HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-09/23/2009 James F. King, President
Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President
Peggy A. Dickerson
Dave Bergen
Bob Ghosio, Jr.
Town Hall Annex
54375M~n Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone(631) 765-1892
Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
Wednesday, September 23, 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
Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, October 7, 2009, at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, October 21, 2009, at 6:00 PM
WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of July 22, 2009
TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to our
September meeting. My name is Jim King, I'm Chairman
of the Board of Trustees. At this time I would like to
introduce the rest of the crew. To my far left is Dave
Bergen, Trustee; next to him is Peggy Dickerson; Jill
Doherty is next to me, she serves as the vice-chair,
and to my right is Lauren Standish. Lauren runs the
office for us. Next to Lauren is Trustee Bob Ghosio.
Board of Trustees 2 September 23, 2009
Usually next to Bob will be our Town Attorney. I guess
she is a little late today. She serves as our legal
adviser. And down on the floor hera we have Wayne
Galante keeping track of what everybody says. If you
have a comment to make or anything to say, please come
to the microphone and identify yourself for the
record. And we have the front row here, Jack
McGreevy. Jack is with the Conservation Advisory
Council. They go out and do many of the same
inspections we do and give us their racommendations on
the projects. And I think we have a little information
we would like to provide for the racord hera. This is
a statement hera from the Board, the Conservation
Advisory Council
MR. MCGREEVY: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: We have a statement we would like to raad
into the racord.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We would like to announce the Board of
the Trustees with the support of the Town Board having a press
conferance on this Saturday, the 26th at 10:30. It will be at the
Mattituck boat ramp in Mattituck, off Rt. 48. The prass
conferance is in ragard to the legislation on the saltwater fishing
license and there will be several raprasentatives from all the differant
town governments and other governments, and we ara going to be
stating our opinion and we feel this is a tax on us and we ara
going to be talking about that. So if anybody is interasted,
please come and support us and any questions or comments we
would be answering, and the Conservation Advisory Council, as Jim
said, also discussed this and has a comment that they would like us to
read into the record tonight. So I'll read that.
This is about saltwater fishing rights. Recently, New York State
passed a law raquiring those who wish to saltwater fish in our local
waters now have to pay a fee -- it's a tax -- to obtain a saltwater fishing
license and abide by a whole new list of onerous rastrictions and
proceduras to be followed and enforcement to back it all up.
Southold Town has an opportunity to save our saltwater fishing
rights and continue to generate needed town ravenues by taking this
negative, anti-rights law and turn it into a positive for our town.
If Southold Town cannot overturn this law that infringes on our
basic liberty to freely saltwater fish, because the state wants the money
from imposing this tax on individual fishermen, the town should pay
the tax, an agraed amount, directly to the state, in lieu of each
individual fisherman being raquirad to obtain a license and paying a fee.
If agraed by the state, the procedura would save administrative costs
for all concerned, protect and praserve an historic individual right to
fraely fish and continue to draw saltwater fisherman to our local shoras.
This statement was from the Conservation Advisory Council of
Southold Town.
I just want to explain, after raading this, the federal government
is mandating each state to draw up legislation on the saltwater fisheries.
Board of Trustees 3 September 23, 2009
So we are going to have some kind of legislation, but they didn't
say you have to do a fee or anything else, and we are in agreement
that anything that will help preserve Peconic Estuary and the waters
out here is a good thing. But there is a lot of aspects of this
legislation that we don't agree with and that's why we are having
this press conference, to let the general public know how we feel and
that we are fighting for all of us to not have this, another tax put on us.
So, again, that's at 10:30 this Saturday in Mattituck, at the boat ramp
on 48.
That's it, we can start.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, we'll set the next date for the
next field inspection, October 7, eight o'clock in the
morning.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Our next meeting will be Wednesday,
October 21, at 6:00, with the work session starting at
5:30.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve the minutes of July 22,
2009?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for August, 2009. A check
for $5,941.78 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.
TRUSTEE KING: We have a number of State Environmental
Quality Reviews
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 VI Public Hearings
Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday,
Board of Trustees 4 September 23, 2009
September 23, 2009, are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations, and are not
subject to further review under SEQRA.
They are listed as follows, for the record:
Michael Kenin - SCTM#31-9-11
Stephen & Virginia McConnell - SCTM#78-6-1
Michael Kenna - SCTM#87-3-39
Anthony Forosich - SCTM#79-4-4.1
Michael & Deborah Thompson - SCTM#118-6-6
Cheryl Hansen - SCTM#78-5-17
William H. Lieblein (Port of Egypt) - SCTM#56-6-6.1
Jonathan Zang - SCTM#87-6-7
Diana DeLucia - SCTM#107-4-5
John & Daniella Venetis - SCTM#87-6-4
John Biggane - SCTM~3-1-34
Jose Suquet - SCTM#83-1-33
Charles Casarona & Joseph Casarona - SCTM#83-1-36.1
Scott & Jennifer Schulman - SCTM#70-5-41
Southview Custom Builders - SCTM#87-5-21.4, 21.7, 21.9,
21.10, 21.11, 21.12, 21.13
George, Florence, Alexander & Demetrios Vasilakis -
SCTM#135-1-6
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Motion to approve.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES.)
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Under resolutions and administrative
permits, number one, CHARLES & MICHELE ZALOOM request
an administrative permit to construct an 8x12 addition
on the landward side of the existing dwelling.
Located: 1356 Grand Avenue, Mattituck
I went out and looked at this. I initially
thought it might possibly be a non-jurisdiction, but it
was within our jurisdiction and so they came in for an
administrative permit. It's just a small kitchen
addition on the landward side. It's almost 90 feet
away from the wetland. I didn't have a problem with
it. I'll recommend approval.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, OTTO FERCHAU requests an
Administrative Permit to install a trench for drainage;
clean and level area with approximately 20 cubic yards
of topsoil and plant grass; and plant bushes and trees
Board of Trustees 5 September 23, 2009
on embankment. Located: 345 Meadow Lane, Mattituck.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be
inconsistent. And since I just got this, just bear
with me for a second. (Perusing). The concern seems to
be about a buffer and maintaining existing indigenous
vegetation within buffer areas.
The Board did go out and looked at this and did,
it did look like there had been clearing in a buffer
area, which would support the LWRP coordinator's
findings. So I believe what the Board would tend to
approve would be the planting of grass, planting of
bushes and trees on the embankment, but we were not
going to approve bringing in topsoil into what had been
a buffer area and wetland area, that we want to see
that come back to normal.
So what I would propose is that we Approve an
Administrative Permit to install a trench for drainage
and plant bushes and trees on the embankment only,
located at 345 Meadow Lane, Mattituck. In doing so, it
would bring it into consistency with the LWRP because
we would not be approving bringing fill into the buffer
area.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll second. All in favor?.
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number three, ANN MCCARTHY requests
an Administrative Permit to trim back invasive
vegetation at the edge of the lawn. Located: 860 East
Road, Cutchogue.
This is a violation that is still pending, and our
lawyer just walked in.
MS. HULSE: Hello.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is the McCarthy application,
Lori. Where are we with that?
MS. HULSE: She has agreed to resolve the violation and
I'm satisfied with that, so it should be wrapped up
after this evening.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So we could move ahead with it?
MS. HULSE: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: How will she rectify it?
MS. HULSE: Pay a fine and revegetating. And she also
agreed to the encroachment violation as well. So all
of it should be remedied.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can we put in our condition here as a
condition that she revegetates?
MS. HULSE: Yes, that's a condition of the plea as well.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And you are taking care of the
neighbor giving permission for her to go on the
property, again, to revegetate?
MS. HULSE: Yes, that's part of the plea as well.
Board of Trustees 6 September 23, 2009
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We do have an inconsistent review
from LWRP, and it says maintain buffer to ensure no
adverse effects of adjacent nearby vegetative buffer;
avoid permanent disturbance; maintain existing
indigenous vegetation. Which my feeling we would bring
it into consistency with the proper revegetation.
TRUSTEE KING: Sure.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So that would bring it into
consistency. So I'll make a motion to approve the
administrative permit to trim back invasive vegetation
at 860 East Road. This will also revegetate the area
that encroaches upon the neighboring property to the
west and that this revegetation would be with native
vegetation, which would bring it into consistency.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just one modification. There was also
clearing to the property to the east also. It was not
as extensive as to the west, but there was some to the
west so I want to make sure we include east and west
properties.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. Second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES.)
Before we go further, sorry, we have two
cancellations. Two meetings will be postponed.
Number three on page four, Catherine Mesiano on behalf
of ROBERT CELIC requests a Wetland Permit to replace
three existing wood jetties 68', 65' and 50', using
10x15' wood piles @ six-feet on center and C-Loc vinyl
sheathing or equivalent. Located: 910 Park Avenue
Extension, Mattituck, has been postponed.
And also number 17 on page six, Costello Marine
Contracting on behalf of MICHAEL KENNA requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a 3x60' fixed catwalk with
a 32"x14' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6x20' seasonal
floating dock secured by two 2-pile dolphins six inches
in diameter. Located: 3200 Minnehaha Blvd., Southoid,
has been postponed.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number four, MARGARET MCNAMARA
requests an Administrative Permit to install pervious
pavers along the bulkhead to minimize erosion of soil.
Located: 640 Takaposha Road, Southold.
This is found to be consistent with LWRP, and I
see somebody is here. We have a couple of questions.
Can you state your name for the record, please?
MR. MCNAMARA: John McNamara.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. I see you have 30 cubic
yards of fill coming in underneath. What type of fill
Board of Trustees 7 September 23, 2009
is that?
MR. MCNAMARA: It's whatever is prescribed by the design
of the base. It's basic stone; fractured stone.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Was there any thought to doing
something more like what your neighbor has, because
that acts more like a splash pad when you do have a
storm and it's a little stronger than just pavers.
MR. MCNAMARA: I think this will have the same effect.
It should, based on the what the engineers are telling me.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does the Board have any other
questions?
(No response.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And you already have a DEC permit for
that. I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Margaret McNamara as submitted.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could interrupt for a second. To
go back to reopen number three, I think we need to give
them a timeframe or timeline under which that
revegetation should take place, as we have done with
others.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. That's a good idea. Is there a
motion?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: With the Board's permission I make a
motion to reopen number three, ANN MCCARTHY, located at
860 East Road, Cutchogue.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Additionally, I would just ask that
additional language is included where we set a date in
which this replanting must take place, and with the
planting season upon us, probably it would be best to
have, I'm just thinking by November 1, and subject to
inspection by the Board, let's say by April 30 so that
we can see if the planting did in fact take place and held.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: That gives them roughly a little, about
five weeks.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. And I'm also thinking of the
season, and you would probably want to get plantings in
the ground by the beginning of November. And by April
we should be able to tell if they are growing or not.
Board of Trustees 8 September 23, 2009
MR. MCNAMARA: We're all set? When can we begin?
TRUSTEE KING: As soon as the girls type up the
permits, they'll mail them out to you. If you want to
pick them up, just give us a call
MR. MCNAMARA: About a week, you think?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. MCNAMARA: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number five, KATHLEEN BOWER requests an
Administrative Permit to pick up and remove 40+/- dead
oak, hickory and maple trees. Test bore remaining large
oak trees for insect infestation and treat as
necessary. Scrape up and remove sedimentation. Located:
12710 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
There is no LWRP on this. We are not going to
move forward with this. I believe Mre. Bower is here
MRS. BOWER: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Did you ever get anything, I think we
asked you for a report from an arborist?
MRS. BOWER: Yes, we also have the E-mail from Rob Marsh
from the DEC I would like to read into the record, if
that's okay. This is regarding dead tree removal on
your lot. Dated, April 2, 2009.
Ms. Bower, I spoke with Trustee Jim King regarding
the removal of dead vegetation on your lot. He
remembered being on your lot and said that it had been
several years since he has visited it. I told him that
several large trees had fallen since his last visit. He
said that the Trustees would consider selective removal
of dead vegetation but would want to see the request
come through the application for permit process. I
would think that if they only allowed you to remove
several of the larger, more recently fallen trees, that
some of your desired goals could be achieved in that
there would be more open water for the ducks and more
open space for turtles and other wildlife. Mr. King
said that once they received the application that a
Trustee would revisit the site to get an idea of how
many new trees had fallen since the last visit and make
a decision. I understand that this would not be a
per[ect solution for you but maybe something is better
than nothing. The DEC does not have the authority to
compel the Town to allow you to remove the trees.
Please feel free call me if you have any questions at
(631) 444-0278. Dan Lewis.
And a copy of this letter was also send sent to
Tom Gadomski and Rob Marsh of the DEC. So I can give
you a copy of this.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't believe that's a DEC regulated
wetland
Board of Trustees 9 September 23, 2009
MRS. BOWER: It's not.
TRUSTEE KING: It's not a DEC regulated wetland, that's
what I thought. We have some discretion. Marsh told
me it was not regulated.
MRS. BOWER: Correct. So I assume then that the
Trustees are the lead agency and the decision making
body in this.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MRS. BOWER: I have two expert opinions, one is from
certified arborist Joseph Shipman from Shamrock Tree
Expert Company, and it's dated September 21, 2009, to
the Southold Town Trustees.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me, can we get a copy? We have
not seen that.
MRS. BOWER: Sure, I'll give you everything. These are
all copies.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And if you want, instead of you
reading it, we can make sure Wayne puts it in the
record. It's up to you. Because this is not a public
hearing and we are just --
MRS. BOWER: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we can't act on it tonight because
we don't have an LWRP review so we have to wait 30 days.
TRUSTEE KING: We have not reviewed these letters. We
need time to do that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we can make sure that those letters
are put into the record. It will be typed into the minutes.
MRS. BOWER: Well, I would really prefer to read them
into the record myself.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
MRS. BOWER: If that's okay. One is very, very short.
One is a little lengthy.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you could summarize it.
TRUSTEE KING: This is not a public hearing. If it
doesn't take too long, go ahead.
MRS. BOWER: All right. After carefully examining the
property located at 12710 Soundview Avenue, Southold,
my recommendation would be to clean up the fallen trees
and debris in and surrounding the vernal pond. By
going forward with the cleanup process, it would enable
the vernal pond to fill more readily by natural
rainfall which in turn would enable the natural
wildlife to have an easier access to drink without
having dangerous gases emitted by natural decomposition
of rotten logs and fallen trees. This work would have
to be done by hand as to not disturb the natural
vegetation. That's from Shamrock.
And well, I guess this is kind of long. And it's
in handwriting. I just got it this morning so I might
stumble a little over it, but essentially this is from
Board of Trustees 10 September 23, 2009
Peter Dooley of North Fork Lawn & Tree Service, and he
agrees that, you know, because I know you kind of
wanted an autopsy to see what killed the trees, and
essentially he's saying that, yes, the excessive water
coming in from, the storm water coming in is, you know,
compromising the trees. The roots are getting wet and
that's why down on the ground they are falling over and
that's why he says that carpenter ants love these wet
conditions and found, you know, a lot of infestation on
a lot of the trees. And, you know, he feels that it
would be best to get it cleaned up and get some health
going in there. And I also wanted to say that I just,
I have been trying to find a Dr. Christopher Pickerel
from Cornell. I don't know if you ever heard of him.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We work with him all the time.
MRS. BOWER: Someone mentioned him to me a year ago and
I could never find him, and I just found him today.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You should have called our office, we
would have given you his number.
MRS. BOWER: I intend to get in touch with him -- he's a
habitat restoration specialist -- to find out what
would be the right plant to put in there that could
withstand these wet conditions.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure
MRS. BOWER: So that's that.
TRUSTEE KING: I think the freshwater people from the
DEC could help you out with that, too.
MRS. BOWER: Well.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm sure they could recommend plantings
for there.
MRS. BOWER: Maybe.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Rob Marsh is the freshwater --
MRS. BOWER: Rob is the one who first came out and he's
the one that put Dan Lewis on the agenda. He says he's
the freshwater guy.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Things have changed in the last year.
MRS. BOWER: So he kind of, I don't know, seems like he
kind of pushed the bucket on to you guys.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because it's not regulated by DEC,
that's why.
MRS, BOWER: And I also have just a couple of pictures
to put in there. This is a picture showing clearly
where the water is coming from. And this is a picture
that shows, this is taken a couple of years ago. I
don't know if you have the pictures, I don't know see
my pictures up there. You know, the newer giant trees
that came down are kind of hiding those. So you know
where I get that number of 40 from. I'm not making it up.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: So we are not going to move on this
Board of Trustees 11 September 23, 2009
tonight.
MRS. BOWER: So when would you be finalizing a decision?
TRUSTEE KING: We would probably come back out there and
make another site visit. We'll put it on for next month.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We just have to wait 30 days for the
LWRP. If he doesn't give us a report by next meeting,
we can move ahead with it. I'm sure he'll give us a
report by next meeting.
MRS. BOWER: Who is LWRP?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's Mark Terry. He works out of
the Planning Board. All our applications that need to
be reviewed need to go through him.
MS. HULSE: I could meet with Ms. Bower.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. I'll make a motion to table
this application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES.)
MR. FERCHAU: Did I get an okay on my application?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, sir. I was the one who handled
the application and basically it's been approved except
for the cleaning and leveling of the area with 20 cubic
yards of topsoil. That we did not approve. But we did
approve the trench for drainage and planting the bushes
and trees on the embankment. So if you have any
questions about it you can certainly come to the office
and we'll explain it all to you.
MR. FERCHAU: That's okay with me. The reason I just
thought I cannot bring in peat anymore to level it out
because what happened, there are like ditches and the
moisture stays too long and we had the water tested and
we have fermentation and so they suggested that I level
it out and make the area dry. So that was my reason to
dig a trench and let the water runoff. I'm not allowed
to bring any topsoil, so I'll just level it off and put
zoysia grass on it or wild flowers. I want to plant
some shrubs for the birds, you know.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, again, can you come into the
office and talk about it. But what we approved was
everything but what had been, that lower area that had
been cleared, we did not approve any work to be done
there.
MR. FERCHAU: So I can't do nothing?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, leave that just the way it is so it
can come back to its natural state the way it was
before it was cleared.
MR. FERCHAU: What will I do with the fermentation?
Will the town do something?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, unfortunately we already got to you
Board of Trustees 12 September 23, 2009
in the agenda and we moved on in the agenda.
MR. FERCHAU: My hearing is not what it should be.
Maybe some day you will get to the same age.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hope so. I'm planning on it.
MR. FERCHAU: Okay, so I should come to your office
when?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: They are open 8:00 to 4:00, Monday
through Friday.
MR. FERCHAU: Can I come tomorrow at 11:007
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Come in. One of the Trustees will
contact you. Call or come in.
MR. FERCHAU: I live in New Hyde Park and the house is
here on Meadow Lane and I have no communication or
phone, so that's what I came today from New Hyde Park.
TRUSTEE KING: Everything is approved except for
bringing fill in. If you put the drainage ditch in,
that may do the job, so that area gets dry.
MR. FERCHAU: So I'll come tomorrow around eleven.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Come tomorrow around 11:00, that's
fine.
MR. FERCHAU: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number six RALPH VESTBOM requests an
Administrative Permit to place two cedar posts six-feet
high with 12x12" signs above the high tide line.
Located: 3500 Lighthouse Road, Southold.
We have been to this site. It's up on The Sound.
We have pictures in the file showing the base of the
stairs currently are close, in recreationally using the
beach, are leaving quite a bit of debris behind. It's
right at the base of his stairs, on his property. And
so he wants to put up a couple of signs. Is there any
comments or questions?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As long as it fits within the code,
you know, I don't have of a problem with it. Because
it is next to town property, so there are a lot of
people that use that. And it should be noticed where
the property line is. So I don't have a problem with it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Anybody have a problem with two signs?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: My concern is that this will be a
domino effect and our Sound shores and bay shores will
end up with signage, so I'm not, I realize it is allowed in the
code, I just don't feel it's something we need to start.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree that private property along
the way should not be signed, but to distinguish
between the public property and then private, I don't
have of a problem with that. But I understand what you
are saying, I would not want to see it all the way down
the line either.
TRUSTEE KING: Sign of the times, my beach. As long as
Board of Trustees 13 September 23, 2009
they post it, it has to be posted above high water
mark. We don't want to see them down in the public
domain. I think in this particular case I think there
is a need for it. I think people are just taking
advantage of the situation and leaving it a dump.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The signs are, based upon survey here,
should be approximately 85 to 100 feet apart. So he
wants to put them on the two corners of his property, I
guess. Hopefully people will refrain from leaving
their garbage behind. So I would like to make a motion
we approve this resolution to place two cedar posts
with 12x12" signs above the high tide line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?.
(Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Doherty, aye.
Trustee King, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye.)
(Trustee Dickerson, nay.)
TRUSTEE KING: For the record, Trustee Dickerson votes
nay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: One thing I didn't note, I should have
noted for the record is, the application of Vestbom,
the application was designated exempt by LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number seven, JMO Environmental
Consulting on behalf of BELVEDERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT,
LLC, requests an Administrative Permit to control the
growth of Giant Reed (Phragmites australis) from a
regulated freshwater wetland using Glyphosate.
Vegetation shall be cut in Spring and Glyphosate
applied in Fall. The cut phragmites shall be removed
form the area for upland disposal. Located: Northeast
Pond, Robins Island.
Mr. Just, how are you?
MR. JUST: Just great.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The only thing that we wanted to
request is if we can get before and after pictures for
the file. At your leisure.
MR. JUST: We just submitted some earlier this week of
pictures I had taken a few weeks ago, and I'll be more
than happy to supply pictures after.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, we didn't inspect it this time
around. We were out there, a couple of us were out
there when you originally did the pond ten years ago.
I don't know if Jim was on the Board.
MR. JUST: We first started in 2002.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You did a really nice job there.
Does the Board have any questions on this?
(No response.)
It was found consistent with LWRP and no comment from
Conservation Advisory Council.
Board of Trustees 14 September 23, 2009
Being no other questions, I'll make a motion to approve the
application as submitted.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES.)
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Applications for extensions, transfers
and amendments. A lot of these we reviewed are very
straightforward and I would like to lump one through
eight and number ten, I'll make a motion to approve
these as submitted. They read as follows:
ROY & LINDA ARGENT request a One-Year Extension to
Permit ~6720 as issued on September 19, 2007. Located:
6429 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic.
Number two, McCarthy Management, Inc., on behalf of
BERNARD & CAROL KIERNAN requests a One-Year Extension
to Permit #6713A as issued on September 19, 2007.
Located: 1605 North Parish Drive, Southold.
Number three, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of
NARROW RIVER MARINA CIO FRED DAClMO requests a One-Year
Extension to Wetland Permit #6742 and Coastal Erosion
Permit #6742C, as issued on October 17, 2007.
Located: 5520 Narrow River Road, Orient.
Number four, PAUL PAWLOWSKI requests a Transfer of
Permit #1602 from Thomas & Susan Odoles to Paul
Pawlowski as issued on May 3, 21983. Located: End of
Holbrook Lane, Mattituck.
Number five, KENDALL TODD requests a Transfer of Permit
#458 from Marjorie Todd to Kendall Todd, as issued on
June 1, 1989. Located: 670 Bayview Drive, East Marion.
Number six, ROBERT F. FRIEMANN requests a Transfer of
Permit #496 from Henry Friemann to Robert F. Fdemann,
as issued on July 1, 1968. Located: 2935 Pine Tree
Road, Cutchogue.
Number seven, JAMES & MICHELE WILLIAMS requests an
Amendment to Permit #6787 to add a 12x7' slate
flagstone patio behind the bulkhead. Located: 850
Lupton's Point Road, Mattituck.
Number eight, THOMAS PULS requests an Amendment to
Permit #7034A to install a pervious driveway.
Board of Trustees 15 September 23, 2009
Located: 1350 Eugene's Road, Cutchogue.
And number ten, JMO Environmental Consulting Services
on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP., requests
an Amendment to Permit #7059 to allow for the
construction of an 8' wide path/boardwalk for the
length of the path, as previously approved; the area of
the freshwater wetlands as depicted on sheets (L-5 & 6
as well as C-5 & 6), the proposed boardwalk (+132')
shall be kept to four feet in width. At the area of
Barley Field Cove as depicted on sheets (L-35 and
C-35), the boardwalk shall be four-feet in width.
Located: East End Road, Fishers Island.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second.
MS. MOORE: Can I make one quick comment on number
eight, please. This was the replacement of the
pervious driveway. He's going, he's looking at how
it's, he's going to try it on a certain portion. They
may want to replace additional driveway with more of
this pervious block. I don't know if you can, we can
include it as, you know, in the approval or do you want
me to give you a letter asking for it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think a letter so we can see where
and how much. You know, we don't want to just give a
blanket approval and the whole yard would be like that.
MS. MOORE: It's just the driveway. How would you
suggest I do it? It doesn't matter.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you want us to just table this
now?
MS. MOORE: They're working on it, they can't table it.
They have a section being worked on right now.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The section is out of our jurisdiction
that is being worked on.
MS. MOORE: No, I mean they want to work on it. They
stopped everything waiting for this approval.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How does the Board --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's not changing the dimensions of
what is already on the --
MS. MOORE: No it's replacing pervious with pervious
which is a really nice material that you guys, I'll send you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We're not specifying material. It just
has to be pervious.
MS. MOORE: Okay, well, if it's generic enough to
install a pervious driveway, that's the pervious area
we would be replacing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it's the same driveway we have on
the plans?
MS. MOORE: It's the same. He only has a portion
showing now. The rest will once he sees how it looks,
Board of Trustees 16 September 23, 2009
if it works well, continue that treatment and replace
all the pervious area with the same.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought you were saying extend the
driveway and make the driveway bigger.
MS. MOORE: No, keeping the driveway area.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have a problem then.
MS. MOORE: As long as I have it on the record that the
driveway can be replaced.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So on number eight, Thomas Puls, the
amendment would include the entire driveway to be a
pervious driveway.
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have a second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number nine, Mark K. Schwartz,
Architect, on behalf of MICHAEL & LINDA GAMBARDELLA
requests an Amendment to Permit ~6788 to install a
four-foot high pool enclosure fence 10' off the
bulkhead. Located: 9480 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
This was reviewed under LWRP and found to be
consistent. And our understanding is there has been a
request to modify this application. Is there somebody
here to make that request?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, Mark Schwartz, Amhitect. We wanted
to move the fence back to seven feet from the
bulkhead. There are some existing stairs there we are
trying to tie into the stairs. It just makes it a
little more convenient for the tie in from the fence to
the existing stairs, so the request is seven feet
rather than ten. And I have a couple of surveys that
show that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you have a revised survey or set of
plans there for us?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Great, if you could show that to me,
please.
TRUSTEE KING: Seven feet landward of the bulkhead
rather than ten?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Note for the record this is a set of
plans dated September 23, 2009, and this new set of plans
does depict the fence as being seven feet from the bulkhead.
Since this is already in the non-turf buffer, it's really, I really
don't see that it is affecting the project much, so I don't have
a problem with this. I still think it would be consistent with
the LWRP, so I make a motion to approve this, with the
understanding the description will be, for the
four-foot high pool enclosure fence, to be seven foot
Board of Trustees 17 September 23, 2009
off the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off the regular
hearings and go onto the public hearings.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES.)
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number one, En-Consultants on behalf
of JOSE SUClUET requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal
Erosion Permit to restore two washed out areas of bluff
face in conjunction with neighboring property owners to
west and east via placement of portion of approximately
920 cubic yards clean sand and erosion-control matting;
planting of native vegetation; construction of portions
of four vinyl terrace retaining walls; and
establishment of portions of two 15' wide non-turf
buffers (inclusive of 3' wide planted berm.) Located:
8869 Oregon Road. Cutchogue.
I was going to put the three of these together.
We also have number two, En-Consultants on behalf of
JOHN BIGGANE with a similar request, requesting a
Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to restore
the washed out area of bluff face in conjunction with
the neighboring property owner to east via placement of
portion of approximately 700 cubic yards clean sand and
erosion-control matting; planting of native vegetation;
construction of portions of two vinyl terrace retaining
walls; and establishment of a portion of a 15-foot wide
non-turf buffer (inclusive of 3' wide planted berm.)
Located: 8871 Oregon Road, Cutchogue and;
number three, En-Consultants on behalf of CHARLES
CASARONA & JOSEPH CASARONO requests a Wetland Permit
and Coastal Erosion Permit to restore washed out area
of bluff face in conjunction with neighboring property
owner to west via placement of portion of approximately
220 cubic yards clean sand and erosion-centrel matting;
planting of native vegetation; construction of portions
of two vinyl terrace retaining walls and; establishment
of a portion of 15-foot wide non-turf buffer (inclusive
of 3' wide planted berm.) Located: 55 Glen Court,
Cutchogue.
Is there anyone here?
MR. HERMAN: I'm here. Rob Herman of En-Consultants on
behalf of the three applicants. And as Peggy mentioned,
this really is a project that will be done by the same
Board of Trustees 18 September 23, 2009
contractor -- Dave Chicanowicz is here -- if the Board
has any specific questions of him. Let me just hand
these up to Lauren.
The case on, there is basically three properties
here but there are two washouts, and each washout
straddles the mutual property line of the center
property, which is Suquet. So there is one washout
that Suquet shares to the east with Casarona and one
washout that Suquet shares with Biganne to the west.
What Dave and I noticed, and this is something that
seems to be coming up more frequently as we look at
some of these drainage designs on The Sound, is that
each of the washouts seems to be correlated spacially
with a drywell. And if you look on the plans, there is
a drywell that is situated not particularly far
landward of either of the two washouts. There it is.
So part of what we are proposing to do, obviously the
bluff re-nourishment is not particularly different from
what you have seen in the past. We are proposing to
bring in fill, stabilize it with erosion control
matting, plant it, and here, because of the steepness
of it, we are proposing limited terrace walls. The
terrace walls themselves can only be so wide because
the gullies themselves are actually fairly steep, or
deep, I guess I should say. So in order to raise the
fill a certain amount, we can only go a certain
distance before we are coming up against the walls on
the side. So in terms of the re-nourishment of the
bluff face itself, is we are really just trying to
restore the condition that was there and then instead
of just trying to repair the damage we are also trying
to solve what we think may be part of the problem here,
which is these drywells. You have the water that is
being collected, so the drywells are doing what they
are supposed to do. But then the water is being
funneled down and basically just pushed right out of
the bluff face with the impervious soil layer that it
eventually reaches. So we are proposing to remove both
of these drywells and move them upland as part of what
we are proposing as this project. So we repair the
damage and hopefully get somewhere in terms of removing
the source.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Along those lines, talking about the
drywells, I just want to read the Conservation Advisory
Council, had a review of this, of all three, and
supports the applications, however the existing drywell
appears to be too close to the top of the bluff and
therefore recommends an additional drywell is installed
landward of the berm and located further back from the
face of the bluff.
Board of Trustees 19 September 23, 2009
As what Rob just mentioned, is that addressing
your comments?
MR. HERMAN: And that is actually, Jack, maybe you
didn't see it, but we did show on the original plan,
that what we are proposing to relocate those drywells
100 feet from the bluff crest. We don't want to add
anymore drywells to this area. And I think, Jim, you
mentioned you have seen some other sites where you made
the same observation and the correlation between the two.
TRUSTEE KING: You are actually going to remove that or
are you just going to fill it.
MR. HERMAN: Well, I could ask Dave that question.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: I would fill it with clean sand to
make it a non-issue. You don't want to disturb it any
more than you have to. It's less disturbance if you fill it.
TRUSTEE KING: That would be my suggestion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The Conservation Advisory Council
also recommends installation of erosion control devices
perpendicular to the bluff face. Is there anything you
want to mention about that, Jack, or is what Rob is
discussing with the retaining walls also addressing that?
MR. MCGREEVY: It is earth that has not been tampered
down so it's very prone to erosion on the first rain,
so we do recommend, as we have recommended in the past,
some kind of erosion control device be designed that
would meet the problem.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right, but as Rob said, part of the
plan is to put in some of the retaining walls, so.
MR. HERMAN: Yes, what we'll do with the fill is we'll
stabilize it with erosion control matting, first of
all, to keep the surface covered, then we'll have, as
shown on the plan, the terrace retaining walls so that
you don't have that opportunity for just a complete
sluffage of the fill. I mean as with any project like
this, if Dave finishes the work, then gets hit with a
hurricane, he'll be in trouble, but, maybe he would
like to add to it.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: I would like to add to it. Dave
Chicanowicz from Creative Environmental Design. Along
with the severity of this washout, we've tded on some
other cases, not on waterfronts but interior properties,
where we put layers of geo-grids, so you have a matting
sub-level and that helps contain and eliminates
potential for major erosion, which I think would
satisfy what we are all trying to accomplish. So in
this, I think it would be layered every five feet in
height as a mesh that goes back and then filled in
between, compacted in layers. Then on the very top is
all vegetated with the native beach grass and/or vegetation.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you, for your details.
Board of Trustees 20 September 23, 2009
MR. MCGREEVY: Point of interest, Peggy. As long as we
have this gentleman up here. Have they used the same
type of technique under new construction for staircases
on bluffs to prevent or control erosion beneath the staircase?
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Underneath the staircases is a problem
because we are only putting in posts to support a
staircase, whereas you are having major masses of fill
that allows you this availability. When you are
building a large retaining wall, engineering will tell
you, the best engineering is that geo-grids built in
layers will give the extra added strength to the
retaining wall itself and give you the integrity that
everybody is looking for.
MR. MCGREEVY: But as you say --
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Staircases is almost impossible.
MR. HERMAN: You are not proposing to disturb the bluff
when you are putting in the stairway other than as Dave
said to install the posts. You are not looking to
recreate the slope.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: t'11 just ask, Jack, we'll get back
to these three applications. We'll move on these three now.
MR. MCGREEVY: Sorry.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I also wanted to mention
Conservation Advisory Council comments were the same
for Suquet, Biggane and Casarona. All three are also
consistent with LWRP and all projects are attempting to
solve the erosion problem. So if there are no further
comments I'll make a motion to close the hearings.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And I'll make a motion to approve
En-Consultants' request for wetland permits, coastal
erosion permits for Jose Suquet, John Biggane and
Charles & Joseph Casarona for the erosion control on
these three bluffs, as per plans submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number four, En-Consultants on behalf
of GEORGE, FLORENCE, ALEXANDER & DEMETRIOS VASlLAKIS
requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to
construct approximately 137 linear feet of vinyl
retaining wall in place of existing timber retaining
wall and backfill with approximately 25 cubic yards
clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source and
planted with Cape American beach grass (12" on center);
construct a 4x6' cantilevered wood platform and 3x15'
stairs to the beach; and reconstruct inplace existing
Board of Trustees 21 September 23, 2009
deck and stairs down bluff. Located: 21625 Soundview
Avenue, Southold.
This is consistent with LWP, P, and the Conservation
Advisory Council supports the application with the
condition of a ten-foot, non-turf buffer and no stairs
aro constructed seaward of the bulkhead. The proposed
stairs aro properly engineered and erosion control
devices aro placed at the footings of the posts.
We do have submitted by En-Consultants a letter
with a few changes. Instead of me reading it, Rob,
would you like to explain
MR. HERMAN: Suro. Rob Herman, En-Consultants, on
behalf of the applicants.
This is an ordinary maintenance application. The
Board has been to this site. It's obvious this
retaining wall, this is a retaining wall that pro-dates
at least --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I interrupt you. We have a
question. Is it a retaining wall or a bulkhead?
MR, HERMAN: Well, without getting into the nuances of
the differences in the terms, I mean hero, since water
is now actually approaching the wall, you would
probably call it a bulkhead. The term "retaining wall"
is usually used on The Sound because you are retaining
a bluff behind it, as opposed to having the sole
purpose of keeping the water out. But hero it's doing
both, so you could use the terms interchangeably.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, thank you.
MR. HERMAN: We have an aerial photograph that we
obtained, which I can show you a copy of, from 1976,
that shows the walls and the deck, and the changes that
I just submitted relate really not to the overall scope
of the project but to the construction specifications
for the replacement itself. The Vasilakis family had
not selected a contractor at the beginning of this
process, and I had shown the original plans mimicking
the support system that is there now which is the
batter piling system on the outside of the wall. I had
spoken to several local, reputable marine contractors,
all of whom have indicated that a batter piling system
would be the wrong way to go here because of the clay
layers underneath the beach along the shoreline, that
because of the, first of all the vertical exposure of
the wall above the beach and also because of the clay
layer that the batter piling system would probably not
succeed. And the batter piling system that is thero
now was probably put in as a measure to keep the wall
standing as opposed to properly supporting it from the
start. So what we have to do is excavate behind the
existing wall, put in a proper, traditional backing
Board of Trustees 22 September 23, 2009
system with tie rods and deadmen and we would have to
then add to the plan the complete revegetation of those
areas that get disturbed that are not already
disturbed. So I made those changes to the plan
basically, again, just replacing the batter piling
system with a tie red and deadman system and showing
the revegetation of any areas that are disturbed as a
result of that process.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Rob, will this be armored with stone?
MR. HERMAN: Is there no plan to armor it with stone.
There is not stone there now. I know that the Board
has in some cases for new walls along The Sound,
required that.
TRUSTEE KING: The reason I'm asking, I think it's in
the code.
MR. HERMAN: Well, the time where you have taken issue
with that, though, is where you had high water against
the wall, because you are in a situation there where
you have very limited beach to begin with. Then you
are going to be occupying more of the beach with
stone. I'm not sure that I would propose it here
because it's not a new structure. There is really not
very much beach there and I don't think we necessarily
want to occupy -- we basically would be putting fill
stone in the water at that point. It's a little
different from where we have a completely exposed beach
environment where you would have storm waves coming up
and hitting against the wall. I'm sure you'll have
that here but you don't have that run up the way you do
on the areas where you do where you required that where
there is actually substantial beach between the
structure and the waterway. So I know it's in the code
as it relates to new retaining walls, I think, but I
don't know what your posture has been on replacements,
other than --
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just thinking of the two just west of
Duck Pond. Those were replacement of bulkheads and
they were both armored with stone. I know one of the
applicants was dead-set against it but they ended up
armoring those, too.
MR. HERMAN: I don't remember it. My only recollection
is the last time we had a site where the stone would
have been placed in the water at high tide, the Board
objected to it. That's my only recollection of how you
have handled the stone armor is where you had high tide
against the wall, you did not want the placement of new
stone because it was essentially acting as fill in the
waterway.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could provide some clarification.
Board of Trustees 23 September 23, 2009
Under 275-1 l(b), shoreline structures. (1)(c), bulkheads on
The Sound must be armored with stone.
That's what the code states. That's under the section
one, which is bulkheads, retaining walls, revetments
and gabions.
MR. HERMAN: Before you drop that, is there any
indication there whether that relates to new
structures? Because I'm fairly certain that falls
under the subsection that describes the proposal of new
structures. Is there a section that says you generally
have a policy against retaining walls unless absolutely
necessary, et cetera, et cetera, and if one is to be
permitted it can only be approved if it is armored with
stone.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure, 275-11, construction and
operation standards; general. The following standards
are required for all operations within the jurisdiction
of the Trustees. And under (b), shoreline structure,
the following standards are required for all operations
relating to shoreline structures on residential properties.
So it doesn't differentiate between new or old.
MR. HERMAN: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Sorry I brought it up.
MR. HERMAN: Well, I'm just not sure it's something you
want to do here. I don't know if you want to
introduce, basically, fill stone in an area of a beach
that is already limited. I don't know if your Suffolk
Times front page paraders will be coming around this
particular site or not, but you are going to be
occupying very, very limited beach area with stone.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are there any neighboring bulkheads
that have the stone?
MR. HERMAN: Not that I could think of, Peggy. This
wall is almost continuous with the wall to the east.
And that homeowner is going to be coming in, I believe,
also to replace that wall. There is a continuation of
wall to the west, too, and I don't believe any of those
walls are armored. I mean there is a lot of stone out
on that beach but it's not stacked against the face of
the walls.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let me ask this question then. I know
we had a case of another bulkhead where, because of the
erosion that has taken place, Iow tide came up to
almost the base of that bulkhead; in some sections of
it, Iow tide came up to the base of the bulkhead, and
in that case a revetment -- this was not on The Sound,
this was in the bay, in that case a revetment was not
permitted by the DEC because they considered that state
waters. Is this a situation where Iow tide comes up to
the base of any part of that bulkhead?
Board of Trustees 24 September 23, 2009
MR. HERMAN: It's close. It probably varies. If you
look at my plan, I'm showing Iow water a few feet off,
because when I was there, it was a few feet off. It's
probably going to vary. It's, I mean, I can tell you high
water is against that bulkhead pretty much all the time.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. In this case what they looked at
was mean Iow water. The DEC. Again, this is the bay,
not The Sound.
MR. HERMAN: Because they may have been calling it
littoral zone.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This was very specific. They said it
was state water and they would not approve it.
MR. HERMAN: It may be an issue here on The Sound, too.
So, I don't know. Until Jim just mentioned it, I didn't
even conceive of doing it here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Have you applied for DEC permit?
MR. HERMAN: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Have you received anything back from
DEC?
MR. HERMAN: Not yet. I know you guys are faster than
those guys, Dave.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's pretty easy to do.
MR. HERMAN: Actually we did receive a response. They
wanted their $200. But nothing from marine habitat yet
with any technical reviews.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: While Jim is conferring with Lori, let
me ask a couple of other questions we may have. Are you
amenable to removable stairs on the seaward end of the
bulkhead?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In other words, seasonal.
MR. HERMAN: I don't know why not. They would
cantilever the platform, but then build the stairs so
those could be brought up during the winter. I know a
lot of people in that area do that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Even a lot of them, what we have seen
is aluminum stairs and just raise them, crank it up or
whatever, something like that.
MR. HERMAN: Yes, I don't think they have any problem at
all with that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, and the next thing is the
existing deck, we measured it to be approximately
14x12'. As you have shown us, it's been there since at
least 1976. Is there any way we can reduce that,
because that does not fit into the current code. And
usually when we find something that is like this, we
let you have it but when you replace the whole thing we
ask you to reduce it to our code.
MR. HERMAN: Well, that's an important distinction. And
I discussed this with my client today. First of all, I
had to spend a lot of time convincing them not to
Board of Trustees 25 September 23, 2009
propose increasing the size of the deck. Because
that's really what they would like to do. What their
actual plan is -- let me backup for a second. I had
shown this to be reconstructed, because normally what
we do in these kinds of situations where the
application doesn't really relate to this structure,
it's a peripheral structure, really, will typically
show it to be reconstructed. Because normally people
want to just try and save the money and just repair
it. But if they need to, if something happens and they
need to reconstruct the whole thing they aro covered by
the permit and they don't have to come back and ask for
amendments. Where if we just say it's going to be
repaired then they replace the whole thing, either they
have to come back for amendments or they do without and
they get a violation. So I asked them what was their
actual plan. Their plan is to not to invest in the
money to replace the whole thing. They have to lift
it, basically, their plan is to lift it, put it at the
top, then put it back with new posts. Because they
don't want to spend the money and the bulkhead, this is
going to be a phenomenally expensive job. So they aro
trying to hedge their bet with the deck to just repair
it. But they'll have to physically remove it and put
it back. I talked to them about the possibility, when
it goes back, it would have to be at a slightly higher
elevation that possibly just taking the same deck and
putting it back five feet, something like that. Just
to move it a little farther from The Sound, which they
have no problem with. But obviously this, again, we
aro getting into this conversation where you have a
pro-existing non-conforming structure, it was built
before the time a Trustees' permit would have been
required hero. It's obviously a pretty popular feature
of the site. So they would like to maintain it, but
they would be amenable to moving it back somewhat if
they would at least help the Board with it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know, personally, I don't know
in this case if moving it back would help. Because
moving it back would be further into the bank, so now
you aro disturbing the bank more.
MR. HERMAN: Right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just by looking at that. It's kind of
at the top. I don't know how the other Board members
feel, but.
MR. HERMAN: That's true, because now it would sort of
remain predominantly over that area that is being
disturbed. I was just trying to think of something.
Like I said, it was a conversation that was going
nowhere quickly with my client because I spent a lot of
Board of Trustees 26 September 23, 2009
time, as I said, in the beginning, trying to propose an
expansion of the deck. And I had indicated it was
pre-existing so we would likely be allowed to maintain
what was there but not be able to expand.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, what we have done in the past,
as you know, is to let you keep that and be able to
repair it but once it's reconstructed it has to be
conform to our code. And we can put that condition on
there as well.
MR. HERMAN: If they lift the structure off and replace
it on new posts, is that a complete reconstruction?
MS. HULSE: It triggers review as a new construction,
absolutely. We have had that example on other
scenarios and that's the way it's been treated.
MR. HERMAN: Which I continue to totally disagree with,
but I know that's Lori's interpretation of the code.
Which is not written very clearly. If your code
indicates that it triggers a full review, it does not
indicate that it should be treated at quote unquote new
construction. Unless you can point to that in your
wetlands code, it doesn't say that.
MS. HULSE: I'm just fast forwarding to what they can do
and the review typically is different than obviously
that preexists. So, obviously, it's up to the Trustees,
but it does open up the structure for review.
MR. HERMAN: I know. We have been down this read
before. And the point I made, again to the Board in
your absence last month, is it creates a situation in
the town where somebody with expectations of purchase
has a structure that legally pre-exists and are
basically told if they ever want to reconstruct it that
they have lost their rights to it. And I still find
that to be an extremely curious position for the town
of Southold to take. And I know you support that
vehemently. But I still think it's wrong.
MS. HULSE: I support if for safety reasons alone.
That's the whole purpose of why we have that rule. But
I don't want to get into it again. But it's true of
houses, too. You can make that example for houses.
It's a safety issue.
MR. HERMAN: Right. But when you do it with houses they
don't say you can only build half your house back.
MS. HULSE: Pat, do they say ever say that?
MS. MOORE: We'll see.
MS. HULSE: I don't want to belabor it. But that's what
the code says.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What does the rest of the Board feel
with regard to the deck?
TRUSTEE KING: It's a thorny issue. I mean --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think if it's going to be
Board of Trustees 27 September 23, 2009
reconstructed, it has to be reconstructed according to
code. If the applicant wants to do ordinary repair to
it, that's fine, but if it's going to be reconstructed,
I feel we have to comply with the code.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And if they have to raise it and
replace it to also comply with the code.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we would consider it raising and
replacing, not new construction.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm not saying that. I'm saying it
sounds like that's what they're going to do. If it
comes to the point of being replaced.
MR. HERMAN: I guess the same question that I continue
to ask on this is when your code now prevents
construction of new bulkheads on the creeks, right, but
every month you approve replacements of existing
bulkheads on the creeks. So if you went by the policy
that if it's going to be reconstructed you have to
comply with code, then every month you should be
sitting here telling every single creek owner in the
town they can't rebuild their bulkhead. Because a new
bulkhead on the creek would not be allowed. So I'm
just saying you have to be consistent. You can't pick
and choose which structures you decide now have to
conform with the code and which don't. I understand
what you are trying to do. You are trying to take
pre-existing, non-conforming structures and make them
more conforming. Which is the Board's policy. Whether
Lori and I agree with the legality of that is
immaterial. I understand what your goal is. So with
that, I guess the question is what do you want to see
here on this legally pre-existing deck? How much would
you like them to have?
MS. HULSE: It's legally pre-existing if it stays like
that. I don't want to keep going back and forth with
this but you just misstated what I said. It's not my
review. It's what the code says and what I need to
counsel the Board on how they need to review this. It's
not pre-existing if you remove it or rebuild it. If
you take it off and remove --
MR. HERMAN: The deck you are looking at is legally
pre-existing.
MS. HULSE: Correct. At this point right now.
MR. HERMAN: That's all I'm saying. What other point
are we talking about?
MS. HULSE: If you lift it up, take it off and replace
the bottom, that triggers a review.
MR. HERMAN: Then that means this is not legally
pre-existing or at that point in time?
MS. HULSE: I know you know what I mean, Rob. What I'm
saying is they can then review it and it's not a simple
Board of Trustees 28 September 23, 2009
repair to take the whole thing off. Then that in and
of itself renders it not pre-existing.
MR. HERMAN: And I understand that. And the Building
Department takes the same position.
MS. HULSE: Because it's the position that the code
dictates that we take. It's not an arbitrary thing. I
might completely disagree with it if you and I speak
outside of this room, but as I site here, I need to
tell them that's what the code says.
MR. HERMAN: And I hear you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me just ask, Lori, can we choose
to allow him, could we choose to allow them to do what
they are proposing and put back and approve?
MS. HULSE: If that's what you decide to do. That's not
what, apparently, what Dave wants. But you can do
that. However--
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just asking, the way the code is
written, are we allowed to have some leeway there?
MS. HULSE: It's your decision to make. I'm just
telling you what the code says is that you can then
make it conform to new standards because it loses its
pre-existing status.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. I understand. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: We have had a couple of decks in the
past, very similar. What did we do with those? We
allowed them to be repaired but not replaced.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is a little bit of a different
situation because in those cases they were not, because
of other work, they were not being required to pick it
up and move it. This is a situation where they are
required because of the work that I know we have not
official approved yet, but we seem favorable on so far,
they are required to pick the structure up, move it and
then put it back. And for myself, that is one of the
reasons the Trustees are able to issue variances to the
code. And so myself, personally, I do not have a
problem with them picking it up, moving it back in
order to perform the bulkhead/retaining wall and
revegetation work, and at that point then just
maintaining the deck through ordinary maintenance. Not
rebuilding the deck. If he's going to rebuild the
deck, the applicant wishes to rebuild the deck, then I
feel it has to be rebuilt to conform to current code.
MR. HERMAN: That to me is a far more equitable position.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I was kind of reaching
for. Peggy agrees with that. Bob, Jim?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I agree with Dave. I don't have a
problem.
TRUSTEE KING: If you can pick it up without wrecking it.
MR. HERMAN: It's a good point. They'll have to make
Board of Trustees 29 September 23, 2009
repairs to sections that are broken or damaged. But
obviously there will be a difference between whether
that ends up looking like it looks with some new boards
and supporting stringers versus whether that looks like
a brand new deck. It's not going to be an ambiguous
thing. They will, without a doubt, have to replace the
posts, because they'll have to excavate out the posts.
So that, for the record, that will have to be done.
MS. HULSE: And when that happens you'll have a permit
for that structure.
MR. HERMAN: I'll have a permit for that structure??
MS. HULSE: Yes. That's a difference as well. Before it
was pro-existing without a permit. Unpermitted. Now
it will be permitted.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And most likely with the condition if
it ever needs to be rebuilt, it will have conform to the code.
MR. HERMAN: Well --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, let's move on from hero. Jim,
where aro we with the rock in front of the bulkhead?
Do you want to waive that?
TRUSTEE KING: I guess what we have done in the past.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I mean, the whole other aroa, that
whole stretch is all bulkhead with no rocks in front of
any of the area, except for maybe a little jetty.
MR. HERMAN: Thero is a lot of stone, like stone ruins
on either side. Thero is a ton of stone on the beach
itself. You know, I mean cost wise they can accumulate
the stone against the base of the wall, but DEC doesn't
want you to do that. They don't want you to use
naturally existing stone to --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, because that changes the whole
beach.
MR. HERMAN: Correct. Dave asked me about DEC. I don't
know what the DEC position would be in terms of adding
stone here given the high water is against the wall.
Because, I mean Dave was bringing up a slightly
different issue of parsing out whether it's state
waters or not but either way it's still fill in
littoral zone wetlands, which is what this aroa is
classified as. So it's different from those projects
where we have 30 or 40 feet of sand beach and then the
bottom of a bluff where you are putting in a new wall
with stone armor in front of it. Because the stone is
not actually fill at that point.
TRUSTEE KING: It's just, in my mind, I was looking at
what the code says.
MR. HERMAN: I would like to know what your personal
opinion is on it. Because to me, if you don't endorse
its use here, I think it's easier for you to
differentiate between this case and others where you
Board of Trustees 30 September 23, 2009
typically are putting stone.
MS. HULSE: Not to be a stickler, but it's not
discretionary.
MR. HERMAN: What's that?
MS. HULSE: The requirements.
MR. HERMAN: Right. Isn't there a clause the Trustees
can waive --
MS. HULSE: No, there's not.
MR. HERMAN: You took it out of the code?
MS. HULSE: I didn't take it out, trust me.
MR. HERMAN: Isn't there something in there that the
Trustees can adjust --
MS. HULSE: Setbacks and such, but not this particular
section.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So this is pretty black and white.
TRUSTEE KING: That's the problem I have.
TRUSTEE KING: It puts us in a tough position. If we
are not able to waive it, so we shouldn't, by the code.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So then it has to be. Is that what
I'm hearing, it has to be stone on there.
MS. HULSE: That's what it says,
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. Because I can think of
specific properties to the west where that's happened.
TRUSTEE KING: And they didn't want it but they ended up
getting it.
MR. HERMAN: Well, it skyrockets the cost of the job,
and for some people they may run out of money before
they can put the stone down, but.
MS. HULSE: Unfortunately, that's the way it's written,
Rob. Bulkheads on The Sound must be armored. There is
another section there are allowances for waivers by the
Trustees, but they are not here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would you like us to table this to give
you an opportunity to go back to your client and
discuss these issues?
MR. HERMAN: I'm not sure what the point is because --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was just offering it as an option.
MR. HERMAN: I appreciate it but if at the end of the
day you are going to require it, you are going to
require it. Unless I come back with some other argument
that will dissuade you, but if your position is you'll
require it, it might as well be tonight as opposed to a
month from now. I mean in other words it's not
something you are asking me does my client want to do
this. I can tell you the answer will be no. But if you
are going to mandate it anyway, then there is no point
in going back and having the discussion. Unless it's
something you are willing to consider.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, it sounds we can't even consider it.
MR. HERMAN: That's why I'm saying, if that's your
Board of Trustees 31 September 23, 2009
position, that's your position.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. Are there any other
comments on this application?
(No response.)
MR. HERMAN: This was supposed to be a two-minute
replacement application here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Come up to the microphone and just
state your name for the record, please.
MS. BOWER: Kathleen Bower. I kind of wanted to know
what the code would be to replace that decking. Is it
even allowed at all now, those kinds of deck on The Sound?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are allowed 4x8' is the largest
you are allowed, t mean you can look at the code
online or a copy in the office.
MS. BOWER: Just curious, I mean, you know, I mean
mother nature is the most important thing here, the
environment is the most important thing. That's what
you are here to do is protect the environment and if
these people can't have their cake and eat it, too,
well, we have to kind of go in favor of the earth.
That's what we are trying to protect here.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments?
(No response.)
Any other comments from the Board?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the
application of En-Consultants on behalf of George,
Florence, Alexander and Demetrios Vasilakis requesting
a wetland permit and coastal erosion permit to
construct approximately 137 linear feet of vinyl
bulkhead/retaining wall; replace inplace of existing
wall and backfill with approximately 25 cubic yards of
clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source and
planted with Cape American beach grass; construct a
4x6' cantilevered wood platform with seasonal 3x15'
stairs to the beach and to remove the existing 14x12'
deck during construction and replace it and be able to
repair as needed, but once that deck needs to be
reconstructed, they must come back before the Trustees
to conform to the code.
MR. HERMAN: Do you have a problem with specifically
mentioning the piling, the supporting post
replacement? I just don't want that to become a stickler.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The supporting posts can be replaced
during construction. The other areas of the deck
Board of Trustees 32 September 23, 2009
should be repaired and not the whole thing replaced, as
needed.
MR. HERMAN: And just procedurally, so we are on the
same page, if they move that thing and it falls into
100 pieces, then you need them, with respect to the
deck, to not do anything further work and come back
here for an amendment to the permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. MCGREEVY: Jill, wasn't there a recommendation on
the stone?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll reopen that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We already voted. You have to make a
motion to reopen the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to reopen the vote.
Redo the vote.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought you were amending the
description of the project.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, so I can just -- no, it's a
condition of the resolution.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make the resolution as stated
before and add that the bulkhead must be armored with
stone as per code.
MR. HERMAN: Jim, or anyone for that matter, since the
code doesn't provide any specific direction there, is
there any size stone that you were looking for as armor
or shall we --
TRUSTEE KING: Commonly along The Sound it's
five-hundred pound. I think Jack Costello knows
probably better than me. Size wise it's usual 500 pounds.
MR. COSTELLO: Minimum. Usually 1,000.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was thinking, as I recall, half ton.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
MR. MCGREEVY: Isn't there a recommendation from the
Conservation Advisory Council for erosion control
devices at the base of the supports of the stairs?
MR. HERMAN: If the stairs are seasonal.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to reopen the
public hearing. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How does the Board feel about the
Conservation Advisory Council's recommendation about
Board of Trustees 33 September 23, 2009
erosion control devices at the footings of the posts,
on the stairs?
MR. HERMAN: They won't have any, if it's seasonal.
TRUSTEE KING: I thought we discussed this before.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He asked the question so I wanted to
put it back on the record. So I'm asking again.
TRUSTEE KING: We've had two or three previous
applications where it's just 4x4 posts it won't support
the cross members. DEC will not support it either.
MR. MCGREEVY: Our position is that the stairs should be
strengthened to take the erosion control devices. The
bluffs, in our opinion, are lot more of value and we
would not want the bluff to be compromised. So build
the stairs accordingly to support the erosion control
devices. That's what we were saying in the past.
MR. HERMAN: I'm sorry, what stairs are we talking about?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The stairs on the bluff.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jack, with all due respect, we've
looked into it. I'm not sure how I feel on it because
I also heard on the other end of that is you have the
cross members and if you have things stuffing down, it
will grab those cross members, and that will bring more
weight and bring everything down. So, I'm not the
expert, I'm just hearing both sides.
MR. MCGREEVY: The feedback become that I've gotten is
unofficial. I never got feedback on the recommendation
and construction of the stairs, but each time there is
this type of application, we always stated, erosion
control devices are needed. And if the stairs, as
presently built, would be compromised, then build
stairs accordingly so they that can take the erosion
control device. The bluff takes precedence over the
stairs. Stairs should be built to support it. That's
our position.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, thank you. How does the Board
feel? We have not made that a condition in the past.
What we have done is let the applicant make the
decision.
TRUSTEE KING: I have seen people forced to remove them
and put them in.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We had one recently that the DEC
disapproved it. They denied it,
MR. MCGREEVY: Because the stairs would be compromised.
And we agree. So build the stairs strong enough to
accommodate the erosion control device. The bluffs are
more important.
TRUSTEE KING: The stairs I'm thinking of are in
Mattituck and they put them in in cement tubes, which
were very substantial, and they still made them take it
out. They made them take everything out because they
Board of Trustees 34 September 23, 2009
did so much disturbance of the bluff.
MR. MCGREEVY: They are being arbitrary.
TRUSTEE KING: Well, we have to deal with it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's in the record that's what the
Conservation Advisory Council recommended and it's
something the applicant will consider.
MR. MCGREEVY: And we'll keep recommending it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's fine, and we'll keep looking
into it and looking at the results.
MR. HERMAN: The scope of the construction and scope of
the lumber that would have to be used would not be
approvable by the DEC. That's the problem. They don't
want monster stairs. There is a lot of people who
would like to build them that way, which would
accommodate your recommendation, but the DEC won't
allow it. So it's just nothing we can do about it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do the grated stairs increase the
revegetation that would increase the erosion control,
naturally?.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Using the grated treads?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Using grated steps, that would
increase revegetation or re-growth that would increase
the erosion control naturally.
MR. MCGREEVY: That's the purpose of it. During the
construction of the stairs, the erosion control device
replaced as early as possible because there is a lot of
traffic up and down, a lot of equipment.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Just saying that's an alternative.
MR. HERMAN: For what it's worth, on this site, you are
talking about 30 horizontal feet. You can have a
longer argument about it but it's not relevant, for
this case anyway.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, I would like to make a
motion to close this public hearing. For the second time.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion on Eh-COnsultants
on behalf of George, Florence, Alexander and Demetrios
Vasilakis, to approve a permit under the Wetland Code
and also the Erosion Code to construct approximately
137 linear feet of retaining wall in place of existing
timber retaining wall and backfill approximately 25
cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an
upland source and planted with Cape American beach
grass. Construct a 4x6' cantilevered wood platform and
3x15' seasonal stairs to the beach, and to remove the
existing deck during construction and replace it on new
posts and stairs down to the bluff. Also, if that
4x12' existing deck is to be replaced, you should come
Board of Trustees 35 September 23, 2009
into the Trustees for approval and we would like to see
that brought into consistency with the code. And also
to armor the bulkhead with stone as per code.
MR. HERMAN: Jill, if I may make a comment, again, I'm
not sure what you mean when you say brought into
consistency with the code. This Board routinely
reviews these on a case by case basis. So if you can
say come back to be reviewed by the Board.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If the 14x12' deck needs to be
constructed you must and back before this Board for
review. Do I have second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We need to see new plans with the
stone in front.
MR. HERMAN: And the seasonal stairs.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Thank you.
MR. HERMAN: And language for the deck.
TRUSTEE KING: Before I do this next one, I would like
to recognize Brownell Johnston sitting there. Brownell
was our legal advisor. He volunteered hundreds of
hours for the previous Board and with this Board. And
once again, Brownell, I would just like to thank you.
And, Rob, if you have problems with the code, one of
the gentlemen that did a lot of work on it, you can
just turn around and ask him questions.
MR. HERMAN: This all explains a lot, Jim.
MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you, very much, Jim. Jill, David,
thank you. Bob, Lauren.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: We'll go into the wetland permits.
Number one, DIANA DELUClA requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 38x8' and 42x10.3' attached wood deck to
the existing dwelling, replace the steps and convert
the windows to slider doors on the seaward side of the
dwelling. Located: 4573 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck.
We've all been out there two or three times. It
was found inconsistent. I think it's because of the
setback from the wetland boundary to the deck.
(Perusing.) I believe that's what we talked about in
the field. There is to be no disturbance 25 feet
seaward of the house.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 25 feet seaward, starting 25 feet
seaward of the house. Seaward. That was not written
correctly.
TRUSTEE KING: Conservation Advisory Council resolved
Board of Trustees 36 September 23, 2009
not to support the wetland permit to construct because
of close proximity to the wetlands and the structure
seaward of the dwelling should be constructed with
non-treated lumber and drywells installed in accordance
with Chapter 236. No trimming and no tree removal.
I guess the main reason -- I know it's close.
It's on Long Creek in Mattituck. I personally did not
have a huge problem with the deck there. I don't think
it's going to have a real impact on the area. We did
impose a non-disturbance area seaward of the house.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think we did a nice job of giving
it a nice buffer, though.
TRUSTEE KING: We did about all we could, really,
because it's an older cottage, it was built years ago.
It's close. Like I said, I think putting that buffer
in, gutters and leaders to drywells, I know we talked
about that. It would probably be a good idea.
Anybody else with comment on this one? Yes,
ma'am?
MS. DELUCIA: Diana Delucia. It's my cabin, if you have
any questions.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We noticed when we were there, you can
see where the roof runoff comes down and has created a
ridge, so to speak, in the land. And if we were going
to approve this deck, that will all be coming down on
top of your heads on the deck. Would you have any
objections to gutters and leaders on that side so it
addresses roof runoff and also helps you so you don't
get hit in the led with rain?
MS. DELUCIA: Actually, we have been working with the
DEC for the past year, and the arrangement that they
suggested and will actually improve the existing runoff
situation is exactly that. That if we were to build
the deck, what we would do is put gutters and that
would lead to a drywell out the backside of the house,
plus French drains off the deck that would absorb the
runoff. So right now, you can see this a terrible
runoff situation. It has been an abandoned property
for many years, and it would really benefit from the
situation.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: And you understand what we mean about a
buffer?.
MS. DELUCIA: Yes, we worked with a landscaper and we
also had a plan submitted to the DEC with specific
types of plantings, and we drew exactly where the
plants would be and they approved that plan.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Could you get us a copy of the plan so
we could have it for our records?
MS. DELUCIA: Yes.
Board of Trustees 37 September 23, 2009
TRUSTEE KING: That would be helpful. I didn't have a
huge problem with this. So 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. I think we'll need to have the buffer
area drawn in on your plans and we'll have gutters and
leaders leading to drywells to take care of the roof
runoff as well as French drains around the perimeter of
the deck.
MS. DELUClA: I think it was on the drawings that I
submitted with my, well, I guess it's not that in
detail. But you can see the French drains all around
here. The connection from gutters and the location of
drywells here.
TRUSTEE KING: Give us a copy of that. I don't have of
a copy of that here. Wait a minute. Yes, okay. Thank
you. I see it now.
MS. DELUCIA: This is what the DEC approved.
TRUSTEE KING: So there is a buffer that starts 25 feet
seaward of the house and that area seaward is buffered.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we make it 26 feet to match
what the DEC approved.
TRUSTEE KING: That's the tidal wetland boundary.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought that was the buffer. Sorry.
TRUSTEE KING: Can I look at that again?
MS. DELUCIA: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Just so we are consistent.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For clarification, that's a
non-disturbance buffer?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you understand what we mean by
"non-disturbance"? You can't plant there.
TRUSTEE KING: She will be planting as per DEC. It will
be a planted buffer.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. It's just a suggestion. One
way or the other. You need to clarify it on the plan.
TRUSTEE KING: We have had other buffer areas planted up
and it becomes a non-disturbance buffer. But they
disturb it to plant it.
MS. DELUCIA: With indigenous plants. Basically dght
now everything just goes right into the creek because
there is just stones there. It's barely grass.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As long as we specify she is not
ripping it up to establish the area. She is just
adding plants to it.
TRUSTEE KING: A planted buffer. And we can have a
four-foot path to the water through that buffer.
Board of Trustees 38 September 23, 2009
Four-foot wide path for access to the water.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Pervious.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
TRUSTEE KING: So that would be my motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And with the addition of those gutters,
leaders, drywells and French drains, it brings it into
consistency with LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, and taking care of the roof runoff,
French drains, buffers, I would make a motion that
brings it into consistency with LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number two, CHERYL HANSEN requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a single-family ddveway
and sanitary system. Located: 405 Williamsburg Drive,
Southold.
This is an application on a project that had
originally been permitted and it has not been done, so
the permits have run out. And the extension mn out.
So the applicant is coming back for a new permit. This
has been determined to be consistent with LWRP and with
the recommendation that we have a landscape buffer,
non-turf buffer; gutters, leaders and drywells and
require the driveway be constructed of pervious
materials. Conservation Advisory Council resolves to
support the project as well. Is there anybody here who
would like to speak for or against this application?
MS. HANSEN: Cheryl Hansen. We have the buffers there in
front of the bulkhead. There is a buffer. Because
what we did is we redid the bulkhead last year and the
buffer was replaced in April of this year, And I had
asked the town to come out and take a look at it and
approve it. We are just waiting for them to come out.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The permit that was here from 2005 has
a different description than the one that you are
applying for now. I'll read that description and we'll
just make sure everybody is on the right page.
The former permit said wetland permit to construct
a single-family dwelling with the condition that a
staked hay bale line be placed 50 feet from the
bulkhead during construction; and gutters and drywells
put on the house to contain roof runoff; and all is
depicted on the plans. I think it might be a good idea
to have the new description at least list what was there.
TRUSTEE KING: What does the new one say?
Board of Trustees 39 September 23, 2009
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, it says request a wetland permit
to construct a single-family dwelling, driveway and
sanitary system.
MS. HANSEN: That's fine. It was just an omission. We
have no problem with the hay bales.
TRUSTEE KING: I would keep the same language as was
previously approved
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what I'm saying. Any other
comments or questions?
(No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make motion to approve the
application by Cheryl Hansen for a wetland permit to
construct a single-family dwelling with the condition
that a staked hay bale line be placed 50 feet from the
bulkhead during construction, and gutters and drywells
put on the house to contain roof runoff, and to
incorporate this as well as the existing buffer on the
plans so that we have it in our file.
MS. HANSEN: That's fine.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Number three, the application of ROBERT
CELIC, has been postponed.
MS. HULSE: Jim, if I could make a comment on that. I
know there was a memo circulated. I'll actually
respond to this in writing. However this matter has
been pending for three years. I have been trying to
reach a resolution for that amount of time. There
was communication submitted that I received a call --
Mr. Celic actually reached out to me himself. Because
he is represented by counsel, I reached out to counsel
immediately and asked him, because he wanted to resolve
it, if we could do that.
TRUSTEE KING: I frankly suggested to him to move on
this and resolve this.
MS. HULSE: And he definitely seemed like he was
interested in doing that. However I need to go through
his attorney since he was at that time represented by
counsel. I'm not sure if he is now. However, he never
got back to me. It's been at least three weeks, going
on a month now. So I see Ms. Wickham indicates she
called me after 3:00 PM today. I didn't have my
cellphone. I would be more than happy to resolve this
matter as soon as possible. I just didn't want to
Board of Trustees 40 September 23, 2009
Board to get the impression that this was in any way
held up by my office, because we were interested in
resolving this. Hopefully we can do that buy the next
meeting.
TRUSTEE KING: When we went out on the field inspection,
I talked with him. Let's move forward with this.
MS. HULSE: I think he wants to do that now.
TRUSTEE KING: I do, too. That's good.
Number four, Enviropermits, Inc., on behalf of MICHAEL
GIACONE requests a Wetland Permit to replace, inplace
an existing 81' wooden groin with a 73-inch "Shore-Guard
425" vinyl sheathing groin. The groin will be
Iow-profile with the height not to exceed 18" above
grade on the down-drift side. Located: 360 Park Avenue
Extension, Mattituck.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this
application?
(No response.)
We've been there a couple of times. They have their DEC
permit already. This was found consistent with LWRP.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to
support the wetland application. It recommends complete
removal of the groin. We spent a lot of time out
there. We have been out there two or three times. More
than that. We spent quite a bit of time with Jay
Tanski. He's the coastal processes and facility
specialist with Sea Grant. We will be revisiting, I
believe, maybe not, when we look at the Celic home. But
this one has the DEC permit. They have been through
the process with DEC. I get the feeling he felt it was
necessary, this groin. There are some that are
probably too close together. That will be addressed in
the future. This one particular groin, there is no
reason not to replace it. It's been shortened. It's
using the vinyl material. The only thing I would
recommend is, Mr. Tanski advised us of this, that these
groins should not be replaced any higher than 12 inches
above grade on the down-drift, rather than 18. That's
the only change I would make. Any other comment?
(No response.)
Any comments from the audience?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, when Mr. Tanski was looking at
this area, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he
said the distance between any groins there he would
recommend would be, was at least the distance of the
groin -- or was it twice.
TRUSTEE KING: His recommendation was the groin should
be no closer than at least twice the length.
Board of Trustees 41 September 23, 2009
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. We are talking about close
together. And this one will be 90 feet away from the
adjoining groin, because I just scaled it out, and it's
73 feet long. So his recommendation then, as I
interpret that, would be a minimum of 146 feet between
groins and this is 90 feet between groins.
TRUSTEE KING: I understand that. I think we were
looking at the neighboring one to the west should be
removed. I think that's what we discussed when we were
there. The one to the west should be removed. I think
it's either part of their family or, I don't know
what's going to happen with that. If they come in and
apply to replace that, I don't think it would be approved.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: A representative from the Giacone
family was there.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You are talking about this one, Jim?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So this is the one that should be
removed, which would give the distance between these two.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can't make that a condition of this
because it's not the same property.
TRUSTEE KING: We can't force him to remove it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But we can recommend they remove it.
TRUSTEE KING: Right. Because when they come in to
replace it, that won't happen.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think that's important to have on
the record.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
(No response.)
Motion to close hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to recommend approval
of this with the stipulation it should be a Iow
profile, no higher than 12 inches above grade on the
down-drift side of the groin.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five. Patricia Moore on behalf
of MICHAEL & CORINNE SLADE requests a Wetland Permit to
remove 163' of existing wooden boardwalk to allow for
the reconstruction of the existing bulkhead.
Reconstruct 172' of existing bulkhead by resheathing
landward side of bulkhead with "Everlast" 2.1 vinyl
sheathing. Install new 1"x6' tie rod ends welded into
existing backing system tie rods. Reinstall wooden
boardwalk inplace after bulkhead reconstruction is
Board of Trustees 42 September 23, 2009
completed. Construct an eight foot extension to
existing finger pier. Install two new 10" diameter x
30' long support pilings at offshore end. Maintenance
dredge an area 50' seaward from the existing bulkhead
to a depth of -4.0' below MLW on the east end and
progressing to -7.0' below MLW on the west end.
Approximately 350 cubic yards of dredged spoil to be
trucked offsite to an approved upland disposal site.
Located: 1435 West Road, Cutchogue.
This was reviewed under LWRP and found to be
consistent and inconsistent. The review date is August
20, 2008. And the bulkhead, they deemed to be
consistent. The other work, as far as dredging,
inconsistent. Recommending the use of a silt boom to
help protect and improve water quality. They also
found the application proposed finger pier extension to
be inconsistent because this area is zoned R40
residential, only one catwalk allowed, and there are
multiple catwalks on this piece of property already.
Then they are asking for best management practices to
be used during construction of bulkhead or any other
structures that this Board might approve. For
maintenance dredging, they supported the maintenance
dredging, again, as long as a silt boom was used. Just
bear with me for a second. I'll see if I could find
the Conservation Advisory Council. This is quite a
thick file. (Perusing).
Okay, Conservation Advisory Council, August 13,
2008, resolved to support the application as described.
Now, this Board has been out there several times.
We've have had lengthy discussions with the applicant
out there in the field. When we had our last meeting
with the applicant out in the field, and had a
discussion with him, there was a suggestion made that
he agreed with, out in the field, to cut back his
property so that he could retain the seasonal floating
dock that is, right now, is not there, because at our
request he removed it. And I don't see in the
application before us today, this looks like the
description that I have here in writing, the plans that
I have look like the very same that we had already
discussed at great length a previous hearing.
Just for the record, the plans that I have here,
which are dated July 2, 2008 -- and if there are some
newer plans in here, I don't see them -- those plans do
not match the description in that the plans have on
there, the two floating docks, which have already been,
at our direction, removed, and we already made clear
those floating docks should be removed and we
appreciate the applicant's willingness to do that.
Board of Trustees 43 September 23, 2009
So that is what I have before us hem. Is them
anybody hem to speak on behalf of application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine. It seems
like everything is fine by the owner except the one
sticking point seems to be the floating dock, still.
MS. MOORE: Just put on the record that I'm here. Pat
Moore, I'm the attorney for the applicant and I just
want a clarification on the boom, the use for the, is
that a problem?
MR. COSTELLO: No, the silt boom goes in while you do
construction and dredging.
MS. MOORE: I just want to clarify that because
unfortunately I was not them at the site inspection.
MR. COSTELLO: It's something we do on almost every
single job. It's not really an issue.
Like I was saying, it seems like the floats are
the sticking points still. The applicant does not want
to go in and move the float into the land right them
where you see.
TRUSTEE KING: He stood right them with all of us them
and said that's what I want to do.
MR. COSTELLO: He doesn't want to bear the burden of
that expense. At the point of when you guys met him.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What you am saying is the applicant
has changed his mind since we met him and he now --
MR. COSTELLO: Right. If you go down by the shipyard and
look at the floating dock line, with the floating dock
there, where the boat you can't quite see, it doesn't
protrude any more into the inlet than the shipyard's
boats do and it still meets the standard of the
one-third rule. And the Army Corps of Engineers didn't
object to having the floats them. Because on their
permit, which is not valid yet, until all the other
permits are in, they did not have a problem with the
floats. Because I already have the Army Corps permits.
TRUSTEE KING: Then he would need to apply to put those
floats in place.
MS. MOORE: If I could now continue. I just have some
records hem.
MS. HULSE: Pat, does your application include those
floating docks?
MS. MOORE: It does, yes. The original application, the
docks had been them. So the original application that
Mr. Costello prepared and had, and the DEC approved,
showed the two floating docks as existing. The Board
had, as you pointed out, the Board asked the client to
remove them immediately because the Board felt that
they didn't have a permit. What I was then hired, I'm
putting this all, time wise, I was then retained and I
went through all the records of the town and I went
Board of Trustees 44 September 23, 2009
through and I got an aerial photograph and we checked
to see what the conditions, the existing conditions
were of the property. I'm not going to go reading
through everything, but I put the chronology of
permits; these, the boat basin, it's called a boat
basin, it's not a marina, I think that's a misnomer
that has been used throughout. It's a boat basin. And
throughout early zoning, that's what they were called.
In fact the code still provides for boat basins but --
I take it back. The code doesn't provide for boat
basins but it allows for people to have two slips in
addition to the slips that an individual may have for
their own boats. So there is a recognition if you have
the room, you can provide for additional slips.
But in this particular case, we have a boat basin
that was built back in the '50's by Lister. He's the
original owner of that area. He also, I believe,
developed Boatman's Harbor, what is known as Boatman's
Harbor and is now part of the marina next door. We
have records that this boat basin has been there. The
Board, the Trustees have gone, repeatedly and approved
permits for the replacement of the bulkhead. Going
back to the firet permit by the prior owner, Stahl, it
was a replacement of a deteriorated bulkhead.
Deteriorated would indicate that bulkhead would have
been there at least 25, 30 years, given the condition
of its replacement in 1983, which is about consistent
with the period of time when that would have been built
or replaced, given the history here.
There was maintenance dredging done here. The
Trustees grented permits for swimming pools, decks and
so on. There has been lots of activity on this
property. That's probably why your file is so thick.
But there has been lots of permitting on this property.
What appears to be the discrepancy is that in 1997
the Trustees -- original permit with the Trustees
needed to be amended because the DEC had modifications
made to that permit. And the permit that was used by
Jim Fitzgereld, the drawings, were the permits that the
DEC approved in 1997. So DEC permit, I'll give you the
number, but it's written out here, is 473801140,
showing it was the fourth review by the DEC on this
property, showed that there was a float that was
proposed at the property, at the end of the bulkhead
back in 1997.
The reality is that there have been floats there
all throughout, and you don't usually ask for something
that is already in existence.
MS. HULSE: It was never permitted by the Trustees.
MS. MOORE: In 1997 it would appear it was permitted by
Board of Trustees 45 September 23, 2009
the Trustees, because the indication I have is that the
drawing that was used was the DEC permit. And that one
has a float on it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could maybe provide a little
clarification. I have a copy of the 1997 resolution.
Resolved, grants an amendment to permit 4440 to replace
inkind/inplace existing functional bulkhead. 125 feet
of existing functional bulkhead. Replace inkind four
existing docks. So there is nothing here in this
description that would match, that would say that they
are replacing the two floating docks.
MS. MOORE: Because, again, I think the misnomer is the
written portion. You have a drawing that shows the
float at the end of the bulkhead. The description is,
the structural replacements of the four existing docks
that are showing inside the boat basin. So it would
make sense that the application included where there
was actual work being performed, the float was showing
there with the DEC and it shows that the proposed
float, but from all indications I have, there were
floats there before. Whether or not it was labeled as
a proposed versus existing, there have been existing
floats there.
MS. HULSE: Where is your permit for that particular
float from the Trustees? What number is it? Give a
reference to it so we know what you are talking about.
MS. MOORE: I would say it's in the permit of 1997.
MS. HULSE: It's not.
MS. MOORE: But I'm looking at your own paperwork. The
town paperwork has the DEC permit in your paperwork,
and that's the permit that, remember, the amendment to
4440 I think is the number of the permit was to make it
conform to the DEC drawings, the DEC approval. That
was the same drawing that was used. So I think there
was a disconnect in the sense that if the float was
already there, you don't usually ask for it. Even if
it was not there, it would have been shown on the DEC
permit because that's what the drawing shows. So
regardless, there was a float there, and so I think the
record reflects that there has been a float there
historically. All the testimony, I don't want to say
testimony, but all of the people that are familiar with
this site always remember seeing floats there and using
float there. So that's the problem.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That doesn't mean we have to approve
it just because it's been there.
MS. MOORE: But remember, the dock was built there long
before the Trustees had jurisdiction over the structures.
MS. HULSE: I disagree with that. I take issue with your
accounting of the history. And I have also, I have
Board of Trustees 46 September 23, 2009
aerials to prove that that is incorrect. And I don't want
to try the case here because I want to caution the Trustees
this is still pending. So we need to be a little cautious about
what we are putting on the record here. However, I dispute that
it was a boat basin. I dispute it was not a marina. I think it's
very clear that there was a marina post-zoning put in
by your client without approval.
MS. MOORE: By my client? I'm sorry, I don't think you
should put those kinds of statements on the record
given the history here.
MS. HULSE: Guess what, your client has it now. So,
yes, there is an existing marina there that is an
unpermitted use. Absolutely. I don't know whether he
put them all in, but --
MS. MOORE: I would respectively disagree with your
opinion and I would suggest the Board consider the
permits (inaudible).
MS. HULSE: Well, I'm going to counsel the Board that
since this is still in court and we are still
litigating this and this is still an issue and we've
worked very hard, and I personally have worked with a
prior counsel on this where we had agreed to remove the
floats, in terms of making a global disposition of this
entire matter, and that has all been undone at this
juncture. So I'll just caution the Trustees please be
aware that any comments made here may be used in the
litigation of this. Because obviously that's where we
are heading with this now.
MS. MOORE: Well, in fairness to the applicant, you have
permitted structures. He needs to replace the
bulkhead. It's imperative. I have also given you
documentation, my letter before, about the siltation
that is occurring because of the drain at the end of
West Road. That drain is illegal with respect to the
state pollution control law, and it is also illegal
with our own Town Code Storm Water Code. And that drain
right there is the cause of the problems in that it is
silting his slip. And t gave you photographs last
time. As far as trying to provide for a float where
you have the town's -- and it's not your action. That
drain was put there certainly without your permission,
I'm sure. But the drain is creating siltation and it's
undermining his ability to use his slip. That, based
on my research, he has a slip there, for sure. We can
respectfully disagree with respect to the float. But
the slip has certainly been there since the beginning
of time. And he needs to keep it. He needs to be able
to use it. And until such time as it's corrected, how
do we resolve that problem? And building the dock back
when you have a permitted structure is really not the
Board of Trustees 47 September 23, 2009
solution. It's not an acceptable solution to the client.
MS. HULSE: The problem is, Pat, is that the Trustees
were under the belief, if I could speak to them for a
moment, that he was going to be acting in good faith in
removing what you have been unable to show is a
permitted structure in terms of the Trustees permit.
He has now reneged on that well into this process, and
I would have to say that, you know, I applaud your
creative arguments about this --
MS. MOORE: I took from the records -- I'm sorry.
MS. HULSE: (continuing) without it being the town's
liability in term of the drainage. However, you know,
I hate to say it this way but a lot of the work that
has been done for months has just been undone at this
point.
MS. MOORE: I disagree. I'm sorry.
MS. HULSE: I'm just stating what my experience is.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could just interject.
MS MOORE: Please do. Because we have an immediate
situation with the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could interject. I'm reading from
an E-mail that I sent in response to the June 26 letter
from Pat Moore in reference to the Slade property. Now,
this is the letter you just referred to where it showed
pictures of the boat, vessel, not able to be against
the bulkhead.
MS. MOORE: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I did an inspection of this property at
Iow tide on July 7, at 6:15 PM. It should be noted on
July 6 was full moon. Low tide was scheduled for 6:30 PM.
I found the vessel in question floating up against
the bulkhead. I pulled on the vessel spring lines and
found it floated freely, both forward and backward. So
I went down there one day from full moon, thirty
minutes from dead Iow, that boat was nowhere near
sitting on the bottom. It was freely floating up
against the bulkhead. That's my observation in
response to the letter that you sent June 26. I just
wanted to explain that.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. And he had no problem at one
point and then he came back recently from, I don't know
where, out with his boat, and again, it occurred that
the boat would not be able, would not come close to the
bulkhead. So I don't know if it's a certain positioning
that it's able to come in or not, because he said he
had the same problem -- the day he took the pictures,
he had the problem he could not bring the boat in.
Then he was able to bring it in, maybe about the same
time, then again it recurred and he was not able to
bring the boat in. That's what caused him the concern
Board of Trustees 48 September 23, 2009
that the float may really be necessary to make that slip
functional without keeping the boat out as far as it is.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When you replace the bulkhead
there is a certain amount of back dredging and I think that
would solve his problem, because as Dave has stated, at
almost dead Iow moon tide, he was floating.
MS. MOORE: I think it may be the case. It may be a
solution, but not if that drain continues to drain there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The drain is on our list and I'll be
glad to try to prioritize it with the storm water
runoff committee and talk to, you know, the people
involved and see what is going on with it. Because I
know the Highway Department, Town Board and Storm Water
Committee have received letters on it and I have not
seen a response to that letter. And I will, you know
pursue that.
MS. MOORE: That might be a fine compromise. My client
-- all he wants to be able to do is use his slip. And
you are right, when he does the replacement there will
be some dredging that occurs there, so it will be a
temporary fix, but the reality is that if it silts
again we'll be back to the same problem. And that is
really an untenable position to leave him in.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Your client here has, the two finger
piers. We are considering tonight a third finger pier.
There is also, if I may, there is also a pier, existing
dock going out that is the most seaward to the
channel. So--
MS. MOORE: Those are all permitted structures.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Please let me finish. So there is reom
for five and potentially seven vessels. My feeling is
that since has zoned residential right now, and, you
know, there is more than enough dock space for your
client's boats. It's his choice that he wants
additional docks out there and additional spaces so he
can increase the number of docks that he can rent right
nOW.
MS. MOORE: He has historically --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could finish, please. We have
been over this and over this and over this. And I have
listened to what counsel has said here tonight. And
again, I go back to the description of the application
that I have in front of me here tonight, does not
include those two floating docks, just like it did not
include those two floating docks last time this Board
met. And it was noted then that the plans that are
submitted do not match the description and we asked the
client to, your client, to please come back with a set
of plans that would match the description. So for me,
right now, since I don't have a set of plans that match
Board of Trustees 49 September 23, 2009
the description, I don't see how we can proceed forward
with this.
MS. MOORE: Well, by the way, because I come prepared, I
do have, and Mr. Costello kindly prepared a set of
drawings that match the description. So I have that
with me. I'm legally obliged to try to preserve
existing structures that he has. So in fairness to
him, with the research that I did, regardless of our
professional disagreement as to what is there or what
is not, I was able to document, at least to my comfort
level, that there is certainly a history there of
floats. But my client has directed me, we have to get
the bulkhead done immediately. We cannot wait any
longer. His application was done in October. So it
can't wait. It will undermine his investment.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. And we remember him saying that
to us.
MS. MOORE: So I have the drawings for that. I do want
to reserve our rights that if that drainage is not
repaired, we have existing liability, whether or not
you agree with me or not, with respect to the drains, and it
is both a state and a Town Code violation.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me clarify --
MS. HULSE: This has absolutely nothing to do with the
Trustees and what is before them tonight. And I'll
caution them not to comment on that. That's a statement
that is completely self-serving. It's something you
are proffering. It's been responded to. I'll caution
the Trustees it is not for their review.
TRUSTEE KING: Can I chime in for a second? We all went
down there last field inspection. We went over this
with a fine tooth comb on this whole application, with
the applicant. He was very happy when we left. This
is what we are going to do. We come to our meeting
expecting to see a set of plans showing what we talked
about and what he agreed to, and it doesn't happen. To
me, it's very frustrating. Very frustrating. You come
with two different stories than what he's telling us on
the site.
MS. MOORE: I was not there so I don't know what he
agreed to or not. He went from your meeting to meet
with Mr. Costello. When he found out what it entailed
to cut the dock back in order to give himself a float,
which he always had, in order to preserve his slip, he
was very upset and very frustrated, so.
TRUSTEE KING: If he changed his mind I wish he had
notified the Board he changed his mind before we come
to a hearing like this.
MS. MOORE: Everything has to be at a public hearing and
has to be on the record. Because of the disputes that
Board of Trustees 50 September 23, 2009
are going on on this preperty, I do want all
conversations to be on the record and I want my time
line to be on the record and all the time, everything
that I produced there, is all a public record. So it
all comes from the Trustees' own files and the town
files.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is the new set of plans
MS. MOORE: Yes, which, correct me if I'm wreng, is the
one without floats.
MS. HULSE: For clarification, for the Trustees'
purposes, it's being accepted and put in as part of the
record. It doesn't mean they are going to adopt and
accept everything that is in here, because I publicly
have taken issue with some of the facts that are
presented here. That's all. So it certainly would be
accepted and part of the record.
MS. MOORE: I need a trenscript to reflect what we think
the facts are. I'm not asking you to agree or disagree
with me. I'm just asking them just to accept it and put
it on the record, so. Is that what you understood the
drawings to be, the ones I gave you?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking. (Perusing.) Okay, yes,
the plans that are now stamp dated September 23, 2009,
just an initial cursory review here, does look like
they do match the description.
Lori, I want to make sure I'm clear on something
here. Is it your advice not to preceed forward with
this application at all because of the ongoing court
case of the zoning issue? Or is your advice different
from that?
MS. HULSE: My advice is if the bulkhead can be dealt
with as a separate issue, that's fine, which I have
made clear to the Trustees well prior to this. With
respect to the violation, I think at this juncture,
obviously he's not going to act in good faith and work
with the Trustees to try to remedy that.
MS. MOORE: But what's the remedy for the violation?
MS. HULSE: I'm not getting back into this. It's been
clear. This has been rehashed over and over again.
MS. MOORE: It's a use issue.
MS. HULSE: And I said to the Trustees, the use issue is
a separate issue that if we need to try that case, it
will be something tried separately. I don't think in
good faith we can hold that up. However the Trustees
have been acting in good faith with respect to this
entire application for the entire history of if and --
MS. MOORE: So has --
MS. HULSE: I'm just saying.
MS. MOORE: In fairness, you told him to remove -- I
thought the violation was that you added floats. That's
Board of Trustees 51 September 23, 2009
what you told him. You added floats. They removed
them.
MS. HULSE: My answer is they can make a decision with
respect to the bulkhead and the application if they
choose to tonight, but they just received the plans, so
I'm not sure if they are ready to do that.
MS. MOORE: Well, it's the plans that you requested,
SO.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, is there anybody else in the
audience that wanted to speak for or against this application?
(No response.)
Jack, I thought I heard you try to interject at
one point. Did you have some comments on this
application on behalf of Conservation Advisory Council?
MR. MCGREEVY: I was going to raise a question. Talking
to this gentleman, he answered my question. I thought
the floating dock in question was that one going out
perpendicular. But it's not. That's a permanent dock.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The floats were here. (indicating.)
MR. MCGREEVY: I was going to ask, the pilings going
alongside of it, were they were they permitted. But it
answered my question. It's a permitted dock. It's not
a floating dock.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience
that wants to speak for or against this application?
(No response.)
Not hearing any comments, before I close the public
hearing, because in fairness to the applicant, I would
like to let you know what I'm planning on doing here.
You know, in fairness to the applicant, we do
understand the necessity of the bulkhead and the
dredging that goes with it. So what I'm about to
recommend is a motion that will address the bulkheading
and dredging only and that's it.
MS. MOORE: What part of it are you not approving?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm going to, in my motion, I'll not be
including the eight-foot extension on the existing
finger pier and work going along with that.
MS. MOORE: Okay. I was under the impression from prior
conversations you had with Mr. Slade that that did not
present a problem to you because it's actually taking
the pier, and since we are not dredging inside that
area, it's taking the boat and not having, it's
providing for water, whereas now the pier does, you end
up with the boats that are just sitting -- thers are
always small boats, so you have more environmental
damage by just having them sitting against the shoaling
that has occurred there, versus having the finger pier
that is extended slightly out.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Based upon the conversation that has
Board of Trustees 52 September 23, 2009
taken place at the hearing tonight, that's going to be
my recommendation. So with that --
TRUSTEE KING: I have one question. Why aren't we
dredging on this section here where the floats were? I
noticed you cut the dredging off at this corner.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The new plan I have here, Jim -- oh,
I'm sorry. I see what you are saying.
TRUSTEE KING: Doesn't that show the dredging stops
where that drops off? Why not dredge where these boats
are?
MS. MOORE: We'll hand up all our drawings.
MR. COSTELLO: The problem, the fill so immediate to the
bulkhead it will be done when the bulkhead gets done.
It's not a major dredging project right there because
the channel is right offshore. The reason this boat is
hitting is because it's right up against the bulkhead.
So when we do the bulkhead, that will be re-drained.
It's not a major part of the project where it's shoaled
up around the other side.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought I heard that one of the
issues that the applicant Mr. Slade has right now is
boats sitting on the bottom there.
MS. MOORE: On the inside.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. And that's what we are
addressing here, is that the dredging is stopping
approximately where the stern of that sailboat, that is
depicted in the paper, starting with the last name
looks like the letter "H," that's where it's ending
where you can see in the picture. After that sailboat
is Mr. Slade's sailboat you said is sitting on the
bottom and we are saying why not include dredging in
that area so it will address that issue for Mr. Slade.
MR. COSTELLO: Can we incorporate that?
MS. MOORE: Just change the drawing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure.
TRUSTEE KING: Will that solve a lot of problems?
MS. MOORE: It solves Mr. Slade's problem, but we have
that small finger pier.
MR. COSTELLO: I gave you the new set. it shows it's
being dredged. (Perusing.)
MS. MOORE: (Perusing.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sheet seven of eight is the page that
has the dredging plan.
MR. COSTELLO: This has it also.
MS. MOORE: So we are including the interior portion?
TRUSTEE KING: This shows it as being dredged.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we just need the one page, too. It's
just more of a clerical thing.
TRUSTEE KING: Because it's on the other drawing. So
this drawing is different than the other one.
Board of Trustees 53 September 23, 2009
MR. COSTELLO: We ren out of ink.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. So, again, for clarification on
the record, as far as the area to be dredged, it's
about to come up in a motion, we are referring to what
is depicted on these plans dated September 23, page
three of eight. That will include the area we have
talked about.
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't have a huge preblem with
extending that one little finger dock. So we don't move
forward, all right.
MS. MOORE: Well, I would ask -- I'm sorry.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think this is all we are going to
move on tonight.
MS. MOORE: The thing is you are punishing him because
I'm trying to get everything on the record. And in
fairness, I mean there has been a lot of conversation
and a lot of accusations, and it's never been on the
record. So in fairness to him, don't punish him
because I wanted to be able to ask for a float, which I
thought, from the town records, legitimately, should be
allowed there. And the finger pier never --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would not say we are punishing him
because you are asking for the float. That's not what's
going on here.
MS. MOORE: Well, that's the sense I'm getting. If there
has been consistently the comments you have given him
at the site inspection, at the prior hearings, that the
finger pier was not a problem --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You are also saying the bulkhead is
imminent and needs to be done. And that's what we are
ready to, I believe, move on tonight.
MS. MOORE: But the finger pier is such a minor part of
the whole thing. You are making him come back to ask
for an amendment to ask for a finger pier. It doesn't make sense.
MS. HULSE: Like I said, they don't have to act on any
of it tonight until the violation is resolved, then the
issue is completely resolved and you can make your
application at that point.
MS. MOORE: And meanwhile his bulkhead caves in.
MS. HULSE: That's your choice.
MS. MOORE: You have the final say.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there are no further comments, I'll
make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the
application of Michael and Corrine Slade requesting
wetland permit to remove 163 feet of existing wooden
bulkhead to allow for the reconstruction of the
Board of Trustees 54 September 23, 2009
existing bulkhead. Reconstruct 172 feet of existing
bulkhead by re-sheathing landward side of the bulkhead
with "Everlast" 2.1 vinyl sheathing; install a new
1 "x6' tie red ends welded into existing backing system
tie rods. Install the wooden boardwalk inplace after
bulkhead reconstruction is completed. Maintenance
dredge an area 50 foot seaward from the existing
bulkhead to a depth of four foot below mean Iow water
on the east end and progressing to seven foot below
mean Iow water on the west end; approximately 350 cubic
yards of dredge spoil to be trucked offsite to an
approved upland disposal site and the approved dredging
area in this resolution is depicted on sheet three of
eight, all of this to match plans received stamped
September 23, 2009.
Note that all we are approving as part of these
approved plans is exactly what I have just put on the
record. It doesn't mean that all the work depicted on
the plans has been proved tonight, just the work that I
have put on the record. And with the use of a silt
boom and dredging, it will bdng that part of the
application into consistency under the LWRP.
MS. MOORE: I guess, sorry, could you clarify for me,
how about the boardwalk that is right there right now?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I said that.
MS. MOORE: Maybe you can clarify, what is not included
-- the finger pier and the float. The float wasn't on
that drawing anyway, so it's just the finger pier.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: As I read, what is --
MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, I don't have it in front of me.
MS. HULSE: I think it was clear. I mean I really think
it was clear. It's going to muddy it up if you are
going to start saying what was not included. Can you
just take a vote on what was presented, if that's what
they choose to do?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second Dave's motion.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MS. MOORE: Do you understand what they just did?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
MS. MOORE: Good.
MR. COSTELLO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll take a five-minute break.
(After a short recess, these proceedings continue as
follows.)
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, folks, we are back.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number six, Patricia Moore on behalf
of JOHN & DANIELLA VENETIS requests a Wetland Permit to
Board of Trustees 55 September 23, 2009
demolish and reconstruct the first floor, if required;
construct new second-floor over existing first floor;
raise foundation for FEMA; new front steps and front
overhang; reconstruct wood deck and add a covered deck
(roof); and upgrade the sanitary system, if required.
Located: 2600 Takaposha Road, Southold.
This has been reviewed consistent by LWRP and
supported by Conservation Advisory Council. Is there
anyone here who would like to speak to this application?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore. I can answer whatever
questions, I don't want to make this night even
longer. It's pretty straightforward. It's, we hope we
don't have to do a lot to the first floor. It's truly
just a second floor addition but not knowing the
condition of the first floor when it's under
construction, we labeled it as demolition. It's
really, my client's goal is not to spend the kind of
money to reconstruct the first floor. It's to build a
second floor.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Pat, we are looking for the
sanitary.
MS. MOORE: The existing sanitary is in the front yard.
It's not in the backyard. I think I have it somewhere.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to clarify. I know there is
always confusion with waterfront property. When you
refer to front you mean the private road frontage.
MS. MOORE: Zoning front yard is road frontage. Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Because we don't see it on
the survey here.
MS. MOORE: Right. We hope to not have to do a sanitary
system, because we think the sanitary may be
conforming. It may have been replaced. It's, again,
in the front yard, may have been replaced during the
original renovation of the house. So -- but I'm
including anything and everything that could possibly
be required, so.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So you don't have anything with the
sanitary?
MS. MOORE: I'm looking to see if we have the old survey
showing sanitary.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are you planning on hay bales?
MS. MOORE: Yes, around the entire waterfront side.
Both sides and the back. I thought I put it in. I didn't.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: In front of the bulkhead?
MS. MOORE: In front of the bulkhead and along the sides
because we have diagonally wetland issues, so.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. Actually, we were going
to ask for a five-foot buffer. Should we back it up five feet?
MS. MOORE: It's actually a non-turf buffer now. I don't know if
you noticed, it's not grass in front of the bulkhead.
Board of Trustees 56 September 23, 2009
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This was a paver, I think. Pavers in
front. I remember some kind of stepping stones.
MS. MOORE: It's not a lot of yard here. Five feet. I
mean, beyond the pavers where the bulkhead, most of the
vegetation is actually on the seaward side of the bulkhead.
Because it's more a retaining wall than bulkhead here.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What's the feeling of the Board as
far as the bulkhead is concerned? Buffer, yes? Buffer, no?
TRUSTEE KING: I thought we talked about a five-foot
buffer. Isn't this the place where there was some
discussion why there is no Spartina in front?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: One side there was, one side there was
not.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This was the property and I believe
that's in the notes from the Conservation Advisory
Council, that for whatever reason, the Spartina
vegetation has disappeared in front of this house,
while it remains there on both sides, adjoining
properties on both sides. So there was a request from
the Conservation Advisory Council that that be
revegetated with Spartina in front of the bulkhead.
Is that -- I don't want to put words in your
mouth, Jack. That's what I recall.
MR. MCGREEVY: Right. We are also concerned with -- are
the paver blocks considered pervious or impervious?
They are very tight.
TRUSTEE KING: Usually if they set them on stone they
are fairly pervious. It depends on how they do it. If
they set them in cement, of course not.
MR. MCGREEVY: Our concern is the northwest corner of
the house, abutting the bulkhead, you have paver stones
going right to the bulkhead to, it's like a thruway
going from the house and the grade right to the
bulkhead. Our concern would be a runoff into the creek
waters. It's the northwest corner of the bulkhead.
MS. MOORE: If I could give some information. There is
a large area of what looks like Spartina on the, you
are facing the water, on the left-hand side. On the
right-hand side there is nothing. But it looks like
it's naturally --
TRUSTEE KING: And the next property is Spartina again.
Right in front of this house it's bare.
MS. MOORE: But the property next door is open space.
It's not built on. It's part of the Blocker property.
Blocker purchase, the Town of Southold purchased. So
that's probably, there's been no activity there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would the applicant consider complying
with the recommendation here of the Conservation
Advisory Council, or the suggestion, I apologize, it's
a suggestion of the Conservation Advisory Council, to
Board of Trustees 57 September 23, 2009
vegetate the Spartina there that is now void of any vegetation.
MS. MOORE: We can try and see if it takes. I just don't know.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, that's fair enough.
MS. MOORE: We can show you we planted it. We can't
prove that it will stay.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do we want to see the sanitary? Did
you ever find it?
MS. MOORE: I didn't find anything. I know they
described it's in the area of the driveway. It's on
the roadside. If it's anywhere other than the
roadside, I would have to come to you for a specific
amendment to the permit. That's how we can address it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All right. Are there any other
questions from the audience?
MR. MCGREEVY: Has the roof runoff been addressed?
MS. MOORE: Yes, we'll put gutters, leaders, drywells.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For the record, that's not shown on
these current plans. I don't see any drywells.
MS. MOORE: The code will require that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's always nice if it's on the
plans. Same with the hay bales it's always nice if the
hay bales are there.
TRUSTEE KING: If we stamp set of plans as approved and
it doesn't show, then --
MS. MOORE: I can add it. I usually handwrite it because
it's easier. So you want Spartina in front of the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. Five-foot buffer, hay bales
and drywells, gutters and leaders and a set of new
plans. Is there anyone else who would like to speak to
this application?
(No response.)
Motion to close.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the
application of John and Daniella Venetis for a Wetland
Permit to deposition and reconstruct the first floor,
if required; construct new second-floor over existing
first floor; raise foundation for FEMA; new front steps
and front overhand; reconstruct wood deck and add a
covered deck (roof); and upgrade the sanitary system,
if required, with the condition that there be drywells, gutters
leaders, hay bale line, five-foot buffer and
revegetation for the Spartina on a new set of plans.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can we state the septic should be on
the roadside of the property?.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And the new plans should show where
the sanitary existing system is.
MS. MOORE: I think the problem is we have not dug yet
Board of Trustees 58 September 23, 2009
so we are not sure exactly where they are and the
surveyor doesn't want to put something that he has not
seen. We can make a note the sanitary system in the
front yard.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That the sanitary goes in the front
yard. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number seven, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting on behalf of MICHAEL KENIN requests a
Wetland Permit to install six helical screw anchors
within the central section of the existing timber
bulkhead. Excavate an area along the landward side of
the timber bulkhead measuring six feet in width in
order to propedy route the screw anchors into the
landward grade. Upon installation of screw anchors,
backfill area with excavated soils and grade
accordingly. Located: 420 Lakeview Terrace, East Marion.
This is consistent with LWRP and Conservation
Advisory Council supports the application with the
condition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer.
Before I ask if there is anybody out there, I11
say that when we visited the site and reviewed it under
a different application, we discussed the buffer. And
it is a rather high bulkhead. And we discussed that
the buffer really was not necessary, but we can revisit
that again. Is there anyone here on behalf of this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting on behalf of the applicant.
For the record, the purpose of the screw anchors
is because this is a very tall bulkhead and it's
starting to bow. And all the screw anchors will do is
keep it from bowing more. It won't actually move the
wall at all. It's a cautionary measure. As far as the
buffer issue is concerned, we addressed that when we
redeveloped the house. There was a pool there that we
removed. There was some minor entry porches and things
like that were added. The reason why the buffer was
not required is because the land was sloped so that the
grade landward of the bulkhead was six to eight inches
below the top of the bulkhead. So any water that was
moving in that direction was impounded. So there was
no discharge. So I don't think the fact that we put in
screw anchors changes that fact. So I think it would
be okay.
MR. MCGREEVY: The Conservation Advisory Council's
concern is with any fertilizer going up, right up to
the edge of that bulkhead would soak down into the
Board of Trustees 59 September 23, 2009
ground. We were not concerned about overflow over the
top of the bulkhead. We were concerned about when
fertilizer is being used.
MR. ANDERSON: If the concern was the vertical migration
of fertilizer into the ground, the ten-foot buffer would not
address in any event because the vector is vertically into the
ground and not sideways. So I still don't see --
MR. MCGREEVY: It would leach through the bulkhead face
and go right down into the wetlands.
MR. ANDERSON: This is a tongue-in-groove bulkhead.
There is really no evidence of leaching through the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, is there any comments from the
Board?
MR. ANDERSON: And there is very little land the man has, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When we were there the last time, the
whole Board was there a few years ago, and the
landscaping was not done. This time when I went out
there was quite a bit of landscaping on the sides and
in front. And it's a small area of lawn and where the
bulkhead is ten feet high, up in the air --
TRUSTEE KING: Probably higher than that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's probably higher than that. I'm
just saying at least that. So I don't see a need for a buffer in
this area, for the reasons Bruce has mentioned. Are there any
other comments?
TRUSTEE KING: It's a fairly minor application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Hearing none, I'll close the application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the
application for Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of Michael Kenin as applied for.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, Garret A. Strang, Architect,
on behalf of WILLIAM H. LIEBLEIN (PORT OF EGYPT) requests
a Wetland Permit to construct wood walkways and a deck onto
the existing restaurant, a 10x37' roof extension, and gable applique
along the north side to hide the mechanical equipment.
Located: 62300 Main Road, Southold.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. STRANG: Yes. Good evening. Garret Strang,
Architect, Southold, on behalf of Mr. Lieblein.
The application is relatively self explanatory.
We are proposing to place the deck slightly above the
existing grade on the south side of the property, or
Board of Trustees 60 September 23, 2009
waterside of the property, for the purpose of food and
beverage service, and connecting walkway around toward
the front entry of the building as well.
Most of this work is within the confines of the
existing retaining walls. And that's pretty much about
it. I mean there is some roof structure and the like.
I don't know that poses any environmental issues. If
there are any questions from the Board, I would be
happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE KING: This was found consistent with LWRP. The
Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
wetland application with the condition appropriate
construction materials are used; pervious surface
beneath the deck and serious drainage problems were
encountered in the parking lot are addressed. Those
are the comments from the Conservation Advisory
Council. And I think in our field notes, I don't know
if we have any pictures of the water side or not.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, I'm getting to the next one,
Jim.
TRUSTEE KING: There is a walkway seaward of the
bulkhead, I believe, then a little bit of grass.
MR. LIEBLEIN: I'm William H. Lieblein from Shelter
Island Port of Egypt.
TRUSTEE KING: The seaward end is a sidewalk --
MR. LIEBLEIN: There's a sidewalk right in front of that
bulkhead
TRUSTEE KING: We would like to see that strip of turf
there, more of a vegetative buffer than turf.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Like a planted area.
MR. LIEBLEIN: You tell us what you want, we'll plant
anything you want. I wanted to address the remark
about, I think the Conservation Advisory Council and
the parking lot. As you may or may not be aware, we
are working on completing a -- I'm having a senior
moment -- order of consent or order on consent. I just
drafted a three-page letter this morning. I have been
working with Chris Arston of Region One of the DEC on
this. Down on the waterfront near our gas dock, we
removed the required concrete and have installed a
second ring, drain ring in there. We have been working
with Mr. Arston. We already have on the C&L property
where the motel is, we installed something called a bay
separator to handle the runoff on that side and removed
75 feet of blacktop over there and have met all the
requirements in the, all the terms of the order on
consent have been met. At this point we have hired
Land Use -- maybe that's the wrong word -- we've
engaged Land Use Services and I'm working with their
associate Kelly Risotto up there and we are also
Board of Trustees 61 September 23, 2009
addressing working with Albany. It's the pure water or
whatever, the people that handle SPDES. We are
coordinating through Land Use with them. We plan to
install as per discussions with Mr. Arston a French
drain from the edge of the restaurant, across toward
the main storage building so that any water that is
flowing toward the water will go into the French drain,
and we are planning to install whatever device is
determined that is necessary to treat the effluence
there, as probably most people or many people know,
this entire section of Southold Town is sitting on one
to 200 feet of clay, which is why there were brick
yards to the east of us, and in fact the one across the
street was originally called part of Sanford brick
yard. So you can't contain the water on the property no
matter what you; it will run into the water. So we are
working diligently with Mr. Arston and also with
Kristina Faulk in Albany so that we dovetail everything
together so that whatever we put in, we don't put in
what the local people want and Albany says no good, you
have to do something else. So we are all in agreement
we are going to work together on this. And in my
discussions before the meeting, Garrett said are there
gutters and drains on this building, there are now, and
I think they basically run and just water the green
area behind the bulkhead, on the south side of the
building, which is the waterside. And certainly there
is no problem of running excess draining into the
French drains so it will also be treated in whatever
way the other water is treated. So we are very anxious
to bring our marina up to green standards and do
whatever is necessary. I just thought I would add that in.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. I don't think we had a
problem with anything. If you look at plans there,
just one section it shows concrete bulkhead and
existing walkway, that one area in there if you could
just plant --
MR. LIEBLEIN: If you want us to put something in there,
tell us what kind of vegetation. We've planted various
things in there. As you know, my daughter Katy is
married to Peter Septin (sic) so she's got a green
thumb and she can make almost anything grow thers, I
guess.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
MR. MCGREEVY: I'm assuming, Jim, the surface underneath
the deck that will be put in will be a pervious surface.
MR. LIEBLEIN: Whatever is there now, we'll just leave.
We'll just put posts in and build a deck over it.
TRUSTEE KING: So the turf will be removed?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The one nearest the water?
Board of Trustees 62 September 23, 2009
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, in the front, where they are going
to put the big deck. In that area.
MR. LIEBLEIN: Yes, in that area.
TRUSTEE KING: So the turf would be removed?
MR. LIEBLEIN: It makes more sense to leave it. If you
cover it, it will die out anyway.
MR. STRANG: And the decking, the water will weep
through the decking into the soil, so.
TRUSTEE KING: All right. If there are no other
comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the
application as applied for with the condition that the
small area between the existing concrete walkway and
the concrete bulkhead be, the non-turf, can be planted
up with native vegetation.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor.
(ALL AYES.)
MR. STRANG: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KING: Garrett, do you want to show that on the
plans or do want me to mark it, that little vegetated buffer there?
MR. STRANG: We'll have it marked on the plans submitted
for your endorsement.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number nine, Mark Schwartz, Architect,
on behalf of MICHAEL & DEBORAH THOMPSON requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a first-floor addition of
17.9 square feet and second floor 129.2 square feet,
living space to expand kitchen on the first floor,
extend bedroom and add two dormers on second floor.
Rebuild rear deck 481.5 square feet total (30.1 square
feet more than existing), rebuild side deck 113.3
square feet and expand front porch by 19.9 square feet
(total 135.2 square feet), new pool and patio. Located:
9280 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
The Board went out and saw this upon inspections.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent with
LWRP, and it is recommending a non-turf buffer. The
Conservation Advisory Council did see it and resolved
to support the application with the condition that
gutters, leaders and drywells are installed to contain
roof runoff. And as I recall, out in the field, we
really didn't have a problem with it. Are there any
comments or questions from anybody?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, Mark Schwartz, the architect for the
project. Our application mentioned several new dormers
Board of Trustees 63 September 23, 2009
on the second floor, on the existing roof where we are
actually looking to prebably remove half of the reof or
possibly the entire reof and raise the pitch of it. We
are not expanding the footprint any different than what
we already stated, but the reof work may be greater
than what we have in the application. It's basically
maybe a three pitch on the waterside side reof line
there. They just really want to raise the pitch and
create some reverse gable dormers, and I could submit
those plans to you. I have them but I have not given
that in the original application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The survey I have doesn't show any
drywells. Do you have a copy of the plans that show
drywells for reof runoff?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. I thought that's what we had
submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Unless I'm missing something.
(Perusing.) Okay, here we go. There is two sets of
plans. One which is a survey, and one which is a
second survey which shows the pool, the pervious
driveway, expansion, the drywells frem the leaders to
gutters on the house, hay bale line with the silt
fencing to be installed during construction. And
non-turf buffer, natural vegetation, non-turf buffer.
I don't see any preblems here. There is a drywell for
the pool. This is what we saw in the field. Any other
questions frem the Board?
(No response.)
Motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion that we appreve the
application for Michael and Deborah Thompson as
described and as shown on the plans with the non-turf
buffer, pervious driveway, hay bale line during
construction and leadere and gutters and drywells to
contain reof runoff, and drywell for the pool
backwash. I believe that's everything.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number ten, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis,
LLC, on behalf of SOUTHVIEW CUSTOM BUILDERS requests a
Wetland Permit for the subdivision of a 14.54 acre
preperty into three lots, construction of three
single-family dwellings with associated sanitary
systems and access gravel driveway. Located: South side
of Main Bayview Road, Southold.
Board of Trustees 64 September 23, 2009
We have been out to look at this piece of
property. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved
to support it with the condition the vernal pond is
protected and an effort to save at many trees as
possible over eight inches in diameter.
This was found consistent under the review by
LWRP, with a couple of recommendations here. One
recommendation being that all driveways to the house
are to remain pervious into perpetuity and that the
access path to Corey Creek be limited to four foot in width.
So I have a set of plans in front of me stamped
September 2, 2009, that I'll be referring to here. Is
there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. RACE: Good evening, my name is Paul Race of Nelson
& Pope, representing the applicant and owner. Donald
Rhine (sic) of Southview Custom Homes is also in
attendance tonight. A brief history of the
application: The Southview Preserve is a subdivision
featuring three proposed single-family lots clustered
within an overall parcel of 14.54 acres with 11.52 of
those acres proposed to be preserved in their current,
natural state in perpetuity. The initial subdivision
application was originally submitted in 2002, and was
subsequently delayed by moratorium. After the
moratorium expired, a new reduced yield subdivision
plan was submitted to the planning Department in early
2005. In April, 2006, a Town Trustees Wetland Permit
was initially submitted along with a tidal wetland
permit to the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation. That tidal wetland permit
was granted in February of 2008. Subsequent to that a
preliminary public hearing before the Southold Town
Planning Board was held in November of 2006 and
preliminary subdivision approval was granted at that
time. Please note at that subdivision hearing there
was no public opposition to the plan and the Board and
its director publicly thanked the applicant for his
cooperation with the department during the process. An
updated Board of Trustees wetland application was
submitted this past August. Members of the Board
conducted field visits in July and August and based
upon those visits a culvert was added under the common
driveway which would connect the topographic depression
along the site frontage. Needless to say, the lengthy
review process has been a hardship to the applicant and
we do respectfully request this Board grant the
necessary permit so that we may proceed. If there are
any questions, we also have David Zere (sic), the
project manager of Nelson & Pope in attendance along
with Sarah DeSilver, an environmental scientist with
Board of Trustees 65 September 23, 2009
Nelson, Pope & Voorhis. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Again, I'm looking at these
plans stamped received September 2. And I was looking
for the proposed culvert. Is it listed here as
proposed tunnel maybe?
MR. RACE: We certainly don't have it labeled as tunnel
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could just step up so we know we
are referring to the same thing. I can't read it. Even with my glasses.
MR. RACE: If you like, I can submit to the Board the
latest set of plans. The revision adding the culvert
was 8/17/09, add 36" culvert. That is right here.
It's right at the same spot as the depression along the
site frontage.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you are willing to give us this set
of plans, we'll stamp them received as of this date. So at this
point forward I'll be referring to plans received September 23.
MR. RACE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, when we went out and looked at it,
that was the only concern we had. And I know the
Conservation Advisory Council, as I stated, had a
concern about that vernal pond. We recognize that the
applicant has been through many different processes
before this town, and so we do recognize that fact. I
have noted on the plans that you referred to the
driveways as gravel driveways to the three proposed
homes, which means they are pervious. That was also
recommended in the review under the LWRP. The other
thing that was mentioned in the review under the LWRP
is the path to Corey Creek could be four foot wide.
Right now have you proposed 15-foot wide easement with
a five-foot path, and given the fact there are three
homes here, I don't want to speak for the Board here,
they can certainly chime in, but I certainly don't have
a problem with the path instead of being four foot,
being five-foot wide. Again, as depicted on your plans
given the fact there are three properties that will be in there.
Was there anybody else in the audience that wanted
to comment on this application?
(No response.)
Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: I agree with you on the width of the
path. Five feet is not excessive.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Great. With that I'll make a motion to
close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: i'll make a motion to approve the
application of Nelson, Pope & Voorhis on behalf of
Southview Custom Builders as depicted at Main Bayview
Board of Trustees 66 September 23, 2009
Road in Southold, and we are using the plans stamped
received September 23, 2009, which include a culvert
under the driveway entrance into this subdivision.
There are pervious driveways proposed for the three
homes and that there is a five-foot path along the 15'
easement going from the property or the area where
these homes are, down to Corey Creek.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. RACE: Thank you
MS. STANDISH: Can we get one more plan? You can mail
it in.
MR. RACE: No problem (Handing).
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number 11, Samuels & Steelman
Architects on behalf of JONATHAN ZANG requests a
Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dwelling;
construct a new four-bedroom dwelling and two-car
detached garage; new sanitary system with fill and
retaining wall; new fill on the seaward side of the
dwelling; and install four-foot wide beach stairs from
the bulkhead to the beach, on both east and west sides
of the property. Located: 370 Takaposha Road, Southold.
Is there anyone here in evening like to speak to
this application?
MR. SAMUELS: Tom Samuels on behalf of Jonathan Zang. I
was a little confused when I saw his, something like
his name show up before. But that's the house.
Just the briefest of histories here. He had a
permit until it just recently expired. It was extended
once or twice. We got the Trustees, obviously the DEC,
Health Department, and then he kind of got caught up
last fall with financial issues that made it impossible
to go ahead as intended, so he let it lapse. He had to
let it lapse. So we are back for essentially the same
thing at this point.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: LWRP reviewed it consistent.
Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
with the condition the driveway is pervious.
MR. SAMUELS: No problem, of course. The stairs also, I
had nothing to do with the stairs. I know they sort of
showed up there. We just put them on the application
afterwards. We'll have to go back to the DEC for them,
of course.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's all settled, okay. I don't
see anything on the field notes. We didn't have any
problem with this. Anybody else from the audience who
would like to speak? Or the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: It was just a little set of steps that
Board of Trustees 67 September 23, 2009
was the stumbling block.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the
application for Jonathan Zang for his request to
demolish the dwelling, construct four-bedroom addition,
two-car detached garage, new sanitary system, fill and
two sets of stairs at 371 Takaposha Road. Do I have a
second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number '12, Samuels & Steelman
Architects on behalf of ANTHONY FOROSlCH requests a
Wetland Permit to renovate and construct additions to
the existing 1 1/2 story dwelling with two additions to
the footprint, addition to garage, and new covered
porches on landward and seaward sides of dwelling.
Located: 1405 Anchor Lane, Southold.
It was found consistent with LWRP and the
Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
with the condition of gutters, leaders and drywells are
installed to contain roof runoff, installation of a 20'
non-turf buffer and drainage problem is addressed.
Jack, what is the drainage problem that you are
referring to; do you know?
MR. MCGREEVY: I don't have it specified.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, because we didn't see a drainage
problem. Not that there isn't one, but we didn't see
it. As a matter of fact this is almost a
non-jurisdiction. Is there anyone here who would like
to speak on behalf of the application?
MR. SAMUELS: Tom Samuels on behalf of Anthony
Forosich. As you say, it's pretty much on the edge,
modest kind of addition, mostly in the footprint, with
a little bathroom kick out there next to the porch next
to the guy on the right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Are there any other comments
from anyone else?
(No response.)
All right, hearing none, I'll make a motion to close
the public hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the
Board of Trustees 68 September 23, 2009
application of Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf
of Anthony Forosich as applied for.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Number 13, 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.
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. The Board has looked at this last month.
You have been out here a couple of times. The request
at the last hearing was for us to investigate whether
the previously proposed structure could be pulled in
any closer to the shoreline.
I was out to the property twice, once with the
surveyor, a second time with the staff from New York
State DEC. The stakes that you ars looking at there
reflect the outer or most seaward comers of the fixed
T-dock that you ars now looking at on the plans most
recently dated 9/17/09. We shot the location of Iow
water and took soundings from Iow water out, and again
I did that twice at Iow tide and found the same
conditions both times, and so the only difference in
the rest of this structure is that part of the process
of bringing it in was to better align it to be parallel
with the shoreline which caused us to have to rs-orient
the landward part of the catwalk a little bit. So the
only thing that is proposed that you have not seen is
the landward extent of the catwalk is slightly shifted
so it's now not quite exactly in line with the pathway
that you walked through, but I assume that's neither
here nor there to you. The important part was the
seaward intrusion of the structure. So what you ars
looking at there is now what you are looking at on the
plans.
TRUSTEE KING: This was found inconsistent. I think
this is an error. Because it's denoted docks would be
permitted in vegetated wetlands.
MR. HERMAN: Jill and Peggy addressed that last month.
It's a different West Creek.
TRUSTEE KING: It's a different arsa all together.
MR. HERMAN: Correct.
TRUSTEE KING: So that's an error. I don't think the
Board had a problem with any of this.
MR. HERMAN: It came in about five feet.
TRUSTEE KING: You have the right distance between the
Board of Trustees 69 September 23, 2009
stakes and everything?
MR. HERMAN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Conservation Advisory Council -- the
project was not staked, however the Conservation
Advisory Council supports the application with the
condition that the driveway is pervious, public access
is provided along the creek up and down the dock
MR. HERMAN: The driveway?
TRUSTEE KING: Driveway is landward of the house.
MR. HERMAN: The driveway is not part of the
application.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just reading the Conservation
Advisory Council comments.
MR. HERMAN: About this application?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. HERMAN: Okay. I'm confused. It doesn't sound like
it's the right application.
TRUSTEE KING: No. As far as public access, that's all
marshland. I can't imagine anybody traveling along the
marsh and having a problem going around the dock or
over the dock. It's really not even walkable. I don't
think it's an issue.
MR. HERMAN: I was up a little higher than my knees in
muck, so.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. I don't think it's an area with a
lot of pedestrian traffic. Any other comments?
Comments from the audience?
(No response.)
Personally, I don't think the driveway or public access
is an issue in this application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, I don't think so either.
TRUSTEE KING: Being no other comments, I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
I'll make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 14, En-Consultants on behalf of
CARDINAL EAST COAST DEVELOPMENT, LLC, requests a
Wetland Permit to remove and replace (inplace)
approximately 87 linear feet of existing timber
bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead; remove and replace
(inplace and raised 12") approximately 130 linear feet
of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead; remove
and replace (inplace and raised 12") variable width
Board of Trustees 70 September 23, 2009
(23' max) x 130' deck (including 4x5' step-down);
remove and replace (inplace) 2.5"x10' ramp and 6x30'
float; backfill with approximately 35 cubic yards of
clean sand fill to be trucked in from an approved
upland source; and temporarily remove, re-side,
re-shingle and refurbish existing +14.5'x14.5'
boathouse; and a letter of no-jurisdiction for the
proposed swimming pool. Located: 4600 Wunneweta Road,
Cutchogue.
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant. This is another one we looked at with
the Board last month and subsequently met at the site.
One of the issues discussed was that the pool and some
work that was contemplated on the house but not yet
done or proposed on the site plan would in fact be the
Board's jurisdiction, in part because of the freshwater
wetlands on the north side of the property that we did
not previously locate. As you know, I delineated the
boundary of that wetland in your presence. It is shown
on the revised surveys that I just handed up to
Lauren. With that, the Board had requested that we
relocate the swimming pool so that it was at least 50
feet from that freshwater wetland, and we described our
concern for also still maintaining a 75-foot setback
from the bulkhead. If you look at the revised survey
you'll see the swimming pool location has been modified
accordingly to meet out where you are all standing
there. You can see the rock wall on the plan, you can
see the pool overlays in part where that wall is.
Also, the roof over a wood deck is shown around the
north and south sides of the house now, on the survey,
which were the two upland improvements we discussed.
The survey was just completed today so I have not
had an opportunity to modify the deck over the water as
we discussed on site, however I did hand up a sketch
that looks like this, that shows in fluorescent marker
the entire section of deck that we talked about at the
site being removed.
So we would ask now for the Board to consider the
approval of the upland work as depicted on the survey I
just handed up by Nathan Taft last dated September 21,
and contingent upon receipt of revised project plans
from me showing the proposed deck reconstruction with
that section out. The only other change that would be
coming, and I assume you have no objection to it, is I
did have a chance to also speak to staff from DEC, who
seemed to be amenable to the agreement reached between
the Board and the applicant, except for the very small
return that is on, I guess it's the northwesterly
point, they do not want that particular return raised
Board of Trustees 71 September 23, 2009
in height when it's replaced. It's in that corner
because that's where you are getting around to that
natural shoreline, and they don't want that raised over
there. They just want the height of that return left as
it is. Which really is not a problem because at that
point there is a lot of vegetation behind it. In other
words they don't want the natural vegetative buffer
that exists there disturbed for the purpose of raising
the return and the grade behind it. So we don't have a
problem with that either.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Rob, I have a question. Where the
pool is going to go now, how are you going to
transition this stuff? Are you going to go -- is all
this going to be removed and do you have to do a wall
here?
MR. HERMAN: They'll have to do something, Peggy. We
didn't get that far. Just really the placement with
respect to the wetland setbacks. As I said, the survey
was just done.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just curious.
MR. HERMAN: It's a reasonable question. I'm just
describing why I don't have a good answer for you.
They'll have to look at the grades. Because part if
not all of that stack stone wall will have to be taken
out. So I'm not worried about the grade between the
pool and the wetlands but behind that they'll have to
probably come down and put some sort of a wall behind
it. That in theory should be part of your permit
package. But only thing I can ask is perhaps you can
condition it on us providing that information on a plan
for your approval. I think it's just going to be a
question of how they'll do it. I'm sure it's going to
be some re-grading, some use of retaining walls. But I
don't think they have made it nearly that far yet.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's a nice slide from the house
down. You could do a water slide.
MR. HERMAN: With a diving board at the top of the hill.
But the important part, again, is we were able to
relocate it so as to maximize those two setbacks.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, the Conservation Advisory Council
resolved to not support the application because the
deck is on town property and is in violation of the
public trust doctrine and the bulkhead should be
replaced in the same dimension and height as per Town
Code.
But I believe you didn't know the Trustees had
worked something out in terms of scaling back that deck.
LVVRP has found this to be exempt from LWRP. And
would like to point out there are a couple of letters
here in the file. One from the Rust Family Partnership
Board of Trustees 72 September 23, 2009
which is the owners of the property, located at 4680
Wunneweta Road, and they are writing us to support the
application. The structures and floating dock have
been their since their purchase, which was in the early
1950's. They believe that the removal and replacement
of the structures would be consistent with their
neighborhood and be an obvious overall improvement.
We also have a letter from Barry and Gayle Mallon
(sic) from 4225 Wunneweta Road who are writing to
register a comment and an objection to the proposal.
It talks about --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, if that has to do with the right
of way that we read into the record at the last public
hearing --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It does. I'm just making sure we have
it all covered. That's about the right of way, the
15-foot right of way. That's all I have. Are there any
other comments from the Board? Or questions?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only comment I have. We did check
out that issue with the right of way. And actually the
right of way extends over farther to the east than I
think what the writer of the letter thought. In other
words he was concerned about access being blocked to
the right of way at the road, and really it's wide open
there, up at the read. We saw that in the field. So
there is no, this would not block the access to that
right of way.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Very good. I'll make a motion to close
the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion that we
approve this application, making note that it will be
based upon revised drawings that will show the change
that we made decreasing the size of the decking at the
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And also the wording about the work
that will have to be done with the pool. I don't know
if you want to check with Lori how to word that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think it's an understanding that
that is part of the construction of the pool that we
are approving.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do we know what it's going to do?
Are they going to terrace it? Does it matter to us?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think it matters because they
are going to make sure it's stable and holds up.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seems like it's something in our
jurisdiction.
MR. HERMAN: We have to give you revised plans anyway,
Board of Trustees 73 September 23, 2009
so I can just ask them to treat that issue.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's fine.
TRUSTEE KING: Is the pool in or out of our
jurisdiction?
MR. HERMAN: It's in. That whole area, that's why I
said, if there will be retaining walls, it should be
part of the permit. We can always come back and amend
it, but I can't imagine it will take a really long time
to figure it out.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just don't want it to be on there
then create a problem.
MR. HERMAN: I don't have any problem with it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And there will be drywells to contain
the runoff from the pool and --
MR. HERMAN: Yes. That's why I would rather get it all
done in one shot.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Absolutely.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that your motion?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MS. HULSE: So we are clear, the letter of
non-jurisdiction--
TRUSTEE KING: It doesn't exist now. It's removed from
the application.
MR. HERMAN: We retract that portion of the request, for
the record.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of
SCOTT & JENNIFER SCHULMAN requests a Wetland Permit to
demolish the existing one-story dwelling and construct
a new single-family, two-story dwelling with covered
porch located 5.5' farther from wetlands and in line
with neighboring dwellings; abandon existing sanitary
system located less than 100' from wetlands and install
new, upgraded sanitary system more than 100' from
wetlands; install a drainage system of drywells; and
establish a five-foot wide non-turf buffer adjacent to
top of slope in place of existing lawn. Located: 1575
Pine Neck Road, Southold.
This was reviewed under the LVVRP and found to be
consistent with LWRP. It was also looked at by the
Conservation Advisory Council and they resolved to
support the application with the condition that erosion
problems are addressed, the cement block wall is
repaired, the catch basin or pervious areas installed
to contain runoff and gutters and leaders and drywells
are installed to contain the roof runoff.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this
Board of Trustees 74 September 23, 2009
application?
MR. HERMAN: On behalf of the applicant, Rob Herman;
Jennifer Schulman is also here; the project amhitect
Tom Samuels is here. This is a project that is
sandwiched between two renovations that were, one
recently completed and one recently approved by the
Board. This project would situate a similarly-sized
house in line relative to Jockey Creek with those two
dwellings. It would consist of a significant upgrade
to the sanitary system. The project will be equipped
with leaders, gutters and drywells as depicted on the
plans. And that's really it. It is as it's presented
on the site plan. If the Board has any specific
questions, one of us can address it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking at the plans stamped
received September 1, 2009. A couple of questions.
The concrete walkway that goes down from the house down
almost to the lawn area?
MR. HERMAN: An oldie but goodie.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: An oldie but goodie. And, as you heard,
it's a concern the Conservation Advisory Council and
the Board when we were out there, we were concerned
about the water runoff from that. It creates a natural
channel of water straight down the hill. And we were
wondering if there was anything that can be done at the
bottom of that walkway to address the water runoff that
comes down that hill.
MR. HERMAN: Tom, had you contemplated any work on the
walkway? I assume they are not going to just leave
that. I mean, Jennifer, I don't know, it would seem to
be something that would probably be improved.
MR. SAMUELS: We have not contemplated doing anything
with it. Perhaps like a little of a French drain or
something, because you are close to groundwater there.
I'm not sure if we would be able to get it into the
ground. I'm not sure what the dimension to groundwater
is at that location. Although we can certainly try to
do that and take it and put it subsurface. But you are
Iow there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In other words, is there an opportunity
there for some type of either French drain or drywell
at the bottom of that concrete walkway, given the fact
that we don't know what the surface to water level is.
MR. SAMUELS: French drain would be the easiest way to
ensure it because now you are putting the water in a
permeable surface with a filter before it goes into the
wetlands. Absolutely we can do that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Perfect. Thank you. Also it was noted
by both Conservation Advisory Council and the Board
that there is a concrete block retaining wall there
Board of Trustees 75 September 23, 2009
that appears to be failing. Just as far as for safety
reasons, will that be addressed in the construction of
the house so that wall is repaired or shored up so it
doesn't create a safety issue?
MR. HERMAN: It's a dry block wall, so it's not an
adhered masonry retaining wall. It's basically a
continuation of the same dry block landscape wall that
runs up from the top. I didn't observe it as any sod
of safety hazard, but again, it's the type of thing by
the time you are done building and rebuilding your
house, you would probably want to do something with.
But we had not, I mean there is no urgency to it now,
since it's something we had not contemplated, but if we
would, we would probably have to come into this Board
since it's in your jurisdiction. Is there anything
specific about, just the dislodging of the some of the
blocks, you mean?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If we can just make the recommendation,
that that wall, and we are looking specifically at the
wall area to the west of the concrete walkway, where
there the concrete blocks seems to be bowing out in a
couple of places. If the applicant would take into
consideration the repair of that wall so that that
condition is remedied. Just to take it into
consideretion.
MR. HERMAN: That's not a problem. If it was anything
substantial we would probably have to revisit you.
MR. MCGREEVY: If the wall fails, you would have a
pretty substantial erosion problem at that point. It's
a pretty steep grade.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. Those were the only concerns
of either the Board or the Conservation Advisory
Council had. ts there anybody else in the audience that
would like to make comments related to this
application?
(No response.)
Any other comments from the Board?
(No response.)
I do want to note on the record I agree with the
comment made by Rob that this house, proposed house,
does match the alignment between the two adjacent
dwellings. So it is back in alignment. If there are no
other comments, I'll make a motion to close the public
hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the
application of En-Consultants on behalf of Scott and
Jennifer Schulman as described at 1575 Pine Neck Road,
Board of Trustees 76 September 23, 2009
with the only addition being if a French train can be
installed at the base of the concrete walkway to
address the runoff issue there. It's noted on the plan
that the rest of the runoff from the house is all being
taken care of with drywells in order to comply with
Chapter 236. And that's the plans stamped received
September 1, 2009, that I'm referring to.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number 16, En-Consultants Inc., on
behalf of STEPHEN & VIRGINIA MCCONNELL requests a
Wetland Permit to legalize approximately 289 square
foot of deck and steps including approximately 130
square feet of pre-existing deck and steps
reconstructed without a wetlands permit and
approximately 159 square feet of additional deck and
steps constructed without a wetlands permit; and
establish a five-foot wide, approximately 146 square
feet non-turf buffer to be maintained and/or planted
with native vegetation along the top of the bank.
Located: 6750 Main Bayview Road, Southold.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak on
this application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En~Consultants on behalf of
the applicant, and Steve McConnell is here as well. In
your file should be a 1977 survey from VanTyle that
shows the originally existing portion of deck on the
south side of the house, which was labeled on that
survey as the porch. Without the benefit of permits,
the McConnell's replaced that section of deck and then
added to it. The easiest thing, although you probably
figured it out by now, is this was the area of the
originally existing deck that was replaced and this
wraparound section was added to it. All in one shot.
We have already met at the site with DEC's regional
manager Karen Grolick. The DEC in fact was not going
to pursue a violation here. It was Karen's
recommendation that we do the plantings that are shown
on the site plan and once those were completed, DEC
would effectively legalize the deck reconstruction and
expansion with a warning letter. And given the small
scope of the work, and the relative site conditions, in
consideration of those plantings we are asking the
Board for the same consideration. There's not much more
to this story.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. Conservation Advisory
Council supports the application with the condition of
a ten-foot, non-turf buffer and remediation of the
erosion. And the LWRP coordinator reviewed it as
Board of Trustees 77 September 23, 2009
consistent, but it's recommended that perpetual natural
vegetative buffer greater than the five-foot width be
required landward from the wetland boundary to the
south section of the property. That's two
recommendations that the buffer be --
MR. HERMAN: Ten feet. Sold.
TRUSTEE KING: You must be getting tired.
MR. HERMAN: I mean, you can see the lawn. It's pretty
natural back there. It's very, very shady. It lends
itself to, on that side there is more vegetation in the
back anyway, so. The only issue is, again, you notice
on the survey, we cannot wrap the vegetation around the
entire section because there is an easement there and
we don't to run into one of those, it's an easement
that no one will use or admit to having until we
propose to plant it, then they'll be here with a very
long letter and speech for to you. So we'll stay out
of the easement and plant that area out.
MR. MCGREEVY: There is some kind of runoff on those two
decks on the southwest corner of the property. And
there is an erosion problem that goes from approximately the
base of those stairs on the diagram directly into that southwest
corner of the property where we recommend a buffer. So I would
recommend, based on that, that there be some kind of French drain
placed there to take that drain off those two decks. Right about
there. That's where the erosion started.
MR. HERMAN: There is no erosion problem there stemming
from those stairs. There is already a gravel drainage bed that the
McConnell's put in around the edge of the deck which also separates
it from the lawn so, I mean that's what we would do anyway.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I think with the plantings, I
think that would take care of that erosion.
MR. HERMAN: There is probably a natural movement of
surface water flow from the channel there. Which is
what we hope to accomplish with the buffer plantings.
But it's not something that has been created by the
presence of that deck. That's just the property lends
itself to feeding in that direction.
MR. MCGREEVY: There is a definite feed form the base of
the stairs. You have a substantial grading going from
the base of the stairs down to where you are proposing
the buffer.
MR. HERMAN: We are agreeable to the buffer.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Ill make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the
wetland permit for Stephen and Virginia McConnell as
stated with the change there will be an established ten-foot
Board of Trustees 78 September 23, 2009
wide buffer maintained and planted with native vegetation
along the top of the bank at 6750 Main Bayview Road, Southold.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. HERMAN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES.)