HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-11/18/2009Jill M. Doherty, President
James F. King, Vice-President
Dave Bergen
Bob Ghosio, Jr.
John Bredemeyer
Town Hall Annex
54375 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RECEIVED
FEB 2 5 2010
S o Town Clerk
Minutes
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
6:00 PM
Present Were: James King, President
Jill Doherty, Vice-President
Peggy Dickerson, Trustee
Robert Ghosio, Trustee
Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD Wednesday, December 2, 2009, at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, Dec. 16, 2009, at 6:00 PM
WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM
TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone. My name is Jim
King, I'm the Chairman of the Board of Trustees. My pleasure to be.
We are a little shorthanded tonight.
Trustee Dave Bergen will not be with us tonight, and
our Assistant Town Attorney Lori Hulse, our legal
advisor, will not be with us tonight. And there is no
CAC. So, like I said, we are a little shorthanded.
I would like to introduce the rest of the folks,
though. Peggy Dickerson is to my far left; Jill Doherty
is next to me. She serves as vice-chair; myself; Lauren
Standish manages the office for us; Bob Ghosio is the
other Trustee. We have Wayne Galante down there keeping
Board of Trustees 2 November 18, 2009
track of everybody, of what they say, and I would like
to recognize John Bredemeyer in the audience here. He
is a trustee-elect. He'll be sitting up here in
January. He's been here before. I think he'll find this
a little bit different than it used to be in the good
old days, though. Things have gotten a little more
difficult, a little more involved. There are a lot of
issues that affect us, as the Board of Trustees. We
keep pretty busy.
With that being said, we'll set the next field
inspection for December 2, at 8:00 in the morning.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Next meeting will be December 16 at 6:00,
with our work session starting at 5:30.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES.)
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for
October, 2009. A check for $7,245.98 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 VII Public Hearings
Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, December
10, 2008, 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:
John & Marie Shack - SCTMf147-2-26.1
Roger Praetorius - SCTM#139-1-4.2
Yan Rieger - SCTM#27-4-6
Brewer Yacht Yard at Greenport - SCTM#36-1-1
Board of Trustees 3 November 18, 2009
Leonard Vito Sessa - SCTM#99-4-9.2&17&27
Thomas O'Neil - SCTM#76-3-10.1
Robert O'Brien - SCTM#136-2-11
Blue Moon Partners, LLC c/o Randall Fairhurst MP -
SCTM#35-4-28.33
Christine Hunt - SCTM#111-10-13.1
Estate of Donna Levin - SCTM#135-1-7
Rita & Joseph DeNicolo - SCTM#70-4-6
VVunneweta Pond Assoc. - SCTM#118-1-11
TRUSTEE KING: Do we have a motion?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make that motion.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Under resolutions and administrative
permits, number one, Creative Environmental Design on
behalf of MICHAEL WILSON requests an Administrative
Permit to transplant selected taller plants to both
north and south of areas and replace with native lower
growing plants. Located: 590 Tarpon Drive, Southold.
We all went out and looked at this. It's going to
be a matter of replanting with native vegetation in
different areas. I don't think anyone had a problem
with that. I would recommend approval.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Number two, Patricia Moore on behalf of
JANE HARVEY & CHARLES CURTIS requests an Administrative
Permit to remove the existing 326 sf. deck and replace
with a 480 sr. covered porch and install a drywell for
house and porch stormwater runoff. Located: 3 Reservoir
Road, Fishers Island.
We've all been out there. It's been quite a while.
This is just barely jurisdictional and it is simply
covering a porch. I didn't have a problem with it. I
would make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number three, Patricia Moore on
behalf of JOANNE WALKER to amend the permit to reduce
the buffer from a 15-foot non-turf buffer to a six-foot
non-turf buffer to be in line with the deck that is the
current platform that is on this property, subject to
Board of Trustees 4 November 18, 2009
revised plans. Located: 290 Town Harbor Lane, Southold.
SCTM#66-1-33
TRUSTEE KING: Jill, that's a six-foot non-turf buffer
landward of the top of the bluff.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And also we might as well add in to
revegetate the whole bank, because that's what they
did. Because it wasn't on the permit. So, a non-turf
buffer. If they want to vegetate it, they can, but just
non-turf. If they want to make it gravel or whatever,
they can do that too. Just as long as it is non-turf.
My guess is they'll vegetate. We'll give them that
choice. I want to add for the bank to be maintained
with vegetation and not to go back to lawn.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The whole Board reviewed all of these
and there will be a bunch of these we'll lump together.
They are straightforward and we have no problems with
them. They are:
Number one, LEE & MARIE BENINATI request the last
One-Year Extension to Permit #6510, as issued on
December 13, 2006. Located: 855 Oakwood Drive,
Southold.
Number two, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of
FRED POLLERT requests the last One-Year Extension to
Permit ~6503, as issued on December 13, 2006, and
amended on March 21, 2007. Located: 375 Lighthouse
Lane, Southold.
Number three, ROBERT WHELAN requests a Transfer of
Permit #1716 from Robed Graeb to Robert Whelan, as
issued on October 25, 1983. Located: 4780 Ole Jule
Lane, Mattituck.
Number five, JOHN & MARIE SHACK request an Amendment to
Permit #7154 to remove and replace in the same
footprint, the existing foundation of the dwelling.
Located: 1265 Shore Drive, Greenport.
Number seven, Creative Environmental Design on behalf
of KEVlN BARR requests an Amendment to Permit #6929 to
install a chainlink fence at base of bluff, revegetate
bluff, remove Honey Locust and install a vegetated
non-turf buffer. Located: 200 Basin Road, Southold.
Board of Trustees 5 November 18, 2009
Number eight, En-Consultants on behalf of ELLIOT BRUCE
& ORA JEAN HEATH requests an Amendment to Permit ~949
to eliminate the previously approved northerly
addition, pergola and patio; and to authorize roof
alteration that will allow for a 6x12' roof deck and
the expansion of the existing second floor to the
perimeter of the existing first floor walls in the
northeast corner of the dwelling. Located: 500
Hippodrome Drive, Southold.
And number nine, En-Consultants on behalf of RITA &
JOSEPH DENICOLO requests an Amendment to Permit #7036
to authorize the inplace reconstruction (rather than
the renovation/roof restructuring) of most seaward
19.7'x20' one-story portion of dwelling so as to raise
it two feet to proposed elevation of rest of dwelling;
and the inplace reconstruction and raising of the
existing attached 22.5'x24' wood deck. Located: 3475
Wells Avenue, Southold.
I'll make a motion to approve those.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to do number four, Jim?
TRUSTEE KING: Number four is CLAIR MATHER requests an
Amendment to Permit #653 to install C-Loc vinyl
sheathing behind the existing wood sheathing on the
bulkhead. Located: 805 Osprey Nest Road, Greenport.
We also wanted to see a non-turf buffer. When we were
out in the field. I think the original thought was just
to install plastic sheets on the seaward side on the
lower part of the bulkhead, but they changed that. They
want to sheet behind the bulkhead. Is the gentleman
here that we talked to in the field? I don't think he's
here. We told him we were going to require a ten-foot,
non-turf buffer. He didn't like the idea but I think
the Board thought pretty strongly of it and still does,
and we want to see a ten-foot, non-turf buffer behind
that bulkhead. It can be a walkway. But we don't want
to see turf right up to the bulkhead. The next door
neighbor has a stone, non-turf buffer that is right
next door to him, and the adjacent neighbor to them
also has stone. He didn't like the idea of the stone
because of the geese problem they have there. So we
suggested a ten-foot walkway, which would serve the
same purpose.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, either one.
TRUSTEE KING: So I would make the motion to approve
this application with the stipulation there is a
ten-foot non-turf buffer or a ten-foot walkway landward
Board of Trustees 6 November 18, 2009
of the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thomas Twomey, Esq., on behalf of
MILDRED COWAN requests an Amendment to Permit ~60 to
allow for the existing 4x19.3' wood walkway, 4xl 19.2'
open-grate catwalk, 2.6'x30' aluminum ramp and 8x40'
floating dock. Located: 800 Fox Hollow Road, Mattituck.
This was inconsistent with LWRP, and I just started
reading through all the reasons here. Give me a minute,
please. (Perusing.) This is inconsistent because it
doesn't meet with the current dock structures. This
dock structure was permitted in 1958, the original, yet
the total length in 1958 was 36' in length and now it's
176' in length. So that's why it is inconsistent. That
is what the report is saying.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think they changed that. I went
down and looked at it and thought everything was the
same as the old permit with the exception that somebody
had done some repairs on it and put open-grate decking
on the catwalk, which was, to me, an improvement. I
didn't have an issue with anything that was there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It says here in the original, in 1981,
it has 85', 5x85' open pile dock, with 16' ramp, 40'
float, 55'x5' decking, 16x27 --
TRUSTEE KING: Everything that's there was on the
original permit. And like I said, they put open-grate
decking along the catwalk which, environmentally, is an
improvement. I just want to -- you know, what's there
now, is there. I don't have a problem with it at all.
It's just surprising to me that it is inconsistent.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, would you say that the open
decking would make it consistent? The open-grate
decking?
TRUSTEE KING: The complete structure has been there
since the original permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Should we put in if it is
reconstructed that it has to be shortened?
TRUSTEE KING: It's consistent with everything in that
creek. It's a highly developed creek.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's consistent with the other
structures as well. Well, I'll make a motion to approve
the amendment of Mildred Cowan, finding it consistent
with the LWRP by using the open-grate catwalk.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: We have two postponements. I hope no one
Board of Trustees 7 November 18, 2009
has been sitting here waiting for them to come up. We
have number eight, 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-foot on center and C-Loc vinyl
sheathing or equivalent. Located: 910 Park Avenue
Extension, Mattituck, has been postponed.
And number nine, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of
ROGER PRAETORIUS requests a Wetland Permit to install a
private recreational docking facility consisting of a
fixed walkway with open-cjrate decking 4x85' supported
by eight-inch diameter (nominal) marine piles seaward
of the ordinary high water line, hinged ramp 3x16', and
floating dock 6x20', with the float secured by up to
four eight-inch diameter (nominal) marine spiles.
Located: 975 Westview Drive, Mattituck, has been
postponed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And number ten, High Point Engineering
on behalf of BREWER YACHT YARD AT GREENPORT, requests a
Wetland Permit to remove one gasoline dispenser,
install one 5,000-gallon double wall steel UL#2085 fire
rated A.S.T. With associated piping and relocate three
gasoline dispensers behind the existing wood bulkhead.
Located: 1410 Manhasset Avenue, Greenport, is out of
our jurisdiction, so we won't be reviewing that tonight.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off our regular
hearings.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: And we'll move on to our public hearings.
Before these public hearings begin, please, if you have
any comments, please keep them brief; five minutes or
less. Sometimes people get carried away when they are
controversial but I don't think there are any tonight
that are going to cause any problems.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
COASTAL EROSION & WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Number one, MARLO ABBATE & JOSEPHINE
PADOVAN request a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion
Permit to restore the sand excavated from the bluff and
to restore the bank along the edge to the original
configuration/breadth. Located: 22615 Soundview Avenue,
Southold.
This is an area that there has been quite a bit of work
done. I think what we need to do on this particular
Board of Trustees 8 November 18, 2009
one, we really need a better set of plans for what is
going to be done. I would like to move this along, but
I think the best thing, is there any way we can meet,
either you or is it your son-in-law, at our next field
inspections? I would like to meet with either him or
you at the site so we can go over what we want done.
MS. PADOVAN: My son is in Florida. He's not here. He
don't live here. I live in Queens. His father is here.
He lives in Florida, so.
TRUSTEE KING: It's going to be tough. We need to see
stuff on the survey. These drawings, they really don't
show us enough detail.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Ms. Padovan, what we usually have is
we have a survey. And on the survey it shows what work
needs to be done. All we have here is photocopies of
pictures. And that's not sufficient. And we don't think
that we are on the same page as far as what we want
done. A lot of that structure, the construction debris
that is there, we want removed. And these plans don't
show that that is going to be removed. We still have
some drainage issues on the property that needs to be
addressed. These plans are not showing. There is a lot
of different issues. That is something that -- it's
easier at this point to meet you in the field and show
you. If you want to bring, whoever is going to draw the
plans, you can bring them along too. I don't know if
you have a surveyor or consultant or somebody that will
help you draw the plans.
MS. PADOVAN: I have the paper when I bought the land. I
have the surveyor.
TRUSTEE KING: Who did the work that has been done there
now?
MS. PADOVAN: You mean for the bluff, over there?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, that section that was removed and
the fill that was added. Who did that?
MS. PADOVAN: Nobody do anything.
TRUSTEE KING: Somebody did the activities that took
place. Who did that?
MS. PADOVAN: Oh, two months ago my son do the balcony.
TRUSTEE KING: Your son that's in Florida?
MS. PADOVAN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: In other words, he was up here and did
the work?
MS. PADOVAN: Yes, he come here.
TRUSTEE KING: And now he is back in Florida?
MS. PADOVAN: Yes, yes, he's in Florida, right.
TRUSTEE KING: So who is going to do the restoration
work?
MS. PADOVAN: Well, I have to call someone in. You know,
I can not do it.
TRUSTEE KING: If you are going to have someone other
Board of Trustees 9 November 18, 2009
than your son do the restoration work, it would be to
your advantage for us to meet him in the field so we
can explain what we want.
MS. PADOVAN: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what we should do. So then
everybody is on the same page.
MS. PADOVAN: All right.
TRUSTEE KING: So I would like to look at this next
month and get this thing settled.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Could you have somebody that is going
to do it and we can meet them out there December 2nd?
Which is two weeks.
MS. PADOVAN: I have to call the fellow, because he's
working in New York, you know, so I have to let him know.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, if you can try to arrange that
and then contact Lauren and find out.
MS. PADOVAN: All right. That can be done. Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because we do our field inspections on
December 2nd and we are out all day. So we are flexible
on the time on that.
MS. PADOVAN: Okay. From what time to what time?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We usually start about 8:30 in the
morning.
TRUSTEE KING: From 8:30 'til sundown. When it gets
dark. Until we can't see anymore.
MS. PADOVAN: Then I'll be there. I have to be there. Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: That's going to be the best way to get
this resolved.
MS. PADOVAN: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we'll postpone it for tonight in
order to meet you in the field and we'll make a decision.
MS. PADOVAN: December the 2nd, you said.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. And just keep in touch with
our office and let them know.
MS. PADOVAN: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. I'll make a motion to table
this application. We'll go out and look at it next month.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
Hopefully we can get it resolved.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number two, YAN RIEGER requests a
Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to install
77' of a single row of stone (one to two tons in size)
at toe of dune, underlain with filter fabric and core
stone and place sand over stone and plantings, and
install stone steps. Located: 370 Harbor Road, Orient.
Good evening. Is there anyone here who would like to
speak to this application?
MR. RIEGER: My name is Yan Rieger, I live in Orient,
Board of Trustees 10 November 18, 2009
370 Harbor Road. By the way, I have the affidavit for
the posted signs.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We discussed this inhouse but I have
a note we wanted to make sure it was a single few.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, that was the only question I have in
the description it says single row of stones, and
that's what the DEC letter says. But if you look at the
approved plans, it looks more like a revetment to me.
So I don't understand.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you know what our question is?
MR. RIEGER: I submitted all the plans to the DEC and I
got approved from them, signed --
TRUSTEE KING: Did they come out and inspect the site?
MR. RIEGER: They did. Twice, yes. Actually, three times.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you understand our concern?
MR. RIEGER: And I had asked for a bulkhead, a vinyl
sheathing bulkhead. So they came out and they didn't
like that. So they refused it and asked for a second
submission and they suggested what I wrote down there.
So I submitted that, and they approved it.
TRUSTEE KING: Let me take a quick look at that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's right here what we are
concerned with (indicating.)
MR. RIEGER: And I have the proof from the state and
from the army.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The concern is the request is for a
single wall, and your plans show what looks to be
multiple layers of rock. So that's the question.
MR. RIEGER: I can answer that. That's semantics, right?
It's turned to drawing.
TRUSTEE KING: That is what is confusing me. One section
says single row of stone and the drawing shows seven
stones deep. To me that isn't a single row of stones.
MR. RIEGER: I don't know, the DEC, contact them.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Because he is applying for single
and I think inhouse we discussed we were agreeable to
single, but then the plans show multiple layers.
TRUSTEE KING: It shows the toe of the dune right here.
It almost looks like it's going out into an intertidal area.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We need a new survey.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There are pictures in here. See the
differences there?
TRUSTEE KING: This just doesn't make sense.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It doesn't seem like that area needs
that much.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you are asking for a single layer
of stone from us?
MR. RIEGER: I don't know, I mean.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We would need a new survey. Because we
don't have a survey showing single row.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What's in the survey?
Board of Trustees 11 November 18, 2009
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It shows multiple layers.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So you want to get another elevation
just showing single row instead of multiple row?
TRUSTEE KING: What we should have is a plan showing one
row of stone ending at the toe of the bluff.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because we have to stamp the plan then.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right.
MR. RIEGER: Would the question be that I have to
resubmit it to the DEC?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think so.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Because ours is actually more
stringent, it would fall within the parameters of what
you've already got. So you should be fine.
TRUSTEE KING: If you would like, I could try and
contact DEC and ask them.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If we give them a permit for the
single row, it really doesn't matter. He wouldn't have
to go back.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think so.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And I do want to let you know the
LWRP report was inconsistent and the reason it was
reviewed inconsistent is it says it notes that the
action proposed to the Board is inconsistent with the
stated narratives on the plans approved by DEC. So the
same thing is noted.
And the Conservation Advisory Council was not in
support of the application. So, we would, I believe, be
willing to approve a single row of stone. And we would
need new plans showing that so that our office can
stamp that.
MR. RIEGER: Okay. So I have to submit another plan --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: To our office only.
MR. RIEGER: To your office only.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Showing a single row. Okay?
TRUSTEE KING: You could put sand and plantings behind
the stone, you know, but just a single row of stone.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments from the Board?
(NO RESPONSE.)
From the audience?
(NO RESPONSE.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the
Wetland Permit to Yan Rieger and Coastal Erosion
Wetland Permit to install 77' of a single row of stone
at toe of dune, underlain with filter fabric and core
stone and place sand over stone and plantings, subject
to the new plans showing one row of stone. And that
would be at 370 Harbor Road in Orient.
Board of Trustees 12 November 18, 2009
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number three, En-Consultants on behalf
of ESTATE OF DONNA LEVlN, requests a Wetland Permit and
Coastal Erosion Permit to construct approximately 133
linear feet of vinyl bulkhead (and 5' easterly return)
in place of existing timber bulkhead and restore washed
out portion of bluff face (due to storm-collapsed
section of existing wall) with approximately 450 cubic
yards clean sand to be planted with Cape American beach
grass (12" on center). Located: 21695 Soundview Avenue,
Southold.
This is consistent with the LWRP and the CAC supports
the application with the condition public access be
provided along the shoreline such as a walkway with
stairs and there should be no confiscation of state
public property.
It is on the property and I don't think, Jack, you say
a walkway with stairs. They are not proposing any
stairs going down there. So there is no blockage. They
can walk in front. It's just a bulkhead.
MR. MCGREEVY: I didn't inspect the site. I think the
concern is there would be public access.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, this is just the bulkhead and
there are no stairs going down to it at this point,
they are not applying for that, so they would not be
blocking any access to walk across there.
MR. MCGREEVY: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anyone here to speak on
behalf of this application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants. John Hoffer
is also here. I know the Board had been out to the site
and had issued an emergency permit. Unless the Board
has any specific questions or comments, I don't have
anything to add to the application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Oh, come on
TRUSTEE KING: I have one question. Would you like to
know what it's going to be?
MR. HERMAN: Urn, toe stone?
TRUSTEE KING: Congratulations. Is it going to be
armored with stone, as per code?
MR. HERMAN: We addressed this with the Board I guess a
month or two ago with Vasilakis next door. Ultimately
the Board, based on the language of the code, required
it. We had petitioned the DEC for an amendment to their
permit to allow the toe stone but we have not yet
received an answer. Frankly, for expedience sake as
much as anything else, the plan you are looking at,
Board of Trustees 13 November 18, 2009
again, is the same plan that went to the DEC for Levin.
The DEC has already issued the permit, which they did
on an accelerated basis, being aware of the situation.
So if it was the Board's pleasure to request that
condition again, we would have to handle it the same
way; we would have to petition the DEC for an
amendment.
I can tell you that I spoke with Karen Grolick, DEC's
regional manager in Stony Brook, about this, and she
did convey to me what I was attempting to convince the
Board of during the Vasilakis hearing, which was, in
situations like this where the stone would be placed,
effectively, in the water at high tide, the DEC does
not ordinarily permit that. This is different from a
case where you've got a reasonably wide beach and the
bluff is coming down and you've got the revetment and
the tow armor or whatever running along the base of
that bluff, where it is not always under water. There
is different opinions from different people about
whether it helps in a situation like this or not. But,
again, it's the DEC's position, particularly given the
limited beach here, that you are in effect placing
fill, rock fill, in tidal waters, which they typically
do not want to see. Karen mentioned that she would, I
think she was going to try and contact Jim. I don't
know whether or not that happened.
TRUSTEE KING: I haven't talked to her.
MR. HERMAN: She was curious whether it was my
impression that the Board required that because the
Trustees all felt very strongly it should actually be
done here or whether the Board simply felt compelled
because that is the way your code is currently written.
I didn't know what the answer to that was, although
Lori was here at that time and I felt the Board felt
they were compelled that you had to require that more
so than it was something that you really had a strong
feeling about, that you really wanted the rock in the
Sound here. Obviously the most important thing here is
to get the permission as quickly as possible to rebuild
this structure. I think we are going to face the same
issue with the DEC. I had hoped to have an answer by
now on Vasilakis so I could provide you with better
information but I just don't have that answer yet.
TRUSTEE KING: No, maybe we can have a meeting of the
minds with the DEC to get this straightened out.
MR. HERMAN: I think that's a good idea.
TRUSTEE KING: I know when we revised the Wetland Code,
we put it in the code because we've just seen so many
bulkheads destroyed in storms. And the stone armoring
seems to dissipate the waves and saves the bulkhead
from being destroyed.
Board of Trustees 14 November 18, 2009
MR. HERMAN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: That's the reason we put it in the code.
If we need to revisit it, we'll revisit it, you know.
MR. HERMAN: Yes, this particular kind of situation
where you have a pre-existing wall along The Sound that
pretty much has high tide against it at pretty much
every tide, where you would be replacing this, is not
your typical situation. I think this is less common than most
of the other situations. So, I don't know what the right answer
is, but if you wanted to issue a permit for the replacement of
the retaining wall, then hold off on making a determination
about the stone until you talk to the DEC, that would be fine.
It's up to you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think what I remember from the last
one with Lori is we really don't have a choice. It's
pretty much black and white in the code. So I think we
are going to have to put in the approval armored with
stone. If things change between now and when you are
actually building it, then you can come in for an amendment.
MR. HERMAN: I mean, the fact that the situation for
these two homeowners is if the DEC denies permission to
put the stone out, we won't be able to meet that condition of
your permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. And we can deal with that as
it comes. I would rather just approve it and get it going.
MR. HERMAN: And handle it the exact same way. But
obviously there should be some dialogue between the two
of you.
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to get some input from the
contractors, too, to get their opinion on it. I think
that's important. They have the experience. So we need
that information from the contractors. Is it a good idea or not.
MR. HERMAN: Well, I don't think there is much
disagreement with your position substantively that the
armor provides additional protection. It obviously
dissipates the wave energy and provides additional
strength to the bulkhead. I think the trick comes into
play because you are putting fill in tidal waters. So I
don't think there is disagreement so much about the
substantive benefit as there is the issue of how the
state tidal wetland act is written with respect to this
particular topic.
TRUSTEE KING: The public access issue.
MR. HERMAN: Right. And that was one of the Vasilakis'
concerns. Obviously he said, hey, the more we put out
there, the better chance we have of it working. But he
did have that question. So we have such little beach as
there is and if we put all the stone out there, I'll be
eliminating some of the beach. So I think there are a
couple of issues that come up and whether it's a good
idea from a practical perspective I think most of the
Board of Trustees 15 November 18, 2009
contractors agree that the stronger you make a
structure, the better it is for the homeowner.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. Are there any other
comments?
MR. HERMAN: So I guess deal with it the same as
Vasilakis. We can make it a condition and I'll petition
to be relieved to amend that permit and see what they do.
TRUSTEE KING: Obviously let's see if we can get
together and get it straightened out so we don't go
through this again on another application.
MR. HERMAN: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments?
(NO RESPONSE.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the
application of Eh-Consultants on behalf of the Estate
of Donna Levin as applied for with the addition of a
stone armor in front of the bulkhead. Located on
Soundview Avenue, Southold.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. HERMAN: Thank you.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number one under Wetland Permits,
Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of THOMAS
O'NEILL requests a Wetland Permit to install a 69'
Iow-profile bulkhead along the southern shoreline and
connect to the existing southwestern-most vinyl
bulkhead return; expand the existing fringe of tidal
wetlands vegetation along the southern shoreline and
install a section of GeoGrid matting measuring 10x7'
between the AHW and ALW within the southwestern section
of the subject property in order to allow for the
launching and retrieving of small boats. Located: 1420
Smith Drive South, Southold.
We were all out there on inspection. This has been
determined by the LWRP coordinator to be inconsistent
with the LWRP. The CAC resolved to not support the
application and does not support the project and
recommends a Iow-sill wave energy absorbing structure
which would dampen the boat wakes.
When we were out there, our notes, essentially, we felt
the stakes that showed where the Iow sill was going to
go was too far out into the water and we were more
inclined to go with rip-rap or some kind of stone
Board of Trustees 16 November 18, 2009
revetment there. With that, is there anybody who would
like to speak for or against the application?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Bruce Anderson for Suffolk
Environmental Consultants for the applicant Thomas
O'Neill.
As a matter of housekeeping, I want to hand up a survey
for your records. The survey of Mr. O'Neill's preperty
shows that Mr. O'Neill owns obviously the upland
property where the house is located but also all of the
dredged canal which frents the property and other
properties, and all of the salt water marsh land. I'll
hand it up so you can see. All of these activities, all
of these preperties are all owned by Mr. O'Neill and I
think everyone would agree Mr. O'Neill has done an
admirable job in preserving those lands. Those are the
same lands you are seeking to preserve so we should be
on the same page here. What we are talking about is we
really have two zones of interest here. We have an
intertidal marsh that consists of the spartina marsh,
and we have bottom lands. And what this proposal really
seeks to do is to take some of the bottom land that was
once intertidal marsh and return it back into
intertidal marsh. Now, if you go to the seaward edge of
the grass, the land drops off quite dramatically into
the dredged canal. So there is a steep slope there. So
the notion of putting some rock down there or some
other type of structure without building some sort of
means of retaining it in its place would probably not
be effective. For this reason, we propose a Iow-sill
bulkhead which is essentially just a curve that would
run along that grass line there. The purpose of that is
to simply retain a platform by which spartina can grow.
This project, as you know, is also regulated by DEC and
when the DEC adopted its Tidal Wetland Law, it came out
with a set of findings and the findings described the
value of intertidal marsh/spartina marsh and they also
described the values of bottom land, which they call
shoals, bars and flats. And they go through a great
deal of narrative explaining those values in comparison
to one another. And what they conclude is that the
intertidal marsh is far more valuable for the
environment than a bar, a mud fiat or a shoal.
And for that reason, their preservation should be
encouraged and it should take precedence. And
protection efforts are to be maximized. So we are not
here to bulkhead a piece of property because we like
bulkheads. We are here to put a very Iow-sill bulkhead
with an open return so that more intertidal marsh can
be established there. So it seems to me that type of
project should be favored by both this Board and the
DEC. I think what you are seeing in the LWRP and
Board of Trustees 17 November 18, 2009
perhaps the CAC is all construction is bad. I think it
is that sort of conclusory type of opinion is what you
are reading here. But I think the more important thing
is to look at the action as an action that will create
some intertidal marsh and that intertidal marsh is one
of the most productive habitats in the world. We have
heard your concerns relative to the Iow-sill bulkhead
sitting, quote, too far out into the water. So we
revised our application to snug it up. I have two
photos here to show you what the difference is. The
first photo was taken from the bulkhead return on the
eastern side of the property and it shoots toward the
west, the western end of the property. So the first
photo shows the Iow-sill bulkhead lined up with the
stakes and the return. The second photograph shows our
amendment to that. And that is to take the bulkhead and
kind of snug it up against the grass line. We submitted
a drawing dated November 10 to you and we have now
further revised that by plan dated November 17. What we
did in the November 17th plans I've handed you is we
backed off slightly from the edge of the grass. We
didn't want the construction operation itself to
impinge upon either the intertidal marsh or the
underlying bottom that supports it. We feel that, in
conclusion, this is the sort of a project that should
be favored by this Board, it should be favored by all
boards, if the goal here is to create and enhance the
most productive of the marine habitat. And that is what
this application seeks to do. We have eliminated all
deadmen and we are receptive to any further lowering of
the bulkhead that might be recommended by this Board or
any other Board. I don't know if there is any issue as
to the GeoFiber or GeoGrid matting. I'm not hearing
that that is an issue with anyone.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: As a matter of fact I think that was
there, wasn't it?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That was the matting for the
previously planting proposal.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Any comments from the Board.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aside from the fact it is
interesting it's inconsistent with LWRP?
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: It is inconsistent. LWRP found it
inconsistent. And let's see why.
TRUSTEE KING: Most of the Iow-sill bulkheads that we
seen have not been that far seaward. They are usually
much closer to the existing.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, we do snug it in. What he is trying
to do is just restore it to what has been there since
the '50's, at least, and he is just trying to bring it
back to where, traditionally, the intertidal marsh was.
Now, we feel this is the best way of accomplishing that
Board of Trustees 18 November 18, 2009
objective.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think the important thing to make
clear is that Mr. O'Niell owns all the waterland here,
so it's not like it's a land grab.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: LWRP is finding inconsistent because it
fudhers policy five to protect and improve water
quality and supply in the Town of Southold.
And it is just requesting that best management
practices be followed, and one of which, of course, we
would have to require anyway, is the use of a silt
boom during construction.
MR. ANDERSON: I wanted to point something else out,
too. We had estimated an incorrect amount of fill here.
We feel that probably there would be no fill needed or
whatever fill that would be required would be extremely
small. We've amended it down to five cubic yards but we
are not even certain that that will be required. So
what we are left with is literally a curve with a
return and plantings.
TRUSTEE KING: How many feet did you actually move it
landward, Bruce, do you know?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, it depends on which measurement you
are looking at. We start from this point, which is the
western end of the easterly bulkhead, which is a Iow
bulkhead, and we took that arc and we swung it
northward, so it is approximately six to eight inches
off the existing grass line. So at that point it is six
inches off the grass line. At the return it is
approximately -- it doesn't say here. (Perusing.)
Nine feet. But of course that extends up above the
marsh to where the fence is. If we swing it and rotate
it any closer, that is to reduce the return, it will
wind up taking out intertidal marsh.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So the point in having the open return
is to allow the tide to come in and go out.
MR. ANDERSON: That's right.
TRUSTEE KING: Well, the return is on the top of the
bulkhead, by rights.
MR. ANDERSON: We are using the return as a means of
eliminating any kind of deadmen and any disturbance.
TRUSTEE KING: This whole Iow sill gets covered by high
tide. Before high tide.
MR. ANDERSON: The intention is that it will be
completely underwater. It's going to be lower than the
bulkhead that you sit on.
That bulkhead, I would guess, would be about a foot
above high tide? About a foot above normal high tide.
TRUSTEE KING: You are showing the top of the bulkhead
right at high water.
MR. ANDERSON: As I said, we can lower that. We are not
Board of Trustees 19 November 18, 2009
opposed to playing with that. I mean, I think it would
be okay to set it at maybe an inch or so above the
level of the bog in which the spartina grows.
TRUSTEE GHOSiO: What's the plans with the chicken wire
fence? Is that fence coming out?
TRUSTEE KING: I believe that is what we requested the
first time. It was supposed to be removed, if I remember right.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In the picture is a wire fence that
goes the whole length here. I know that was a question
we had.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. O'Neill said yes.
TRUSTEE KING: I would rather see the top of this
bulkhead lower than it is proposed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It should be below high tide, right?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, definitely.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Jim asked me to just take a look at the
original permit from 2006, and it was stipulated at
that time, in that permit, that those fences parallel
to the shoreline be removed.
MR. ANDERSON: Well then they should be removed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can make that a condition of this
permit as well.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think the question then becomes if it
was a condition of the original permit and it wasn't
done, what makes you think it will be done a second
time. It's already in violation.
TRUSTEE KING: We have our compliance inspections now.
They didn't do them before.
MR. ANDERSON: What I would suggest then you do is let
him remove the fence and field verify what needs to be
done with the chicken wire fence.
TRUSTEE KING: It looks like you have two-and-a-half
foot or higher here. The top of the bulkhead should be
a minimum of a foot below high water.
MR. ANDERSON: This is the top (indicating.) What we are
trying to do is build this back, so if you make it at
the grade adjacent to it, it should accomplish what our
purpose is and that would put it completely under water
by about a foot, foot and a half.
TRUSTEE KING: Like I said, a minimum of foot below.
That will work. That canal is roughly 85-feet wide,
looking at this? Do you know where the channel is, the
deepest part of it?
MR. ANDERSON: No. I could tell you it drops off quite
rapidly. You could see --
TRUSTEE KING: As long as it's not one of these cases
where the deeper is along one side or the other. Is it
more or less in the center, the deepest water?
MR. ANDERSON: I don't know.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just thinking of navigation issues.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, we've studied up to the grass, I
Board of Trustees 20 November 18, 2009
would say, and I would think there would be plenty of
water to get through there. We could check it out. We
could provide you with some depth samples of the cross
area, if you want to see that.
TRUSTEE KING: I doubt that is going to be a problem.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you want to reduce the height of it?
TRUSTEE KING: The height will be reduced to
approximately a foot to a foot-and-a-half below -- do
you have revised plans with the reduced height on that?
MR. ANDERSON: What I'll probably do is go back out and
take a measurement from the, get an idea from the
existing top of the bulkhead down to the bog elevation.
I just want to set it at the bog elevation. Whatever
distance that is. I think it's about a foot. But it is
whatever it is.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is that a foot below high water?
TRUSTEE KING: It should be at least a foot below high
water.
Do you want this survey back?
MR, ANDERSON: No, I want you to keep it on file. We
want the town to recognize, we want people to
understand what he owns by deed. It's a nice occupancy
to have.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any further questions or comments?
(NO RESPONSE.)
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 the application of Thomas O'Neill, as
described, with the following changes: That the
Iow-sill bulkhead be reduced in height so it is a foot
to a foot-and-a-half below high water, with a silt boom
to be used during the work to contain any silt, and
that the permit will be issued only upon removal of the
fence that is there so it will be in compliance with
the original permit from May of 2006.
MR. ANDERSON: We'll take it out and photograph or do
you want to come by and look at it?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We can come by, I suppose.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KING: Number two, ACE Inc., on behalf of
LEONARD VlTO SESSA requests a Wetland Permit to replace
inplace and elevate two feet an existing 4x40' pier
with 4x40' vinyl grated pier; extend landward to the
bulkhead an additional 4x40' vinyl grated deck pier
Board of Trustees 21 November 18, 2009
secured by six-inch diameter pilings landward of the
Iow water line and four eight-inch diameter pilings
seaward of the Iow water line; replace existing 3x16'
ramp with a 3x18' ramp and replace in place two
existing 6x20' floats secured by four 10" pilings;
install eight 10" mooring pilings; replace inplace
existing 30' wood retaining wall; replace existing
ten-foot return with a 20' return; install one new 20'
return; replace existing 3x4' beach access stairs on
easterly side of pier and add one 3x4' set of beach
access stairs to westerly side of pier. Located:
1505/1525 Naugles Road, Mattituck.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. COLEFIELD: Blake Colefield, ACE Inc. I'm here to
speak for Mr. Sessa today. I'm here to address any
questions you have on this project. This project is
designed to enhance the area from what its present
state is, which is kind of non-functional and
dilapidated. Mr. Sessa has poured in a considerable
amount of money putting a home on top of the hill
leading down to this area. He has removed the building
that was at the end of the walkway here. And we want to
set -- making a point we do not want to walk on the
tidal wetlands, so pad of the project is to connect
the bulkhead to that existing pier when we replace
it. The boat that he wants or the craft he wants to put
in is rather large, and over $3 million. So he wants to
make sure that it is safe. That is why we designed this
project to be a little bit more stronger than you
normally do for a small 35-40 foot boat. The boat will
not exceed 65 feet. He has several. He'll probably put
his 50-foot boat in there now. My head bleeds for
him. This area was a commercial area at one time and I
think there is still some fishing to the south of the,
in the other area that is off to the right-hand side,
or the south. There is the state marina there where
they house all different types of boats there. They
have a travel lift, they store boats on the land. And
that's, it's a state commercial area that is in front
of Mr. Sessa's house. He feels the investment in this
area will be a wise investment because it will be up
and coming in the future. The design of the walkway is
a grated surface. It is vinyl. It has the ability to
let sunlight through and there will be no shading of
the tidal wetlands that is there. Any destruction to
the tidal wetlands that may occur will be replanted
with beach grass. That's not in the permit but it is
part of what we do. The business of the stairs, the
Department of State makes it mandatory to have stairs
for public access to go across any pier. That is why
there are stairs on either side. We feel that the need
Board of Trustees 22 November 18, 2009
for two 20' floats is mandatory on this size boat in
that the ability to access the boat has to be in a
larger area than a 20' float. In addition to that,
since the tide is rather significant here, the float,
at high tide or Iow tide, the ramp would be at either
end, or close to either end, making it impossible to
get around and access the boat. So we feel the second
float is needed on that. It does not exceed the State
of New York's 25% and it does not exceed the distance
of the boats that go out at the state marina. So that
way it won't be any navigation problems. The water
depth is sufficient for this boat hero. Larger boats
come in and out of this area and it was in the past a
place where they brought home heating oil in and large
ships came in there. Part of my background was working
for the state for 34 years. I've worked for Karen
Grolick, Chuck Hamilton, right in the same office. I
also was part of the group that took possession of the
state property that is across from the -- all the
wetland that is right there. I also supervised the
upkeep of that wetland as well as other wetland pieces
on Long Island. So I am very familiar with the past
history of what's gone on in this area and feel a
strong need to protect it. This project will enhance
this area tremendously from what it prosently looks
like. If you have been around there and seen it, you
undoubtedly will agree with my analysis. Are there any
other questions?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think so. I'm fairly familiar
with this area also. I know there aro a few, particular
issues we'll have to talk about here. Number one, it's
residentially zoned, as is the property to the south.
MR. COLEFIELD: I consulted with, I forget his first
name, Cuddy, and he felt it was at one time zoned
commercially and it is now zoned as marine use or
something like that. I'm not familiar with your zoning
regulations. I had asked him to come tonight but he had
other things to do.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm pretty familiar with what happened in
this area hero. This other piece of property belonged
to Genevieve, the first neighbor was Robinson, Mrs.
Robinson, she used to own all this property along the
creek there. She sold to the Peterson's, where the
marina is, she sold them that piece of property. And
when she did that, she carved out a 30-foot right of
way down to the water so she would have access from her
home down to that small catwalk that was there. Then
the state bought it, I believe they either sold it or
ceded that property because they didn't want a right of
way there. So now some of the issues are, you have a
30' span and by code we are supposed to keep our
Board of Trustees 23 November 18, 2009
catwalks at least 15 feet off the property line. So you
can't do that, for starters. We can't meet that.
And the other issue is, with all of your 30 feet, we
are talking a 50 foot vessel?
MI:{. COLEFIELD: Yes. But we still have reom, given the
property line, to put that vessel in there.
TRUSTEE KING: Not without impeding their property to
the south.
MR. COLEFIELD: I have permission from the State of New
York, in writing, where they agree -- I have my State
DEC permit - they agree to the sideyard setback. Their
setback is only five feet. And by their own
regulations, it's supposed to be ten. So they are
exceeding their--
TRUSTEE KING: I wish we had Lori here tonight. We need
her input on some of these issues.
Another issue is, by code, a residential lot is only
allowed one 6x20' float.
MR. COLEFIELD: I'm aware of that. And I think I
explained that travel of the ramp will be such that it
will be more amenable to get around it because it's six
feet wide and it's a three-foot ramp. It would have to
be very skinny. I would have no problem with that.
TRUSTEE KING: There is a lot of 6x20' floats in
Mattituck Creek that have good sized vessels tied to
them.
MR. COLEFIELD: Right. And I've walked on a lot of them
during my tenure with the state as an inspector of
tidal wetland permits, so I've walked on them all.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we've asked a question in the
field, one pile was out, was that the seaward end of
this proposed structure? The existing pile was off the
dock, in the water?
MR. COLEFIELD: It may be gone by now.
TRUSTEE KING: There was a pile. We didn't know where
the seaward end of the dock was going to be. It was
never staked.
MR. COLEFIELD: That's true. Because when we were out
there, we didn't to leave a navigational hazard in the water.
TRUSTEE KING: We had asked for it to be staked so we
could see where the end of that structure is going to
be. We need to see it staked.
MR, COLEFIELD: I could go out with a boat.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The pole that is existing now, we are
asking is that the length of the proposed dock?
MR. COLEFIELD: Approximately.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because if that is where the proposed
dock is going to end then you wouldn't have to stake
it. That's what we're saying.
MR. COLEFIELD: The pier is not going to go any further
than it is now. We won't make it any longer.
Board of Trustees 24 November 18, 2009
TRUSTEE KING: The pier doesn't exist now.
MR. COLEFIELD: I haven't been out there this year.
TRUSTEE KING: There is basically very little left of it.
MR. COLEFIELD: Yes, very little. It's been degrading
over the years.
TRUSTEE KING: See, the remnants of the pier end just
outside the tidal wetlands. There is nothing left.
MR. COLEFIELD: That was the other piling, yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the proposed structure won't go out
any fudher than that piling?
MR. COLEFIELD: The proposed pier. Yes. I think it's
even a little closer than that.
TRUSTEE KING: Well, we need to see a stake where the
seaward end of the float is going to be.
MR. COLEFIELD: The seaward end of the float. Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what we need to see.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And in the interim we can check
this pier issue with Lori.
TRUSTEE KING: We can check some of the legal issues
as far as setoffs and so forth. I checked with the
building department on it and it is residential. It's
not commercial.
It's an accessory residential use connected to the house.
MR. COLEFIELD: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So what he is saying, regardless if
that lower section is marine two or whatever, the use,
because the primary use of the property is residential,
then the whole use has to be residential. So even if
you find that piece might be a marine two or whatever,
the Town recognizes it as residential because the
primary use is residential and you can't split the use
of the property.
MR. COLEFIELD: You can't. What if it's deeded separately?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That would probably be a different
story. But as far as how that process was explained to
us, that it' s one property and the primary use is
residential so --
MR. COLEFIELD: We don't want to make it commercial
that's not the point. It's going to have one boat and
only one boat. It won't be there very often, and the
floats will be seasonal. They're coming out.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But currently under our code, under a
residential property, we only allow one float.
MR. COLEFIELD: We could obtain a variance.
TRUSTEE KING: We have steadfastly stuck to that. The
only time I can think of when we allowed two 20-foot
floats was the adjoining property was owned by the same
person, so we let him put two 20-foot floats in front
of the one parcel. But it was also written in the
permit that if he ever sold the other parcel, he would
have to give up one 20' float so the neighbor could
Board of Trustees 25 November 18, 2009
have a 20' float. That's the only instance I could
remember since I have been on the Board. Other than 40'
floats that have been in existence and have been there
for years.
So this is going to be a difficult application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So do you want to table this?
TRUSTEE KING: I think we should. We want to see the
seaward end staked and we'll see if we can get some
legal questions I have answered.
So I'll make a motion to table this application, and
we'll re-inspect it next month.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. COLEFIELD: Can you give me a list of your concerns?
TRUSTEE KING: Sure.
MR. COLEFIELD: You can send it to that address. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay. The field inspection is December
2nd. So we need to have it staked before that.
MR. COLEFIELD: I'm just thinking, I have something on
December 1st. And what time will you be there?
TRUSTEE KING: You'll have to call the office. It will
probably be some time in the afternoon. Usually we
start out east and work our way west. So we usually get
to Mattituck in the afternoon.
MR. COLEFIELD: I come all the way from Coram, so. All
right.
TRUSTEE KING: You can call the office and get a better
time during the day,
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number three, En-Consultants on behalf
of BLUE MOON PARTNERS, LLC CIO RANDALL FAIRHURST MP,
requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately
143 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing
timber bulkhead (including six-foot and ten-foot
returns); remove existing concrete pad; replace
flagpole; construct 5x7' platform off bulkhead in place
of existing 8x7' platform; replace (inkind and three
feet closer to bulkhead) 3x12' ramp and 6x40' float;
and maintenance dredge 15x80' area located 5' off
bulkhead to a maximum depth of -5' ALW (with maximum
one-foot overcut) and use approximately 45 cubic yards
spoil as backfill landward of new bulkhead; and to
Transfer Permit #5347 from John Casillo to Blue Moon
Partners, LLC, as issued on May 24, 2001. Located: 360
Wiggins Lane, Greenport.
It sounds like a lot of work but it is actually making
the area better. It's moving in the dock, taking the
cement platform out and so it's kind of a reduction in
this area. And I don't think we had any questions in
the field. It is consistent with the LWRP and the CAC
Board of Trustees 26 November 18, 2009
resolved to support it. Is there anyone here to speak
on behalf of this application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant. Thank you, Jill.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had any issues. It's
surprising.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments?
(NO RESPONSE.)
I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: 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 Blue Moon
Partners as applied for.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. HERMAN: Jill, just make sure for the project
description we do show a depth of five-foot with a
maximum one-foot overcut. And I just wanted to make
sure the prior permit the Trustees issued was to six
feet. We are trying to make sure there is a smooth
transition to the existing decks that are there now. So
in effect it's up to six feet the prior permit was for.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, it definitely says within that.
Sure, that will be in the permit.
MR. HERMAN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number four, En-Consultants on
behalf of CHRISTINE HUNT requests a Wetland Permit to
construct approximately 73 linear feet of vinyl
bulkhead in place of existing timber bulkhead and
backfill with approximately five cubic yards clean sand
to be planted with beach grass (12" on center);
construct approximately 104 linear feet vinyl retaining
wall in place of existing timber retaining wall and
construct six-foot return; remove existing 21' timber
bulkhead return and construct 37' vinyl return
along northerly property line; and renourish eroded
area of bluff face with approximately 15 cubic yards
clean sand to be planted with native vegetation.
Located: 5700 Vanston Road, Cutchogue.
We have the Conservation Advisory Council that supports
the application with the condition which I'll share in
a minute and it was reviewed by LWRP as consistent. Is
there anyone here who would like to make comments on
this?
MR. HERMAN: Yes, Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf
of Christine Hunt. I just wanted to address a couple of
issues because I did speak with Jim on the property
Board of Trustees 27 November 18, 2009
today before the meeting with the hope of saving us
some time tonight. There is one question that the
stairs from the lower bulkhead to the beach were
omitted from my plans. I apologize. I can give you a
revised plan that shows the placement of stairs which
we measured as about 3.5x7' today. There was also some
question Jim had about the location of the
reconstructed/newly constructed retaining wall to the
south or to the southeast of the existing stairs that
come down from the top of the bluff. And Jim had asked
the question, and I'll come up, whether instead of
going straight across and staying completely true to
the dilapidated well that's there then angling out, if
this could actually come out slightly so that this
entire stretch here, from about this area north of the
stairs over to this point would be a little bit of a
straighter line. And we don't have any problem with
that. This on the outside is just a tie in to the
retaining wall that is more newly constructed on the
property to the south, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That makes sense.
MR. HERMAN: Again, just to slightly modify that
alignment and a set of revised plans that we have to
show the stairs anyway.
TRUSTEE KING: It really doesn't change the description.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So we just need the new plans.
TRUSTEE KING: It's just modifying the shape of that
second retaining line a little bit.
MR. HERMAN: It might change slightly the linear footage
of the retaining wall but we could note that on the
revision.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Anyone else in the audience or Board
comments?
(NO RESPONSE.)
The Conservation Advisory Council, I just wanted to
read their condition of CCA materials are not used and
measures are taken to protect the stable bluff, which
you have mentioned. And they recommend an 18" bump out
at the upper landward bulkhead which will eliminate
disturbance to the bluff and leave the old bulkhead in
place and a longer landward return to the northwest
side of the property.
TRUSTEE KING: We were just discussing that.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: As I was listening to you discuss
that, I was saying, that sounds familiar. There you go.
All right, having no further comments, 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
Board of Trustees 28 November 18, 2009
En-Consultants request for a Wetland Permit on behalf
of Christine Hunt as applied for, with revised plans
for the stairs and moderate revisions as mentioned by
CAC.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
MR. HERMAN: Thank you, have a nice Thanksgiving.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number five, 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 Boulevard,
Southold.
We have been out there a couple of times. We met with
you out there. LWRP has determined this to be
inconsistent with LWRP because the proposed structures
may promote power boat traffic and the possible
negative impacts and degradation of water quality,
impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation and raise
suspension of bottom sediments and turbidity. And if we
should approve it, the following best management
practices are recommended. Using a silt boom during
construction. CAC supports the application with the
condition the overall length of the proposed dock is
shortened in order to maintain the pier line. CAC
observed runoff from the dwelling being directed into
the creek and therefore recommends drywells and gutters
are installed to contain roof runoff. Our notes were
also concerned with the lengths or at least the pier
line would be in line with the other docks to the left
and right. And we also had spoken about proposing a
dinghy dock and a mooring. The DEC disapproved a dock
to the south of here and we are also going to request
you install drywells to contain the roof runoff.
Anybody here who would like to address this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine on behalf
of Mr. Kenna. I don't remember the dinghy dock thing.
We'll have to discuss with the DEC about the mooring.
Going back to the pier line thing was the fact that the
guy kind of lives there and there is really docks on
either side of it that are not conforming because they
are not at the right water depth, so extending the pier
line there doesn't really makes much sense because
neither dock is, you know, really, legally obey the
rules.
As far as the drywells go, Mr. Kenna has already talked
to the contractor about having that rectified. And as
far as the DEC, we went over this, and as I looked over
Board of Trustees 29 November 18, 2009
the drawing, we tabled this last time because I didn't
have the hydrographic. Now you guys have a copy of
that. And the only way we can get the dock a little
shorter is if we move it further down to the south, to
the 15-foot setback. That still only gets us to 88 feet
overall. Then you have that path. There is not a lot
of vegetation there.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It only reduces it by a couple of
feet.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. Due to the curvature.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, we talked about that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Would you like to speak?
MS. GALLAGHER: Yes, I would. Eileen Gallagher from
Lapping Waters Property Association. I'm the president.
And Ted Mitchell is the marine chairperson. We do have
some concerns about the length of this dock. In order
to approve our residents having boat docks on their
property -- we don't have an issue with that -- but 90
feet or 92 feet out into Corey Creek is quite far.
There is nothing that we could see on Corey Creek that
projects that far out. The two marinas that we have in
Lapping Waters, a total of 32 slips, mostly are small
boats. The maximum length is 23 feet. Therefore a lot
of these boats do not have navigation electronics and
the concern that in bad weather, fog or storms, heavy
rain, that they may wander away from the channel and
this could become a navigational hazard. So we are very
concerned about the length. We are wondering, not to be
an obstacle, but we are wondering if there is any way
these docks could be put closer to shore and I believe,
I have been told it's an issue of the depth of the
water closer to shore and whether or not that's the
issue, whether it could be dredged. Lapping waters is
proposed to do some maintenance dredging within the
next 18 months and we were wondering if somehow we
could tie the dredge into Mr. Kenna's application and
make it easier for him to put a dock in and not have
the dock stick out 92 feet.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you.
MS. GALLAGHER: There is no soundings on the drawings
that we have so I can't see how deep the water is
around the proposed dock.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, that was why we tabled it. We have
some soundings now. They just came in.
MS. GALLAGHER: The other question I have is whether or
not this dock would set precedence or whether or not
there was any other structures like this, with a length
this long in any of the other creeks in the Town of Southold.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When we look at the aerials we do see
that there are docks go out in the same area.
MS. GALLAGHER: They don't go out 92 feet though. They
Board of Trustees 30 November 18, 2009
go out 15, 20, 25 feet.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is one that's three docks down to
the north that seems to be pretty wide. I can't say
it's 92 feet from the aerial but, and this property is
on the eastern most point. It does kind of stick out a
little bit. But I understand what you're saying.
MS. GALLAGHER: The creek narrows as you get up to the
north part of the creek. It is wide, we concede it is
wide in the area that we are talking about but the
channel is pretty close to where they end of the dock
would be and it's just a consideration it's a navigation hazard.
MR. COSTELLO: I have a couple of hydrographics, if
you'd like to see them.
MS. GALLAGHER: Yes, I would.
TRUSTEE KING: I think the last two or three docks we've
approved in that same vicinity were around 30 foot. If
I remember right.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, where the stake is, it's about
three-and-a-half feet of water.
MR. COSTELLO: That was a stake the DEC wanted. If
that's your question, I understand that. That's at 112 feet.
MS. GALLAGHER: The water depths are 25, 24 and 23,
that's the channel?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How far from where to where, is the
question?
MR. COSTELLO: From the edge here is 50 feet.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I can't speak for everybody, but I
don't think we would be apt to want to dredge that,
quite frankly. Any other comments or questions from the
Board at all?
TRUSTEE KING: I did a little research in that area,
really just trying to get some history. The property
right next door is Gallagher applied for dock, ramp and
float and it was denied by the DEC because of water
depths. The Department suggested alternatives, one was
a floating dock totalling less than 200-square feet.
Another alternative is a seasonal stick dock with a
short catwalk with a pile and pulley system. And the
third option was to consider using the association boat
launch located down the street. So that was one that we
approved and they denied. There was another one next
door, I don't know if there is a DEC permit on it or
not, and that was a 4x27' catwalk, 3x15' hinged ramp
and a 6x20' float. So what we have been approving in
that area has all been 25-30' long catwalks.
MS. GALLAGHER: Can I ask what is the obstacle to do
that now?
TRUSTEE KING: The DEC. Once again, they want to see
something -- they want the depth.
MS. GALLAGHER: How much depth are they looking for?
MR. COSTELLO: 2.5 foot at the end. They established
Board of Trustees 31 November 18, 2009
that at 112 feet, which is approximately here.
MS. GALLAGHER: Who did the soundings to get these
depths?
MR. COSTELLO: Sea Level Mapping.
MS. GALLAGHER: So what I'm looking at here, and this is
a copy, so I'm having trouble reading it, is it's 2.1,
2.2., 1.9, 1.4, those are the --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me, ma'am. Could you address
those questions to the Board.
MS. GALLAGHER: Sorry. So what we are saying is it's too
shallow, basically.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's what they DEC is saying.
MS. GALLAGHER: Then what is the ruling on actually
allowing some dredging to go on in this area between
the channel and this house.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Generally, if an area has never been
dredged before, we don't allow new dredging.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, I don't think you'll find support
for dredging here.
TRUSTEE KING: This has been a difficulty we have been
going through since I've been on the Board. Originally
the DEC wanted four feet of water. We finally worked
out a compromise with them where they would permit a
seasonal float in two-and-a-half feet of water. And now
I see a trend where they seem to be going back to
deeper water depths again.
MR. COSTELLO: If they allow 2.5, we've established that
is at this point.
TRUSTEE KING: It's been this Board's practice over the
years to try and keep these structures as short as
possible, to keep them out of public property. We have
another agency, on the other hand that wants them, they
don't care if they are a mile away as long as they can
get out to the depth of water they want. That's the
problem we have between the two agencies.
MS. GALLAGHER: Do you have a precedence anywhere else
in the Town of Southold in one of the creeks having a
dock protruding that far into one of the creeks?
TRUSTEE KING: Nothing really new. Older ones, but
nothing new.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We did one that was very long but it's
kind of on his property, it doesn't protrude in. I'm
talking about the one down Bayview.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So what do we want to do with this?
TRUSTEE KING: Personally, I think the length is excessive.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I wouldn't be inclined to approve
the length as applied for.
MR. COSTELLO: What if I moved it south, 15-feet off the
property line, I could shorten the dock to, you know,
86 feet, and I think that puts me farther away from the
channel too. Do you know what I'm saying?
Board of Trustees 32 November 18, 2009
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What about where you have a two-foot
depth. If we move it to the south. You see where it
comes in, it kind of comes in on a little indentation.
That is considerably shorter and we're only talking six
inches difference in the water depth.
MS. GALLAGHER: Can I make a suggestion? What about
turning the dock, going out and making a right hand
turn. Because it looks like if you, instead of building
the dock off the south end of the property, if you went
out and made a right angle on that dock and brought it
over, it looks like it's two-and-a-half feet on the
right-hand side out there. Is that possible?
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: It wouldn't shorten it any.
MS. GALLAGHER: It would only come out, I don't think it
would come out, the length wouldn't be bad. It would be
shorter to shore but it would make a right turn and the
water seems to be a little deeper toward that end of
the property.
MR. COSTELLO: One of the reasons for moving it to the
south side, the southeast side, was because now the
channel, the soundings, the channel is further away
from the other dock. The DEC wants the offshore end of
the dock into two-and-a-half feet of water.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'm just not getting the feeling the
Board is supporting it. Are there any other
suggestions?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we should do what we normally
do and maybe try to help the applicant talk to the DEC.
I mean it's a problem with the DEC. We shouldn't change
our rules because the DEC keeps changing theirs every
other application.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: So how far are we willing to go out
then? Not forgetting we have the dock next door.
MR. COSTELLO: If we come back to the pier line thing, I
mean if you look at the property, it's completely
around the corner.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Yeah. The one to the south is visible
from that property and if we stay in that line,
following the contour of the shore, it pretty much puts
you where I was talking about, right where you have the
two foot of depth.
MR. COSTELLO: If the Board would approve that then I
would have to go apply to the DEC.
TRUSTEE KING: What if we did away with the float and
just put a catwalk there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, but then he'll be sitting on the
bottom because he couldn't put it on the side of the catwalk.
MR. COSTELLO: I mean if the Board would approve it to
here, two feet of water, at this end of the property
(indicating.)
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't know how to do that with the --
Board of Trustees 33 November 18, 2009
if it's 15-foot off the southern property line and draw
a pier line from next door, the contour is basically
here. That would put us in this little indentation and
give us two feet of water and take off whatever that
distance is there. Do you want to do that and see what
it looks like? Come on up, I'll show you what we are
talking about. (indicating.) That should put your stake
somewhere in here. You have two feet of water there and
you'll be saving all this space. That looks like it's
quite a bit, maybe 25-30 feet.
TRUSTEE KING: Give it another look.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So should we table this tonight?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you want to just briefly let her
know what we are looking at? We are going to go out and
look at it again.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Basically we are going to table it. We
are looking to shorten it and move it.
MS. GALLAGHER: Are you going to be in this area here?
It looks like a depth of two-and-a-half feet. Moving it
over.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: We are looking about coming off here
about 15-feet, up to this property line.
MS. GALLAGHER: Do you know when you'll be out?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll be out on the 2nd of December.
Do you want to see new drawings before we go out, on
the 2nd?
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: If he goes out and stakes it, at least
we can look at it. As I said, I think if he used the
aerials and draws the pier line and places a stake
there, it probably, it should come right about where we
are talking about, right in that two-foot area. And
that's the best we can hope for.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jack, do you want to meet us out there
again?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. You just have to call me.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll give you a little more time this
time. Sorry about that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's going to shorten it about 30
feet, bring it into around the 60-65' range. We'll see
when we go out thera. I'll make a motion to table this
application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: Number six, Costello Marine on behalf of
WUNNEWETA POND ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit to
dredge a 20x280' area of the inland section of the
existing channel to a depth of -4' below mean Iow
water. Place the spoil (approximately 188 cubic yards)
as beach nourishment in a 16x180' area previously
Board of Trustees 34 November 18, 2009
approved disposal site located landward of the spring
high water mark. Located: Navigation Channel, Wunneweta
Pond.
It was found inconsistent with the LWRP. Only
maintenance dredging is permitted. But I thought this
was dredged before.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Dredging may be permitted if it can be
demonstrated that the actions of man has resulted in
damage to water quality and habitat value.
Maintenance dredging, dredging is considered
maintenance dredging if there is documentary evidence
that it has been previously dredged. The search of past
records indicates the area proposed to be dredged has
not been previously dredged, according to town records.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, it's been previously dredged but
it probably didn't have a permit.
TRUSTEE KING: The proposed disposal site is located
within a New York State Audubon Important Bird Act
area. Nature conservancy, it's an important shell bird
nesting area.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Where is the proposed area?
TRUSTEE KING: That's what we are trying to figure out.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: That's where the dredge spoils went
when they dredged the area two years ago.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Which is what, south or north.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I think it's north of that section.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, north.
TRUSTEE KING: I know you had a question as far as where
it's going.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, but you know what. I'm
wondering whether or not the area that had been
mentioned to me would also be a bird nesting area.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They have a DEC permit to put it
there, right Jack? You have the DEC permit to put it
there?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When they dredged the inlet, the
channel there, that's the spoil site.
I think we saw the proof that it was dredged before.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: See the concern was this is a
preserved meadow beach.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That' far away, though.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I know. That's what I'm looking at.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. He's talking about this area
here. And look how far away that is. So I wouldn't
consider that close enough to do any harm.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I see. Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: This is where it was put before. Did the
DEC give you a timeframe on this?
MR. COSTELLO: I don't have the stamped set of plans of
Board of Trustees 35 November 18, 2009
the DEC in here. I don't know what the timeframe is. I
would imagine it would be very, very limited, though.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. It's not a huge project.
MR. COSTELLO: No, it's taking 180 yards of dredge
spoil. It's one, little particular piece.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have the proof somewhere?
TRUSTEE KING: When was the last time it was dredge, do
you know?
MR. COSTELLO: No, I don't know.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would say we have to prove that. I
don't know how you could do it without it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I mean, I just know from verbal
history that it's been dredged in the past. You know, from --
TRUSTEE KING: Well, it's obviously. Here are the
spoils. We just have to find out when this was done.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can find it and approve this
subject to getting the proof that it was done. Can we
do that? That way we can move ahead with the
application and if we can't find the proof, then it's
not approved. Then it's not consistent.
MR. COSTELLO: I mean it's obvious it's been dredged.
It's just, you know, when and where and who.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we are all in agreement it's
been dredged.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: What's the depth there right now?
MR. COSTELLO: It should be on the plans.
TRUSTEE KING: When are you planning on doing this?
MR. COSTELLO: As soon as you guys say it's okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The LWRP report says the shore nesting
happens between March 15 and August 15, that you can
not dredge. But you are saying it would be done before.
So that wouldn't interfere with that. And if we can
find proof it was dredged prior.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If there is a permit, there has to
be a record somewhere.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, there might not be a permit if
it was done before permits.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But have we given a permit for it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, we don't have a permit. But if
it was dredged prior to permits, how are we going to get the proof?.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Well, let me point this out. We've got
docks on this small part of the pond that this opening
leads into. I would assume those docks were given
permission predicated on the fact that you could get
there from the inlet. So based upon what I'm seeing is
if this is not dredged, these folks lose access to
their pre-existing docks. It seems to me whether it was
dredged in the past or not, we should allow the
dredging or else they don't have access to their docks.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Based on that can we use that as proof
it's been dredged before and find it consistent?
Board of Trustees 36 November 18, 2009
TRUSTEE KING: Where's Lori when we need her.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I mean it's not like that opening is
very wide to begin with.
TRUSTEE KING: We had a question in our field notes, who
owns the underwater land? Is it town water or private?
MR. COSTELLO: It's town.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, that fixes that question right
away. Well --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can we move ahead with it and just say
we find it, based on, subject to receiving some type of
proof, based on oral history, we know it's been dredged
before, therefore we find it consistent? Because all of
us are in agreement it's been dredged before. We just
don't have the physical proof. So based on our
knowledge, there's the proof.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You know, this is also one of those
instances where one part of the LWRP talks about
enhancing the navigability and being able to use our
resources is in direct conflict with what we've been
discussing. I would think the other way and say that it
is consistent.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But his inconsistency is due to our
code that says we do not do dredging. So he is
referencing our code.
Now you are saying it was prior to needing a permit.
How many years ago was that?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the problem. Nobody really
knows. I mean, we could find out. There are people that
live in the area.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Who is this -- if it's an
association, would they have --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They would have a history.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: They might have a record of it also.
They had to have something. So we need to ask the
association for some proof it was dredged prior.
MR. COSTELLO: The whole thing was dredged out.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You must be in contact with someone.
Can you ask if they have any kind of a record, bill,
receipt, of something.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Or if somebody knows it and they can
put it in writing and get an affidavit.
MR. COSTELLO: I'll do it. I know it's been dredged.
Yes, I can go back and ask.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You're too young to remember that.
TRUSTEE KING: That would make it a heck of a lot easier.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can we do this subject to. So he can
get it to us next week and then we don't have to put it
off another month.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Make it subject to some sort of
documentation it's been dredged before.
Board of Trustees 37 November 18, 2009
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. And we'll have to charge you for the
spoils. $10 per yard I believe is the going rate.
MR. COSTELLO: Okay.
MR. MCGREEVY: Were would those spoils be put?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: At the previous spoil site north of
the opening of the inlet. In front of Chris Pia's
property.
TRUSTEE KING: It's above the high water mark. DEC won't
let you put spoils in a tidal area.
MR. MCGREEVY: Does the property owner have to give
permission then, at that point?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't know.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe he has given permission.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from anybody?
(NO RESPONSE.)
I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the
application with the condition that some kind of proof
is made available to show this area has been dredged
before. We know it's been dredged before but we need to
see some sort of documentation. And that will bring it
into consistency. With that, it will not be considered
new dredging. And it's really necessary for navigation
in the harbor. And the dredging wouldn't be done during
bird nesting. And we need to see a copy of the DEC
permit, too, so we can see the sort of restrictions
that are already on it. And with that I would make the
recommendation it brings it into consistency.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Costello Marine Contracting on behalf
of ROBERT O'BRIEN requests a Wetland Permit to remove
239' of existing bulkhead and construct new inplace,
Provide ten-foot wide non-turf buffer landward of new
bulkhead. Remove existing dock structure and construct
a new 125' fixed dock with 42"x16' seasonal ramp onto a
6x20' seasonal float secured by two eight-inch diameter
anchor pilings. Located: 3655 Stillwater Avenue,
Cutchogue.
Jim and I went out there after you staked it, Jack, And
CAC supports the application with the condition that no
CCA is used wherever possible. The dock is raised over
the wetlands, floatation devices are installed under
the decking on the floating dock and there is proper
alignment with the neighboring docks. The CAC questions
the width of the proposed ramp.
Board of Trustees 38 November 18, 2009
LWRP finds that bulkhead to be exempt and the dock to
be inconsistent. Which I'll go over a few of those
inconsistencies. Is there anyone here on behalf of the
application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine, on behalf
of the applicant.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We had a couple of questions. One, on
the plans, it's confusing. It looks like the sheathing
of the bulkhead looks like it's to be on the inside. Let me
just review this and show you what we are talking
about.
TRUSTEE KING: Is that going to be like tongue-in-groove
or Shoreguard?
MR. COSTELLO: It's going to be C-Loc, probably. At this
point, if there is a money issue it might be a resheath
behind.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you want to just come up. Here is
the outside (indicating.)
MR. COSTELLO: No, that's just a drawing issue.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We just wanted to make sure on that.
And then the height of the catwalk, we were wondering
if you could just put it right off of the bulkhead and
then lower it as you go through.
MR. COSTELLO: Actually if we maintain the height of the
bulkhead, I think that will be --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because you say here -- I forgot
where we saw the height. Yes, if you could do that so
it's not so high. And everything -- we would like to
see 4x4 posts through the marsh, and you could do the
4x6 at the end. Just like the ones you do in Mattituck
Creek.
TRUSTEE KING: Six inch piles at the water end and 4x4's
through the wetland.
MR. COSTELLO: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we would like to see the catwalk
either at the height of the bulkhead or lower. No
higher than that.
TRUSTEE KING: It's going to be open-grate, right?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. Hopefully through flow.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: And keep it Iow. You know, we like
keeping them Iow. It's less intrusive.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Some of the inconsistencies the LWRP
found I think are addressed here. It says the dock will
cause habitat fragmentation. There is already a dock
there. So, no, it won't. Whether the dock will result
in destruction or prevent the growth of vegetative
wetland. If you look at the dock on either side, the
wetland, the vegetation growing underneath that --
it will improve it.
TRUSTEE KING: I think this new dock will be a lot less
Board of Trustees 39 November 18, 2009
structure. Because what they've done, they had
telephone poles, 13, 14 inches in diameter, they laid
them down, then they had pieces across and planking on
top of that. So this new structure will be far less
intrusive into the marsh. There will be a lot more
marsh growing there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it says the Board is to consider
grid decking, which that is in the plan, and whether
the cumulative impact of residential and commercial
dock will change the waterway or the environment or
alternately design construction and locate dock will
minimize cumulative impact. There is already an
existing dock there and it's not going to be any
further out than the existing dock, and it's less of a
structure, so with the construction, we find it to be
consistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: It's actually less structure than what is
there now. It's actually less structure. It's a
reduction in structure. It really advances the ideas of
the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Are there any other comments or
questions?
MR. VAIL: My name is Carl Vail, I live at 3230 West
Stillwater Avenue. If this is going to represent a
replacement of the existing bulkhead, I would like to
request the Board of Trustees to move it back four
feet. If it's going to represent a repair, I guess that
would be a separate issue. Because the shoreline
hardening is a big issue in our community, especially
in our wetland areas, particularly the inside creeks.
So that's the only comment I have to make.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: (Perusing.) Were you talking about the
bulkhead move back or the dock move back?
MR. VAIL: The bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The bulkhead to move inland four
feet?
MR. VAIL: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Into the property four feet.
MR. VAIL: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments?
TRUSTEE KING: There's going to be a non-turf buffer
behind that bulkhead?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, a ten-foot non-turf buffer behind
the bulkhead.
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Just one comment. Normally bulkhead
replacements it's usually inplaca or directly behind
the bulkhead. I can't remember us moving anything back
landward that amount. If this is a seriously-eroded
area where the bulkhead was encroaching or something
like that, maybe a thought. But I don't think it's an
Board of Trustees 40 November 18, 2009
appropriate thing to do in this location.
This marsh goes right up to it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think we can do it
constitutionally. But I'm not a lawyer.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We would be taking away his land.
Because he owns in front of it.
MR. VAIL: Essentially, not the entire property, but the
edges are totally wetland. You are not taking away his
property, you are just allowing more wetlands. Now I
don't know what the economic costs of that are, but
where we had these bulkheads put in our creeks,
ultimately we had a deterioration of the environment
there. So I want the Trustees to start to consider when
you are replacing bulkheads in situations like this
that these wetlands need some remediation. I mean over
the years they have essentially deteriorated by this
type of activity so where we replace bulkheads I think
we should start considering moving them landward. I
mean people still own their houses, they still have
their marshlands, that's their marshland or their
beach, so to speak, and the issue there is to allow the
marshland some remediation.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is very healthy marshland in
front of this. But I understand what you are saying.
MR. VAIL: It goes right up to that bulkhead wall and
that's where it stops. And it doesn't go beyond that,
that bulkhead wall.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: At what point then do we decide where
to start moving the wall back.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the thing. It then becomes
arbitrary.
One of the reasons we do a non-turf buffer is to add --
it wouldn't be the marsh, but we are adding, we are
taking away that hardening and we are taking away the
lawn going right into there, so we are mitigating that
way.
MR. VAIL: And that reduces the amount of nutrients
going into the creek. I think that's a good thing to
do. But we have bulkheads in this creek, some of them
right up to literally the water line. And some day,
somewhere, we are going to have to start turning this
around.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, your point is well taken. And I
will point out that we don't allow any new bulkheading
in creeks. So that is a start. For that very reason.
But we've never taken away what people have.
MR. MCGREEVY: Can I say something?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure.
MR. MCGREEVY: The high water mark in relation to this
present bulkhead, is the high water mark up?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, it's far, far away.
Board of Trustees 41 November 18, 2009
TRUSTEE KING: This is a pretty extensive marsh.
MR. MCGREEVY: Because there are many occasions where
the high water mark actually comes up high -
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, this doesn't even touch it. Not
that the water never touches it, but the high water
mark doesn't touch it.
Are there any other comments?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just wanted to address Mr. Dali
also. I'm one to always consider less structure, no
structure, reducing structure, Mr. Dali. I wanted to
comment that normally I would be the one to move or
remove or be against any structure. But we never moved
bulkheads back where there has been existing ones. So,
again, you know, your comments are certainly taken into
account, but it's something this Board has never done
on the eight years I've been on it.
TRUSTEE KING: I agree.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think there are many ways we can
reduce the structures, but this is not one of them.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments?
(NO RESPONSE.)
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the
application of Costello Marine on behalf of Robert
O'Brien as applied for using flow-through decking on
the dock. And by doing that, and the dock is reducing
construction, it brings it into consistency with the
LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: And we want to see that catwalk no more
than two-and-a-half feet above grade. To come straight
off the bulkhead and continue two-and-a-half feet above
grade.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The catwalk to come off the bulkhead
and not be more than two-and-a-half feet above grade.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And, Jack, can we get revised plans
showing the height and the flow-through decking?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. I'll make a motion to
adjourn.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES.)
R£C£1VED
FEB 2 5 2_0]0
Sou 20 n lcrk