the important points I want to make
sure, when he and I spoke, the topography here shows
you that the top of the bluff is at 52 and the property
goes up to 55. So right now water is our enemy and
that is the problem that we had on the bluff, that all
the water, just from natural conditions, are running
down to the bluff. So we have to change that pitch.
In order to do that, and Derrick shows a cross-section,
if we could look at below where he showed the grading
is a cross-section where he shows you what the existing
grade is versus what he would propose our grading, how
our grading has to change. And you can see that the top
of the bluff is at 52, then gradually rising, changing
the grade and rising to a point of 55 where the,
Board of Trustees 21 June 24, 2009
between 55 -- well, it reaches 55 maximum, and that's
at the 20 foot landward of the top of the bluff. At
that point, the grade starts to change and the water
will capture in a catch basin which will be piped to a
drywell by the residence. So we are changing,
essentially we are correcting the grading of this
property so that it all pitches back toward the house.
I asked Derrick to take a look at the plantings that
are there on site and for the most part I think he has
identified privet.
MR. BOSSEN: For the most part it's privet, which really
gives you a big head and nothing on the ground that
holds the soil. Privet is not a good soil-holding
plant. It's a good tough plant next to the water but
not great for holding soil. You really just have this
big lollipop with a small reot system. That just
exacerbates any erosion that will occur on the
property.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Was the privet planted prior --
MR. BOSSEN: The privet looks like it naturally grows
in. Privet is listed on the Cornell site and is going
to be listed in future, some privet is now illegal to
sell in Suffolk County. Other privet are on watch
lists as invasive species. When privet gets large,
every season, the white flower on privet, that's the,
once it sets seed, the birds take that seed and drop
it. There is few birds that really benefit from that
seed. There is not many enemies of privet. There are
no insect populations that feed to privet that you have
to worry about, that you'll have an issue. There is no
native populations of insects to feed on privet to
control them.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Deer like them. I could tell you from
personal experience.
MR. BOSSEN: But once they get above graze level, they
get taller, and that's what we want to eliminate. We
want to eliminate non-native species.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's my question. They are
non-native, so were they planted, I would assume -- I'm
just wondering how they got there.
MR. BOSSEN: If you walk around you'll see all the
little volunteers from the privet hedge, either it's
the plant dropping them or the birds dropping them.
You could take a cutting of privet and stick it in the
ground and it will grow. It's that easy to propagate.
I'm not suggesting you do that on this property. I'm
just suggesting you can do that on this property.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is certainly elements of old
landscaping around that house.
MR. BOSSEN: And that house is precariously close to the
bluff edge. And it shows, because it's now falling
Board of Trustees 22 June 24, 2009
down. There was actually trees inside the foundation
of the house growing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Derrick, I'm noticing on the profile
it, the proposed berm tops out, looks like 55.5?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MR. BOSSEN: That's about a foot-and-a-half, two feet
above existing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, because I thought 55 was the
contour line for where -- so my question is, is a half
foot going to serve the purpose.
MR. BOSSEN: The existing contour at the point where it
says "berm" on that drawing on the top, the existing
contour you see underneath, the dashed line cutting
across the property, that's the existing contour.
That's 54 feet. So a foot-and-a-half above the
existing contour is where we propose to have the berm
created, then it goes back. You see up next to the
pool where the 75 foot mark is, that's 56. So I just,
when you do contour maps, this is what I was given was
a two-foot contour map, so I just estimated between the
two is where 55 would be. So to give you more detail,
I put in the 55 contour line so you would know and I
could accurately depict what the new contours would be.
MS. MOORE: And when we talk about a berm, you could see
we are not trying to build LIE berms. This is a very
gradual change to the grade. So that, again, and he's
done it in such a way which I think is very clever, I
have not seen before, which is kind of a bowl effect so
that we capture the water, it doesn't go offsite on the
neighbor's property as well, on either side, and it
captures the water and brings it all into the center
point which is the catch basin that is there in the center.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So in order to build this berm and to
re-grade, you have to clear the entire area all the way
to the top of the bluff?
MR. BOSSEN: Pretty much. The amount of trees that are
there, I mean it's, they are not, there is a lot of
black locust and black cherry in the middle. There is
some runs along the periphery that could probably stay,
but the majority of the trees that are there would be
buried by any grading that would be done, and then they
would die anyway, to create this berm.
MS. MOORE: And it's actually more beneficial, closer in
the yard to the berm, to have plantings that will help
stabilize that soil in that basin. You could actually
see over the edge some of the trees and the reot
systems that the movement of the trees are kind of
shaking the soil out and the reot systems are being
exposed. So we are trying to address an existing
condition, but also prevent the continued eresion of
that bluff.
Board of Trustees 23 June 24, 2009
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Pat, when this application was sent
for LWRP review, they didn't have this in front of them.
MS. MOORE: No, it was just prepared. They had the
description of the drain and they had the Zoning Board,
I guess, decision, because they got it twice. They got
it at the Zoning Board level and with you guys as
Trustees. So that throughout the process, now they
know there is a berm requested. But I don't know --
this they would not have. This is, I just got it
yesterday and rather than submit it to you --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: At the field inspection we asked to
get this.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What I'm asking is did Mark Terry
see this?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No.
MS. MOORE: He has not seen this plan.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm not comfortable until there is a
review of this, myself.
MS. MOORE: Well, it has been engineered, and including
Derrick's professional advice, we also had it reviewed
by Joe Fischetti, our professional engineer, for
purposes of adequate capture of water, and he gave you
the details with respect to the drains. So we know --
I understand. But for the record we have it
professionally reviewed, and Mark Terry, I appreciate
his input, but we have to defer to our experts on this, so.
TRUSTEE KING: Derrick, this shows this existing grade
on the profile. It almost looks like you have actually
increased the steepness by putting this berm here on
the seaward side.
MR. BOSSEN: If I increase steepness and vegetate it
with soil holding plants, it will protect the erosion
that could happen.
TRUSTEE KING: Have the berm shaped more like that.
MR. BOSSEN: I would rather not have a wall or have a
pile of soil. I was trying to push the amount of soil I
would bring in, to taper back from the top of the bluff
so as not to put that pressure on the top of the bluff
and just to create a natural berm. I didn't want to
have it look like I just brought dump trucks and just
dumped soil. You could easily make a berm by making a
pile of soil to capture the water. That doesn't look
natural, it doesn't perform the way it should, it's
more prone to catastrophic failure. I would prefer to
have a more natural look of a berm. I mean the slope
is increased from what is there naturally, but to
increase it and have it look natural and hold a greater
amount of material over time, I designed it in this fashion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In the file here is a document from the
United States Department of Agriculture
MS. MOORE: Of Soil and Water?
Board of Trustees 24 June 24, 2009
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, and stabilizing eroding of
bluffs. Based on this you kind of designed what they
recommend.
MS. MOORE: In their examples of how to do it, yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's just a general guide of what
they use.
MS. MOORE: For the record, because he doesn't say it
and he's telling me, he's actually well-versed in the
recommendations from Soil and Water and follows that
Soil and Water's recommendations and method of --
TRUSTEE KING: Maybe we should have Allen Connell take a
look at it. He's from Soil and Conservation. This is county.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This also refers to a letter.
TRUSTEE KING: Since we just got this, I would like more
of a review of it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm looking to see if there is a letter
in here. In the resolution from the Planning Board, he
does refer to a December 11, 2008, letter submitted to
them from the County of Suffolk Soil and Water.
TRUSTEE KING: That's this letter here.
MS. MOORE: That's how they incorporated the conditions,
yes. It's that particular document that is what the
Zoning Board used as to follow those recommendations.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: While Jim is reviewing that, I'll read
a letter we received today and entered it into the
record. It's from Beatrice DuPont, 18725 Soundview
Avenue, Southold. Dated June 24, 2009.
The lot concerns George and Maria Yatrakis'
property. The lot is a heavy coastal erosion zone.
The problem was acknowledged by previous owner Gotsis
(sic) and was a determining factor in the sale of the
property to the east of the Yatrakis completed last
month.
Jim Leibel (sic) and Linda Cotur (sic) to Irving
Schwartz. Mrs. Cotur testified at Southold Zoning
Board of Appeals about the catastrophic erosion in
January. I'm concerned about the damage from
excavating a swimming pool at about 75 feet from the
bluff edge and the weight resulting from the pressure
of the water and damage which can happen to the bluff
if the pool developed a leak. Another concern, the
northwest corner of the proposed dwelling is at 90 feet
from the bluff edge and the sewer system is too close
to the adjoining lot's well. Given the fragile nature
of the environment I really feel the 100 foot barrier
should be respected. I wish the Board of Trustees
would consider allowing the Yatrakis' some ways to
stabilize the bluff, maybe through some kind of rock
retaining wall before any stairs and paving takes
place. Piece of broken stairs keep washing on the
beach from neighboring lots from stairs built on an
Board of Trustees 25 June 24, 2009
eroding bluff. My only concern is doing what is right
to protect the fragile natural environment and I will
welcome whatever projects the Yatrakis' may have which
supports that same goal.
Are there any other comments?
MR. BOSSEN: In looking at the contour map that was
given to me, it doesn't represent the property
adjacent, which happens to be Mrs. DuPont's property.
Mr. and Mrs. Yatrakis just had made me aware, when I
went to the site, that the way the bluff returns, it
looks as though a valley forms at that property line.
So a lot of the erosion that is coming from that site,
perhaps may be coming from Mrs. DuPont's property. And
because the way the bluff angles in at that site, only
having the one property contour map, I can't see what
is on the other side to know what the contours do at
that point. But when you go to that front corner, the
northwest corner, the top of the bluff dives back
toward the fence line, and the fence, there is a
stockade fence that stands about three feet above the
ground, it looks as though is there a valley that water
rushes through down that bluff head. Is there
something that can be done to address the erosion from
the neighbor's property regarding this property. And
with the stabilization of the bluff? Because if
that's, if we contain our water, what will prevent
adjoining property's water crossing their property line
and eroding the bluff in front of all the work that we
have proposed to do.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim, I'll reiterate what I said
before. I feel I would make a better decision having
Mark Terry's review and you had mentioned having
another consultant coming in and give us more
information. At this point it seems like we need more.
TRUSTEE KING: We've had Allen Connell review some other
sites for us. He has been very helpful.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And have Mark look at it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Frankly, I don't think that's a bad
idea. Mainly because this is a little different than
what we would normally allow or do. I don't want to
say I'm expert enough on bluff erosion to say, well,
you know, soil and the county soil and conservation is
wrong, and their idea of how to prevent further
erosion. I just think it's a little strange, at least
sitting where I'm sitting, to allow a whole clearing of
the bluff up to the crest of the bluff. We would never
do that under normal circumstances. I understand what
we are trying to accomplish, but I agree, I think it
would be nice, not that I want to make you wait another
month.
MS. MOORE: If I could make a suggestion. What we could
Board of Trustees 26 June 24, 2009
do is proceed with our house and pool and all those
permits that are pretty straightforward and submit this
as a separate, resubmit it tomorrow, actually, for a
separate permit so that if we end up having to get
commentaries or revisions to it, we can work with this
specifically. Because the house and the pool is not, I
mean that's not the issue. We are trying to satisfy
the issue of berms and drainage and so on. At least if
my client knows, all right, you can start working on
the plans and all that is involved from the point we
have a box showing on a survey to the point of getting
a building permit, we still have a lot of work to do.
We have all our other permits in place. We are really
at the end of the process now, and this is a very, I
would agree with you, it's very unique and it's very
specific to this site. And we want to make the best
project possible. My client, of all things, he would
love to put in a bulkhead, revetment, you got it. But
the DEC doesn't want us to touch and create hard
structures down at the toe of the bluff. So we have
been working through the less impact process of grasses
and, you know, the DEC, you have to show them that you
have done everything humanly possible to try and
contain your bluff before they'll reluctantly agree to
a hard structure. That's where we are going right
now. What we are trying to do is address from the top
the water runoff that can hopefully eliminate our
problems that are occurring right now down the bluff.
So we are all on the same page and we are all,
certainly, I think joined together as far as doing the
best project here. If there are other recommendations,
we'll listen to them. My client, believe me, this is a
very expensive process. I think if there is a less
expensive process that you and the Zoning Board feel
will meet the conditions, you know, I will save him
several thousands of dollars and also hopefully get the
best project so that we protect the bluff. We all are
on the same page for that purpose.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The only problem I see with separating
this is removing the remains of the existing building.
In doing so --
MS. MOORE: We can wait on that. We have to do it all at
the same time.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you have a foundation in there, can
you get the equipment around?
MS. MOORE: Getting the permit from you guys for the
house and pool then enables us to start designing. We
can't design because we don't know where we are putting
our buildings.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Hopefully we'll have the berm resolved
before you even start building.
Board of Trustees 27 June 24, 2009
MS. MOORE: Absolutely. It will take them at least a
month if not two to work through the design elements of
the house. I could have them busily doing that while
we worry about the technical aspects of how do we work
this well for everybody, particularly my client. That
just seems to me a common sense way of doing it.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: What you are saying at this point is
basically approving what is landward of 75 foot from
the top of the bluff, which is the pool and the
residence, and then we can go back and reapply for what
is happening on this side of the 75 foot line.
MS. MOORE: Right. I'll amend my permit to incorporate
this stuff once we know what it is we are working on.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I don't have a problem with that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's fine.
MS. MOORE: If you could proceed with this plan, though,
and send it to Michael, is it Michael Connell? Sorry,
Allen Connell. Of course. We welcome his comments
because we think we are doing what they generally
recommend, but he may have other suggestions, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I might, for a second. If we
separate this out, as you are proposing, and so this
Board is looking at only the pool and residence for
now, that's what you are asking?
MS. MOORE: Well approving that end of it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. That's what you are asking.
Yet you have a ZBA decision on the pool and residence
that includes this berm, and the berm work.
MS. MOORE: I can't get a building permit until we
resolve this berm, so it doesn't stop us from designing
but it will definitely holds us up to the building permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's still going to hold the process up.
MS. MOORE: I have to finish the process. We have to do
something here. So I'm not holding off -- sorry, Dave.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I was going to say is, I'm
concerned, and I think this is something this Board has
got to address with ZBA. The ZBA placed a condition
here that really puts the Trustees in a very difficult
position because they have approved, essentially, the
clearing from the bluff -- well, we've already have
gone over this, something we would not normally do. So
it's put the Trustees in a very difficult position
here. I heard the memo that was read from the Assistant
Town Attorney saying that we don't have to pay
attention to or we don't have to make a decision based
on the ZBA's decision, but I agree with what the
applicant has said that it puts the applicant in a very
bad position. You know, they have a condition from the
ZBA, that Board, saying you must do A, and for this
board to say no, you cannot do A, you must do B. They
are sitting in nowhere land.
Board of Trustees 28 June 24, 2009
TRUSTEE KING: Kind of us giving a side yard setback,
then you go to ZBA, right?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I would recommend -- number one, I
have no problem with the separation you are talking
about also, and acting on the pool and the residence,
but I think this Board has to have some kind of
conversation with the ZBA about this situation.
TRUSTEE KING: I agree.
MS. MOORE: Yes, please send the message that they have
been, it's not the first time. I have one in
litigation for precisely that problem, which is they
create problems that, you know, are inconsistent with
what the Board, permits that the Board has granted, in
a sense overriding or nullifying permits that you
grant. So it really frustrates the applicant and,
believe me, clients do not want to go to the courts.
That's the last place we all want to go to. So,
internally, works best. If they could have done it
simply as we recommend you look at this, but don't make
it a condition, you know. The way they wrote it, and
maybe Lori is trying to, and what they need to do is
internally the Zoning Board would help you if they just
wrote a memo, no, we intend it to be a recommendation
and not a condition. Fine. Then I'm dealing with you
and we are satisfying them, so. Just don't put me in a
position where I have to guess what they have to say.
TRUSTEE KING: This is uncomfortable.
MS. MOORE: For all of us, yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any other comments?
MR. MCGREEVEY: Jim, on this application, if we could
just change some wording from the CAC to the Trustees,
where we support the application, in the fourth
sentence down, right after the word "constructed,"
should read at base of support of beach stairs. At
base of support of beach stairs. Not "as supports."
TRUSTEE KING: Did you ever get anything back from DEC
on those structures?
MR. MCGREEVEY: Not the structures. Was there anything
in the letter you were reading, Jim, regarding design,
engineering? It's such a simple solution. And it
serves the purpose.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you know what he's talking about?
MS. MOORE: Sorry?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As far the supports that Jack is
talking about, on the stairs going down, what the CAC
has been pushing for is --
MS. MOORE: I have a cross-section of the stairs.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So do I.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Especially in a steep slope like this,
Jim, which is exceptionally steep, CAC strongly
Board of Trustees 29 June 24, 2009
recommends that it at least be looked as a way of
solving the problem of erosion.
MS. MOORE: What is it recommendation?
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Essentially what they have been trying
to get us to do, but we are not sure if we can do it by
way of DEC, is on the bottoms of the 4x4 posts,
supporting posts, that get put into the bluff, that a
across between those two, go across with a piece of 2x8
or 2x10.
MS. MOORE: Like a lateral, like a car has an axle.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Right. Essentially tiering it down the
bluff helping retain everything above it. So every
eight feet you have something holding --
MS. MOORE: Like a landscape wall or retaining wall.
TRUSTEE KING: Like a terracing.
MS. MOORE: It makes a lot of sense.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: It makes a lot of sense but we -- we're
afraid if we incorporate it and DEC turns you down, you
have to come back. But
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Not only does it make sense, I have
seen it, and it works. It works
MS. MOORE: I would suggest that you guys call the
regulatory affairs at DEC, just give them a little cross-section.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have done that.
MS. MOORE: And it still hasn't not sunk in?
MR. MCGREEVEY: We've done that. We don't get a
response.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: The only thing we can do is actually
incorporate it somewhere and see what happens.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, there is another comment in the
audience.
MS. MOORE: If I could just respond. If you want, we
can incorporate it but subject to DEC approval so that
if it's not approved by the DEC, I obviously can't put
it in. If it is approved by the DEC, we can put it in.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Then if they support it we can do it
with others.
MS. MOORE: I think it's great because then we could
vegetate behind it and help stabilize it as well.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Like I said, I have seen it in practice
and it works.
MS. MOORE: Good idea, Dave.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Some other comments?
MS. DUPONT: I am Beatrice DuPont. I wrote the letter.
I was not sure I was going to make it tonight from New
York.
My big concern is erosion that has been going on,
because we are right next door. We are pretty well
protected because we have a concrete bulkhead that goes
many, many years ago and walk to the beach house and
what goes on. We like to make sure it's not going to
Board of Trustees 30 June 24, 2009
take more over the cliff than it is already doing now.
I have also one concern, we are talking about erosion
coming from my preperty to their preperty and I don't
know how that is possible because actually I was going
to reise the comment because the Yatrakis land is at a
higher point than mine. When it reins, I actually get
a large amount coming down of water on the eastern side
of my property and when they are doing their work I
would ask them to incorporate some kind of berm or
something so to prevent water runoff from their
preperty onto mine. There is actually quite a big,
what do you call it, decrease of the slope between the
private edge which is in the middle of the preperty and
their preperty, to sit higher. And you are welcome to
come and visit. So whatever landscaping takes place,
have them to make sure it doesn't aggravate the problem
I am already having with water coming on to my
property. And you are welcome to come look at what is
going on my land.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I do recall going to this property a
while back and I believe it was Cathy Mesiano was the
agent at that time, and we did walk down your stairs to
get to the beach to look at the bluff. And when we did
that, I seem to recall that you had a drainage system
going, it looked like, and this was a long time ago we
did this, going from your house, I don't know if you
have gutters and leaders, looked like on your house,
and you had a drainage system where it was draining
down the bluff through a pipe? Do you recall that on
your property?
MS. DUPONT: Not that I'm aware of.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right, I could be wrong on it.
MS. DUPONT: There was weird things we discovered in the
house after buying it. But not that I recall. We are
trying to contain as much as we can, as you see, we are
going down, we are planting native species, you know,
and trying to make it --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: One of your concerns, during
Construction, we can ask them to put a row of hay bales
along the property line, during construction, so when
it washes it, the hay bales catches that.
MS. DUPONT: Whatever you feel that would protect from
increased water. We have to protect the cliff, you
know, and the Yatrakis to get permission to do
retaining wall because that is work we have to do for
the property owners. That's my comments.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
MS. MOORE: I'm glad Mr. Bergen raised that issue
because we noticed, and you may not be aware of it, I
don't know, because many of these pipes are very old
and unless you, I'm sure it was put in there years ago
Board of Trustees 31 June 24, 2009
but please, there is the drywells -- excuse me, the
guttem go gown and then it somehow or another comes to
a pipe that does drain down the bluff and that has been
a significant part of our problem along the side
between your property and his. And yes, we have a
different grade and it affects -- the water runs
wherever there is least amount of resistance, and the
water along the bluff does run, it's not an even
surface. So I would ask that if them is anything that
can be done to try to stop a neighbor from having that
drain occurring, it would be extremely helpful. It is
what the code requires today, and to any extent that
the town can peru uade homeowners to really bring their
properties into conformity, we would welcome it.
Because certainly, I can the berm we described or the
gm ding that we described, shows an ama around the
property so that we will not have the water that goes
beyond our property limits, but unfortunately we can't
control the neighbors. So we would, you have always
been to all these hearings your cooperation, would be
extremely helpful to us because it protects your
property and it protects his property. So anything you
can do together rather than fight each other --
MS. DUPONT: I'm not fighting
MS. MOORE: I'm not accusing you of fighting. I'm just
asking for her cooperation.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think her request that the work is
done here doesn't impinge on her property rights is fine,
MS. MOORE: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What I would like to do, if them are
no other comments, I would like to make a motion to
close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We'll close this hearing and we'll have
to reopen it when she gets an amendment in,
MS. MOORE: No, I'm going to do it this way. I'm
requesting that this application be revised to deal
only with, to address the house and the pool for now
and I'll come back in for either an amendment or
separate permit depending on how the Board wishes with
respect to this drainage plan. So I would ask that you
proceed with this drainage plan to your referrals is it
doesn't delay the process, but I'll come back in this
week with our amendment to this permit that would allow
us to complete the task that we have proposed here. If
that's all right. I'll put it on the record so you
don't have to do it, as long as you approve what we
have done.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We still have to close the hearing. We
can't vote on something if the hearing is still open.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
Board of Trustees 32 June 24, 2009
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Does that mean, Pat, you'll revise
this to go --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion and do revisions.
MS. MOORE: What kind of paperwork do you want from me?
MS. STANDISH: Why don't you withdraw that portion now
and they can close the hearing and then you can come
back and reapply for the amendment.
MS. MOORE: Yes. I'll withdraw my application as
submitted, well, only that portion dealing with the
berm and the drainage structure seaward of the pool so,
yes. I think the patio, you wanted me to wait on the
patio until we dealt with this. It doesn't really
matter to me.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll include the patio, if that's not an issue.
MS. MOORE: You just tell me which way you want to do it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the
application with the following changes and conditions.
On behalf of George Yatrakis requesting a wetland
permit to construct a single-family dwelling, swimming
pool, fence and patio, construct beach stairs, install
a bluestone sand walk to those beach stairs, with, on
the beach stairs being 2xl 0 erosion control supports at
the base of each of the 4x4 posts and hay bales along
the property line to contain any runoff.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me, Bob, I thought we were
going to do the stairs with the berm and the bluff. I
thought we were stopping at the patio.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I thought after the discussion of the
2xl0s we were going to go with the stairs. But that's
okay. We can revise that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because they have to clear that area
to get to the stairs, so.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, that's fine. I'll re-do this.
MS. MOORE: Excuse me. Derrick is clearing up our
misunderstanding.
MR. BOSSEN: There are natural paths that you can access
the spot to start the construction of the stairs, other
than clearing down the bluff for the stairs. But the
top of the bluff, I mean the top, landward of the bluff
edge, you would not need to clear to get to that.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we should just concentrate on the
house.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You are not building the stairs this
month anyway, so.
MS. MOORE: Within the next two months I hope everything
will be accomplished.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We want to try to keep this simple.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: On behalf of George Yatrakis, requests
a wetland permit to construct single-family dwelling,
Board of Trustees 33 June 24, 2009
swimming pool, fence and patio, 75 feet from the top of
the bluff.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And this is consistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That being consistent with LWRP, of
course.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Now all you'll to do --
MS. MOORE: I'll come in with an amendment for the
specifics but as I said, please keep moving forward on
this plan, because this is the plan we want. And,
Lauren, I'll need tomorrow what you wrote down, because
I couldn't write fast enough. Sorry.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I simplified it.
MS. MOORE: I just want to make sure.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Wait a second, though. I do want the
hay bales on the property line.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. I always have to put hay
bales, so, that's fine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can put that condition on later,
too.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, so you know what we want.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Jim, would you like a copy of that
letter I sent to the DEC with the diagram of the
construction, if you would like a copy.
TRUSTEE KING: We have one.
MS. MOORE: Actually, could I have it so I could
re-modify my plan?
MR. MCGREEVEY: Yes (Handing).
MS. MOORE: Thank you, I appreciate your patience. It's
complicated.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Patricia C. Moore on behalf of ROBERT
& BETH ANELLO requests a Wetland Permit to replace the
roof over the existing dwelling inkind/inplace with new
design pitch and for the existing portable hot tub, and
a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit for the
existing boardwalk (deck at grade) behind the existing
bulkhead. Located: 1980 Leeton Drive, Southold.
We don't seem to have CAC comments on this.
MS. MOORE: I think it was on before, so you may have it
in the old --.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's here. Sorry. The CAC supports
the application with the condition gutters and drywells
are installed to contain roof runoff and the boardwalk
is replaced with open pervious decking, which I believe
is the plan, and this is exempt and inconsistent with
LWRP. Let me figure out what that means.
(Perusing.) The inconsistencies are of course the
hundred feet and also that a deck is not a water
Board of Trustees 34 June 24, 2009
dependent use, but I see we are doing a pervious
walkway. That would bring it into consistency.
So, is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes, Patricia Moore, I have Mr. and Mrs.
Anello. I want to just clarify which walkways are
pervious and which are staying as is. On the west side
of the property there is what shows is wood walkways
both in the front yard and on the side it's a
boardwalk, path now, we are going to convert that to
just pavers of some kind on sand. Again, everything is
on sand. We did that also with the Zoning Board so we
could reduce the lot coverage by whatever marginal
amount we could. So those are the pavers. The back of
the property has decking that is, again, on grade, but
we really can't convert that into anything other than
what it is because the sand underneath that is all fill
and if you put anything on top of it you start getting,
it starts caving in, sinking. You get sinkholes. So
that's why right now, the decking, kind of the bulkhead
is acting as one of the walls, so the bulkhead becomes
part of the support system for the decking that is at grade.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments?
MS. MOORE: Again, we are trying to minimalize the
amount of work that is here. We actually have to go,
when we are all done with you, we go back to the
Building Department and in a sense do a la carte of the
alterations that we want to make, so the Building
Department and my client have to sit down and determine
at what point does he exceed the 50%. So this is
another one where we are trying to keep the structure
the same and keep the whole project small, very
different from the neighbors who has built a beautiful
home but it is FEMA compliant. We have a house we are
limited to the amount of work we can do because the
first floor is not FEMA compliant. So.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think anybody had a problem with it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Nope. All right, hearing none, I'll
make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the
application on behalf of Robert and Beth Anello for a
permit to replace roof over existing dwelling
inkind/inplace with new design pitch and for the
existing portable hot tub and a Wetland Permit and
Coastal Erosion Permit for the existing bulkhead. And
by removing the walkway on the side of the house and
doing pavers, that will bring this into consistency
Board of Trustees 35 June 24, 2009
with LWRP. I make that motion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number four, Nancy Dwyer on behalf of
PAUL KATZ requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
detached three-car garage. Located: 100 West Mill Road,
Mattituck.
The Board did go out and look at this. The CAC
resolved to support the application with the condition
of gutters, leaders and drywells are installed to
address roof runoff. It was reviewed under the LWRP
and found to be inconsistent because it is 53.4 feet
from the wetland boundary and minimum distance of 100
is required under Chapter 275, and then there is a
recommendation here, additionally, if the action is
approved, it is recommended that a 25-foot natural
vegetated buffer be required seaward of the garage.
So is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MS. DWYER: Nancy Dwyer on behalf of Paul Katz. Mr.
Katz is here this evening. His intention is to build a
three-car garage. Highs site does not allow us to be
100 feet from the edge of the wetlands because his
property is only 108 feet deep. We have been before
the DEC and we were given a letter of non-jurisdiction
from the DEC because we are within or we are landward
of their ten-foot contour requirements. And we are as
far away from the street as what the Zoning Board would
give permission for. We are 37 feet from the street.
And that's leaving us 53 feet away from the edge the
wetlands. The existing house is 44 feet from the edge
of the wetlands and we are nearly ten feet landward of
that structure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. You answered my question.
My first question to you, is there an opportunity to
move the garage farther landward, in other words toward
the street, West Mill Road; and you are saying the ZBA
already stated this is --
MS. DWYER: They already reviewed this.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Then to address the
inconsistency, is there an opportunity here to leave
that 53.4 feet, excuse me, net the whole entire yard.
You'll need some teem to do construction. But if we
left approximately 40 feet there as a non-disturbance
buffer.
MS. DWYER: I think that's reasonable. The property
itself is mostly undisturbed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. That's what we noticed when
Board of Trustees 36 June 24, 2009
we were out there.
MS. DWYER: And that's Mr. Katz' intention is to leave
as much of this undisturbed as possible. Which is why
this is the location he ended up picking, because the
other side of the property, it slopes more dramatically
and there is much more wildlife and what have you
living on the property on that side.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So if we included in this a 40 foot
non-disturbance buffer that would allow approximately a
little over 15 feet for construction activity, and it
would leave a little room there where you could
maneuver around the building and also control the
vegetation so you don't have vegetation growing against
the walls of a building.
Okay, is there anybody else in the audience who
wishes to make any comments on this application?
(No response.)
Any comments from the Board?
(No response.)
Okay, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the
application of Nancy Dwyer on behalf of Paul KaLz as
described at 100 west Mill Road with the condition that
there is a 40-foot non-disturbance buffer maintained
between the water and the proposed garage, and in doing
so that will bring this into consistency under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: Between the wetland line and the garage.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, wetland line and the garage.
Okay.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MS. DWYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number five. Narofsky Architecture on
behalf of ADRIENNE LANDAU requests a Wetland Permit to
renovate the existing single-family dwelling, construct
a 548 square foot addition, replace existing pool and
patio, and upgrade the sanitary system. Located: 855
Soundview Avenue, Mattituck.
Anyone here to represent the applicant?.
MR. NAROFSKY: Yes, I'm here. Stuart Narofsky, Narofsky
Architecture, and also Adrienne Landau is here as well. I
have to say, considering it took us four hours to come
out here from Manhattan to get here in the nick of
time, it paid to be last. It was a bad night.
TRUSTEE KING: So evidently there was a permit at one
time and it expired, I guess
Board of Trustees 37 June 24, 2009
MR. NAROFSKY: Yes. If I may, there was a permit issued
in August of 2006. At that time we had made a proposal
for a larger and more aggressive addition and
renovation to the existing home. Subsequent to this
Board's approval we were denied a building permit and
we sought a zoning board approval for necessary
variances because of the setback to the bluff. The
renovation we were doing was not considered to be a
renovation to the existing house. If you remember back
then it was quite a few applications, a little bit of
complications about interpreting the codes relative to
renovating landward versus new homes. Subsequently, I
have to say that my clients were somewhat disappointed
with our loss and took a break on doing anything, and a
few months ago called me up and said, you know, the
house is really in bad shape. We have to do
something. We actually went out to meet with Michael
from the Building Department and discussed the type of
renovation we could do, scaled down that really would
be considered as of right under the code. And the plan
that was submitted to you is such that plan. So it's
our hope that considering that two years ago a much
larger plan in square footage, much more aggressive,
that this plan, which is pretty sensitive to the
existing home, it retains the entire existing home, it
has additions landward of the home.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You say that the home is in really
disrepair, which we saw that, but you anticipate
keeping the foundation of the existing home.
MR. NAROFSKY: The foundation other than some water
proofing is actually in good shape, and so is the
framing of the home and so is the roof framing. Our
intention is to put new windows, new siding, new
roofing and then the additions behind it, and of course
new kitchen, bathrooms, things like that, inside.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you get into construction and you
realize you have to demolish the whole thing you know
have you to stop and come back to us.
MR. NAROFSKY: Yes, we had that discussion. It's beyond
our intentions to have to do that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We understand that. But sometimes
when you do that, you find that you have to.
MR. NAROFSKY: We have done some investigation --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking at the demo plan. A-2.
This is a demo. There is very little left of the
house. Everything is being demoed.
MR. NAROFSKY: We are taking down the interior
partitions and replacing the back windows. We are
leaving the walls where they are now, where the current
back windows are. We are adding a window on the side,
on the east side. But our intention is to keep that
Board of Trustees 38 June 24, 2009
salt box shell intact. The roof rafters are in tact.
We are going to cathedral the ceiling inside. We are
going to put new collar ties across and laying out a
new master bedroom suite layout. If you look at the
architectural plan, not the demo plan, but you'll see
the shell of the house, foundation, the deck behind the
house, structure of the deck, is all remaining. It is
not our intention at all, for many reasons; one we went
down that road and were not successful with the Zoning
Board. Two, from the cost point of view we are trying
to keep this as modest as we could as far as upgrading
the house, putting in facilities and adding the
bedrooms that they need.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: According to my set of plans, you
actually remove the windows, which are really walls, in
the back,
MR. NAROFSKY: The windows are all that is back there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right. It's all windows. And you take
down all the walls and everything on this plan, you are
left with about eight scale, so you probably have about
eight feet of wall left on the east side and 24, 25
feet of wall on the other side. Everything else is
pretty much gone. How are you going to keep the roof
up? MR. NAROFSKY: We are putting roof headers,
modified headers, across the back wall. We'll put new
hurricane windows in place of what is there,
obviously. They are full height windows and sliding
doors back there now, old and in bad shape. They are
all coming out. We are putting new ones in. There is
no plan modifications or extensions back there. The
deck, like I said, is staying. We would like to put a
new surface on the deck structure. I crawled under the
deck structure, the structure of the deck itself is
fine. It's intact. The decking is pretty well shot.
I know it looks that way, but that what is there now,
if you remove the windows, there is no walls. So we'll
put a new header across, new collar beams, but it's
really our intention to keep the salt box there, the
cape that is there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I understand that ultimately you'll end
up with the same footprint as you had before. I'm
just, it's all going to be brand new. I have been down
this road myself. You know, this is all coming down.
And I know that those the walls will get sistered or
something, the existing 24 feet, and they'll end up
being new walls.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Ultimately we would really like to
see the house moved back. So you are saying you are not
demolishing. We are saying if it was demolished we
would like it moved back.
MR. NAROFSKY: Of course you would. If we were to do a
Board of Trustees 39 June 24, 2009
new house we would obviously have to conform to the
bluff regulation.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's why discussion is so important.
MR. NAROFSKY: They could speak for their intentions.
The house is in, you know, from siding, roofing,
windows, in very bad shape. Structurally, it's fine.
Okay, it has not been compromised structurally. It's
not our intention to take down that house. We don't
have the budget to do it. The studs, framing, will
remain. Even the sheathing on the landward side of the
house, once the siding comes off, is in decent shape.
We plan on re-insulating on the inside and sheetrocking
but, you know, and I guess I'm in a compromised
position, I was not hired to design a new house for
them.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just want to say, we are not
accusing you that's what you are going to do. We have
been so through so many situations where this has
happened that we are very cautious in our conversations
because it has happened many times we have been
promised it's not going to be demolished, and it has.
We are not mistrusting you. We are just saying from
our experience it often leads to that.
MR. NAROFSKY: Could it be written into the approval to
give me firm guidelines because I'll denote that into
my construction documents relative to contractors
bidding on the project. And what essentially, when
Mike approves and reviews the plans for the permit,
that we really have set forth a set of rules as to what
is staying, how it's staying and that's the guideline.
Because the truth is we don't want to nor have the
budget at this point to even hopefully fall into that.
Because if we fall into that and have to build a new
structure, this is not going to happen. We are not
adding a lot of square footage. It's not our intention
to build a very large home. So I would certainly
welcome a resolution that clearly states that we have
permission to build what we have, retain it, and if
there is any structural conditions or any other
conditions that require us to go beyond that, that
obviously we stop and alert you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Your clients are more than welcome
to speak. TRUSTEE KING: It was found inconsistent
because of the setbacks.
MS. LANDAU: I would like to say we bought this house
ten years ago with, always plans to renovate it,
because it's a nice house. But over the last ten years
it's really, I mean we are having our problems, our
dishwasher doesn't work. We are living there like
camping out, basically. We love this area, we love --
you know, I came back to Stuart because I loved his
Board of Trustees 40 June 24, 2009
work. I think he did a beautiful job with the first
house. You know, we reevaluated the whole thin[i and
thou[Iht, you know, we wanted to do a much simpler
project. Our bud[let is much, much less. We thou[Iht
just cleaning up the house, you know, keeping the shell
of the house, putting in new windows, new floor, makin[i
it liveable, for the times that we are living there.
We have children, our children just got married. We
want to have a place that people could come to. Right
now it's not a place where people, we could hardly
basically live there. It's really, the roof is, every
time we go out there it's another problem.
MR. NAROFSKY: Would you be okay if they clarify it in
their resolution --
MS. LANDAU: That's the whole idea. We don't want to
spend a lot of money. We want to put in windows. We
want to make it liveable basically. We would like to
make it a little bigger. That's why we are opening it
up. I said to Stuart, I like the idea of keepin9 the
frame and just keepin[i it very simple.
MR. NAROFSKY: I know it sounds stran[ie but we renovated
100, 200-year old homes over the years and this is not
that old. It's not that bad a condition. But we
renovated barns, old homes, where you would think it's
all going, but because of the a[ie or in certain cases
historic issues, we had to do these thin§s with kid
gloves. Studs stay, thin[Is [let cleaned out tediously.
This won't be like that in the sense of old timbers and
thin[is like that, but as I said, I think we'll, per
your recommendation, work under at strict [iuideline to
maintain that existing structure as a structure, roof,
walls, floor, foundation, and denote on our plans to
the Building Department in such a way that reflects
your ruling.
MS. LANDAU: I would like to also say that basically we
use the house in the summer and we close it up because
things are not really working and we have a lot of air
coming through. Remember the whole thing happened with
our water system. We came out, we turned off the house
and we are paying taxes all year-round. Our taxes went
up, and we are not using it. I mean, we love it. We
would like to use it, we would like to make it really
liveable. You know, and we need to do something.
MR. NAROFSKY: I think they understand. They think it's
just the issue they don't fall into the situation that
occurred in the past.
MS. LANDAU: We did see Mike and everything was fine.
We would approve it. We are not going forward. I mean
it's basically a 1,200 square foot house. It's going
to be under 2,000 square feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: With the addition.
Board of Trustees 41 June 24, 2009
MR. NAROFSKY: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm interested in what the sanitary is
going to be.
MR. NAROFSKY: There is a new sanitary system. We have a
permit from Suffolk County. We were granted a permit
two years ago. It's still active. We just amended it
with the new footprint and it's been accepted. And
drywells, proper drainage.
MS. LANDAU: The reason we picked Stuart is he's done a
lot of work on the water in Long Island. His house was
on the cover of a book.
MR. NAROFSKY: It's okay, they have their environmental
concerns.
MS. LANDAU: I know. It's for the community.
MR. NAROFSKY: If I could just say one thing, the
permit granted from this Board two years ago, I know
things changed environmentally in two years, when I
said it was more aggressive, beside being more square
footage. That one we were taking down. It was clearly
denoted. This is a very different case.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It will be nice when it's done. I like
the plans.
MR. NAROFSKY: Thank you. We think that the courtyard
thing with the swimming pool will work out pretty well.
TRUSTEE KING: Just move the septic back.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How far is it now?
MR. NAROFSKY: The problem with the septic, and Suffolk
County tossed this around for quite a while, is the
sweet spot to the neighbor's wells and they really,
they kind of found that spot where they felt it was,
the priority was more about the neighbor's wells than
the bluff, but that was their, really, we were working
with Joe Ingegno at the time, he's retired, but that
septic moved around quite a bit until Suffolk County
really agreed on its location.
TRUSTEE KING: At least it's been moved landward of the
ridge. That's an improvement.
MR. NAROFSKY: Definitely. And the original one, which
is blocks, I mean this will be a contemporary system.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Maybe if they could have vegetation
seaward of the house, would improve the consistency,
since the house has been, can't be moved. It's such a
small area.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Make it no lawn.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. Vegetation but not a lawn in
front, because it's such a small area.
MR. NAROFSKY: There is very little area seaward of the
house now.
TRUSTEE KING: Looking at the size of the land, the
lawn, if we could make that --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Make it all vegetated, just not
Board of Trustees 42 June 24, 2009
lawn.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Non-turf in front of the house.
MR. NAROFSKY: The front being the water side.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, sorry. The Building Department
says that's the back.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think that brings it more into
consistency.
MR. NAROFSKY: We are not going to have a lawn because
the concern is runoff and stabilization on that bluff.
So the ground coverage and indigenous material --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: However you want to design it --
TRUSTEE KING: It can be planting, just not grass or sod.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And you could have a pathway down,
too.
MR. NAROFSKY: We are very sensitive to this. It will
be a green house. I passed my lead exam this morning,
that's why I was in New York. Talk about erosion,
that's all I heard for the last three months.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That would be my only recommendation
in front of the house, because it's such a small area.
And it just protects your bluff anyway.
MR. NAROFSKY: I have seen, in just two-and-a-half years
I have been involved in this property and coming into
the area, it's amazing what I have seen in that short
period of time.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For the past two years it's been a lot
of damage on that side.
MR. NAROFSKY: Because it doesn't stop reining.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other questions?
(No response.)
MR. MCGREEVEY: Any mention of the surfacing of the
driveway under construction.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's out of our jurisdiction.
MR. NAROFSKY: There is a gravel driveway. We are
maintaining it. We'll clean it up, but it's not
changing. Actually, the site with the decks that we
are proposing, we are actually removing the pervious
patio that is existing now that you saw around the
existing pool, so everything will be in pervious
condition whether it's open deck or landscaping around
the pool. And we are containing all the water and any
pervious surfaces that are left over. The other thing,
not that it matters much, but no flat roof extension by
the pool. It will be a green roof. It will be a
planters roof for water.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We noticed that when we were out there.
MR. NAROFSKY: For water absorption.
TRUSTEE KING: You say you'll remove the existing well.
Where will the new well go?
MR. NAROFSKY: That's Ingegno's original plan. We are
going to put it, there will be a new drop in the
Board of Trustees 43 June 24, 2009
existing location and we are going to put, get rid of
that housing there and put the tank in the basement.
That's what we meant by it originally, it's just the
wellhead there with the tank that is on site now.
We'll get that moved internal.
TRUSTEE KING: Nothing else? 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 with the stipulation that the area seaward
of the deck is to be non-turf; I think you had gutters
and leaders to drywells on the plans.
MR. NAROFSKY: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: And you also have a row of staked hay
bales around it. That's there already,
MR. NAROFSKY: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: CAC resolved to support the application.
I think by making it a non-turf area in front of the
house, they are moving the septic landward of the
original septic, And the green roof on part of the new
addition, I think all these, I'll make a motion this
brings it into consistency. And that's my motion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. NAROFSKY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: On these plans I'll just mark in there on
the seaward side of the deck.
MR, NAROFSKY: I made a note and when we file -- should
I submit an amendment to the Board or just file with
the building permit?
MS. STANDISH: You'll revise the Building Department
then we'll need two so we can stamp them and issue the
permit.
MR. NAROFSKY: Showing the non-turf area.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Also, can you write on the plans that
it is, you have all that written?
MR. NAROFSKY: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We didn't mention in the resolution if
it becomes a demolition they have it stop and come back
and amend the permit.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, put that condition in there,
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And also we should CC this resolution
to the Building Department.
TRUSTEE KING: You're good to go.
MR. NAROFSKY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 44 June 24, 2009
(ALL AYES.)
RECEIVED
8EP - 3 2000,
$outhold Town Clerk