HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-06/16/2010Jill M. Doherty, President
James F. King, Vice-President
Dave Bergen
Bob Ghosio, Jr.
John Bredemeyer
Town H~lAnnex
54375M~n Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone(631) 765-1892
Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OFTOWNTRUSTEES
TOWN OFSOUTHOLD
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
6:00 PM
Present Were:
Jill Doherty, President
Jim King, Vice-President
Dave Bergen, Trustee
Robert Ghosio, Trustee
John Bredemeyer, Trustee
Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant
Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 6:00 PM
WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of February 24, 2010 and
March 17, 2010.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Welcome to our June meeting. I would like to
introduce the Board before we get started. To my far left is
John Bredemeyer; next to him is Dave Bergen; Jim King; myself;
Elizabeth is one of our office staff that does a wonderful job
and; Bob Ghosio. Lori is our attorney, who will be here
shortly. We have Wayne Galante here taking the minutes, so if
you do make a comment tonight please come up to the mic and
state your name for the record. And we have Jack McGreevy here
representing the CAC, which is the Conservation Advisory
Council, who reviews all the applications we review and gives us
their comments.
Does anyone have any updates on any projects we are working on?
RECEIVED
Southold Town Clerk
Board of Trustees 2 June 16, 2010
(No response).
Before we get started, I would like to go over the postponements.
I don't think we have too many.
Page five number five, Docko, Inc., on behalf of MARGARET
ROBBINS CHARPENTIER requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal
Erosion Permit to construct 89 linear feet of five-foot wide
fixed batter braced wood pile and timber pier with associated
rails, utilities and ladders; install five batter braced tie-off
piles all waterward of the apparent high water line.
Located: East End, Fishers Island, has been postponed.
And page six, number ten Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc., on behalf of WILLIAM AND DOLORES KREITSEK requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a fixed catwalk (including entry
ramp and seaward access ladder) measuring 3x100', supported by
32 pilings (4"x4"), comprised of non-treated materials. Located:
2455 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck, has been postponed.
And number eleven, Docko, Inc., on behalf of THOMAS SHILLO
requests a Wetland Permit to remove 182+/- square feet of
existing wood deck, 22+/- linear feet of concrete retaining wall
and replace with boulders, 30+/- cubic yards, over 500+/- square
feet under pier along edge of water, construct 68+/- linear feet
of wood pile and timber pier, install a 6x20' float with
associated 3.5'x24' ramp and restraint piles at or waterward of
the apparent high water line. Located: The Gloaming, Fishers
Island, has been postponed.
We will not be discussing those tonight.
All right, the next field inspection will be scheduled for Wednesday
July 14, at 8:00 AM. Do I have a motion?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The next Trustee meeting will be Wednesday,
July 21, at 6:00 PM, with a worksession at 5:30.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The Minutes, we have February minutes and March
Minutes. Did everybody get a chance to review them and if so --
TRUSTEE KING: I did. I couldn't find any major mistakes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with you and gave Lauren some minor
typos. If someone wants to make a resolution.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of
February 24, 2010, and March 17, 2010.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
Board of Trustees 3 June 16, 2010
The Trustees monthly report for May, 2010. A check for
$7,669.07 was forwarded to the Supervisor's office for the
General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin board for review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold
hereby finds that the following applications more fully
described in Section VI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee
agenda dated Wednesday, June 16, 2010, are classified as Type
II Actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations, and are not
subject to further review under SEQRA.
These are listed as follows:
WL Lyons Brown III & Susannah S. Brown - SCTM#10-7-12
Gary Salice - SCTM#104-5-2&3.1
Michael O'Donnell - 138-2-29
Roger Praetorius - SCTM#139-1-4.2
Margaret Robbins Charpentier - SCTM#3-1-5
Karnick Garipian & Haci Garipian - SCTM#44-1-1
Joan Kuchner- SCTM~66-2-44
Barbara & Thomas Ball - SCTM#66-2-46
Bruno Ilibassi - SCTM#66-2-45
Stephen Latham - SCTM#66-2-40
Beixedon Estates Assoc., Inc. - SCTM#66-2-47
Judith UIIman & Yehudit Moch- SCTM#59-6-9&14
Renate Hertel - SCTMflg0-2-25
A&E Koehler - SCTM#53-4-5
Ioanna & David Moore - SCTM#51-4-17
Constantinos Markotsis - SCTM#78-5-12
Belvedere Property Management, LLC - SCTM#117-8-19&20
Henry & Linda Steffens - SCTM~39-3-1
Julio Ramon - SCTM#31-18-10
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve that.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Resolutions and administrative permits. In
order to try and save time, we try to lump a few of these
together that we have reviewed and we have no problem with. So
what I'll do is, the first one, we just got some new
information. We reviewed it, so we'll do that separately.
That's GLENDA MORENO & VINCENT CARNAGIE request an
Board of Trustees 4 June 16, 2010
Administrative Permit -- and I'll be read a different
description than is on the agenda tonight. And the descripti6n
is to remove two trees, grind eight stumps, deliver and spread
approximately 120 yards topsoil; the elevation height on the
west side will be raised approximately one-and-one-half feet
beginning 30 feet from the deck; remove wash area back to
existing grade; east side grade elevation remains the same; top
dress proposal in area with topsoil, approximately 4,000 square
feet seeded with erosion proof seed mat using try ride seed
mixture; all lawn area developed to 50 feet from designated
wetland area. Located: 11085 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
And we have that on a survey as well. And I'll make a motion to
approve as I just read, and subject to the wetland area to the
50 foot mark, which is marked on this survey, a non-turf area.
TRUSTEE KING: This was found inconsistent on the original
application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Now, by downsizing and removing a couple of trees.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. They wanted to remove nine trees.
TRUSTEE KING: The project has been tremendously downsized from
their original description. So I think this would be more inline with
being consistent now.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do we have a plan that goes with that
description that specifies the trees that are coming town?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we do. Which actually I can mark on the
other plan. We have two different plans, but we can mark the
trees on this plan.
TRUSTEE KING: I would say the new description brings it into
consistency.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Ill make that resolution.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was there any revegetation that we were going to
ask for in that 50 foot area or ara we just going to let that grow in naturally?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That can grow back in naturally. So leave it
undisturbed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And with this material being brought in, will
that create a greater slope down into that area than what was
there previously, since we are raising the elevation up, as I
heard in the description?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. If you look at the survey, this is where
the elevation will be raised up, which is not near the wetland
area at all. And this is just going to be flattened out to plant lawn.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was just worrying about creating more erosion
down into the wetlands, if we raise the elevation at all.
TRUSTEE KING: So basically that area --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Were they going to delineate it with a silt
fence?
TRUSTEE KING: That's something we should do. We should put in a
line of hay bales and make that a non-disturbance area.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure, that would make things easier for their
contractor also, if it's delineated exactly where the line --
Board of Trustees 5 June 16, 2010
TRUSTEE KING: And that would also stop any possibility of the
erosion down there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So a line of hay bales at the 50 foot and
should they remain or can they be removed?
TRUSTEE KING: I think they can just leave them and let it grow.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: A lot of houses down in that area have done that
and left them there and all kind of things grew out of them.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, I11 make the resolution as I read with
the condition hay bales at the 50 foot mark and for the hay
bales to be left there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: With the downsizing of that project would deem
it as consistent under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two, SANDRA KRAC & JUDITH PEREZ request
an Administrative to install a stockade privacy fence along the
rear of the property line to telephone pole and continue with a
chainlink fence thereafter. Located: 490 Northfield Lane, Southold.
We have the corrected information in the file showing that it be
split rail. We all went out there. This is consistent with LWRP
and therefore I'll make a motion to approve. The Conservation
Advisory Council has not looked at this. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Numbers three, five, six and seven, we have
reviewed. They all come in either consistent or exempt and ail
the files are in the order. They read as follows:
Number three, WILLIAM & MARIE MYERS request an Administrative
Permit to construct a roof over the existing 12x14' deck,
construct a fence around the existing 40x120' garden area, and
to install paver bricks from the deck to the driveway. Located:
400 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck.
Number five, Natural Images Landscaping, Inc., on behalf of
CHRISTOPHER O'CONNER requests an Administrative Permit to
install stone steps and an electric line down to the existing
dock. Located: 3390 Cox Neck Road, Mattituck.
Number six, New York Solar Solutions, LLC, on behalf of
JAMES VAVAS requests an Administrative Permit to install 30
Suntech solar panels and Enphase inverters totaling a system
size of 5,250 watts onto the roof of the existing dwelling.
Located: 3085 Bayshore Road, Greenport.
And Number seven, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of PHILIP
STANTON requests an Administrative Permit to remove the existing
sanitary system located less than 100' from the tidal wetlands
boundary. Located: 845 Maple Lane, Southold.
Board of Trustees 6 June 16, 2010
I'll make a motion to approve three, five, six and seven.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number four, Garrett A. Strang, Architect, on
behalf of BONNIE M. QUINN requests an Administrative Permit for
the as-built deck over the existing deck at first floor, a
10x12' shed in the side yard, and arbor in side yard. Located:
1075 Cedar Point Drive West, Southold.
We went out and looked at this. We were fine with this
except that we noticed -- and I don't know if there is another
picture here, Bob?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's the only one that was on the camera.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There was an outdoor shower installed on the side
of the house. We want to go ahead and permit that in at the
same time so it's all permitted in together. So I'll make the
motion with the addition of the outside shower being included in
the description. And it was found consistent under LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE KING: Number five, applications for extensions,
transfers and administrative amendments. This was the same
thing, very simple things. We reviewed them. I would like to
lump one, two, three, four and five together. They read as
follows:
One, ELIZABETH & DAVID BRANCH request a One-Year Extension
to Wetland Permit #6924, as issued on July 23, 2008 and Amended
on October 21, 2009. Located: 5160 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic.
Number two, John Bertani Builder, Inc., on behalf of
VINCENT & LAURA MANETTI requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland
Permit #6930, as issued on July 23, 2008. Located: 150 West
Shore Drive, Southold.
Number three, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of JEANNE
COOPER requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #1556 from Paul
Birman to Jeanne Cooper, as issued on July 6, 1982. Located: 260
Sunset Way, Southold.
Number four, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of JEANNE
COOPER requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #1994 from Paul
Birman to Jeanne Cooper, as issued on August 1, 1985. Located:
260 Sunset Way, Southold.
And number five, Patricia C. Moore Esq., on behalf of
GEORGE YATRAKIS requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7122 to
allow for the revised design of the stairs to the beach due to topographic
conditions and boulder discovered during construction.
Located: 18805 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
I'll make a motion to approve those as they have been submitted.
Board of Trustees 7 June 16, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number six, Costello Marine Contracting on
behalf of MICHAEL KENNA requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit
#7220 to construct a 3x68' fixed dock. All decking to be open
grating style. Any vegetation removed to construct new dock to
be transplanted to existing pathway area at step.
Located: 3200 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold.
This amendment is requested as per DEC approval. And is Mr.
Costello here yet? Yes, he is. We have one question. The
height of the catwalk, can that be lowered?
MR. COSTELLO: It could probably be lowered to maybe three feet
but the DEC, with the open-grate decking, they have gone down as
Iow, depending on the analyst, they have gone down to
two-and-a-half on occasion. One analyst will tell you no more
than three, the next analyst will tell you two-and-a-half.
TRUSTEE KING: If you look seaward at the property, looking
seaward, to the right, there is an open-grate dock, that's one
of the first ones we approved. That's right down Iow. Just
about even with the top of that cement wall. So if we get that
down to straight out from the top of that wall, I think would be great.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the grasses will grow in handsomely.
MR. COSTELLO: It's just to make sure it doesn't flood at higher
tides. That's all. We are being cautious about that. We'll
lower it down as Iow as we can get it without it going, on an
east wind, underwater.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we describe it as the height of the wall,
would that be --
MR. COSTELLO: That's fine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And with that, you feel you can get something
from DEC, too?
MR. COSTELLO: Definitely.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With that I'll make a motion to approve
Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of Michael Kenna as
described with the condition that a new drawing be shown,
showing the wall, the catwalk at the height of the wall.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's the cement retaining wall, specifically.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. That will be attached.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. RESOLUTIONS - MOORINGS:
TRUSTEE KING: Number six, resolutions, moorings. I thought
number two, wasn't number two public access, rather than
private?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Pull the file for Binder.
Board of Trustees 8 June 16, 2010
TRUSTEE KING: Let me just take a look at that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He said this is private access.
TRUSTEE KING: So he'll go across, (Perusing). Okay, so I don't
think we had a problem with the other two. I'll make a motion
to approve all three. They are listed as follows:
Number one, ALFRED KLOPFER requests a Mooring Permit in
Jockey Creek for a 26' boat, replacing Mooring #50. Access: Private.
Number two, BRANDON BINDER requests a Mooring Permit in
Mattituck Creek for an 18' boat, replacing Mooring #834. Access: Private.
And number three, SUMMER TURTURRO, requests a Mooring
Permit in Gull Pond for a 24' boat, replacing Mooring #18. Access: Public.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All three?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to go off regular meeting
and on to public hearings.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS TO WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Under public hearings part, we have amendments
to wetland permits. The following amendments have been published
and if you would like to make a comment, you are welcome to.
However, I would let you know that we all reviewed these.
Number one through five are all exempt from LWRP. They are
listed as follows:
Number one, STEPHEN LATHAM requests an Amendment to Wetland
Permit ~,138 to install rip-rap 1/2 to one ton stone armor in
front of the existing bulkhead. Located: 845 Rogers Road, Southold.
Number two, JOAN KUCHNER requests an Amendment to Wetland
Permit fl469 to install rip-rap 1/2 to one ton stone armor in front of the
existing bulkhead, and to Transfer Permit #469 from Freedman to Joan
Kuchner, as issued on November 24, 1987, and Amended on
January 21, 1988. Located: 1726 Arshamomaque Lane, Southold.
Number three, BRUNO ILIBASSl requests an Amendment to
Wetland Permit #-469 to install rip-rap 1/2 to one ton stone armor in front of
the existing bulkhead. Located: 1728 Arshamomaque Lane, Southold.
Number four, BARBARA & THOMAS BALL requests an Amendment to
Wetland Permit fl469 to install rip-rap 1/2 to one ton stone armor in front of
the existing bulkhead. Located: 1890 Arshamomaque Lane, Southold.
And number five, BEIXEDON ESTATES ASSOCIATION, INC.,
requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit ~469B to install rip-rap
1/2 to one ton stone armor in front of the existing bulkhead.
Located: Arshamomaque Lane, Southold.
TRUSTEE KING: They are basically all adjoining properties.
Board of Trustees 9 June 16, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, they are all applying for stone in front
of their bulkhead and the properties are adjoining. The
Conservation Advisory Council determined there is insufficient
information to make a final recommendation. There is an
indication an environmental impact statement should be developed
addressing impact of existing jetty and public access. Jack,
can you elaborate on that? Briefly?
MR. MCGREEVY: Yes. The condition that the five locations that
abut one another are all very similar. And as far as the
Conservation Advisory Council is concerned, it encompasses a
more, should encompass a more comprehensive plan for what is
causing this wash out. Instead of dealing with each one individually,
we figured as a group they should be addressed as an overall plan.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There has been discussion of that and this is,
as a group, they are coming in all together. And because it's
individual properties they have to separate it. And they are
putting the stone against the existing bulkhead, so it's not a
groin going out. It's stone up against the bulkhead.
MR. MCGREEVY: At the base of the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. MCGREEVY: And in the opinion of the Conservation Advisory
Council, we figured a comprehensive plan for that group of
homeowners, even, what we saw, what we thought was the overall
problem, was the jetty just to the left, to the left of the
inlet, there is a jetty that goes out approximately 200 to 250 feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. MCGREEVY: And whatever is causing the erosion, we figured it
was that jetty that should be addressed.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We had a hearing on that last year or the year
before and when you go into the aerials and into the history
there, it doesn't look that way when you start looking at the
aerials. What they are looking to do now is mitigate that and
this is one of the things we discussed at that time, in using
rip-rap along the bulkheads, I believe. So there has been an
awful lot of discussion, a lot of research and a lot of input on
this. So I'm comfortable with it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. All right, unless there is any comment
from anyone else, I would like to make a resolution on the five.
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to approve number one, two,
three, four five as applied for.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And as I mentioned before, all these are exempt
from LWRP.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number six, Costello Marine Contracting on
behalf of MICHAEL O'DONNELL requests an Amendment to Wetland
Permit #5648 to allow the construction of a 4x16' extension with
a 3x20' "L" section at offshore end of existing 4x31' fixed
Board of Trustees 10 June 16, 2010
dock. Located: 6010 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue.
The LWRP has found this to be inconsistent because the
proposed action is in a New York State Critical Environmental
Area and Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area. The CAC
supports the application with the condition that the materials
are consistent with best management practices. The Board went
out there and took a look and we noted that it is inside the
pier line and inside the property line. If there is any
comments from the audience on this?
MR. COSTELLO: My name is John Costello, we are the agent for Mr.
O'Donnell, and if the Board has any questions that I could help
them with, I believe the Board met with the gentleman on site.
And I would just go on -- that the Board push to have it done. I hope.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Any comments from the Board? Questions?
TRUSTEE KING: This construction, is this similar to the one to
the north?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Similar construction.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, with the old grate decking, and the same line.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I went out and took a look at it. I didn't see
anything unusual about it. It's consistent with the other docks
in the area.
TRUSTEE KING: I think the question was whether or not that pole
was going to remain.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It says offshore stake to remain. Is that pile
going to remain?
MR. COSTELLO: Which one, offthe "L"?
TRUSTEE KING: Right now there is a stake, offshore stake. Will
that stay after the dock is built?
MR. COSTELLO: It's going to be close to the end of the dock. If
it interferes. It serves no purpose, we can certainly remove it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We were not sure if you were keeping it as a
tie-off piling.
MR. COSTELLO: It's not anywhere out near the harbor line anyway,
so it's. The objection of the line, not no exceed anywhere near
that, because that was -- we used it for reference in the beginning.
Whether it's going to be removed, if it interferes with the dock, it certainly
will be removed. It's going to be close. We did not get a survey of the
individual pile. They don't indicate it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So if you feel the pile is not going to be of
any use, can we just have them take it out, or you are not sure yet.
MR. COSTELLO: I'm not sure if it would be of any use now,
present. I mean, it's not going to extend offshore or anything.
But, I mean, if it ties existing boats near the end of the dock,
if it's within two or three feet of the dock. It basically, if
it's within two or three feet of the dock, it basically serves
no purpose. It's not on the survey.
TRUSTEE GHO$10: Any other questions?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Nope, that was it.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Do I have to make a motion to close this?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, not the administrative permit.
Board of Trustees 11 June 16, 2010
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted, noting that, I understand the LWRP's concern. This
is an area that has been set aside for these docks,
historically, and this is not unusual for this particular
stretch of shoreline. So I would find it to be consistent. So
I would mike a motion to approve the application as submitted.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number one, Ural Talgat on behalf of KARNICK
GARIPIAN & HACl GARIPIAN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal
Erosion Permit to construct an addition to the existing
dwelling, remove existing westerly beach stairs and deck,
replace existing wood deck, located on the north side of the
dwelling, with pavers on grade, add new pavers on grade to
northeast of residence, existing plants along bluff to be removed and
replanted with beach grass. Located: 54715 Rt. 48, Southold.
LWRP finds this inconsistent under a couple of different
policies. Managing activities to limit damage to reverse damage
which has diminished the protective capacity of the natural
shoreline. The vegetation that currently occurs on the bluff
appears to be stable. It is recommend that existing vegetation
is not removed and proposed plantings are only located in areas
of void of vegetation. The Conservation Advisory Council
supports the landward addition with proper drainage on the
dwelling as well as the addition and does not support any change
to the seaward side of the dwelling and there be no disturbance
to the bluff. The CAC recommends that the applicant provides
assurance that the dwelling not going to be demolished. And the
Trustees, in our field notes, we definitely want the disturbed
bluff area replanted, and gutters, leaders, drywells on the new
addition. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. TALGAT: I'm Ural Talgat and I'm here to answer any questions
you may have.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I do have one, as I read this, it says remove
and replant with beach grass. It's pretty well stable, that whole bluff.
MR. TALGAT: The owners explained to me that what is planted
there right now is rosa rugosa, which is pretty much naturalized. But
it attracts so many bees that their family, the kids, are having a hard time
with that. That's why they would like to clean that up and replant it with
beach grass. But if the Trustees suggest that they not do that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Rosa rugosa is a pretty good plant there. You
don't want to take that away and a storm comes in between,
later, and you'll destabilize your bluff. Rosa rugosa is a
really good, hardy plant for this area. They can trim it down.
MR. TALGAT: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: The deck that's being shown, that's being removed;
Board of Trustees 12 June 16, 2010
am I correct?
MR. TALGAT: That's going to be removed.
TRUSTEE KING: So that area can be planted with American beach
grass and that would give you a little buffer between the rose
and maybe the kids won't get close to it. You can see now, the
kids can walk right up to it. So if there is a little buffer
area, maybe they can stay away from it and maybe they won't get
bit so much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There was also a lot of vines and other
leaves, weeds there that would prebably in short time overrun
the resa rugosa, you know, culturelly, they favor those vines, I
think they'll overrun the resa rugosa.
MR. TALGAT: It's kind of retty looking but also my clients have
also expressed a concern about the viability of the bulkhead and
whether or not that would be replaced. And so I suggested to
them if that ever has to happen, they can replant any kind of
disturbed areas at that time with the beach gress.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct, that's the time to do it.
MR. TALGAT: So whatever will be removed will be replanted with
beach gress and other existing plantings shall remain.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. That sounds goods. Are there any other
comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: I think the removal of all the structure and the
deck and all that structure being removed is a step forward to
naturelizing that area. It helps the consistency of the
inconsistency, I think, it makes a big difference with all the
material being removed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree. I think with all the structure being
removed and us not having them rip out all the plants, I think
that brings it into consistency with the LWRP. Is there any
other comments from anyone else?
(No response).
I make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve the application of
Ural Talgat on behalf of Karnick Garipian and Haci Garipian with
the exception the existing plants along the bluff are to remain
and the area disturbed to be replanted with beach grass.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we find this is consistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing is the matter of Land Use
Ecological Services, Inc., on behalf of JULIO RAMON requests a
Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to reconstruct
approximately 221' of existing wood bulkhead inkind and inplace.
Approximately 77' of wood bulkhead will be reconstructed along
Board of Trustees 13 June 16, 2010
the western property line; 47.7' of bulkhead will be
reconstructed along the southern bulkhead line; 96.2' of
bulkhead will be reconstructed along the eastern bulkhead line.
Place approximately 110 cubic yards of fill landward of the
bulkhead to meet existing grade and plant a portion of the area
with beach grass. Located: 480 Rabbit Lane, East Marion.
The project was reviewed by the Local Waterfront
Revitalization Plan for consistency with the town waterfront
goals. It was found to be consistent. The Trustees performed a
field inspection, as did CAC. The Trustees saw the obvious need
for this project, given the current state of the existing
bulkhead in its disrepair and erosion and loss of fill behind
it. The CAC comments included a request to consider actually
elevating the bulkhead, giving some consideration for sea level
rise, they anticipate, and were concerned about public access
over the bulkhead. Trustees had an issue of actually concern
for accessing, in general, for residents, and I think we are
going to raise a question concerning the steps and also possibly
any notion of the status and plans for the existing groin. Is
there anyone here to speak on behalf of the application?
MR. BOWMAN: Good evening. Chuck Bowman, President of Land Use
Ecological Services. Nice to see you. As far as the access
goes, I think we would be very happy to do anything the Trustees
would like to be seen there. As far as the need for it, of
course, after this winter, you know, that whole area took a real
hit and we want to get this done as quickly as possible.
Raising of the bulkhead, urn, that certainly is possible, you
know, but I don't know if it's necessary at this time. We had a
severe winter, a lot of the bulkheads even that were much higher
were overtopped by the severe storms we had this winter, so I
don't know if that was an anomaly or a normal event. I don't
think you want to make it higher just as a normal course of action.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the height of the neighboring bulkhead
seems to be --
MR. BOWMAN: And you want to be consistent. I found once you
raise one three feet, everyone else wants to go three feet, and
this is just a situation you don't want to create. But I would
be more than happy to answer any other questions you may have.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So it would not be out of the question then
to amend the set of plans to include a set of steps for a boat, for access --
MR. BOWMAN: No, again, public access along the waterfront is
very important.
TRUSTEE KING: I think he means access for the property owner so
he can walk to the beach.
MR. BOWMAN: Oh, that's easy. We can certainly do that, if he
wants to do it and get down to the beach.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We can put it into the permit. If he decides he
doesn't want steps down to the beach, fine. But if he does, fine.
MR. BOWMAN: I usually come up with the opposite problem,
because of the bulkheads and scouring, there is no more beach,
so people have nowhere to walk along except at Iow tide, and that's
Board of Trustees 14 June 16, 2010
gotten to be a real problem all along the north shore of Long Island.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There still appears to be beach to walk
there.
MR. BOWMAN: There, it does. Well, the high water mark is about
ten feet. Not a whole lot.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you have anything you would like to add?
MR. BOWMAN: The CAC is concerned about public access.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Along the foreshore. Would that be up and
over the existing groin?
MR. BOWMAN: The problem is, and this is just a generic
statement, then we get into liability and trespass questions.
We understand that the public lands, if you will, are seaward,
you know, of the bulkhead. Because of the bulkhead, you
probably have less public lands there than you would, you know,
75 years ago. And therein lies the quandary. How do you address
that. I don't know if there really is a way, because most
owners do not want to see people coming up and going on their
stairs or falling off their bulkhead, then where are they going;
they are going on to the next neighbor's property who has no
other stairs, so, and no right-of-way.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, anyone else on the Board, any
questions?
TRUSTEE KING: The material, what material is the new bulkhead
going to be?
MR. BOWMAN: That will be Shoreguard.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I'm looking for in the file here is a survey
of the property. I see a set of plans. But I'm looking for a survey.
MR. BOWMAN: There should be one in your packages. I certainly
can provide it if the Board wants. It's a very narrow lot.
It's only about 50 feet wide at the seaward end.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further comments?
(No response).
I'll take a motion to close the public hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me just clarify what we have, we can't find
the survey.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You want to check, maybe it got separated.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What are we doing it under if we don't have a
survey?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have the plans here.
MR. BOWMAN: If the board wants I could certainly submit or
resubmit a survey. It's not a problem, if you want to withhold
decision until you have the survey, that's not a problem.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't have a problem because the drawing you
gave us was pretty complete but we need a survey for the record,
to put in the file.
MR. BOWMAN: I'll make sure you have it. I can tell you it's
based on the survey that was provided to us by the owners. All
those drawings were done in Auto-CAT, based on the survey.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jill, I'm uncomfortable -- I have no problem
with the project. I'm uncomfortable with the fact we don't have
a survey and we could possibly be approving construction to take
Board of Trustees 15 June 16, 2010
place outside the boundaries of their property. I feel we do
need that survey in order to proceed further with this. Again, I
have no problem with the project.
MR. BOWMAN: I have no problem getting it to you. If you want to
withhold or keep it open.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can approve it subject to receiving a
survey. If the survey doesn't jibe, then we don't give him his
permit. If you want to wait --
MR. BOWMAN: We don't even have the DEC permit or Army Corps
permit yet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would be more comfortable tabling it until --
MS. HULSE: As long as it's dependent upon a survey that - he
can't really articulate what the survey should show right now.
So, like Dave said, it might be better just to wait.
MR. BOWMAN: This Board certainly is not holding the project up.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. It's for safety of the property opener as
well as everyone else.
MR. BOWMAN: All the other times, I have a different argument
here, but we don't, so, it's not a problem. The next meeting
you'll have the surveys and hopefully if you just, you won't
need me here, or anyone, you can just look at them and hopefully
approve it. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Jill, point of order. Do we close the
hearing at this point?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we should table it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just table the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, just make a resolution to table it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll take a resolution to table this matter.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Lark & Folts, Esq., on behalf of
GLENN R. MEYRAN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion
Permit to repair and maintain an observation deck and for the
existing stairs from the top of bluff to the beach. Located: 175
Soundview Avenue, Mattituck.
The Board did go out and looked at this. It was reviewed
under the LWRP and the repair and maintenance of the existing
stairs was found to be consistent under the LWRP. The repair
and maintain an observation deck was inconsistent under the
LWRP. And it was found inconsistent because the size of the
deck is greater than what is allowed in code, and also it's
recommended that the deck be relocated landward of the coastal
erosion line.
The CAC resolved to support the application with the
condition the observation deck conforms with current codes and
the LWRP and the stairs are constructed with enough strength and
support to accommodate erosion control devices at the bases of
the support posts. As I said, the Board did go out and looked
Board of Trustees 16 June 16, 2010
at this. Is there anyone here to speak for this application?
MR. LARK: Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York.
I would like to start by handing up the last mailing that
came in. It just came in today. I think all the others were
delivered to your office. That was the last one.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
MR. LARK: Okay, the application, Glenn Meyran is here tonight,
he will speak to you shortly. What you have before you is to
repair and maintain the observation deck and the stairs on the
property. It's fairly straightforward, the application, and I
think it's fairly self-explanatory, but a couple things I should
probably point out. The stairs were originally built in
1972-1973 timeframe and having existing permits that were issued
by both the DEC and the Southold Town Trustees in 1993. That
was done at the same time that the retaining wall for the
bulkhead was put in. But it's unclear in those permits whether
the repairs mentioned, they allowed the repair and rebuilding at
that time of the stairs, just focussing on the stairs here at
the moment, but it was unclear whether or not those permits were
ongoing. And in researching the wetlands and shoreline laws as
well as coastal erosion hazard area law, I believe reading the
intent of it and the language of it, that the maintenance of the
stairs is okay. But it felt it best in this application to
include it, for at least an administrative permit, to continue
to make the repairs. The photos that you have before you,
although they were done digitally with the computer, it's fairly
clear looking at them that they do need minor repairs throughout
various, whether it be the steps or in some cases they are a
little askew. So there is -- and they have been done on a
continual basis up to this year. But this year, no repairs have
been made on the steps per se. The observation deck, which is
the other part of the application, was built in 1974-75, a year
after, right about a year after when they got a CO for their
house. They had a summer house there, Mr. and Mrs. Meyron did,
and that observation deck was built. And I'm told that where
the footings are today is where they were originally when it was
built in '74-'75. At that time, if you are aware, they didn't
need any type of permit. But today to complete the repairs and
the maintenance on the deck, which Mr. Meyron will speak to, we
need a permit for it to remain in this area. The interesting
thing is, with the exception of minor repairs that have been
made throughout the year, this deck stood in this spot for 35
years, and during this time has not caused any problems as far
as erosion and so on and so forth. In fact, I'm told from
photographs that the Meyron's have, and Mrs. Meyron, Virginia
Meyron, who is here today, that the bluff line has not really
changed at all in this particular area. Now, that's not true on
the easterly side of their property. But in that area, all the
way over to the westerly line, it really has not changed. And
the repairs, Mr. Meyron, Glenn Meyron will inform you of what he
intends to do with the type of material and so on and so forth,
Board of Trustees 17 June 16, 2010
so that you can prevent any type of erosion from being in that
area. Now, just a few minutes to discuss some of the historical
data. As I said before, the applicant's father and mother,
William and Virginia Meyran, bought the property in 1960.
January of 1960, to be precise, and the only thing we had up
there, if any of you remember, was the firing range. That was
it. And basically they used the property on the weekends. They
came out and camped on the property. And it was not until 1972
when they started to build their house. And it was during the
'72-'73 timeframe that they started to construct the stairs so
they would have access to the bleach. And as I said, the
observation deck was built a year or so later. Originally, as
the Board members are aware, in that timeframe when they were
doing the construction, there was very sparse vegetation on the
bluff, all that area on Long Island Sound with the exception of
our good friend poison ivy. There was hardly anything growing
there at all. And there was no bulkhead. So the toe of the
bluff constantly eroded. It was just a repetitive thing, and
all they would do is lose property, repair the stairs, lose
property and so on and so forth. And it was only after a series
of storms in the early 90s when a large boulder, which you see
in the photographs, slid down on the easterly side of their
property and finally came to rest where it is today, that the
DEC started to relax all their permits, whether they were going
to use revetment, whether they were going to use buikheading,
whatever they were going to do, and in fact they encouraged the
Meyran's, because there was other bulkheads in the area, or
retaining walls in the area, and they helped them get government
financing through the small business administration and they
endorsed it so they could construct a retaining wall. Once that
authorization, and at that time they came in to the town and got
a coastal management permit, for the retaining walls, and to
repair the stairway. In fact, it was interesting to note, in
reading the history, Mr. Bredemeyer was President of the Board
at that time when they granted those approvals. The big thing
was, as soon as that thing was in, the retaining wall, and they
repaired the stairs, the bottom third of the whole bluff really
started to stabilize and the vegetation that they were
constantly putting in started to take reot and not erode. And
really since that time, I would stay the bottom, good bottom
third, 33% of that bluff has been stabilized.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If I could interrupt you, Mr. Lark. I
appreciate the history of this property, but I would like to
just kind of focus on what you are here for. So if we can
discuss the issues that we have.
MR. LARK: Okay, we'll get right there. The deck that was built
was originally 24x8 and had an overhanging perch, as you saw in
the photographs, that was actually over the bluff line. That
six or seven feet was actually over the bluff line. And when we
had the spring -- the hammering that we got of the spring rains
this year, that those posts that withstood there all those years
Board of Trustees 18 June 16, 2010
actually became airborne and that's when Mr. Meyran decided to,
really started to investigate and look at it and what he found
was the entire deck had really rotted out. The redwood
underneath, it's all redwood footings, although he did put in,
in 2000, he did put in some CCA. I think what he did was sister
the CCA footings and attached them to the redwood, but the
redwood has all given way. They all decayed. And he declared
himself the deck was unsafe. And he didn't want anybody to go
on it. So what he did was he made it unusable, if you would,
by taking it apart. And then he started to, after he put some
mats down and promotes some vegetation on where, I guess a
slight, a foot or two had eroded, and then he used sona tubes to
where you see there, those two tall 4x4's, they are buried and
they'll be cut off, obviously. But they have been buried in
sona tubes so you get good footings. Then he came throughout
and did the same thing all over, but what he did is he
decreased the size of the deck. He made it down to 20 feet.
And the reason for it is, the decking came in 20 foot lengths.
He's in that business, he'll tell you, and he could build a
little bit of a cantilever landward back, so it would tilt back
and also it would be stronger, it would have a stronger body to
it. So that's what he did. And it was in the process of that,
that somebody complained, and when the inspector came he
immediately stopped work and just continued with the vegetation
that he did there. He didn't do any other work. And so that's
when he was, he was more surprised than anybody because he found
that he needed a permit to the do that. Whereas all the years
they have been doing little repairs here, little repairs there,
never getting a permit. And that's why I did the stair permit
with this, because I felt it should be clear so there would be
no further problem. So that's basically what it is, is just to
do the minor repairs on the stairs. They are pretty good except
for certain areas which you saw in the photos. And I'll have
him explain how he came to, in the diagram, to locating in this
area the observation deck. Glenn?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we can just interrupt you for a moment.
I'll let Dave explain. Go ahead, Dave.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. First off, again, kind of separating
out these two structures here. With the stairs, we didn't have
an issue with the stairs part of this application.
MR. LARK: I explained why I did that application.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. The challenge we are facing is
obviously the deck. This Board, we have the town code to work
with and also the practice of this Board. And we have not
approved any structures forward of the coastal -- and when I say
forward, I mean seaward of the coastal erosion hazard line.
It's also specifically in the Town Code it says decks and
platforms -- and I'm reading from 275-11(a)(6): No decks or
platforms shall be permitted on or near bluffs. Platforms
associated with stairs may not be larger than 32 square feet.
And what we have here is a pre-existing, nonconforming structure
Board of Trustees 19 June 16, 2010
that was removed and now they are applying for construction of a
nonconforming structure. And this Board has a practice and a
history of not approving that. So we have some options and
certainly we are welcome to hear more comments on this tonight,
but we have some options. One option is moving the entire deck
back, landward of the coastal erosion hazard line, and in
limiting in size as per code, the 32 square feet. That's all
the code allows. Another option is to, in the repair of and
maintenance of the stairs, to allow for a deck limited to 32
square foot in size at the top, where people could sit and
essentially the function would be the same, to look out over The
Sound. So those are a couple of options we thought of.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I just want to make clear, under the
coastal erosion hazard code, once a structure is removed, it
cannot be rebuilt. And this was removed. So it's pretty black
and white in the coastal erosion hazard code, that it cannot be
rebuilt.
MR. LARK: Okay. Then we can get down into quibbling, which I
didn't want to do. What is "removed." Because the original
footings are still there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's kind of like when we go out and look at a
house and someone comes in and applies for a renovation of a
house and we go out and find it's gone except for the
foundation. And we said that's a demolition. They demolished
that house. This deck has been removed.
MR. LARK: So nobody would get hurt, that's why.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I understand why. It was done for safety
reasons. You even said in your presentation, the challenge that
the applicant had was erosion had taken place to the point where
the structure, the front portion, was unsafe. This is exactly
why this Board wants all structures moved landward of the
coastal erosion hazard area. So to say even quibble, I think
this Board is already been out, we have looked at it, we have
the code in front of us. And that's the situation. So, again, we are
welcome to hear other comments that other people might have.
MR. LARK: Glenn, do you want to say anything? While he's
getting ready, so under the coastal zone law, we have to get a
variance then, wouldn't we. That does provide for a variances
in that law.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. The way the process works, correct me if
I'm wrong, Lori, we would give you a denial, and then you would
have to go to the Town Board.
MR. LARK: As I read the law, is that right.
MS. HULSE: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the process.
MR. LARK: Okay, that's an option also, then.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Absolutely.
MR. LARK: I discussed that with them. That's why I wanted him
here tonight so he could hear what you all had to say. Go
ahead, Glenn.
MR. MEYRAN: Glenn Meyran, 175 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck. I
Board of Trustees 20 June 16, 2010
understand the law. We were asking for some consideration.
Based on the fact that the deck, had we left the deck there then
you are saying we could have maintained it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, it was not a permitted structure.
MR. MEYRAN: Okay, the consideration we were asking is it was
built before permits were necessary. We didn't understand that
fact. The fact that it's on survey, when we went to sell the
house, the real estate told us that that deck is the crown jewel
of the whole property. The fact that it's on your survey means
that it can be maintained and it belongs there. So all we are
asking is for a little consideration. The deck that was there
was not to code. This one will be to code. As Mr. Lark stated,
I'm in the lumber business. I've maintained these decks and
these stairs. We've done all our own work since 1960. I worked for
the same lumber company for 38 years. So I know the right
things. We have been good stewards of that land and the bluff.
My mother planted, at that time, the Japanese black pine, which
was told by the extension services, that was good. Now they
changed, they've done a 180 on that. Just like the DEC, when we
were losing all this land, they would not let us put a bulkhead
in, and then they did a 180. So we are asking for some
consideration. Not all the laws are black and white. This deck
here will be done to code. The other one was not. These
footings are secure. We put erosion mats down to control, the
things you were worried about won't happen, and we are asking
for that consideration.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Anybody else wish to offer comments
on this application?
MR. LARK: I understand the dilemma you are faced with, so I
guess their best bet would be at least to try, with the Town
Board, which is the procedure to try to get a variance. And
then come back. What would you do, hold this in abeyance then,
or just issue a denial?
MS. HULSE: They would have to issue you a denial for you to have
standing to go to them.
MR. LARK: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from any Board members?
MR. LARK: But will it be separated so we don't have to go on the stairs?
I just did that because it was unclear to me. It was a gray area.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I want to get in that direction here.
MS. HULSE: Just, if I could add, Dave, that the Trustees don't
have discretion to deviate from the terms of the code. The
coastal erosion laws are really quite black and white and the
Trustees really have very little discretion. Actually no
discretion when it comes to that. Sorry. No discretion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. And again, I just want to ask, as an
option, would the applicant consider amending the stair application to
include a deck on the top of the stairs that complies with code?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Extended to 32-square feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In other words a maximum of 32-square foot.
MR. LARK: I understood that, yes.
Board of Trustees 21 June 16, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just so you are clear with this, it's an existing
deck and under the coastal erosion code you can expand it to 32-square
feet. That's why we are letting you do it on this one but we can't let you
do it on the one that is not there. Just so you are clear.
MR. LARK: Did you understand, Glenn?
MR. MEYRAN: Yes.
MR. LARK: Do you want to respond?
MR. MEYRAN: I think we should talk it over.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Your other option tonight, too, is we can table
this for you to discuss all your options.
MR. LARK: That would be fair.
MS. HULSE: It's up to you. If you want to take what you can
get now with the stairs and come back and re-apply, you can do
that as well. If you think you might come to a quick decision it
might behoove you to just hold it over for one more meeting and
add it, if you want to add it. It's definitely the path of least resistance.
MR. LARK: And your next meeting is when?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: July 21.
MR. LARK: Okay, and can that be done in writing to you, that
they will or they won't or just come in here on July 21.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, what you can do is come into the office to
amend your application, to reflect, on the stairs, to reflect an addition
of a platform up there. Then that would be considered next month.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We would table the hearing and then continue.
MR. LARK: Table the hearing until then, then continue.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right.
TRUSTEE KING: They can do the stairs with an 8x4 platform now.
It doesn't mean they have to build it.
MS. HULSE: I think it would be better to wait until next month.
MR. LARK: Just table the whole thing. From your perspective, I
do understand.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. If there are no other comments from the
audience?
MR. MCGREEVY: Is the Conservation Advisory Council
recommendation for erosion control devices being consider in any
construction or reconstruction of the stairs? DEC was concerned
about using erosion control devices if the stairs were strong
enough to be able to support these devices, so we are going to
make the recommendation of stairs each time.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. It is something for the applicant to
consider whether they want to add erosion control. Do you
understand what he's talking about with erosion control measures?
MR. LARK: No.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a tough issue. It's a tough issue. What
they are referring to is putting, basically, cross-section underneath
each support area to help prevent land or bluff from eroding down.
But in fairness to the applicant, the DEC have Not accepted those.
They have been denying those, So just in fairness to you, I want to let
you know it's something that we have considered but the DEC has been
denying in the past.
MR. LARK: And those stairs have not moved at all, that way,
Board of Trustees 22 June 16, 2010
since the bulkhead was put in down below. And they really do hug
the land there. They do follow the contour of it, all the way
up. As can you see in the diagram that he did. It's just mainly the
treads and a few places where they've had a couple of --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: They'll have to maintain it. I understand.
MR. LARK: That's it. But there has been no real movement.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, being no other comments, I'll make a
motion to table the application, number three, Lark & Folts on
behalf of Glenn Meyran.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number four, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on
behalf of HENRY & LINDA STEFFENS requests a Wetland Permit &
Coastal Erosion Permit to remove 92' of existing offshore
bulkhead and construct new bulkhead inplace; construct two new
six-foot returns; backfill void areas with approximately 150
cubic yards of clean trucked-in fill; revegetate area between
new bulkhead and existing retaining wall with Cape American
beach grass. Located: 4522 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
MR. COSTELLO: John Costello.
TRUSTEE KING: This should just be a wetland permit, I believe.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know why it's coastal erosion. Did
they apply for --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, it says --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: John, do you know why a coastal erosion
application was applied for on this particular property?
MR. COSTELLO: We applied for both. Wetlands and this Board.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not in the coastal erosion hazard area.
MR. COSTELLO: I know.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we can refund you that fee for the
coastal erosion.
TRUSTEE KING: The LWRP finds it consistent.
MS. HULSE: Actually, if you are removing it from coastal
erosion, you would have the applicant formally withdraw that and
then make a motion to change this item to the wetlands permit
section of the agenda.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure.
MR. COSTELLO: I formally do so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. Costello, you would like to remove the
coastal erosion application?
MR. COSTELLO: And place it in the wetlands, yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: So we can just continue on.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, so this would be under wetlands. So now
we'll move on to wetland permits only.
WETLAND PERMITS:
(Continuing with number four, Costello Marine Contracting on
behalf of HENRY & LINDA STEFFENS).
Board of Trustees 23 June 16, 2010
TRUSTEE KING: Like I said, it was found consistent. Recommended
that a silt boom be deployed during construction. I don't know
if that's necessary there or not. I'm inclined to --
MR. COSTELLO: What was that comment, Jim?
TRUSTEE KING: If practical, it's recommended you use a silt boom
during construction.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the LWRP comments.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you think that's practical there?
MR. COSTELLO: No it is not, because of the depth of water that's
sifting on the beach.
TRUSTEE KING: I agree with you, for a change. What did the
Conservation Advisory Council say, (Perusing). CAC resolved 1o
support the wetland permit application. Construct inplace using
vinyl sheathing. I believe that is what you are going to do.
And the damaged wood groin to be removed and a railing is added
to the existing deck. The groin is not part of this project.
MR. COSTELLO: It's not on his property, the damaged part.
TRUSTEE KING: I went out and looked at this. Jill and I both
looked at this, and we didn't have any problem with it. The
only exception is it's like a fairly new deck east of the
existing deck. We see no need for that. We would like to have
that removed and that area planted with American beach grass.
It's about a maybe 8x10 deck.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a secondary deck.
TRUSTEE KING: They have a real nice big deck and then a little
platform deck over there. We would like to see that gone.
MR. COSTELLO: I would have to ask the owners here. I would have
to ask them. I don't want to make a commitment, because, you
know, much of this property is going to be American beach grass.
And the deck was, that bulkhead, as it exists, there is holes in
it, it's rotating over, and it was more dangerous, for sure,
without the deck. And now that the deck is there, and they went
through the expense of installing the deck, and trying to get a
couple of years out of it, unfortunately, this year, we all know
about some of the unfortunate occurrences that have happened.
The expense of repairing and replacing the bulkhead. The other
expense, on this one here, where there is a pre-existing, two
bulkheads, we have to remove the offshore one and wood to stay
in line with the existing. The adjacent neighbor has a similar
type of deck structure.
TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing). This deck in the file here, they don't
need it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are talking about, here is this extensive
deck then here is the platform on the side. And it's between
the two bulkheads.
TRUSTEE KING: Jill and I both were out there, and --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was that permitted, the deck there?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No.
MR. COSTELLO: Environmentally, does the deck have any
environmental effect? I mean there are a lot of large decks
around. You mean, it's --
Board of Trustees 24 June 16, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, the existing deck that is there with the
railings on it, we don't have a problem with that. That's
pre-existing, and that's been there quite a while. This looks,
it's a platform next to that which is a lot -- is newer and we
just don't see a need for that. And we are trying to reduce
structure. Um, so it's just, I mean the deck that is there is
rather large already and we just feel that this deck doesn't
need to be replaced, this platform.
MR. COSTELLO: Can I make one statement on that?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure.
MR. COSTELLO: It's just that several of those jetties, it's a
reasonable stabilized beach with the small jetties along that
stretch. Unfortunately, the beach that this property did have,
is narrow, it's 92 feet, there is one jetty that is not properly
functioning there now. I mean, and that was the one that you
could see, it's not functioning. The inshore end of it was
missing this last year.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are talking about the deck on top.
MR. COSTELLO: I know, but with the beach, there is something to
go to, perhaps a little bit. But it's the position that, I
mean, if the deck was going to have an environmental impact, I
could understand, but.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: After looking at the pictures, what does the
rest the Board think?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's not in the coastal erosion area, I
don't see getting personal about it.
TRUSTEE KING: It's not a huge issue. It was just a suggestion;
naturalize the area a little bit. The stairs going down, is
that the open-grate decking on those stairs?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was just a suggestion. It's not necessary
because it's not growth under there. But with the spacing of
the deck, When you replace the deck -- when you replace the
deck, make the spacing like three-eighths so that at least then
that would go down
MR. COSTELLO: For drainage.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When they replace the decking that it's
three-eighths.
TRUSTEE KING: The decking spacing will allow for draining to the
sand below, three-eighths.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This was consistent with LWRP, as well. So I'll
second that. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 25 June 16, 2010
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number one under Wetland Permits. A&E KOEHLER
requests a Wetland Permit to repair the existing stone rip-rap.
Located: 1595 Bay Shore Road, Greenport.
LWRP has found this to be exempt from LWRP. The CAC has
resolved to support the application with the condition that the
rip-rap is landward of the mean high water and the location is
in compliance with the public trust doctrine. The Board has all
seen this. The field notes talk about, what's the purpose, and
suggest planting landward side with beach grass. And that's
pretty much it. Is there anybody here who would like to speak
on behalf of this application?
MR. KOEHLER: No. John Koehler.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What is the purpose of this, of the rip-rap?
MR. KOEHLER: The purpose of the rip-rap wall was installed back
in the late '80s to stop the erosion of the beach. It was a
20x20 foot concrete pad where you see that wooden removable deck
that extended out toward the water. And we lost approximately
100 feet of beach since the early '70s, and the existing rock
wall that was put up in the late '80s was put there to stop
further erosion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How long has this rip-rap been there?
MR. KOEHLER: Since 1987.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yours, as well? Because yours connects to the
one next door.
MR. KOEHLER: No, our neighbor's, it was put in at the same time.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. Any comments or questions from the Board?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The only comments we had was with the other
structures, all these structures, do they have permits?
MR. KOEHLER: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You have permits from the Trustees for them?
We couldn't find any.
MR. KOEHLER: Yes. I have them with me, if you want.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, it's all right. If you have them, we'll
research them in our archives. If you have them with you, we
can see them.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you have them with you, we can see them.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you have a copy of the Trustee permit,
absolutely.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We also had a comment on the removable
platform.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It seems there is a violation in the file. Has
that been taken care of?
MS. HULSE: We adjourned the matter pending the application of
the Trustees.
MR. KOEHLER: I11 give you a certificate of compliance with from
the Trustees, for the deck that you are looking at.
TRUSTEE KING: Is that for this deck here?
MR. KOEHLER: That's for that deck.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We were also asking about this. Construction
of a deck attached to the existing house. That's all it says
Board of Trustees 26 June 16, 2010
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, there was a question about that.
MR. KOEHLER: That's the deck you are talking about.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we would have to research it. Bob, if you
could go back to that picture, please, the one with the deck attached
to the house. We just need to research it because there is a platform
down there in the grass area and there is an outdoor shower that has
been installed, just to make sure they are all part of the permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just mark down April of 2007, and I'll give
this back.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is that a separate matter than what we are
talking about?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it is.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any comments or questions on the rip-rap being a
condition of the rocks?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mr. Koehler, has it been your experience
that functionally it's been working for you over the years?
MR. KOEHLER: Yes, the only thing is every year we have to take
the rocks that fall down and put them back up. But for the past
few years, the storms have been a little bit greater than usual
and we added rocks that were just gone, they washed away.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could get some clarification, the violation
was specifically for what?
MR. KOEHLER: Repairing rip-rap wall without a permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So the rip-rap wall was not permitted.
MR. KOEHLER: Yes, it was.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So it was permitted but you added rocks to it.
Counsel, that's what the violation was for?
MS. HULSE: Right, yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So there was an existing permit on the rock
wall.
MR. KOEHLER: Yes.
MS. HULSE: I don't have an existing permit.
MR. KOEHLER: I have a letter that I think I gave to the Trustees
already from the DEC that that was already there and they saw
what was done and they had no problem with what we did.
TRUSTEE KING: I believe they gave you a letter of warning about
that.
MR. KOEHLER: Yes, they told me I didn't have to do anything
different than what I did.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have a copy of the Original permit for
that wall on you tonight?
MR. KOEHLER: I do not.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we need to see. Because that has
bearing on what will happen. Especially with the violation.
MR. KOEHLER: I requested that from DEC.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not the DEC. The Trustees. The town.
MR. KOEHLER: At the time, the Trustees didn't have the rock wall
requirements. There was no requirement with the Trustees when
they were, that was installed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In 19877
MR. KOEHLER: Yes.
Board of Trustees 27 June 16, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's pretty close. Was it 19897
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So then you have been maintaining a
non-permitted structure, by adding rock.
MR. KOEHLER: A permitted structure with DEC.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, we are just dealing with Town Trustees, not
the DEC. It's a town Trustee permit. And if it was
non-permitted, you are saying you have been maintaining a non-
permitted structure.
MR. KOEHLER: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And now you are looking to get it permitted so
you can maintain it.
MR. KOEHLER: That's what you are looking for me to do.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right, I'm now clearer on this. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: This rock revetment doesn't traverse your whole
property, right?
MR. KOEHLER: No, I think, according to the survey, it goes about
three quarters of the way.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Was there ever a plan to finish it off, to extend it?
MR. KOEHLER: No, we have not had any erosion on that portion of
the property so we never thought about it.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Okay, any comments or questions on the removable
decking that is on the beach there?
MR. KOEHLER: That's also permitted with the DEC. Actually there
was no permit that was required and we were grandfathered from
the DEC and when I put that up there, I was issued a warning
back in, I think the '70s, but I was permitted by the DEC for
that removable deck to be there.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: If there are no other questions or comments.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The removable deck is not something we would
approve today, Bob. We don't want to see structure --
MR. KOEHLER: It's approved by the DEC.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: DEC is a separate entity. It's the state. We
are the town. So you need permits from both places. Just because
it's a permit from DEC doesn't mean we have to approve it.
MR. KOEHLER: When I got the permit for the deck, the Board of
Trustees requested if I wanted to remove that removable deck,
would that be a consideration. I said no, at that hearing. You
accepted that as being there. And that, in that application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When was this?
MR. KOEHLER: Back in 2007.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you have a permit from the Trustees for that
removable decking?
MR. KOEHLER: No, you didn't give me a permit. You asked me
about it and then I had said that the DEC said we had to grandfather it
and we were allowed to have it there and your comment was we were
going to leave it there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We would have to check the Minutes of that
hearing.
MS. HULSE: It would not have any effect. It was not an actual permit
issued. I mean, it's just colloquy. If it's not permitted, it's not permitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: In 2007 -- what was this hearing in 2007 for?
Board of Trustees 28 June 16, 2010
MR. KOEHLER: The deck attached to the house.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm talking about this removable deck here.
MR. KOEHLER: As part of that application, the comments from the
Board was about the removable deck on the beach. And I said I
had, it was not a permit from the DEC but it was grandfathered
in and we were not required to have a permit. And it's been
there since the '70s.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is that removable deck anchored?
MR. KOEHLER: It's just resting on sleepers and there is steel
pipe that goes through the deck, and every year we unscrew it
and we bring it inside the wall of where the house is.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So conceivably, in a storm event, that could
be loosened and be thrown in the bay.
MR. KOEHLER: Well, in the summer time it's out and in the winter
time it's on the other side of the sea wall. That's why we did it
that way, so it doesn't wash away.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm confused where he puts it in the winter and in
the summer.
MR. KOEHLER: Take a look at the other picture.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is a seawall under the deck. They put
it under the deck
MR. KOEHLER: We put it on the other side of the seawall.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So if the event --
TRUSTEE KING: I understand.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we, if we have a storm in the summertime,
You could remove it and put it under there.
MR. KOEHLER: Correct. It comes apart in the four pieces so you
could pick it up and remove it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I understand that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our question tonight is because while you are
here for the rock wall, if we are going to, you need an approval
from the Trustees for that in order to keep it. And so that's
what we are considering to put that in with this approval, for
any decision we make tonight.
MR. KOEHLER: I thought I got that when I got the deck approved.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't have that in front much us tonight.
We have to research that.
TRUSTEE KING: I prefer to table this.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is enough questions here for me to want to
table this, just so we can pull the file out from 2007 to see
what is permitted and what is not, that way we can make sure we
are doing the right thing all around. So I would make a motion
to table this application.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Before we table it, are there any other members
of the audience who would like to comment on the application
just so we can get more comments on the record?
(No response).
Not seeing anybody, now I'm comfortable with the resolution.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have a resolution and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 29 June 16, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two, Catherine Mesiano, Inc., on behalf
of JUDITH ULLMAN & YEHUDIT MOCH requests a Wetland Permit to
reconstruct the foundation and renovate the existing dwelling,
remove and replace the existing sanitary system and trim the
phragmites to 12" in height, as needed. Located: 7617 Soundview
Avenue, Southold.
This is consistent with the LWRP. The CAC supports the
application with the condition that the proper drainage plan
according to Chapter 236 of the Town Code; the footprint is
maintained in the existing location.
The Board had some questions on this. You are very vague
on describing renovations. You just say renovations to house.
MS. MESIANO: The renovation are on the interior. And the
primary reason for coming before the Board is that the owners
needed to put heat in the house, and the cost of the heat and,
excuse me, and new windows, constitutes more than 50% of the
value of the structure, therefore the foundation has to be made
FEMA compliant, because it's nine inches too Iow. So the
foundation has to be replaced in order to raise the house nine
inches so that they can put heat and new windows in the house.
There is a front porch on the house which during the course of
the proposed renovation of the house there will be heat put in that
porch along with the rest of the house. So that space will become
habitable conditioned space rather than unheated front porch.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can you change the description to say to
reconstruct the foundation and interior renovations? Because
just to say renovations, that could be anything. We don't know,
we don't have a plan. So if you were to say renovations --
MS. MESIANO: If there had been any exterior renovations I would
have given you all of that. But yes, we can clarify the
renovations as interior.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: So this house will have to be raised to put the
new foundation under it.
MS. MESIANO: Correct.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you anticipate it being a tear down,
eventually?.
MS. MESIANO: No. The owners had hoped to be able to do some
other renovations and put a partial second story on the house
but because of the fact that they are nine inches too Iow and
they have to put in a whole new foundation, they have no money
left to do anything with the house. So it's not going to be a
tear down. Maybe some day in the future they'll come back for
another permit to put up a partial second story. But at this
point in time, they have to winterize the house so that they can
get a CO for a year-round residence to satisfy their mortgage
company who gave them a certain amount of time within which to
get a CO for a year-round residence.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, I know you have heard this before but
I'll say it for the record. If you get this approval and during the
Board of Trustees 30 June 16, 2010
raising of the house and reconstruction of the foundation, if you find
it needs to be renovated, you know you have to come back.
MS. MESIANO: Yes, I know that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The phragmites?
MS. MESIANO: Yes, it's very non-specific because they didn't
want to just wipe out all of the phragmites across the whole
front of the property. They want like to be able to canoe or
kayak through it so they would like to do some thinning of the
phragmites. I don't know how else to put it. I asked them to
show me where they would like to clear the phragmites out, and I
gave you what they gave me. If you want -- let me back up.
It's my understanding that phragmites are no longer considered
to be our friend and cutting of phragmites is not an activity
that would be frowned upon. If you would like to, for the sake
of making it simpler, give them a permit to cut all of the
phragmites and if they choose to leave some?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our problem, we don't mind phragmites
being cut to a foot high but the phragmites that are shown on the
survey of where they want to cut ara actually in the water. You know,
they are in the high tide. How do they propose oppose 1o get to
them to cut them down?
MS. MESIANO: Kayak, canoe. Cut them by hand. They just want to
be able to thin them and they want to -- they like the wildlife.
They like the bird watching. They like what is. They bought it
for where it is and what it is. They are trying to maintain
what it is without denuding the property. They just want to do
some selective clearing and cutting of those phragmites so they
can get in there with the kayak or canoe.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And they know they can't touch any of the other
plants that are in there.
MS. MESIANO: Yes, I made them aware of that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The other thing we noticed, at the seaward end
of the path, there is a carpet laid down there, probably to keep
down the growth there. We would like that carpet removed.
MS. MESIANO: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
MS. MESIANO: I should note, too, that in my proposal I noted
installation of the new septic system and, just to get it on the
record, it's an adequate distance from the wetlands and that
will certainly improve the conditions because, frankly, we can't
find a septic system, so I don't know what is thera. So
whatever we put there will improve the situation.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any, that right-of-way, that the
septic system is in part in the right-of-way. Is that -- I
don't know what the rules are with the septic, it looks like
part of the septic is --
MS. MESIANO: They own the property that the septic system is on.
They own both piece of property. That's why there was 20-some
odd pieces in my mailing. Because if you look at the tax map or
the survey, you see they own two lots, number nine and 14. One
Board of Trustees 31 June 16, 2010
of those lots consists of the entire, I'll call it a driveway,
coming off Soundview, then it loops around to the left or west,
and it is the roadway that all of those other houses front on.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And that's, I just have never seen one septic
system approved on two lots, for one lot.
MS. MESIANO: Because the lots ultimately will have to be merged.
That's the only way I'm going to get this through the Health
Department. It's two lots held in the same name. They did not
take them singly and separately. They own both pieces of property
in the same name. That's why I submitted the application under, I put
the two lots on the application rather than the lot that the house is on.
Because that one, the one pool straddles the line and the expansion
pools are shown on the other.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Actually, that is out of our jurisdiction, so I
guess we would --
MS. MESIANO: I'm not asking you for approval of it. I'm just
making the point that the installation of the new septic system
is going to improve the environmental quality as to, as far as
activity on this lot.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with that.
MS. MESIANO: But I'm not asking for approval of it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me just ask counsel for my perspective.
It's out of our jurisdiction. Should we have a concern with
approving something on two sets of lots that is out of our
jurisdiction? Any approvals we have is within our jurisdiction but
the septic system that is on this plan is on two separate lots.
MS. HULSE: (Perusing).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The septic system as shown on this survey is
out of our jurisdiction, except for the holding tank.
MS. MESIANO: The septic tank, which is a closed tank is more
than 75 feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. And our jurisdiction is 100.
MS. MESIANO: And the leaching pools are 100.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So they are out of our jurisdiction.
MS. MESIANO: And the septic tank is more than 75 feet. It's
probably more like 85 feet.
TRUSTEE KING: Cathy, isn't there some sort are right-of-way for
other people to get access down to the water.
MS. MESIANO: There is an easement across that roadway for
people who live across the street on Soundview. And if you are
at the property recently, you would have notice that the area
just to the left of this path is heavily overgrown. That's the
area where the right-of-way legally exists. I have been to this
property over the past three years, because I worked for the
prior owner as well, and I have never seen any signs of anyone
traversing that area. I sent the notices to people that live
across the street who have the benefit of the right-of-way and
got no reaction from anyone.
TRUSTEE KING: I remember a lot of people coming in, because I
think there was at one time an application to put a dock there.
MS. MESIANO: There was an application for a dock. John Costello
Board of Trustees 32 June 16, 2010
had done that several years ago.
TRUSTEE KING: A lot of people traverse through there and there
was a lot of argument.
MS. MESIANO: It was not a dock by use for anyone other than the
owners of the house on the smaller of the two lots. And it was
not being proposed in the area that would have extended off that
right-of-way.
TRUSTEE KING: So where the plans are it shows this wooden porch,
that will become part of the house?
MS. MESIANO: The roof over wood porch is an existing part of the
dwelling and in the process of the renovation, that porch will
become part of the heated living area.
TRUSTEE KING: So there will be a foundation under it, in other
words, the foundation will change shape.
MS. MESIANO: The foundation will change shape but the footprint
of the house will not change.
TRUSTEE KING: Right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, are there any other comments?
Comments from the audience?
MR. MARTIN: Tom Martin, 2350 Jackson Street, New Suffolk, New
York 11956. Just a little explanation. I got this notice two
days ago. I got a call from my brother last night. He got this
notice yesterday. My two brothers own the adjoining property.
This is the notice. I just want to say, it really doesn't show
you too much. And they got it yesterday, in Montauk. So they
asked me to come tonight. In the meantime, my wife went to the
Trustees' office and we kind of got this sketch which, I think
it explains things a little more. My family has owned the
property for over 40 years. My mom and dad had the piece that
my two brothers own now. And I own the property adjoining
theirs to the south, and we have for over 40 years. I just want
to ask questions, again, I really didn't get an explanation on
the cesspools. I know it's not the Trustees' jurisdiction, but
it appears that they are off the property. The other question I
had, is it shows these hay bales or whatever they propose, it
looks like it's going to go out into the right-of-way. I mean,
that denies access on that read, I guess.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: During construction.
MR. MARTIN: Yes. I'm just saying being a fireman and EMT, do
you notify the fire department you are blocking this road, that
they don't have access? I'm just throwing --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's a very good point.
MR. MARTIN: A lot of questions. The other question I have,
showing the cesspools and saying it's an improvement, what was
the water supply?
MS. MESIANO: Public water.
MR. MARTIN: You brought public water in?
MS. HULSE: Sir, comments have to be directed to the Trustees.
MR. MARTIN: Sorry. Public water?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. MARTIN: You have a letter from the water authority? Again,
Board of Trustees 33 June 16, 2010
it's not our jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We usually don't require that. We usually take
the applicant's word on that.
MR. MARTIN: I'm just here trying to find out what is going on.
One of the Trustees mentioned, a couple of years ago there was a
grand proposal for a dock that looked like something you could
tie the Queen Mary to. I think, my brothers and I have been
through about five owners of the adjoining property. And
everybody, they had ideas. And the other thing I noticed on the
survey, there is a retaining wall on my brother's property that
was not put there by my brother. I know this has nothing to do
with this hearing. But, like I said, we owned that property for
40 years. We have had problems with neighbors in the past.
They thought they had use of my brother's property for their,
they had hey burning pit, and they had furniture and so on and
so forth. I don't know about the current owners. But in the
past. And they moved the furniture back over. We had a quick
survey done. My brother-in-law is a surveyor. He just shot the
distances, we put some markers up to delineate the property, but
it looks like they continue to violate it. They only have about
ten or 15 feet between the house and the property line. So
MS. MESIANO: 13 to be exact.
MR. MARTIN: And I guess they were using our property previously
MS. MESIANO: Well, I could explain that.
MS. HULSE: It's real not necessary for this hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's something between you two outside.
MS. MESIANO: I don't intend to touch it. With a ten foot pole
or 13 foot pole.
MR. MARTIN: Okay. Basically, we wanted to just know what was
going on. I don't really think this notice tells you too much.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That notice just serves to notify you there is
an application and then you can come in and review the rest of
the file.
MR. MARTIN: Can you tell me what those stand for?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What are you talking about, the circles?
MR. MARTIN: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe Cathy explained, and I'm assuming
that's what she meant where the applicant marked that area.
It's the phragmites they wanted to cut down to a foot high. So that's --
MR. MARTIN: So the "X's" are the phragmites.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The "X's", yes, is the area where the
phragmites are that they want to cut to a foot high. There will
be no other bushes or trees that will be cut down.
MR. MARTIN: Someone else mentioned a right-of-way to the pond.
When we first bought the property, it was wide open, and there
was a couple of people that had canoes. This is 40 years ago,
down there. But I guess in the meantime it's kind of grown
over, and I really don't know, do you need a permit now?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, the previous owners came in, if I remember
correctly, and we gave them a permit to clear that pathway.
That's in the picture.
Board of Trustees 34 June 16, 2010
MR. MARTIN: That's not the common pathway, right?
MS. HULSE: Ms. Mesiano just said it's not. The other one was
grown over. You would need a permit.
TRUSTEE KING: There was a violation issued there from the DEC
and they made them remove a lot of the woodchips because they
pushed everything right into the wetlands and they made them
restore some of that area. I don't know where that is in
relation to the legal right-of-way.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you want to come in and clear a path on the
legal right-of-way you are talking about, you would need to come
to this office first and get a permit.
MR. MARTIN: Okay. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have a question for the applicant.
MS. MESIANO: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: To address one concern that I have heard that is
within Trustee jurisdiction, that is the proposed row of hay
bales and silt fence. The area that is marked "dirt driveway"
that is within our jurisdiction, would it be possible for that
hay bale and silt fence like, line to be moved landward of that
dirt driveway so it doesn't impede that right-of-way? I'm not
talking about the area outside of our jurisdiction where you run
into the cesspools and sanitary
MS. MESIANO: I understand that. And my concern, and ultimately
the answer is yes, whatever you want, we'll move them. But my
concern is that dudng the excavation of the septic system,
those hay bales will prevent any runoff from going into the area
that would be the far western side of the waterfront part of the
property. The wetland area of the property. So I suppose we
could tighten those hay bales up as much as we can and get them
off of the area that would be traversed so as not to obstruct
it, but I'm sure in the event of an emergency, a fire truck
could drive over them. But then I'm stuck between a rock and a
hard spot because I need to prevent the runoff from effecting
the wetland.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are just saying during, you can -- I don't
know how you propose to put the cesspools in while you are
blocking -- I mean that area has to be blocked during
construction of the cesspools. So you have to think, that's
outside of our jurisdiction, but you have to think how people
will get in and out while you are doing that.
MS. MESIANO: The only people getting in and out of this area,
are the people who live in this house. Everyone else who is on
the wrap-around part of the westerly extension, they enter and
exit by the cut on to Soundview Avenue from that portion of the
roadway that is, it's not paved but it's a gravel roadway. The
only people that actually use this as a driveway are the people
who inhabit this house. The two properties in front of it are
vacant parcels.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, then that would not matter because that's
in front of that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's why I was just addressing within our
Board of Trustees 35 June 16, 2010
jurisdiction and I'm talking about, I just measured it off. If
you move the hay bale line so it doesn't block what is listed as
dirt driveway, you still have 20 feet there of room to, for
equipment to maneuver.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think the easiest way to deal with this is
just have them, in the resolution, to say put the hay bales in
such a way where it does not block
MS. MESIANO: Does not block access by emergency vehicles.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Doesn't block the right-of-way. Because I
think it could be done, even if you do a second row of hay bales
in line with the house or something.
MS. MESIANO: However you want to word it is fine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any mother comments
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application
of Cathy Mesiano on behalf of Judith UIIman & Yehudit Moch for a
wetland permit to reconstruct the foundation and interior
renovations of existing dwelling, and to replace the -- I'm not
going to say the whole sanitary system, just the part that is in
our jurisdiction.
MS. MESIANO: Installation of the septic system that is within
your jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, to replace the holding tank that is within
our jurisdiction, and to trim the phragmites to a foot high by
hand and not to trim other bushes that are within the
phragmites.
TRUSTEE KING: We don't know where the current septic system is?
MS. MESIANO: I haven't been able to find it. I have run into
this in other situations where there were old to the cottages
that were not year-round houses.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me, Jim, was I was not finished with my
motion. If you want me to stop and go back, we can do that.
Because I already close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, go ahead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can open it again.
TRUSTEE KING: No, that's okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And with the condition with the hay bales
during construction in such a way as to not block the
right-of-way, and gutters, leaders and drywells on the house is
it. And that's my motion.
MR. MARTIN: What was that?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Gutters, leaders and drywells.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In other words so it complies with Chapter 236
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER; Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And this is consistent with LWRP, as I
Board of Trustees 36 June 16, 2010
mentioned.
MS. MESIANO: Thank you
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing, in the matter of JMO
Environmental Consulting on behalf of WL LYONS BROWN III &
SUSANNAH S. BROWN requests a Wetland Permit for the existing
4.5'x133' timber fixed dock and to replace 11 pilings. Located:
Hedge Street, Fishers Island.
We have a report under the LWRP program that it is an
exempt action for a minor action. And Trustees Bredemeyer, King
and Doherty went to Fishers Island and performed the inspection
of the site. The CAC didn't make an inspection but did indicate
concerns concerning the possibility of eel grass and suitability
of the plans. The Trustees did note during the course of their
inspection there were no eel grass beds under this dock and we
did indicate a request to the applicant to modify their plans so
that what we found to be on the seaward most portion of the
dock, that would result in an amended plan that would reflect
the same width on the more landward section, and a plan to show
all the existing and all the proposed pilings which meets the
needs of the Conservation Advisory Council. That said, is there
anyone here who wishes to speak on this application?
MR. JUST: Good evening. Glenn Just, JMO Consulting, for the
applicant, the Brown family. If there are any questions from
the Board or public.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there a set of plans? Didn't we talk about
narrowing the bulkhead? It's been done?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They did. It's been done on the plans.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: An interesting aside for those of you who
are Board watchers. We have a current president of the
Trustees, a former president and two former presidents went to
Fishers Island and since one was actually a king, it's the first
time ever we've had three presidents and a king in the boat
together. And we made it back and we all got along.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He's been waiting all day to bring that one up.
TRUSTEE KING: This looks to me like it's the same width all the
way around.
MR. JUST: I wanted to hear what the Trustees exactly had to say.
It would have been some phone messages back and forth since your
trip out there, exactly what you wanted to do as far as the
width. I had the plans amended to show that the existing piles
that are to remain, the existing to be replaced. Right now they
just want to get the dock in shape for the summer; replace a few
boards, legalize the dock and in the Fall do the work. That's
what I'm here to ask you. What is the width at the landward end
and seaward end that you wanted to match up?
TRUSTEE KING: The seaward end is wider. The dock is wider than
what was indicated. Is there a permit on this? I can't remember.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, this was an application to permit so
they can repair and maintain.
Board of Trustees 37 June 16, 2010
MR. JUST: The survey showed it's 5.23 feet wide at seaward end,
then comes in about 60 feet and it's 5.08 feet. Then at the
landward end it's 5.98 feet. So it's wide at the seaward end,
wide at the landward end and narrow in the middle.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we wanted it to match the narrow
end, which is toward the seaward end.
MR. JUST: There is a section that is 5.08 feet.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We do have -- I can see we have pictures.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It should be in the file underneath.
MR. JUST: Do you see what I'm saying, on sheet three. They show
the various widths. Here it shows five and change. Here is
showing 5.08. Here 5.23.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think when we were out in the field --
TRUSTEE KING: This is wider.
MR. JUST: The middle is fine.
TRUSTEE KING: This is wider.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think what we were discussing in the field,
now that I'm looking at the pictures, we noticed that the
seaward end is reconstructed and in good condition. So what we
were proposing is to, you can keep that width at the seaward end
but narrow, if you are rebuilding all this, narrow the rest of this.
MR. JUST: I just wanted clarification, that's fine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So to three feet; or four feet?
TRUSTEE KING: I would recommend four feet and let him keep the
other section at five.
MR. JUST: Again, this dock is not, had no permit originally
built. Again we are trying to legalize it to do repairs on it
so when we come in for a complete reconstruction, you want it to
be four feet in width is what you are looking for?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Until you get to that newer outer section. That
can be left at that wider width. Because that's still in good shape.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And because it's Fishers Island and a lot of
the history of the Fishers Island permits is the docks are wider
over there. So that's why we are allowing to keep that extra,
the five-feet width at the end.
MR. JUST: That's what I thought it was, but I just needed
clarification.
MR. MCGREEVY: From a conservation point of view, to reconstruct
the present dock to accommodate just a four-foot width, from a
conservation point of view, I think it's overkill.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are not asking them to reconstruct the whole
dock. We are just saying when they do, as they do repairs, when
they do, to make it four feet.
MR. MCGREEVY: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Any interest in an open-grate walkway?
MR. JUST: Perhaps later on in time, at the landward end where it
goes into the marsh. I could certainly talk to Mr. Brown about
that. There was some questions as far as, in my notes as well,
the piles are replaced ten foot on center?
Board of Trustees 38 June 16, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We were saying to the pilings, we noticed there
was a lot of them there. So if you are going to reconstruct the
dock, maybe you don't need to replace all those pilings.
MR. JUST: That's exactly what we were going to do. Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else wish to speak on this
application?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I move to make a motion we approve this dock
of Lyons Brown and Susannah Brown subject to approved plans
showing a future maximum width of four feet, pilings ten foot on
center, and open-grate over the new section, over the intertidal
marsh, at the landward portion, and that the seaward portion may
remain at it's existing width until --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, the seaward portion can be reconstructed in
the five-foot width.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In a five-foot width. So the plans will
reflect that.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number four, Garrett A. Strang, Architect on
behalf of RENATE HERTEL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
5x10' addition on first floor underneath existing second-floor
deck. Located: 205 Cedar Point Drive West, Southold.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be
consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council supported the
application with the condition of proper drainage under Chapter
236 of the Town Code and a 20-foot non-turf buffer landward of
the wetland boundary. As I said, the Board did go out and
looked at this and on the field notes I noticed we had also
wanted to make sure that it was compliant with Chapter 236. And
we had also noticed a goose fence along the water edge which,
technically, in the Town Code, is not allowed. And we would ask
for removal of that goose fence as a condition of this permit.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. STRANG: Yes. Good evening. Garrett Strang on behalf of
Renate Hertel. I do have a minor change that occurred with
respect to this yesterday. My client called me and asked if at
all possible that the Board would entertain modifying the size
of this addition. As shown on the map, it's 5x10' and she is
asking that the Board would entertain 5x12'. Which in essence
moves it slightly closer to the edge of the high water mark.
It's presently about 70 feet back. It is askew. So by adding
two feet it would make it about 69 feet back. I do have a
couple of copies of a map I marked up in red to show that
Board of Trustees 39 June 16, 2010
particular situation. If the Board is willing to entertain
this, I'll provide final maps showing that change.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
MR. STRANG: The Board did make mention, I understood, in the
opening comments about a non-turf buffer at the edge of the
wetlands. I believe there is some natural vegetation that is
already existing there. Are we talking about landward of that
or, because there is phragmites and the like growing there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think that was a comment from the
Conservation Advisory Council.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, it was a suggestion from the CAC.
Is that something your client would entertain?
MR. STRANG: I can't speak for her, and she is not present this
evening. I can't address that without consulting with her.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What's the Board's feelings on this slight
modification?
TRUSTEE KING: I think it's insignificant.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree. I have no problem.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. That, in a word, sums it up. Anybody
else in the audience have any comments for or against this
application?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Garrett Strang on behalf of Hertel at 205 Cedar Point Drive with
the modification of the construction of the addition is going to
be 5x12' and there will be a submission of new plans to refiect
that and that the goose fence along the water's edge of the
property will be removed. And this was found consistent, again,
under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. STRANG: Thank you, have a good evening.
Number five, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of ROGER
PRAETORIUS requests a Wetland Permit to install a docking
facility consisting of a fixed walkway with open-grate decking
4x85' supported by eight-inch diameter 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 marine piles. Located: 975 VVestview Drive, Mattituck.
This was reviewed under the LVVRP and was found consistent.
I think it was found consistent because it's in Mattituck Creek.
MR. FITZGERALD: May I come up so I can hear you?
TRUSTEE KING: Sure. It was found consistent under the LWRP
Board of Trustees 40 June 16, 2010
because it's in Mattituck Creek. Mattituck Creek is considered a
maritime center of some sort. The CAC resolved not to support the
wetland permit application. CAC does not support the application
because there was not enough information to make a recommendation,
and the project was not staked.
MR. FITZGERALD: What does that mean?
TRUSTEE KING: That was just their response. They couldn't support it
because they couldn't find it. I had the same problem before.
MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know what was not there that they were
looking for, but.
TRUSTEE KING: I had a couple of questions. I notice that you
indicated the dock to the south. You didn't indicate the dock
to the north.
MR. FITZGERALD: This is the dock to the north.
TRUSTEE KING: That's it there, okay.
MR. FITZGERALD: This is Policek and this is Weiner.
TRUSTEE KING: As you can see, it went out beyond the field line
quite a bit.
MR. FITZGERALD: I'm sorry?.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm sorry, too. We should see if we can pull this
in a little bit here.
MR. FITZGERALD: Jim, this is -- the size was at discretion of
the surveyor and I don't see any problem with making it get into
the groin.
TRUSTEE KING: The only suggestion I have, and I have said this
before, in Mattituck Creek, is 16-foot ramp, it's like that at
Iow tide. You should have a 20-foot ramp. You have a
five-and-a-half, six-foot rise and fall of the tide. You need a longer ramp.
That does not necessarily make it longer, you know what I mean?
MR. FITZGERALD: I understand. We could figure out the overall
length and then change the fixed walkway as necessary to
accommodate a 20-foot ramp.
TRUSTEE KING: Most of the docks that we have been approving
lately is 4x4's over the vegetated wetlands, if there is any;
six-inch piles on the catwalk; and two eight-inch piles holding
the float in place.
MR. FITZGERALD: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: We have been pretty consistent with that.
MR. FITZGERALD: That's what we found to work in that area.
TRUSTEE KING: It seems to. And it's the only thing DEC was
approving. Whether or not that's changed, I don't know.
MR. FITZGERALD: So how much does it look like you want it
shortened?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's an 85-foot catwalk.
TRUSTEE KING: This is the seaward end. I would say 15 feet. If
we shorten it 15 feet. That should pull it in. So it would be
a 70-foot catwalk
MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. Or shorter, if we make a 20-foot ramp.
TRUSTEE KING: Well, the ramp can extend a little further out to
the float, too, to shorten things up.
MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. I'll work that out.
Board of Trustees 41 June 16, 2010
TRUSTEE KING: As long as we have the overall length maintaining
that pier line. That's what we are looking for. Okay?
MR. FITZGERALD: Fine.
TRUSTEE KING: Then we can we get new plans indicating that.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim, since there is quite a few changes not
only with the length but with the size of the pilings, should
we table this to get new drawings or are you comfortable moving
on it subject 1o new drawings?
TRUSTEE KING: Well, it's a vacant lot. So there is no big rush.
I don't think it's for sale. I don't think it's a big rush. I
would rather just table this. Give us a new set of plans showing
the 70-foot catwalk, the size of the piles.
MR. FITZGERALD: Tell me again what you think for the piles.
Well, you'll say it in --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think Jim is proposing to table this.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we'll table this and you can give us a new
set of plans. Do you want me to write it down?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't you just draw on that and give him
that back. That's probably the easiest. If you want to move
ahead with the resolution, we can get that to him.
TRUSTEE KING: We can just table this.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I'm saying.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to table this.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. MCGREEVY: Is there any recommendation for a grated walkway?
TRUSTEE KING: It is. It was applied for.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Open grate.
TRUSTEE KING: Open-grate catwalk.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. Fitzgerald, if you want to take a seat,
we'll get that to you and get to the next one. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number six, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of GARY SALICE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
second-story addition to the existing one-story dwelling,
abandon the existing cesspool and install an upgraded sanitary
system. Located: 6370 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue.
This is exempt from LWRP. The CAC supports the application
with the condition hay bales are in place during construction
and ten-foot non-turf is maintained landward of the wetland
boundary; the driveway is permeable and proper drainage is
installed in accordance with Chapter 236 of the Town Code. The
Board has some comments of the septic expansion tank and hay
bales, gutters, leadem and drywells. Is there anyone here to
speak on behalf of this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental, for
the applicant. First of all, you know, we have a small house,
we are going to put on a small, second-story addition. The main
thing about this application is the abandonment and removal of
the cesspool, which is basically on top of a marsh. So one
Board of Trustees 42 June 16, 2010
thing I did ask the Salice's for was the pos§ibility of
relocating the whole thing landward. That would involve
significant expense. So then I asked them, can you tell me
whether or not the first floor will support the second floor, so
we don't have a situation where it's torn down to the ground,
which happens from time to time. So I asked them to have their
architect provide us with a letter it could be built in such a
way. I'll put that into the record.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you, that was one of our concerns as
well.
MR. ANDERSON: To the best of our knowledge, this house can be
supported, can support a second story. We fully intend to
comply with the town's drainage code. We provided sufficient
drainage for that purpose already. We waited for a two-inch
rainstorm that appears in your drainage system calculations. So
the only thing I would suggest is that perhaps just show a line
of hay bales that would pretty much address everyone's concern.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You don't show any drywells on this survey.
That's one of our --
MR. ANDERSON: Which survey are you looking at?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Maybe you do. (Perusing).
MR. ANDERSON: Right here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. So the drywells are on the survey. The
question we have, and, Jay, you can help me with this, with the
septic, you wanted to flip flop --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think several of the Board members
discussed possibly moving the expansion pools, flipping the
expansion pools with current construction so there would be no
need to have the septic in our jurisdiction at this time. I
don't know if you have that flexibility.
MR. ANDERSON: There is a 100-foot radius shown on the survey.
The closest cesspool is 91 feet. If we were to flip them, it
would move it, arguably three to four feet further away. As long
as the septic system works, I have no problem with that. So you
would take the first two cesspools and make those --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, we were trying to get it out of our
jurisdiction entirely. If there was a plan alteration that
could flip the working, reconstructive system out of our
jurisdiction and allow the expansion pools to be in for the
future -- we thought we would simplify it for you.
MR. ANDERSON: We can't really do that because we have to
maintain them ten feet from the property line. But we could
flip the expansion pools, which are the cross hatch ones --
TRUSTEE KING: Right. Flip flop them.
MR. ANDERSON: And it picks up another four feet. You'll wind up
with something like 95 feet from the nearest active drain.
TRUSTEE KING: Right.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess there is no benefit to that change,
in real terms.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We mentioned the hay bale line. At what
contour line?
Board of Trustees 43 June 16, 2010
MR. ANDERSON: I would just snug it right up against the
building. You have that patio there. We show it three or four
feet from the building.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is depicted on the plan a contour, looks
like a five-foot contour line going right up against the patio.
If we could have the hay bale line right along that five-foot
contour line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Or we should say the hay bale line not to go
any further seaward than the five-foot contour line. It could
be further landward.
MR. ANDERSON: That's fine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That will work? And you see how that goes out,
they don't have to follow that contour line. Just don't go any
further seaward than that five-foot contour line.
MR. ANDERSON: We can just show it on the map.
MR. MCGREEVY: What is the contour line related to?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The contour lines on the survey, it's just a
lot of times for clarification so we are on the same page.
MR. MCGREEVY: Is that the elevation line?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. And it's just, for clarification, it's an
easier way to describe where to place them.
Are there any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
Any other comments from the audience?
(No response).
Does the Board feel there is enough non-turf buffer there?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: As I recall, there isn't any turf down there.
It's all natural vegetation.
TRUSTEE KING: Just leave it alone.
MR. MCGREEVY: That was the purpose of the CAC recommendation.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you want to make that a condition of the
permit to have a non-turf area.
TRUSTEE KING: Just to remain as it is.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The yard to remain in a naturalized state.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's a good way to put it.
MR. ANDERSON: So the yard seaward of the building to remain in
its present, natural state.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The yard seaward of the house. Is there any
other comments?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application
of Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of Gary Salice
with the condition of a new survey submitted showing the hay
bale line at the five-foot contour, on the five-foot contour
line, and that the yard seaward of the house remain in its
present natural state, and of course as depicted on the plans,
gutters, leaders and drywells. And that's it.
Board of Trustees 44 June 16, 2010
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number seven, Costello Marine Contracting on
behalf of IOANNA & DAVIS MOORE requests a Wetland Permit to
repair and/or replace section of the existing stairway to beach
as required, inkind and inplace. Located: 21075 Soundview
Avenue, Southold.
The LWRP has found this to be exempt. The CAC resolved to
support the application with the condition that the staircase is
constructed with enough strength and support to accommodate
erosion control devices at the base of the support posts.
The Board has all seen this, and the field notes do suggest
that we reduce the middle platform to 32-square foot as per
code. Is there anybody who would like to address this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. My name is John Costello, Costello Marine
Contracting. We are the agents for the Moore's on this application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's pretty self evident.
MR. COSTELLO: The only comments I have, it is extremely
dangerous right now and all we are trying to do is secure all
the stairway, just pull the top stairway back and fasten it on
the post and into the bank, and level it up, of course. The
other thing is we are not intending to do anything to any of the
deck areas at present. The stairway to the beach, on the top of
the wall to the beach, is just non-existent. It's out in the
Bay somewhere, out in the Sound somewhere. The storm took every
portion of the bottom one out and took it away. And we intend
to build a new set of stairs, just from the top of the wall to
the beach. There are a couple of sections of this stairway,
this and the second one, where they need, the treads need
reinforcing to make it safe. The owner of the property, who has
other plans in the future, and there will be a separate
application, we'll have bulkhead problems are there, but we'll
try to address it one at a time. They just want to utilize
these existing stairs for this upcoming season.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there a permit for these stairs, an existing
permit for these?
MR. COSTELLO: I'm not sure. I don't know. I don't have a clue.
They have been there a little while, but I don't know how long.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't see anything in the file.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Would this require coastal erosion, too?
TRUSTEE KING: Stairs are exempt from coastal erosion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What are you going to do with that drain line?
MR. COSTELLO: That drain line is going to be removed somewhere
along the line. That is creating more problems -- that is one
of the reasons that those stairs slid and separated. What
happened is that clay, the clay that is up there, when it gets
wet, it's like grease, and when it slid one foot, it takes
everything with it. And that's the separation. There are
Board of Trustees 45 June 16, 2010
several pieces of property up there in the same condition.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any other comments or questions from
the Board?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think if we do move to approve this I would
like to say, I hear what Mr. Costello saying he is not touching
the decking but I would like to make it that when that decking
is to be replaced it will conform to the current code, to be reduced.
MR. COSTELLO: It would be a separate application at that time
and I'm sure --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would like to put it in this application, as
well, just to make it clear to the applicant, if that's okay
with everybody else.
MR. MCGREEVY: A question, Jill. Would that condition, the clay
condition, would that preclude putting in erosion control
devices, if they were applicable? Would that clay preclude
putting in erosion control?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I couldn't answer that. Mr. Costello?
MR. COSTELLO: Well, it's difficult, because you would have to
replace the clay with a more stable soil that would allow for
drainage, and it would only drain down to a certain level, then
run into clay again. Economically, it would almost be
impossible. What you have to do is try to vegetate it and hope
that the roots of most of the vegetation will take hold. It's
just that we've had some unusual wet weather that caused the
problem.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As Mr. Costello said, they'll be coming in for
many more applications. There is a lot of issues on that
property. So we'll take care of them one at a time.
MR. COSTELLO: We are just trying to make it safe right now, for
access.
The DEC has issued a letter saying that no permit was necessary
on the repair of this.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lucky you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I assume that's why you didn't put in for a
coastal erosion permit, right?
MR. COSTELLO: We didn't because it's just a repair of the
existing only.
TRUSTEE KING: What about new stairs, John? We don't usually do
coastal erosion permits on new stairways, do we? I thought that
was an unregulated activity.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's the platforms that puts it into coastal
erosion. If they have platforms larger than 32-square feet.
MR. COSTELLO: Platforms are in your regulations on your coastal
erosion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We talked about tightening that up.
MR. COSTELLO: Don't tighten anything up.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Maybe that's not the right word. To make it
smoother.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions or concerns from the Board?
(No response).
Any from the audience
Board of Trustees 46 June 16, 2010
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to approve the
application by Costello Marine on behalf of Ioanna and David
Moore as written, with the stipulation that the drain line be
removed so that it's no longer draining on the bluff, and when
the time does come to replace or rebuild that middle deck that
it be no larger than 32-square foot as per code.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY:
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number eight, Costello Marine Contracting on
behalf of BELVEDERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, requests a'
Wetland Permit to backfill washed out areas with clean, well compacted
sand fill; construct an 8x26'6" thick reinforced concrete apron on six
inches well tamped gravel base; provide a C.l. catch basin and four-inch
drain line; and re-install existing wooden and chainlink gates inplace.
Located: First & Jackson Street, New Suffolk.
We have a report from the LWRP that the action is consistent. And a
report from the CAC, they move to approve the application. The Trustees
were there. Just a little unclear to us what the dimensions of this, the
drawings seems to show that this apron would be at the top of the existing
ramp but we were not sure because it looked like the concrete was sound
there. Is there anyone who wishes to speak on this application?
MR. COSTELLO: As can you notice in this view, what we are going
to do from the existing ramp, there is a little shoulder, eight-foot wide
shoulder. And it was refilled with sand recently. That shoulder, what they
are going to do, is put a drainage ring in there. The drainage ring on a
normal rain, would alleviate some of the washout that has occurred
several times at that location. And what they are doing is, they are
taking the responsibility of maintaining that access to the rampway,
instead of asking the Highway Department or somebody else to try to do
that. They just want to make sure that that access, they went in thero and
put the sand to fill the hole there that is washed out. I mean, they would be
making a permit application for the --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Does this come in front of the fence?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, just in front of the fence. They own the
shoulder there. What they'll do is put in a drainage ring to
try to alleviate some degree of that washout. It's occurred
probably four or five times in the last few years.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it will be all on their property, not the town property.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. But you all know what the drainage is from
in that area. It just happened with that excessive downpour,
they found it's easier to rout out and they want to try to head that off.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought there was a question when we measured
it out, it was 18x26'.
Board of Trustees 47 June 16, 2010
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We were measuring the existing ramp but
actually eight feet is the width, as it shows here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. We measured the wrong spot.
MR. COSTELLO: There was also a survey that was given as part of
the application.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing no further comment, I'll make a
motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve the
application of Costello Marine on behalf of Belvedere Property
Management, as submitted.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number nine, Costello Marine Contracting on
behalf of CONSTANTINO MARKOTSlS requests a Wetland Permit to
maintenance dredge a 25x35' area to a depth of -2.5' below mean
Iow water removing approximately 75 cubic yards of spoil. Spoil
to be trucked offsite to an approved location. Located: 6540
Main Bayview Road, Southold.
The Board did go out and looked at this. It was reviewed under
the LWRP and found to be consistent with the recommendation that
a silt boom be deployed during construction. It says during
"construction" but obviously it means "dredging." The CAC resolved
to support the application, however there was a concern with possible
eel grass in the area. Now, is there anybody here to speak on behalf
of this application? Because we did have one question.
MR. COSTELLO: John Costelio. The answer to the question is no.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We had a question over the property line when we
were out there in the field to make sure that the extent of this
project was not going to exceed the limit of the property. And we now,
I see we have a survey here received date stamped May 25, 2010.
It shows the property line going out, looks, it's hard to tell because it
doesn't show the entire canal on this property line. It appears as though
it's approximately halfway out into the canal. That it is zoned by the
applicant. So, again, just our concern was the extent of the dredging
would not go beyond the property line. Now, I'm looking at sheet three
of four of the applicant packet submitted by Costello Marine dated
May 25, 2010, and it looks like the dredging is going beyond the
property line there.
MR. COSTELLO: If it's outside the property line, what we would
be doing is taking some of your fill that you should be
dredging, we would like to try help you guys out.
TRUSTEE KING: It's private bottom. It's not ours.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Nice try. We are just concerned that if
somebody else owns it, we need their permission, you would need
their permission to go on their property to dredge. From what I
Board of Trustees 48 June 16, 2010
hear, what Dave is saying is the survey is showing that the
property is owned by them, but the drawing shows different.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what I'm suggesting is the dredging project
is not to exceed the property limits.
MR. COSTELLO: The only problem is, is what should happen,
unfortunately, that whole canal, the eel grass worry should not
be -- the water depth there, is not adequate for the eel grass
to survive, on tides lower than normal. And it's muddy, let me
tell you. It's de-oxygenated with siltation over many years.
The only spot that has any flow of water of any significance is
right at the entrance. A dead end canal with leaves and what is
off the land there. You don't want to walk in there. You'll go
down. And it's going to be a little bit of a problem removing
some of that siltation. Two or three the other neighbors tried
to approach me to find out if I would be interested in doing the
same thing but, you know, this gentleman and his wife would just
like to try to keep their boat afloat on tides below normal. And
we are only going to take the minimum out, but I hopefully,
somewhere along the line, someone, will do additional dredging
in that canal. Maybe the bottom will come back to life.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just scaled it out. It appears as though we
are talking about a reduction from 25 foot out dredging, a
reduction by ten foot to 15 feet. That's significant. So I
just want to make sure we are clear on that, we are looking at a
limit of 15 feet out. To stay within their properties.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I see the survey, please?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there was another owner that would give
permission for this and we could figure out the other owner, then --
MR. COSTELLO: We'll do that. For the simple reason, to make you
sleep better at night, number one. And the second thing is when
you dig the hole on the property line, guess what.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It caves in.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It would be a benefit to have it dredged.
MR. COSTELLO: Digging in that water, we could dig there for
three years, have it all come to us.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And I think your comments are well taken.
I think on probably the atrophic status, the health of the
marine waters in that area, but that said, the end of that canal
has got a very healthy Spartina population and some natural
slopes. So the property has some very nice redeeming features
to it, as you go. And at the most bitter ends of the canals
don't look that nice.
MR. COSTELLO: One of the things, the end is not vegetated. And
there is no read runoff. That's good.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we could do is table this application, give
you the opportunity to get permission from the adjacent land owner
to include that land in the project, or the only way we could approve it
is approve it within the limitations of the applicant's property.
MR. COSTELLO: Approve it within the limitations of the survey
and I'll provide this Board with whatever else.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then you can come back with an amendment to
Board of Trustees 49 June 16, 2010
add that.
MR. COSTELLO: Sure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from the audience on this
matter?. Yes, sir?
MR. WERTHNER: My name is Ed Werthner, I live at 180 Windy Point
Lane, Southold, New York. One question I had, a lot of
mumbo-jumbo about grandfathered in. Does that have anything to
do with accepting this application? This property, this
dredging is grandfathered in? Because I'm about 40 feet or so
to the southeast of it on the other side of the creek.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I see you listed here as being on the other
side of the creek.
MR. VVERTHNER: Yes, and I was curious if there was favoritism
toward something that is grandfathered in or if I also applied
could I be successful. Because the creek is in really bad shape.
TRUSTEE KING: Previously it's a manmade canal that was dredged.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our policy is if something was dredged before,
then can you apply and dredge it again. And it's a manmade
creek so it most certainly any one of the properties there can apply.
MR. WERTHNER: So it won't be any kind of a grandfather thing,
it's just maintenance on a manmade creek?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. And that is in Chapter 275 Town Code.
MR. WERTHNER: Thank you. I should read that. So any kind of
dredging for that creek, I would hate to test the water there
and give it to Suffolk County, because I'm sure it's polluted,
between the ducks and everything else. And there is really not
very much movement. Sometimes a brown tide that comes in there.
It's in really bad shape. But, I'm all for it. Let them clean it up.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Anybody else in the audience wish to
comment on this application?
(No response).
If not, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Costello Marine Contracting as depicted at 6540 Main Bayview
Road with the condition that the dredging has to be contained
within the property of the applicant. And, sorry, John, would
you agree to the recommendation of the use of a silt boom in there?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: With the condition with the use of a silt boom
during dredging. And it's consistent under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't need revised plans, do we?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, that's exactly -- the plans show exactly
what I just described.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to adjourn the meeting.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
Board of Trustees 50 June 16, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
RECEIVED
AUG 2 3 2010