HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-05/19/2010Jill M. Doherty, President
James F. King, Vice-President
Dave Bergen
Bob Ghosio, Jr.
John Bredemeyer
Town H~lAnnex
54375MainRoad
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone(631) 765-1892
Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
RECEIVED
outhold Town Clerk
Wednesday, May 19, 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, June 9, 2010, at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, June 16, 2010, at 6:00 PM
WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of January 20, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Good evening everybody, welcome to our meeting.
I would like to introduce the Board. To my far left is our
newest member, Jay Bredemeyer; next to him is Dave Bergen;
Vice-President Jim King; myself; Lauren Standish is our girl in
the office that does everything for us. Thank you, Lauren; and
Bob Ghosio is the other Trustee; and Lori Hulse should be here
soon. She is our legal counsel. Do we have a CAC member here
tonight?
(No response).
A CAC member should be here as well. And Wayne Galante is here
recording the minutes. So when you do speak, please come up to
the mic and give your name for the record, and we ask that any
comments are five minutes or less so we can get through the
Board of Trustees 2 May 19, 2010
agenda.
Before we start, I want to go through any postponements we might
have.
Page six, number six, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on
behalf of WILLIAM & DOLORES KREITSEK requests a Wetland Permit
to construct a fixed catwalk (including entry ramp and seaward
access ladder) measuring 3x100', supported by 32 pilings (4x4"),
comprised of non-treated materials. Located: 2455 New Suffolk
Avenue, Mattituck, has been postponed. And I think that's it.
So we have quite a bit to go through tonight. So we'll start
with a motion to set the next field inspection will be Wednesday
June 9 at 8:00 AM.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Second
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Out next Trustee meeting is set for Wednesday,
June 16, 2010, at 6:00 PM with a worksession starting at 5:30.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have the Minutes of January 20, 2010. Did
anybody care to look through them?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I read them. Some minor changes I forwarded on
to Lauren. So I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of January 20, 2010.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The Trustees monthly report for April, 2010. A
check for $9,682.04 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for
the General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's
bulletin board for review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 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, May 19, 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:
Robert & Susan Gatehouse - SCTM#128-6-11
Board of Trustees 3 May 19, 2010
Mark & Barbara Madden - SCTM#-89-2-1
Peter & Stephanie Cosola - SCTM#87-3-43
Allison Tupper - SCTM#87-3-41
Nana Baffour - SCTM#107-2-2.5
Mary S. Zupa - SCTM#81-1-16.7
Nicholas Noyes - SCTM#3-2-1
New Suffolk Properties LLC d/b/a
New Suffolk Shipyard - SCTM#110-1-12
Dennis & Irene Kraft - SCTM#115-12-23.1
Rob & Claire Riccio - SCTM#98-6-1
Mary R. Frausto - SCTM#31-9-7.3
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Resolutions and administrative permits. I
guess we'll go through these one at a time. Some of these
simpler ones we have gone through, we like to lump together in
the interest of saving time. So we'll do that, and Ill go over
which ones we'll lump together. I'll resolve to approve the
following:
Number two, PATRICIA & THOMAS NADHERNY request an
Administrative Permit to construct a 90' long stone wall to
level property in order to lessen possibility of erosion. Stone
wall will begin on easterly side of property at ground level and
gradually increase to 4' high toward westerly side of property.
Located: 1025 Pine Neck Road, Southold.
Number five, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of
CLEMENT CLEVELAND IV requests an Administrative Permit for the
section of the proposed gravel driveway and a letter of
non-jurisdiction for the proposed single-family dwelling,
sanitary system, patio, drive and parking area. Located:
Winthrop Drive, Fishers Island.
Number six, Michael Sirico on behalf of JOHN BABKOW
requests an Administrative Permit to install approximately 120
linear feet of cedar three (3) reil and post fence,
approximately 4' high. Located: 360 Private Road #8, East
Marion.
Number seven, Mark K. Schwartz, AIA, on behalf of JOSEPH
CIPPITELLI & CHRISTINE MEYER requests an Administrative Permit
to build a structure between the existing house and the existing
garage, alterations to first and second floor, porch addition
and install drywells for stormwater runoff. Located: 370 South
Lane, East Marion.
Number nine, Craig VonBargan on behalf of ALBERT SAFER
requests an Administrative Permit to maintain the grade of fill
(bank run) on the upper beach by grading level to wall
Board of Trustees 4 May 19, 2010
approximately 40 cubic yards of sand. Located: 1295 Robinson
Lane, Peconic.
Number 11, Twin Fork Landscape Contracting on behalf of
JOINT INDUSTRY BOARD OF ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES EDUCATIONAL &
CULTURAL HOLDINGS requests an Administrative Permit to replenish
lost sand and to revegetate along existing seawall to maintain
the seawall structures integrity from future storms/erosion.
Distribute 140 cubic yards of sand and revegetate with
indigenous sea material such as seagrass, bayberry and rosa
rugosa. Located: 3800 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue.
Number 12, Twin Fork Landscape Contracting on behalf of
JOINT INDUSTRY BOARD OF ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES EDUCATIONAL &
CULTURAL HOLDINGS requests an Administrative Permit for periodic
beach maintenance; removal of debris from beach from 10' above
mean high water to concrete seawall. Located: 3800 Duck Pond
Road, Cutchogue.
Number 13, Condon Engineering PC on behalf of MATTITUCK
YACHT CLUB requests an Administrative Permit to replace the
existing columns and wood decking and repair or replace wood
deck joists and wood beams for deck, repair and or replace
concrete support piers and wood stairs damaged during previous
winter storms. Located: 9462 Peconic Bay Blvd., Mattituck.
And number 14, Robert Bracken on behalf of PETER & ANNETTE
CORBIN requests an Administrative Permit to construct an
extension to the existing garage and to remove the existing
brick patio and replace with a 25x28'11" raised bluestone patio.
Located: 275 Waters Edge Way, Southold.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: John, you have number one on that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number one, JOHN WINTER requests an
Administrative Permit to prune dead branches and summer's growth
of shrubbery located along the landward side of the bluff.
Located: 590 North View Drive, Orient.
I went to the site and visited it. The site consists of a
stable level area landward of the bluff line which has been
populated with probably wild seeded privet hedge which the owner
has been maintaining at about four to four-and-a-half to five
feet in height and it has considerable fresh spring growth. I
see no objection to the pruning. There was also some judicious
pruning of one or two trees there that looks like they removed
branches that had sn~ipped off. I see no problem with this but
would like to enter a condition there be no pruning below the
level of three feet above the ground, to protect the stability of
the soil there. So I would move to approve with that condition.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 5 May 19, 2010
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number three, SANDRA KRAC & JUDITH PEREZ request
an Administrative Permit 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 did go take a look at that. This is a picture of the
telephone pole. Just behind that shrubbery and the brush is a
pond, and we saw that they wanted to extend the fence that
already exists, which encloses the backyard pool, which is just
feet away from the pond, and extend it into this area. And as I
recall, the Board didn't real understand why. Is there anybody
here to speak on this application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't see why they couldn't replace that fence
going up to the corner that already exists, where the fence is
already existing, but it didn't seem to make a lot of sense to
cut off a wildlife, where wildlife would traverse to get to the
pond. It didn't make sense.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The only other thought we had is they were
trying to delineate a line with the split rail like we did along the beaches.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They could. Well, I'll make a motion to approve
the replacement, in placement of a privacy fence, to replace the
one that exists, that is on their property at the moment, but
not allow it to extend past the current, where the current fence ends.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I second that. I think that's a reasonable
accommodation.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And if we could just suggest to the homeowner,
the suggestion of post and rail to delineate the property, to
allow for a wildlife corridor.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So, do we have to say deny what they are
requesting? Lori, we are not approving the whole thing, the way
the motion went, correct?
MS. HULSE: Yes, if they'll consent to amend it, you can amend
it, otherwise you would have to deny it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Since they are not present tonight --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Should we table it or just deny it?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We could table it to have a discussion with them
about the options and --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to table. Why don't we do
that. I'll rescind the other motion and I'll make a motion to
table it so we can give them an opportunity --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure, so they don't have to re-apply and pay
another fee or anything.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lori, they took care of it?
MS. HULSE: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. GLENDA MORENO & VINCENT CARNAGIE request
Board of Trustees 6 May 19, 2010
an Administrative Permit to remove dead, diseased and storm
damaged trees, trees overgrown by the cesspool and pin oaks to
visually enhance the property; level the lawn with approximately
100 cubic yards clean fill and 2" of topsoil and plant a new
lawn; redesign flower beds; plant new trees including two
weeping willow and red maples; relocate cherry tree; repair and
restore shed and decks and construct a new disabled accessible
walkway from the back deck to the driveway and shed; and install
a sprinkler system. Located: 11085 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
Is there anybody here, how are you.
Did you get a chance to get further plans?
MS. MORENO: Glenda Moreno. I don't have any specific diagrams.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lori, what was the outcome?
MS. HULSE: She paid a fine. We discussed the septic option and
that was not something they wanted to do at this time.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Was the contractor identified?
MS. HULSE: No, I did put an E-mail out to PD about that. So I
don't know what will become of that.
TRUSTEE KING: Because in my mind, he's really responsible for a
lot of what went on there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The homeowner didn't want to tell us who the
contractor was?
MS. HULSE: She is the homeowner. No, I think the issue was the
contractor was from up west and how he was going to be served.
I think that's the main issue.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How does the Board want to proceed with this?
We all went out and saw what was done. And the homeowner
pointed out the additional trees she wanted to take down.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we need a little more detail in the plan
here. At least if they are taking down anymore trees close to
that wetland area, quite frankly. I think enough trees were taken down.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You have blue markings on this plan. Can you
tell me what the blue markings are? I don't see it on your key.
You can step up and show me.
MS. MORENO: They were the ones that we asked if we could take
down. These are the ones that are right by the cesspool.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So these blue are green.
MS. MORENO: Those are trees we were hoping we could take down.
One is the one that is actually falling over into another tree,
half down already.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the other was the half dead one?
MS. MORENO: Yes, and these are the ones right by the overflow
and the cesspool a few feet away, and the roots are all going
into what is the cesspool. One of these is half dead and this one --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That is by the shed.
MS. MORENO: The base of it is open.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, are there any other pictures beside this
one?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I showed them a couple of times already.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I apologize.
Board of Trustees 7 May 19, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, thank you. The drawing that the homeowner
drew, she is proposing to, from this drawing is, I guess two
trees on the right-hand side right on the water, she would like
to take those two down.
MS. MORENO: No, they are much closer. They are about 20 feet
from the water. And they are actually to the left.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then you have, yes, you have these two up by
the pond and then you have the other two by the septic on the left, correct?
MS. MORENO: Yes, these two here, I mean they are sitting right
there. The base of them is hollow. But if we can't take them
down, that's fine. I have no problem with that. It's the septic
we were concerned about, and the two farther back.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just want to go over for the record all the
ones we are talking about. So the two right there on the
right-hand side?
MS. MORENO: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Which I don't think the Board really saw any
reason to take them down because they are not a safety issue.
Then there is two more to the left, which is right on the
septic, and then there is one further up by the shed that is
hollow, and then the opposite of that is two other ones that she
would like to remove. I don't think we felt that all of' those
trees were necessary to be removed. Maybe the ones by the shed
and the two by the septic?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How far is the septic from the water?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we measured, it's like 20 feet. And
that's why we gave her the option of moving the septic as her fine.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: She didn't want to do that?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: At this time she didn't want to do that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What's the setback for septic, 75 feet, right?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: 75. 100 would take it out of our jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would suggest to move it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The challenge I have with this, obviously, is
the work was done and the work that was done, I doubt this Board
would have approved. Normally, when there is new construction
near a pond like this, there is a non-disturbance buffer that is
put in there that is at least 50 feet. It could be much more
than that. It depends all upon the size of the property and the
house, et cetera. What's happened now is the Board is put in a
very tough place because this work was done that was an obvious
violation, for which you paid a fine, but now we look more
toward remediation of the area from an environmental perspective
rather than allowing continued clearing to take place. My
feeling is I have no problem with the dead trees next to the
shed that are on, I believe the eastern property, but the septic
-- I apologize, it is 100 feet. I was looking at the septic is
75. The cesspool is 100 feet from the water, and this is from
Great Pond. This water is an extension of Great Pond. I feel
for the property owner but I just can't see removing those trees
down there that are closer to the water.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with that. And I would like to see
Board of Trustees 8 May 19, 2010
some remediation and planting and the lawn not to go all the way
down there.
MS. MORENO: The plan wasn't for the lawn to go all the way down
there to begin with. The plan was just to go back to where it
actually was, which is pretty much about where the trees are
right now. And where the limbs are cut down that you can see,
where they pushed the brush that way, that's pretty much as far
as the lawn went previously.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would like to see actually a non-turf buffer
even further landward than that. Since all the --
TRUSTEE KING: By the code, landscape and gardening should be 15
feet from the wetland. That should be the limit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a concern that we make efforts to
stabilize the site with a silt fence and hay bales because it
would seem even remediation of it there will be additional
soils, tree parts, debris, stones, other things may be moved and
I'm concerned about runoff into the pond.
TRUSTEE KING: Why couldn't there be a line of hay bales 50 feet
from the wetlands left in place. That delineates the line, you
can have your lawn right up to that line and that's it, you
can't go any further.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And hand removal of the debris.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And if they want the lawn landward of that, they
can do that, too.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That makes a lot of sense.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That sounds like that's within the area the
applicant is talking about here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That makes sense. Then what we can do is we
have, we can have you put the line of hay bales up as soon as
possible, and we, I think we need a better planting plan, you
know, a better plan than this, exactly what you'll be doing with
the rest of it. And we talked about drywells for the house,
maybe at this time, since everything was torn up.
MS. MORENO: Did Coast Line contact you? He was trying to reach
you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not that I know. Did Coast Line contact you
about this property?
MS. STANDISH: No.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, I haven't gotten any messages. So I think
at this point what I'm hearing is we need to remediate as much
as we can right now, put the hay bales up and maybe table this
until we can get a better description and more complete application.
MS. MORENO: So the hay bales are actually going to sit on top of
the ground?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we just have him remove all the debris
that's been pushed in piles, get all that out of there and next
field inspection we can show them where the hay bales go and
have him put a hay bale line in at 50 foot and we can look at
what trees you want to take down and everything else and do it
all in one shot. But in the meantime get all the debris and
Board of Trustees 9 May 19, 2010
stuff out of there, that has to go.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. And we had already given you permission
to do that. Can you actually tie a ribbon or mark the trees?
That way we can stand and see all of them at once, instead of
pointing to them.
MS. MORENO: Sure.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And in the meantime you can get a better
planting plan so we have more specific of what is going where.
But I think the consensus is we would like to see 50 feet back
from the wetland line, we would like to see that a non-turf
buffer, non-disturbance area. It's been disturbed, but. Don't
plant, we are not going to let you plant lawn there. You can do
other plantings, maybe, or see what will grow back up and leave
it natural.
MS. MORENO: But I thought that, I misunderstood. I thought the
code was 20 or 30 feet buffer?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't have a specific -- actually, I think
there is a section in the code that says specific.
TRUSTEE KING: On the wetland boundaries, residence is 100 feet,
driveway 50 feet, leeching pool is 100 feet and landscaping or
gardening is 50 feet. That's in the code. It's all right there.
MS. MORENO: Okay, I'm asking, so.
TRUSTEE KING: We understand that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's just that it's a sensitive area and it's
not just that Little Pond part. It goes out into that whole
Great Pond. So, I'll make a motion to table this application to
inspect it and get further information.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But in the meantime allow them to remove the
debris.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, remove the debris.
MS. MORENO: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want them to get the hay bales now or
wait?
TRUSTEE KING: How do they know where to put them?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We showed them where the wetland line is.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we need to go out there and delineate
that 50 foot line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, do I have a second?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number eight, GreenLogic LLC on behalf of
BARBARA MAY & JACK MAY requests an Administrative Permit to
install roof mounted (close to roof) photovoltaic system and
domestic hot water solar system. Located: 1340 Cedar Point Drive
East, Southold.
This is exempt by LWRP. I inspected the property and had
absolutely no problem with this whatsoever. I would entertain a
motion to approve the application as submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
Board of Trustees 10 May 19, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number ten, Nigel Robert Williamson on behalf of
ANNETTE CAMPBELL requests an Administrative Permit to remove the
existing 10'9 3/4"xl 0'3" enclosed porch and construct a new
addition 29'x10'3". Located: 1185 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue.
We did go out and looked at this property. Is there anybody
here on behalf of Nigel Robert Williamson to speak on behalf of
this application at all?
(No response).
The challenge we have is we can't tell from these plans whether
this is going to be a tear down of that house or just removal of
the porch and addition. So I have no problem putting forward a
motion to approve this but with the two conditions; one is to
include drywells, gutters and leaders, because there aren't any
around this house and second, as a condition that this house is
not going to be torn down. If the plans change and they feel
they have to tear down the house, then they'll have to come back
in for a full wetland permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five, applications for extensions
transfers and amendments. We have a bunch of these we can also
lump together. Number one, two, three, four, five, six, nine,
ten, and eleven, we all reviewed and they are just
straightforward amendments and/or transfers, so I'll make a
motion to approve --
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Excuse me, can you hold up on number six
for just a moment.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. Ill make a motion to approve number
one, Garrett A. Strang on behalf of 2000 BROADWATERS, LLC,
requests a One-year Extension to Permit fl6915, as issued on June
18, 2008, and amended on May 20, 2009. Located: 2000 Broadwaters
Road, Cutchogue.
Number two, Garrett A. Strang on behalf of 2000 BROADWATERS
LLC, requests a One-Year Extension to Permit ~6916, as issued on
June 18, 2008, and amended on June 24, 2009. Located: 2000
Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue.
Number three, George R. Latham on behalf of SOPHIE LATHAM &
PRISCILLA JAMIESON requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland
Permit ~918 and Coastal Erosion Permit #6918C, as issued on
June 18, 2008. Located: 2180 Peter's Neck Road, Orient.
Number four, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of GORDON &
JUNE SEAMAN requests a Transfer of Permit #1676 from Marjorie &
Martin Dunn to Gordon & June Seaman, as issued on September 27,
1983, for the existing 10'x4'4" fixed dock. Located: 1570 Ole
Jule Lane, Mattituck.
Board of Trustees 11 May 19, 2010
Number five, NICOLAS DECROISSET requests an Amendment to
Permit #7071A to reduce the size of the outdoor shower. Located:
20 Third Street, New Suffolk.
Number nine, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf
of SHEILA PATEL requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit ~6966
and Coastal Erosion Permit #6966C to allow the placement of
300+/- cubic yards of trucked-in soil on the eroded area then
revegetate the area with approximately 1,000 rosa rugosa plants.
Located: 19965 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
Number ten, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of CARDINALE
EAST COAST DEVELOPMENT, LLC, requests an Amendment 1o Permit
#7182 to allow the incidental dredging of approximately 25 cubic
yards spoil and the installation of one eight-inch diameter
mooring pile located: +/-15' off bulkhead. Located: 4600
VVunneweta Road, Cutchogue.
And number 11, En-Consultants on behalf of ROSE Lo MILAZZO
REVOCABLE TRUST requests an Amendment to Resolution dated March
18, 2009, to read as follows: Construct approximately 53 linear
feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing timber bulkhead;
construct a 12' southerly return; and backfill with
approximately five cubic yards of clean sand to be planted with
Spartina patens (18" on center) to re-establish approximately
189 square feet of high marsh; and construct approximately 34
linear feet of Iow-sill vinyl bulkhead and a 12' northerly
return between two bulkheads and backfill with approximately
five cubic yards of clean sand to be planted with Spartina
alterniflora (12" on center) to create approximately 137 square
feet of intertidal marsh; and demolish and partially reconstruct
(inplace and raised 1o conform to FEMA-required base flood
elevation) existing one-story, one-family dwelling; construct
854 square feet attached deck; install drainage system of
drywells, leaders and gutters; remove existing sanitary system
located +/-30 feet from wetlands and install upgraded sanitary
system whose leaching pools will be located more than 100' from
wetlands; install new pervious gravel driveway and establish 850
square feet non-turf buffer adjacent to wetlands. Located: 1165
Island View Lane, Southold
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second on numbers one, two, three, four,
five, nine, ten, eleven.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That brings us up to number six. Charles Cuddy
on behalf of ARTHUR R. TORELL requests an Amendment to Permit
#7143 to increase the size of the second-floor of the proposed
dwelling by an additional two feet. Located: 365 Westwood Lane,
Greenport. Mr. Cuddy?
MR. CUDDY: Thank you, after checking with the architect and Mr.
Torell, we would prefer to have two feet go all the way. I know
that's not on your calendar and you don't have any information
on that. So if you would like, I could submit further
Board of Trustees 12 May 19, 2010
information to you and you can could table it, unless the Board
is satisfied with it. But it's a two-foot extension, not just a bump out.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So all the way down to the ground.
MR. CUDDY: That's right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know if the Board -- that would be
something the Board has do a full review on because we worked
very hard, as you know, with Mr. Torell, on the location of that
house and we feel we got it the furthest away from the
wetlands and I know, speaking for myself, I would not like to
see it any closer.
MR. CUDDY: So you may be suggesting he take what is here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. CUDDY: I understand. If you are doing that, maybe I will
step back and let you do that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You most certainly can apply for the other --
MR. CUDDY: I understand. I don't think he wants to go through
an entire process. I understand what you are saying.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, are there any other comments?
(No response).
All right I'll make a motion to approve Charles Cuddy on behalf
of Arthur Torell for an amendment as applied for.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number seven, Patricia Moore on behalf of HENRY
KAMINER requests an Amendment to Permit #7159 to relocate the
existing pool fence five feet seaward of the existing location.
Located: 130 Midway Road, Southold.
MS. MOORE: There is a walkway there. They just want to move the
pool fence on the other side of the walkway.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You know what, I'm sorry. Bob did this. It's
straightforward. Bob was not at the worksession. I forgot to
check with you to add this in. We had no problem with this.
When we had our worksession we didn't have the file. So Bob,
do you want to make a motion on this?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: For what?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For number seven:
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. (Perusing). I'll make a motion to approve
this application for Henry Kaminer as described.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, Patricia Moore on behalf of THOMAS &
ANDREW ZOITAS requests an Amendment to Permit fl6955 to relocate
the pool fence to the landward side of the coastal erosion hazard line to
delineate the non-disturbance area; relocate a boulder that is presently
leaning against the beach stairs and revegetate; continue the line of
evergreens along the east and west property line to top of the bluff;
reduce walkway from four feet wide to three feet with pervious material
Board of Trustees 13 May 19, 2010
pathway (presently improved with brick pavers); cut down damaged and
diseased trees; relocate existing plants and supplement the
non-disturbance area from the bluff to CEHA with rosa rugosa and
plant a 15' vegetative buffer seaward. Located: 62555 North
Road, Greenport.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We wanted to go over what our concerns are.
TRUSTEE KING: I think one of our biggest concerns is moving the
pool fence. I don't think anybody was comfortable with moving
that fence to the coastal erosion line. We want to leave it where it is
MS. MOORE: Okay. I mean that's, I ask what he asked, which it
would be nice to have delineation of the non-disturbance from
the landscape area, but.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe we asked for the fence there because
that's the delineation we want from the non-turf area. So you
have a non-disturbance area, then you have a non-turf area and
then you have a turf area.
MS. MOORE: No, that's not what that was the hay bale line
originally, because it was during construction, so we put the
fence there. My client was not aware that was a non-turf area
because essentially what you have is 75, 80 feet from the top of
the bluff, and that's really an excessive area. It takes way
the entire backyard. Most people would like a little backyard
in the back, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, and that's the process we were trying to
go through before he cleared it all. Remember, we didn't
want this done. We wanted to do that in stages so we could
figure out where we wanted everything.
MS. MOORE: But you guys, you asked me to stake -- did anybody go
out and look at the staking? Because that would have been a
picture from, you see what is there now. What, you know, it's
interesting you had a picture of the other, Maino, I guess, the
other property that had bulldozer marks on it. This you had
cutting markings. And what he did is cut down all of the, all
of the vines, and what we have now, we went there today, and
everything is growing back. And it's a mess. I mean the
property is a disaster. And you can tell by the way the property
is, he's a perfectionist and he's trying to keep everything
nice, and when you go out there today and look, it really, it
looks like an abandoned property. 75 feet from the top of the
bluff. That's excessive. What we are suggesting is a vegetated
buffer so, you know, that's a normal request for any application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we are suggesting, too, but we have
to, I think where the line of the vegetation is where we have to
get on the same page.
MS. MOORE: Okay. That's fine. That's why we are here and
that's why I gave you a landscape plan that shows you.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm looking at the picture in the file from the
14th of April. It doesn't look that bad to me. I guess it's
all in the eye of the beholder.
MS. MOORE: You didn't go out this month in May. It is really
overgrown and not a very attractive site. The rain has really
Board of Trustees 14 May 19, 2010
made everything very lush and it's covering over all the
vegetation. Joyce, why don't you put it on the record.
But part of your campaign promises and promises to the
community was you are going to respect people's property. What
you have here is a person who has a vacant piece of property,
built a house more than 100 feet from the top of the bluff.
Most of the applications you get are to push the house closer.
They built a pool at 100 feet back from the bluff. The only
small encroachment that we had was the patio that goes around
the pool that barely cuts into the hundred foot. After that,
it's vegetation. He just wants to have a nice, cosmetically
nice looking property.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He wants lawn all the way to the --
MS. MOORE: That's not what we have here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It has sod to the 15-foot mark. On the plan it
says sod to the 15-foot.
MS. MOORE: It's 25 feet.
MS. GRIGONIS: On the plans that I made it says the buffer can be
made any width as per Trustee specs.
MS. MOORE: So we are here to discuss what the width of the
non-turf buffer should be.
MS. GRIGONIS: Right now it's at least 75-feet wide. Some of it
is 100-feet wide. I've done lots of these revegetations and I
have never done one that wide before.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, let me give you a little history since
you are coming in later. When this first came in, this was all wooded.
MS. MOORE: No, it was not. The trees are still there. That's
where --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was all vegetated, vines --
MS. MOORE: She did see that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we stood here in a meeting as a Board and
divided; some people said no, some people said yes, saying,
okay, let's do this in piecemeal.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The trees aren't all there, by the way.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The trees are not all there. Some of them were
cut down. And we asked, we gave permission for the vines to be
taken down. Nothing cut down to the ground, but to clear some
of the vines so we can see better. We go back and it's like
this. This is not what we anticipated. We wanted to do
piecemeal so we can at least clear it a little, so we can see
what we are talking about and we come back and it's this. So we
were very disappointed in seeing that. Our intention the whole
time is not --
MS. GRIGONIS: For the record, Briarcliff Landscape had nothing
to do with that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I'm not implying that.
MS. HULSE: Sorry, this is not a public hearing. This is an
amendment. This is not the place for the comments that are
being made here. This is not a notice of public hearing. All
the Trustees have to do is open this up, review it according to
their standards and make a decision. They are allowing you to
Board of Trustees 15 May 19, 2010
speak, but some of these comments are way beyond what should
even be taking place here. So just remember that. This is not
a noticed public hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So, I'm sorry, if you thought I was implying
that. So we are at this point. This is not what we wanted to
see on this property, so we need to come up with a planting plan.
MS. MOORE: And that's why I'm here. And all of this is being
done with submissions, nothing done prior to coming to you. So,
you punished him, he's paid fines, we are here, and we are
trying to do it in the proper way, procedure. And what I want
to clarify is that we have the top of the bluff, then you have
the coastal erosion line, then you have the non-turf buffer. So
that is, that width right now is 20 feet, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. I agree
TRUSTEE KING: Where do you get 20 feet? I'm confused.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Here is non-disturbed and from here to here is
20 feet. But it says 15-foot wide on the --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's okay. It's 20 feet.
MS. MOORE: No, non-turf is 15. You asked me to make the
non-disturbance area landward of the top of the bluff, so we
have an extra, I would say anywhere from five at the shortest
end to ten at the widest end on the east side, from the top of
the bluff to the coastal erosion line. That's where we staked.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we just need to figure out what we want
and then --
MS. MOORE: Really, that's why we are here. But make it
reasonable so people can feel that their properties are
respected. So
TRUSTEE BERGEN: While we are looking at this, I had recommended
out there to the client that they continue the line of
evergreens along the east/west property line and I appreciate
the fact they put that in there. So, thank you.
MS. MOORE: He really is a very cooperative person. Much more so
than others.
Are you guys all working off the May 5 plan? I want to
make sure you have the right plan in front of you -- okay, we
are all on the same page.
TRUSTEE KING: This doesn't show where the current location of
the pool fence is, this plan.
MS. MOORE: You have a survey in your file.
TRUSTEE KING: We are all looking at this one plan. Everything
should be on this one plan. I can probably scale it off.
MS. MOORE: It's pretty much right off of the, within five feet
or less. Less than five feet from where the patio ends, and it
kind of runs on a diagonal, parallel to the top of the bluff, so.
TRUSTEE KING: That's roughly 100 feet from the patio, around the
pool.
MS. MOORE: To be precise, the patio is 98 feet, That's why we
were before the Board.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are just discussing different options.
Board of Trustees 16 May 19, 2010
MS. MOORE: We are happy to participate in the process.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim is just measuring, that's why, he's doing
different measurements. We'll share once he's finished.
MS. MOORE: Good.
TRUSTEE KING: I think probably the biggest bone of contention
here, not only just the whole project from the get go and how it
was done, is the pool fence.
MS. MOORE: And that's -- okay, I mean, he's --
TRUSTEE KING: I'm looking at 75 feet landward from the coastal
erosion hazard area, to put the pool fence.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we are offering you is to move the pool
fence from its present location seaward, to give him the line.
MS. MOORE: I understand that. Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then we would say this is a non-turf, from the
coastal erosion line seaward would be non-disturbance, and
between the coastal erosion line and pool fence is non-turf.
MS. MOORE: So we have the plantings there already.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And he can have lawn here. So the lawn will
end at the pool fence. And this will be non-disturbance native
plantings -- and this would be non-turf native plantings, and
this would be non-disturbance native plantings.
MS. MOORE: It's just 75 feet is a lot.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, we didn't want any of this cleared the
way it was. And we can put a height limit on here so he can trim.
MS. MOORE: That's good. Because that's part of the problem.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He wants his view.
MS. MOORE: We said -- what you pointed out as cutting was
actually a vine. It was not a tree, it was a vine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we asked that not to be done at that point
but, whatever was done. What's the height limit we want to put
on this?
MS. MOORE: You usually put three feet?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It depends on each property.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Let's say you'll populate things and let it
naturally populate, the crown height of those shrubs is probably
around one-and-one-half, two feet, so you want to give enough
growth so you don't kill it.
MS. MOORE: Why don't I ask my landscape expert here. What's the
height of the rosa rugosa and any plantings that we have done to
keep it as a reasonable height?
MS. GRIGONIS: Three, four feet. Three feet is better. I like
to keep the rosa rugosa about three feet high to keep them
really thick.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's reasonable
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is not a public hearing, and we need to
make a decision.
TRUSTEE KING: It's getting out of control here.
MS. MOORE: Just give me that, if he doesn't like it, I'll come
back. I think he can get some yard out of this, there really is
not a lot here other than the fence. The rest was relatively
straightforward, I think. So you are suggesting --
Board of Trustees 17 May 19, 2010
TRUSTEE KING: What's the width of the present walkway now?
MS. MOORE: Three feet. You gave me four. So, let me go over,
the first paragraph talked about the pool fence.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let Jim ask the questions.
TRUSTEE KING: So nothing is being changed here. It's just
looking for appreval for what was done outside of what we
thought was going to be done, is the basic issue.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right
MS. MOORE: And we have the new -- your description actually has
a lot that the, moving the pool fence, urn, the erosion control
on the bluff, we want to add some vegetation there, which -- and
we have to move that boulder away from the beach stairs. So
we'll just restore the area --
TRUSTEE KING: Where are you going to put the boulder?
MS. GRIGONIS: We'll move it like four or five feet, just away.
We won't be able to move it much. Just away from the upright so
it doesn't break it.
TRUSTEE KING: So we need to change this.
MS. MOORE: If you go back to my letter. The evergreens, we
already talked that that is not a problem. The walkway was
reduced down from four to three feet, and its brick. We have
some of the diseased trees you see are 75 to 90 feet. We marked
them on the plans. Three on the east side and one that is
square center on the property, those trees should be cut, so.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just trying to do some rewriting here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know if we agreed to have those trees
cut.
MS. MOORE: I'm asking Joyce, the plans that we have, there is
about 250 rosa rugosa and they are being covered over by the
weeds and vines that are growing back. The recommendation is
usually to put mulch around the plants to keep the weed control.
We should include that so we don't have issues of adding mulch.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does the Board have a problem with adding mulch
around that? Is that what we want to see; just the rosa rugosa
or do we want to see the naturel vegetation?
TRUSTEE KING: I think the natural plantings is fine.
MS. MOORE: We have the natural plantings now, that's the whole
point. If you went out there you can't see the natural plantings.
MS. GRIGONIS: What's happening now is all the invasive vines
like bittersweet, Virginia creeper, all invasive species are
choking out what we planted, $12,000 worth of plants, if we
don't mulch.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You are talking mulching the non-disturbance
area?
MS. MOORE: No, the non-turf area.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We shouldn't have a problem with that. Just
horticultural mulch.
MS. MOORE: Exactly. But I have seen the Board, sometimes people
get violations for putting mulch down, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That has to be included.
MS. MOORE: Exactly. So we don't want to have issues.
Board of Trustees 18 May 19, 2010
TRUSTEE KING: I don't want to see anymore trees cut down.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can I see the plan for a second?
MS. MOORE: These are dead trees. They are hanging over the
property line.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Here we are.
MS. MOORE: We marked which trees have to be removed. The trees
are 75 to 90 feet from the top of the bluff.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Why don't we have them marked and in the
field come up with the terms, and those of you who are more
familiar, have them ribbon those for subsequent inspection just
to see if they are dead.
MS. MOORE: Do you want me to ribbon them?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MS. MOORE: I had all this done for you for the last meeting, so.
In the meantime --
TRUSTEE KING: All right, I think I have it pretty much. Anybody
else have any comments?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to approve Thomas Zoitas' request for an
amendment to permit 6955 to relocate the pool fence 75 feet
landward of the coastal erosion hazard line. The area between
the pool fence and the coastal erosion -
MS. MOORE: Wait. 75 feet from the coastal erosion hazard line,
you should be measuring from the top of the bluff.
TRUSTEE KING: No, I'm measuring from the coastal erosion hazard
line. I think I know where I'm measuring from.
MS. MOORE: but that means ---
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let him finish. This is not a public hearing
MS. MOORE: That means it's 100 feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is what we are proposing.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll relocate the fool fence to 75 feet landward
of the coastal erosion hazard line. The area between the pool
fence and coastal erosion hazard area line is to be non-turf and
the area seaward of the coastal erosion hazard area is to be a
non-disturbance area. In other words between the pool fence and
coastal erosion hazard area, you put your native plants in, but
there will be no turf.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And you can put the mulch in there.
MS. MOORE: Yes, if the client --
MS. HULSE: Pat, this is not the time for public comment. They
are reading a resolution into the record. If they read it and
you have an issue with it, once the motion has been seconded,
then if you want to be recognized, you can. You can't speak
when they are reading the resolution into the record. You are
destroying the record.
TRUSTEE KING: You got so far up to non-disturbance?
MS. MOORE: Yes, I have that.
TRUSTEE KING: Relocate a boulder that is presently leaning
against the beach stairs and revegetate that area where the
boulder is removed. Continue the line of evergreens along the
east and west proper property line to the top of the bluff. The
Board of Trustees 19 May 19, 2010
walkway can remain as it is, it's three feet wide and it's made
of pavers. That can remain. You can relocate the existing
plants and supplement the non-disturbance area from the bluff to
the coastal erosion hazard area line with rosa rugosa. Plant a
15-foot vegetated buffer seaward of that -- no, take that out.
There is to be nothing done seaward of the coastal erosion
hazard area line.
MS. MOORE: That's fine.
TRUSTEE KING: That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you want a limitation on the upper limit
of vegetation?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we can put a three-foot height, no cutting
below three feet.
TRUSTEE KING: I think four feet is more reasonable. The height
of the vegetation is not to exceed four feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not to be cut --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You don't want less than three feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't want them to cut it to the ground. So
we don't want less than three feet. They can have higher than
three feet, but we don't want less.
MS. MOORE: I understand. Thank you for clarifying the record.
TRUSTEE KING: Does everybody understand what I just did?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I do.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
MS. MOORE: Before you go crazy, what I'm going to say is the
client had wanted the fence closer, if because of the location
of the fence that you proposed, he may decide just to leave the
fence where it is. It's a very expensive relocation of the fence.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's fine.
MS. MOORE: I want to be sure if we don't do it we are not in
violation because you amended the permit to move it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, we'll finish this. All in favor?
(Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye.
Trustee Bredemeyer, aye)(Trustee Ghosio, nay).
Motion is carried.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Put me down for a nay.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll look at this next month for the trees they
want to take down so we can say yes or no.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, for the record, there is four ayes and
one nay.
MS. MOORE: So I'll identify the trees for you, you can go by and
look at them and let me know.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would be glad to explain my nay if anybody is
interested.
TRUSTEE KING: I know you voted against it the first time around.
You said what was going to happen, and what you said was going
to happen, happened. Plain and simple.
Board of Trustees 20 May 19, 2010
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, pretty much. And, you know, just since I
opened it up, the reason I'm voting nay is to be consistent with
how I voted to begin with. Pat is right in that I along with a
couple other folks up here have campaigned on property rights.
I do believe, however, with property rights comes responsibility
and there are caveats to owning property today. When this came
in for permit, we had discussions and we passed the conditions
of the permit. Once those conditions were passed, it becomes
part, in my mind, the responsibility of the property owner to
follow that. They were not followed. As it is evidenced by the
fact there was a violation and a fine paid. Now we are coming
back and we are dealing with it again. I don't see this as, in
my particular case, I can only speak for myself, I am a
property-rights advocate. Always have been. I don't see how I
violated my beliefs here. However, I'm going to vote this way
to maintain my integrity in how I voted first time around.
That's it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Moving right along.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to go off the regular
hearings and on to public hearings section.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. Can we take a two-minute
break?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. All in favor?.
(All ayes).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll just take a two-minute break before we
start the public hearings.
(After a brief recess, these proceedings continue as follows).
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
COASTAL EROSION PERMITS
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number one, Coastal Erosion Permits, Docko,
Inc., on behalf of LEONARD ORR requests a Wetland Permit and
Coastal Erosion Permit to repair and re-grout 150+/- linear feet
of existing concrete capped, mortared stone and concrete seawall
as necessary; remove 60+/- linear feet of the seawall structure
and 100+/- cubic yards of upland backfill and replace it with
armor stone for shoreline protection consisting of 50+/- cubic
yards of boulder rubble over 600+/- square feet and place 50+/-
cubic yards of boulder rubble on geo-textile and geo-grid fabric
in front of the remaining seawall over 1,100+/- square feet of
bottom sediment landward of mean Iow water line and waterward of
the spring high water line. Located: Private Road off Equestrian
Avenue, Fishers Island.
MR. NEILSON: Good evening, I'm Keith Neilson on behalf of the
Orr's. Before I forget these, let me just bring forward the
certified mailings.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before we do that, I'll just mention this is
consistent under LWRP and the Conservation Advisory Council did
not make an inspection so there is no recommendation from them
Board of Trustees 21 May 19, 2010
MR. NEILSON: This project, as you can see from the photographs,
is to restore, rehabilitate as much as possible an existing
concrete and stone sea wall, but the easterly end of it, I don't
believe is salvageable, and if we don't do something proactive at
this point I'm afraid it will collapse into Barley Field Cove and
we'll end up with an environmental mess. So the project is to
remove the easterly 30 feet of the sea wall and the return to
shore and to grade that area down at about a three to one angle,
put on geo-textile fabric and geo-grid and then armor it with
boulders to take the place of the protection that has been
provided by the sea wall. The brush and landscaping that you
see on the south and east side of the grass path will be taken
down in this corner and replaced with the boulders. There is
also boulders out here between the mean Iow and the apparent
high water line because once the concrete sea wall is taken off
the corner, urn, that part of the wall will be un-braced and so
this is really structural enhancement to allow the rest of the
wall to stay. We are staying clear of the tidal wetlands, which
are mapped in our drawings, and we are placing stone beneath the
pier as well. Once we get over to the westerly side of the pier
we terminate the shoreline protection. That part of the wall is
in fairly good shape. It's somewhat removed from the scour and
the wave break zone. Right now the reason this part of the wall
is tender is because the bottom sediments have been eroded away
to a depth of a foot or so and most of the bottom of the wall is
exposed. The concrete has been destroyed in that area and we
are left perched on grouted stone in some cases.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: VVe just had one question. We felt that the
stone in front and under the dock didn't need to extend that far
seaward and we thought maybe if you could have it come out to be
landward of the second set of the pilings on the dock. That's
what we took -- right when you walk on the dock is a set of
pilings and then there is another section of pilings. To go no further
seaward than that second set of pilings. Because there was some
vegetation in the water we felt it would disturb and we didn't
see a need for it to be that wide.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we were concerned you may have more
difficulty with the DEC permit. I don't know what your status
may be there as far as the materials going into the water at
that location.
MR. NEILSON: The only comment we have had back from the DEC at
this point is they would like to have the quantities of boulders
and the quantities of the stone separated, and so we've done
that. I have not mailed that in. I was waiting until we
finished tonight and I'll mail that response in. The Department
of State, though, has also asked the same thing if this in-water
work could be shortened up, and we are agreeable to that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Keith, that corner will be completely removed, the
concrete wall?
MR, NEILSON: The concrete will be taken completely out of there.
Board of Trustees 22 May 19, 2010
TRUSTEE KING: Just wondering if you couldn't just round that
corner off more rather than put the boulders on the square like
that, to make it more natural looking.
MR. NEILSON: It can be rounded off.
TRUSTEE KING: Some of that marsh might grow back into that
corner if that corner is removed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you think of putting plantings in with the
boulders at all?
MR. NEILSON: We will put plantings in the boulders, yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You will, okay.
MR. NEILSON: Yes. Once the geo-textile fabric is down and the
larger boulders are placed before the smaller boulders are
placed, the fabric can be cut and sprigs can be put in there.
And the owner likes bayberry and rosa rugosa, if that's all
right with you, that that's what it will be.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's fine with us.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And point of clarification for myself, is
the state doing consistency review because this is state bottom
in the cove or are they getting referrals automatically from DEC
now in all their applications?
MR. NEILSON: The DOS is making all their comments to the Corps
of Engineers
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Coastal consistency for the state level to
the Corps.
MR. NEILSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: The biggest concern was going too far seaward with
the stone.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application
as submitted except with the change that the stone in front of
the sea wall placed no further out than the second set of
pilings on the existing dock, and plantings are put in within
the stone, and the corner of the new proposed stone be rounded
off. And that we receive new drawings showing same.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we want a silt fence during this?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. LVVRP came in consistent. It was
consistent. And Conservation Advisory Council didn't look at
it. So I made a motion, I have a second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. NEILSON: Thank you, on behalf of the Orr family.
TRUSTEE KING: Number two, Docko, Inc., on behalf of NICHOLAS
Board of Trustees 23 May 19, 2010
NOYES requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to
retain 40+/- cubic yards of stone shorefront protection landward
of the flagged tidal wetlands, relocate 20+/- cubic yards of
stone from the tidal wetlands and place it landward of the
flagged tidal wetlands and east of the stone to be retained over
an area of approximately 400 square feet and place an additional
20+/- cubic yards of stone over 300+/- square feet landward of
the flagged tidal wetlands east of the other stone. Located: Off
Private Road on Chocomount Cove, Fishers Island.
MR. NEILSON: On behalf of the Noyes family, Keith Neilson of
Docko, Inc., and I've got your mailings and a photogreph, an
additional photogreph.
TRUSTEE KING: This came in consistent with LWRP. I believe a
number of years ago we approved a similar application with this.
And I think it was denied by the DEC.
MR. NEILSON: Right, I'm hoping that some of the staff that will,
that are there now will have favoreble review on this. I mean
the project, it's hard to imagine how this stone got, some of
the stone got where it is in the wetlands, but we see that the
Noyes property is eroding, mostly toward the easterly end of the
house, easterly end of the preperty, and we need to do something
about it. And it was my thought and my recommendation to the
Noyes family that they also improve the wetlands by removing
some of the stone as part of the project, and so part of the
fill on the bank, on the eroding bank will be removal and
relocation of this stone from the wetlands and the rest of it
will be new stone to be breught in from sources on the island,
between boulder and stone fill. The surveys that have been
prepared for this property include the flagged tidal wetlands
prepared by CME, Mr. Dick Strauss, and this photo
pretty well emphasizes the scope of the work. The stone that is
existing in the tidal wetlands now will be moved over to the
easterly side of the property and will be supplemented with
existing stone to make a uniform armored stone in this revetment
or armoring for the bank. In this case there will be no
geo-textile fabric placed it will just be the vines and the
growth that are on the existing bank will be allowed to grow
through the stone. And that's about it. Short story. Again,
we feel that it's consistent with the LWRP. We have also
submitted all the application documents to the Corps of
Engineers, the statement to the DOS and the applications to the
DEC as well, with Central Fish Habitat assessment, the
environmental questionnaire, and we made apl the necessary
certifications and consents for the Board of Trustees to inspect
the site and for all agencies to inspect the site.
TRUSTEE KING: Like I said, I know the past Board approved this
before, but in my mind, the only question I have is what is the
need to remove the stones from the tidal wetland area there.
They have been there and I see that they are doing no harm, why
not just add stone to the east side and leave that alone.
MR. NEILSON: We could do that. I thought --
Board of Trustees 24 May 19, 2010
TRUSTEE KING: That would be my preference. They are there. The
wetlands are there. Everything looks fine. Why disturb that,
taking stone out. Just leave it alone.
MR. NEILSON: Okay, We can amend the application.
TRUSTEE KING: If the DEC doesn't want to you to go that reute
and forces you to remove them, then you can come back to us, but
I would rather you leave the stone alone and add what you need
on the other side.
MR. NEILSON: So you would be agreeable to increasing the
quantity of the stone to be brought in to just cover the bank as
necessary.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR, NEILSON: I think the Noyes' would be okay with that. We
would accept that approval.
TRUSTEE KING: Any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That makes sense.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That makes sense to me. I'll second that, if
that's your motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have to close the hearing first.
TRUSTEE KING: If there are no other comments, I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with
the exception of relocating the stone from the tidal wetland
area, those stones are to be left in place and the new stone can
be added to make up the difference where the stones are to be added.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Now I'll second that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. NEILSON: Thank you, on behalf of the Noyes family.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Richard J. Principi, Jr., on
behalf of GILDA PRINCIPI requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal
Erosion Permit for the complete structurel restoretion of the
existing wood frame cottage; new 14x14' patio; install a 10x6'
deep drywell for roof runoff; construct beach stairs with
landings; revegetate the bluff; and remove stockade fence and
revegetate upland areas around cottage with native vegetation.
Located: 4690 Blue Horizon Bluffs, Southold.
The Board did go out and looked at this. The Conservation
Advisory Council did not make an inspection, therefore no
recommendation. It was reviewed under LWRP, found to be
inconsistent under 4.1, minimizing loss of human life and
structures from flooding and erosion hazards. The proposed
action is not a water dependent use. It is recommend that the
Board require the structure to be relocated landward to minimize
risk of property damage from erosion and/or slope failure
resulting from storm surge, damaging the toe of the slope.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this
application?
Board of Trustees 25 May 19, 2010
MR. JILNICKI: Good evening members of the Board, John Jilnicki,
attorney at law on behalf of the applicant Gilda Principi.
As you stated, this is a proposal to renovate an existing
cottage. You can see from the photographs, the cottage is in
poor repair. It is still livable and is used still to this day,
however it is in fairly poor condition. The proposal is to
structurally render the cottage sound, place it on a foundation,
to upgrade it as far as windows, and things of that sort; the
roofing needs to be replaced. Basically just make it more sound
and geo-efficient building. There is no proposed expansion of
the building at all. There is a proposal to add a brick and
sand patio on the easterly side of it, and the location of that
patio took into consideration the existing topography of the
site and would be minimally -- the way to install the patio with
a minimal amount of disturbance of the existing topography. You
see from the site photo the land actually comes down in a slope
as you move further away from the bluff line. This building
previously has an upgraded sanitary that is landward of the
structure. And the proposal was also install a drywell to
contain roof runoff from the structure. There is also a
proposal to add a stairway down to the beach, around a steep
bluff, so to add a staircase and to revegetate the bluff as
needed with native vegetation in order 1o stabilize it. I have
both the consulting engineer present and the landscape architect
if the Board has any questions. If I can answer any questions,
I'll be pleased to do so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It appears work already started on this project
and it was stopped; is that correct? There was a concrete
structure appears to have been poured under those support
structures under the dwelling?
MR. JILNICKI: I want to check. It's my recollection that was
actually ten years ago. I'm not sure how long ago. Mr.
Principi is the contractor and also a member of the family,
probably has a little more information.
MR. PRINCIPI: Richard Principi.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
MR. PRINCIPI: The work under the cottage was done by my late
uncle I want to say a dozen years prior, and we did clean up
underneath it, as you see. And that was the only work that was
done under the cottage. It was an old rotten deck there, you
can see it. That's all we really did at the cottage. And
obviously the work at the fence along the easterly line.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The patio, the new 14x14 foot patio you are
proposing, there is an opportunity to move that back slightly so
that it is not seaward of the coastal erosion hazard line.
Would the applicant be acceptable to that?
MR. JILNICKI: Not a problem.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The stairs to the beach, the Board looked at and
didn't have any problem with, and the replanting of the native
vegetation on the bluff, there was not a problem with. Would
the applicant consider picking up the entire dwelling and moving
Board of Trustees 26 May 19, 2010
it landward as per the suggestion under the LWRP
recommendations?
MR. JILNICKI: I'll actually ask Mr. Principi to address that as
he's familiar with the location of the upgraded sanitary that
has been installed.
MR. PRINCIPI: Well, it was right where the old system was, which
is about 110 feet from the top of the bluff. But I would
consider that, to move it, it's not a problem since we are going
to lift it and put a foundation under it, but there are utility
wires that make it a little difficult on the south side of the
building. And the property line, when the subdivision was done
in '85, kind of prohibits us to move it straight back because
it's kind of tight to that corner, it's just the way it worked
out when we did this subdivision. So I would rather not have to
go for a variance, if possible, but, you know.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I could see on the plans where the overhead
wires are. I understand the concern about the side yard setback
and having to go through ZBA, but if the entire structure was
rotated slightly, urn, so that you maintain a side yard setback
as well as you are able then to move the dwelling back -- and I
agree with you, I don't want you to have to move it back so far
as to have to relocate all the overhead wires. Hang on just a second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You can see the wires here in the photograph.
How far are they from the cottage?
MR. CONDON: John Condon, Condon Engineering, Inc.
About 25 feet. The building right now where it's located we'll be
putting a basement underneath, approximately, about seven or
eight feet down, so actually it will be shifting the load of the building
down eight feet, which will take some of the load off the top of the bluff.
The zone of influence is about 45 degrees. So we should be
improving the situation by putting in a foundation and basement.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that, but what we are trying to do
is conform with the LWRP recommendations where, when possible,
when we have an opportunity to move a house back, and here this
is a house that will have to be picked up anyhow because of the
work that will be done, there is an opportunity now to try to
comply with the LWRP recommendations and move the house slightly
landward. And, again, I hear you completely with the you don't
want to have to go through the side yard setback whereby ZBA, so
with the rotation of the house slightly, that would resolve that.
MR. PRINClPI: What would the Board like to see as far as moving
it easterly along the same line or --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Obviously it would have to move easterly
slightly and back southerly toward the overhead wires, again, so
the result is the entire structure is moved landward from its
present location. And I'm hearing you say that there is 25 feet
of space there presently between the structure and the overhead
wires. I would entertain any thoughts from the Board as to
approximately how far we could move it back.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ten, 15 feet sounds reasonable.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I've heard from the Board to move back
Board of Trustees 27 May 19, 2010
between 10 and 15 feet. So if we moved it back 12 foot from the
present location, and I'm talking about 12 foot landward from
its present location, that would also bring the patio well out
of the coastal erosion hazard area and it would bring it into
consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I think it would be to your benefit to move
it away from the top of the bluff, of course.
TRUSTEE KING: And get that southwest corner about 15 feet off
the property line by doing that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Gentlemen. And what Jim just noted according to
his calculations here, it would then, the southwest corner of
the property would result about 15 feet off the property line
which would give you the needed distance so as to not have to go
through ZBA.
MR. JILNICKI: That's acceptable.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And we are happy to see you, I just want to
mention, removing that existing stockade fence, since it's quite
tall.
MR. PRINClPI: Just waiting for your approval to remove it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was anybody in the audience that wanted to
comment on this application?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The drywells on the plans? I know they
mentioned they put them in.
TRUSTEE KING: There is one located here.
MR. JILNICKI: We'll just shift that with the house.
TRUSTEE KING: That you may want to move a little bit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: With that Ill make a motion to close the public
hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Richard Principi on behalf of Gilda Principi as stated, with the
condition that the entire dwelling is moved 12 foot landward of
its present location, it would bring the structure as well as
the proposed patio then out of the coastal erosion hazard area.
And that the dwelling would comply with Chapter 236, or the work
would comply with Chapter 236 town drainage code. Also, all
subject to new plans being received that will depict the changes
that we talked about tonight.
MR. JILNICKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I apologize. In making those changing the Board
deems it consistent under the LWRP. I apologize for that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing is the matter Richard J.
Principi, Jr., on behalf of VINCENT CURTO requests a Wetland
Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to renovate the existing
Board of Trustees 28 May 19, 2010
one-story cottage including the installation of a new
foundation, second-floor addition, new roof and interior
improvements; install new sanitary system, well, and drainage;
and provide a ten-foot clear path around the building. Located:
4730 Blue Horizon Bluffs, Southold.
This project is immediately next to and east of the one just
described. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
inspection, therefore there is no recommendation from them.
This project also received a review under LWRP as inconsistent
with the proposed action, since the proposed action is not a
water depend use, it's recommended that the Board require the
structure be relocated landward to minimize the risk of property
damage from erosion or slope failure resulting from storm surge.
Similar concerns to what we previously discussed. The Board
looked at this and was concerned of the possibility this would
be a possible teardown or would not really be able to be
reconstructed. There were some concerns that it has so much
work to be done on it. That was a question of the Board. And
the location to bring it into compliance with the Local
Waterfront Revitalization Plan and protection of the natural
feature of the bluff I think there were concerns for both the
property with respect to the owner rebuilding so close to the
bluff and the natural bluff form also has a large natural cut
which comes back into the property. So I believe that the Board
was thinking that, at the time of the field inspection, we
realized it would probably not be considered consistent with the
towns's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, given the coastal
erosion hazard line cutting right across the front of the
structure. So I think we are talking similar concerns to the
last discussion we just had on the other. Is there anyone here
to speak on behalf of the applicant?
MR. JILNICKI: Yes. John Jilnicki on behalf of Mr. Curto. I
conferred with him. I believe he's also comfortable with the
relocation of this structure. I think this one may be a little
more difficult as far as the existing vegetation and existing
wires but it's my understanding this will also be receiving a
new foundation. It has locust posts now so that it has to be
raised and foundation put under it. So to the extent we can
manage a relocation, we would certainly be amenable to that.
MR. PRINClPI: Where would the Board like to see --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We were in the field, we were thinking, we
didn't take the wires into consideration. Is actually moving it
back, you know the property kind of goes back, go back there and
we would let you trim some of the vegetation for view. But
given the discussion on the wires, I don't think we, you know,
really need to have you do that. Because that makes it an
expense.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: How far are the wires from this cottage, about
the same, right?
MR. PRINClPI: I believe they are closer, maybe under 20 feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. Condon, let me ask you a question on this
Board of Trustees 29 May 19, 2010
property. With the corner, on the right-hand side of this
picture, how stable is that there? Because if we ask you to
move the house back, are we asking you to move it into less
stable ground? Because of the way the, it slopes and it comes
in that way.
MR. CONDON: He'll be putting a new foundation underneath, so
they can temporarily support the building on steel beams and
after the foundation is installed they can move it in place. We
feel the building could be moved.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just didn't know how stable the bluff was as
it comes into the side of the house. It's not like the other
that comes straight across. It kind of curves around the house.
That's a consideration.
MR. PRINCIPI: If I could make a comment. Maybe a solution
or a compromise is potentially turn the cottage and slide it back.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Like we discussed with the other one.
MR. PRINCIPI: Exactly, but actually physically turning it 90
degrees so it's shallower, not as deep,
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: When you take it off its pier, it's not
conceivable that it could be slid under the wires?
MR. PRINCIPI: How far back are you recommending?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to come up here, we'll show you on
the plan, what we are talking about.
Back and to the east, we are actually thinking this area. It
would be behind the wires.
MR. PRINCIPI: I looked it into moving the wires. It's a major
process otherwise I would offer that as a solution.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there a second story?
MR. PRINClPI: It would be a story-and-a-half
TRUSTEE KING: It might pay just to demolish that and just build
a new structure behind the wire.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then they would have to go to ZBA
because they are too close to the bluff. They might not get a variance
because they are starting with a new structure. You know, we
don't want to have them do something they are not going to get
approval for. Because I bet you ZBA will make them move it back
further.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I wouldn't try to speak for another Board here
on the record.
MR. JILNICKI: (Perusing) I think the proposal is to shrink the
size of the footprint of the house and make it two-story rather
than single story, move it back from coastal erosion hazard line
and closer to the wires, but keep it in that same general area.
MR. PRINCIPI: (Perusing) Away from the coastal hazard line and
then -- I mean ten feet is pretty much what we are talking
about, right?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to maybe table this and you can
look at your different options and then see -- because you might
have to go to other Boards.
MR. PRINCIPI: What would the Board like to see there and then,
you know, we'll try to plan accordingly. We would like to just
Board of Trustees 30 May 19, 2010
rebuild what is there, obviously, but if we have to shrink the
footprint a little bit.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it would be helpful if you completely
rotated the building.
MR. PRINClPI: That's what I was thinking.
TRUSTEE KING: Then you are cutting 28 feet to 20, and if you
could slide it back a little bit, you could probably gain ten or
15 feet from the bluff
MR. PRINClPI: At least eight to ten feet.
MR. JILNICKI: Rotate it and move it back. The proposal is to
rotate the buildin~l 90 degrees and move it back from the coastal
erosion hazard line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think that's doable.
MR. PRINCIPI: Because there is very good ground to the east
where the well is pulled out. The vegetation to the right of
that photo is very stable and it's, you know, obviously the same
topography, but I think we can be very clean and neat and just
carve out that area enough just to rotate it 90 degrees and go
as per the original plan that John proposed. We'll have to
re-work some of the elevations but, you know, it would solve the
problem of clearing that line.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are there any additional comments? Anyone
else in addition who would like to speak on behalf of this hearing?
(No response).
Hearing no comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in
this matter.
TRUSTEE GHOStO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In the matter of Richard Principi on behalf
of Vincent Curto, I would make a motion that we accept modified
plans wherein the structure will be rotated and moved back from
the coastal erosion hazard area to bring it closer to the
overhead wires with installation of new foundation, second-floor
addition, new roof interior improvements, new sanitary, new well
and new drainage. And that thereby this move will bring it into
compliance with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan and
that the drainage plans will conform Town Code 236 to keep all
drainage on the site and from running toward the bluff and the
bluff face. So I would so move --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jay, just to clarify, this will be a demo and be
a brand new structure?
MR. CONDON: The proposal is rebuild what is there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So that means you'll be moving that?
MR. PRINCIPI: Lift it and do the same treatment as the cottage
next door.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just want to make sure if you find you have
to demo it, you have to come back to us for a different approval.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to establish the distance it is
going to come back. All that is in the resolution is it will
just be moved back closer to the wires. We have not established
Board of Trustees 31 May 19, 2010
a specific distance.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe off the top of their head they said
eight to ten feet they thought it would be, and they wanted to
figure more out.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Whatever the Board is comfortable with. I'm
uncomfortable with just, with the resolution as it stands being
as vague. I would like to be more specific with regard to the
distance. It will help the applicant out as well as the town.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can say move back at least --
TRUSTEE KING: I would say ten feet.
MR. PRINClPI: Our calculations are 7.8.
MR. JILNICKI: You get 7.8 just from rotating it. So if we push
it back we can get ten feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would say at least ten feet.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ten feet. Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there a second on that resolution?
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JILNICKI: Thank you.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, wetland permits, number one, Docko,
Inc., on behalf of THOMAS SHILLO requests a Wetland Permit to
remove 182+~- square feet 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.
This came in, it was consistent with the Local Waterfront
Revitalization and Conservation Advisory Council did not make an
inspection, therefore there is no recommendation. Is there
anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. NIELSON: Good evening, again, Keith Nielson from Docko-lnc.,
on behalf of the Shillo family. And the request is to basically
demolish an existing older, deteriorated wood pile and timber
dock. It also has some crib supports, and to install a new pile
supported timber dock and floating dock system in Pirate's Cove.
The existing facility owned by the Shillo's is a double floating
dock and pier system and the proposal is to install a more
typical dock facility, four-foot wide, single pier with a hinged
ramp to a floating dock, 100 square feet, inner bay. Just
looking at this, I think we are in Hay Harbor. I think that is
Peter Crisp's house at the far right edge of the photograph.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We had, on our notes that possible shorten the
pier and put the float in a "t" shape.
MR. NIELSON: Okay. Do you want me to go through the rest of the
presentation?
Board of Trustees 32 May 19, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you wish to.
MR. NEILSON: First of all, I would like to submit the mailing
cards that we received (handing). The reason that we put the
pier the way we did, with the float oriented the way we have it
is because the DEC general standards are to reach four feet of
water so that dredging will not be required.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Four feet in this?
MR. NIELSON: Four feet. That's where the float ends. The whole
geometry of this pier, starting out -- first of all, let me
start out, we'll remove the concrete wall that was, that exists
on the waterfront. There is a wood deck over it. That will all
be taken out. Stone will be placed along the bottom of what is
now the soil retained by the wall. There will be no work in
wetlands. And then the pier originated about where the south
end of the concrete wall and platform existed and will out
perpendicular to the shore, then angled, so that the new pier
and float will be roughly centered between the Tom Berry
property and the Steed property (sic) and their existing docks.
And as I said, the length of the structure was strictly to reach
four feet of water so that we would not, so it would be
compliant with the DEC general regulations and standards for
approval and would not require dredging in the future.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is this a requirement of Fishers Island?
TRUSTEE KING: They'll give you a seasonal float of
two-and-a-half feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. NIELSON: Okay, this can then be shortened.
TRUSTEE KING: It would be shortened substantially. It could be
shortened by 40 feet.
MR. NIELSON: If it's -- could we agree on something a little
longer than that? In two-and-a-half feet of water I'm afraid,
if you are familiar with the Shillo's boat, it draws three feet,
and our general approach to these is to minimize bottom sediment
resuspension due to prop thrust and those kinds of things.
TRUSTEE KING: We could shorten that 40 feet and there is still
ten feet seaward of the end of their present dock, which gives
them three feet of water. That could really be pulled in quite
a bit. I thought it was excessive sticking out the way it did.
Particularly between the dock to the west. Southwest.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then if we could request a "t."
MR. NEILSON: You mean Tom Berry's dock? The lobster --
TRUSTEE KING: Looking at the drawing, the lower dock, that would
be south, southwest, I guess.
MR. NIELSON: Okay, well, I'll tell you what, I think it would be
best if I -- could I request to have this tabled?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure.
MR. NIELSON: So I can talk with Mr. Shillo and find out his
exact preferences, and we'll come back to you with a revised
plan and application documents.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, discuss whether you want to put it to a
Board of Trustees 33 May 19, 2010
TRUSTEE KING: This could really be shortened up a lot and he
would still be outside of where he is now. I mean you are
talking, this is 50 feet seaward of his present float.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And he'll probably want to take the float out
during the winter anyway, right? It won't stay there all winter?
MR. NIELSON: I'm not sure about that. Because he sometimes
commutes to and from the island from this dock. So, you know,
he might be inclined to take the float out if he can tie up
alongside the pier, but if the pier is shortened significantly,
he won't be able to do that. He'll be in the rocks and the mud.
So let me just table this, request that it be tabled, and I'll
come back to you at the next meeting.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, I'll make a motion to table this
application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number two, THOMAS RYZUK requests a Wetland
Permit to install an 18x36' swimming pool and surrounding patio
and a 16x20' pool house. Located: 790 North Sea Drive, Southold.
As I recall, we didn't address this last month because we
did not have the LWRP. If you remember, this was a pool that we
saw, we went and looked at as a Board. It's over in the Great
Pond area. LWRP has found this to be inconsistent with LWRP.
The reasons are they felt the application was incomplete because
the proposed setback line shows the distance to the property
line and not the wetland line. And also the area in which the
proposed pool and pool shed are proposed is a global and state
identified ecologically significant maritime dune habitat. I'm
looking at a couple of aerials. It does show the wetland
boundary. I know when we were out there, we didn't see any
particular problem with the distance from the pool to the
wetlands, as we saw them. As I recall from our, from the
hearing, there really was not a whole lot of objection to it.
In fact, again, as I recall, the discussion was that this was a
pretty good location because the way he was doing it, there was
not going to be any disturbance of any vegetation that was
there. And he was going out of his way designing the curvatures
of the pool lines to fit within the landscape that was there.
Are there any other comments, questions?
(No response).
Would anybody like to address this application?
(No response).
Any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: The applicant came last month. He seemed to be
very knowledgeable, very concerned about that area and seemed to
design this as best he could.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: To protect that area.
TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was pretty well laid out.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We are okay with the 16x20 pool house that is
Board of Trustees 34 May 19, 2010
next to it? We are all good?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The applicant seemed very reasonable in his
approach. He made every effort to save every bit of vegetation
and work with existing land forms. I couldn't ask for more.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The Conservation Advisory Council supported the
application and recommended the Board of Trustees address any
possible overflow issues from the saltwater pool. We did do
that. We also noted that the salt water pool was a good idea
because it is, it would keep the chemicals, that there would
not be any chemical use, or at least not as much chemical use as
you would on a regular pool. With that, I'll make a motion to
close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve this application,
noting that the design of the pool does mitigate any potential
environmental impacts and as such the Board would deem it
consistent with LWRP. And we'll approve it as described.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing is MARY R. FRAUSTO
requests a Wetland Permit for the existing stairs consisting of
an existing 12'3"x3.5' wood landing, 4'10"x3'6.5" wood landing,
construct a new wood railing and remove non-native plantings and
replace with native plantings along both sides of the stairs.
Located: 1425 Bay Avenue, East Marion.
This project was subject, I guess an issuance of a violation. I
don't know the special attorney to the Trustees has the status
of whether that has been cleared because the Local Waterfront
Revitalization declared this inconsistent because it needs to
comply with the statutory requirements and permits can't be
granted until the violation is cleared, and so I don't know if
we have a status.
MS. HULSE: I don't know that a violation has been issued but if
it has, it has not been cleared.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, thank you. The Conservation Advisory
Council moved to approve the project but they did caution that
they had questions and concerns whether or not there are any
other planned intrusions into the wetland area. So that the
concerns of the LWRP is for the project to meet with the
requirements of the town and the CAC, the concern there be no
further activities in this wetland area, and there be native
plantings put on both sides of the stairs.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MS. FRAUSTO: I'm Mary Frausto, here to speak. Can I approach
the Board, I have the returns of the things I sent to my neighbors?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure.
Board of Trustees 35 May 19, 2010
MS. FRAUSTO: (Handing).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the Board had concerns with the
nature of the construction here where it was on solid wood and
it's not an ordinary construction that we allow in wetland areas
and had concerns about runoff, you know, eroding the banks going
down to the pond on either sides of the structure. I don't
think, at least to my mind, I don't recall ever seeing a
structure like that in the wetland area. And I think I share
the Board's sentiments for the degree of that structure.
Concerns would be how it would be maintained and the disturbance
that would be necessary to maintain it as ret and decay starts
to work on the timbers and runoff concerns.
MS. FRAUSTO: I did go through the DEC and I knew I had to go
through you folks 1o see what you required and I'm willing to
comply with whatever you need. This was done basically on my
part because I'm also part of the East Marion Lake Restoration
project that we got a state grant and one of the last stages of
this project is to go down into the lake and plant plants to
prevent the phragmites from coming back and choke the growth of
phragmites. I think that has already gone through you folks.
That's a separate issue. But that's why this was done. And the
gentleman that did it was going to take care of it. He went a
little more than I wanted because I was out of town when he did
it and when I came back I was just shocked at what I got. But
whatever the Board decides, I'll do. But what you have is what
the DEC required. My concern is having railings because I
didn't want anybody falling because it was so high, and to me it
was dangerous. So that's where I stand as far as this. And we,
you see some of the plants he planted. Those will be removed
because those are not natural to the habitat of Long Island, so.
And as far as you said something about a violation, I remember
getting something from an officer and I came to court on that
date and I did pay some money. I think it was to Lori.
MS. HULSE: I apologize, this was --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This was about a year ago?
MS. FRAUSTO: This year. Might have been September
MS. HULSE: It very well might be.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because I remember we were doing, reviewing the
property next door when this all came up.
MS. HULSE: I'll certainly check my records tomorrow.
MS. FRAUSTO: I think I might have a copy.
MS. HULSE: I'm not questioning that. I'm sure you are telling
the truth.
MS. FRAUSTO: So whatever the Board decides, I can do. I did ask
about putting a retaining wall to prevent water runoff, dirt or
anything going in there, but DEC said no, you are fine with
that, with a big structure you have there, as long as it was,
along with the plants, that would be satisfied. But it might be
a different whereby you folks, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any other members the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think this is anything we would ever
Board of Trustees 36 May 19, 2010
approve if it came before with us a set of plans showing this
type of structure.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would be concerned creating a precedent on
Marion Lake that others would be looking to do this. You are in
a position that you could rebuild this then, in open-style
catwalk, open-type stairs, I think that would probably be more
conducive and more in keeping with what we have throughout the
town and certainly for the fresh waters.
MS. FRAUSTO: My recommendations to this gentleman is I wanted
something more natural, with 4x4's using the dirt and using it
to hold up the dirt to hold up the steps. When I came back this
is what I got. I was very upset. This is what I got. It was
$7,500 worth of this work, which is what it cost to have it
done. So, he just took advantage of the situation, because he
had another motive. So. Of course his motive didn't work out
because I'm not using the landscaper to build houses for me.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in
this matter, in this application?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree, that I think this structure needs to
be removed and built more to the code.
TRUSTEE KING: Excuse me, ma'am, was this a local contractor that
built that for you?
MS. FRAUSTO: This was a local landscaper. His name is John Aroyo
(sic).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There seems to be no additional comments.
I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In the matter of this application, would you
be willing to remove it then and some submit a new set of plans?
MS. FRAUSTO: Okay, I guess my thing would be can some of that
wood be used or is it up to a contractor to see what can be done?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. We closed the hearing, now you are
asking a question. Now you'll have to reopen the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, procedurally, I thought I asked you
before. I guess I wanted a reiteration before I -- can we
reopen the hearing just for some comment?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. FRAUSTO: Well, if this is what I have to do to satisfy you
folks, then it has to be done. I hate to go through all that
waist of money.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that treated lumber?
MS. FRAUSTO: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The lumber can be used for the posts but not
for the steps. No treated lumber on the steps. There are other
materials, maybe I suggest you look into the open-grate material
as well because that would get light through, and growth
Board of Trustees 37 May 19, 2010
underneath the stairs.
MS. FRAUSTO: Okay. So you would not want it closed up like it
is now?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No.
MS. FRAUSTO: So it's just sticks and steps.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, there being no further comment, I'll
close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion in the matter of Mary R.
Frausto to deny this application without prejudice, subject to
the removal of the current structure and the submission of new
plans for a new open-style stairway with materials consisting of
untreated lumber on the decking and materials that possibly can
be re-used from existing steps for other parts, for the pilings.
MS. HULSE: Sorry, there will be a motion to deny. If there is a
denial then there has to be another application made for a new
plan. So it will just be, if it's going to be a denial, it's just a simple denial.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just a simple denial without prejudice?
MS. HULSE: Right.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, move to deny without prejudice.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So what you have to do now is submit new plans,
a new application, and I suggest you show plantings on your new
application as well. And the native plantings, you can pick
them out. We went tell you which ones. Just native plantings.
MS. FRAUSTO: Okay. Excuse me, for opening this up again, what
if I do what I intentionally wanted to do which was 4x4 to hold
up the dirt and natural steps.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can apply for that. Whatever you want to
apply for in your application.
MS. FRAUSTO: Okay.
MS. HULSE: Just so you are aware, ma'am, if you decide not to
reapply, the stairs will still need to be removed.
MS. FRAUSTO: I understand.
MS. HULSE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number four, MARY ZUPA requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, garage, swimming
pool, sanitary system, deck, remove existing asphalt driveway
and install new gravel driveway, and landscape. Located: 580
Basin Road, Southold.
The CAC supported the application with the condition the
proposed structures are properly staked and requirement of a
detailed drainage plan. It was reviewed under LWRP and found to
be consistent. The Board did go out and looked at this project,
this proposed project. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf
of this application?
Board of Trustees 38 May 19, 2010
MS. ZUPA: My name is Mary S. Zupa, I'm the applicant. And my
husband and I bought the property eight-and-a-half years ago.
Under our original Trustee permit we have completed replacement
of the bulkheading, we have electric and water and we have
refurbished and planted land as requested and required by the
Board. And now we are here to build a house.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you.
MS. ZUPA: You're welcome.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to address some of the issues -- Mr. Hardy,
I know you are here from the CAC -- that there are gutters,
leaders and drywells located on this plan we are locking at.
They are also proposing removal of the asphalt driveway and so
the driveway will be gravel, so it will be a pervious driveway.
And we did find the property to be staked when we went out
there. I don't know, Mr. Hardy, if you have any other comments
on behalf of the Conservation Advisory Council for this one?
MR. HARDY: I didn't personally inspect it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. So the burden didn't have any
questions. Again, it seemed to comply, we wanted to make sure
it complies with Chapter 236 of the Drainage Code and we
appreciate the fact you were changing the asphalt driveway to a
pervious driveway, stone driveway.
Was there anybody else in the audience who wanted to
address this application?
(No response).
Not seeing any, are there any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: I'm shocked.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I see you have received the DEC permit for this.
TRUSTEE KING: We had issued the permit. It expired. This is a
lot of history here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you stand by for a second, I'm just reading
the conditions of the DEC permit. I see you do have a row of
staked hay bales and silt fencing as required by the DEC on your
plans. I also note you have a drywell for pool backwash on your
plans. Now, the buffer for this proposed project, I'm looking
for the, from the bulkhead up to the staked hay bales, I'm
trying to find on your plans what you designate, if you
designate a buffer. Is that your designated as your buffer?
Because we are interested, obviously in the non-turf buffer and
I know it's discussed here in the DEC plan.
MR. ZUPA: Victor Zupa, in support of the application. The
buffer is the distance from the bulkhead to the hay bales.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
MR. ZUPA: And there was drainage provided for the drains and the
house, as you can see there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. If there are no other comments from the
Board, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Board of Trustees 39 May 19, 2010
Mary Zupa as described at 580 Basin Road, confirming that it
complies, the entire project will comply with Chapter 236 and
there is a non-turf buffer that extends from the bulkhead
landward to the staked hay bale line, as depicted on the survey
that is dated January 7, 2002, received April 23, 2010.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?.
MS. ZUPA: May I say something?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We closed the public hearing. Do you want to
change something?
MR. ZUPA: I think she wanted to say thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second, all in favor?.
(ALL AYES).
MS. ZUPA: Thank you to the Board and the Board staff on behalf
of my husband and myself.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You're welcome.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me, Jim, I think we have to go back and
open up the other Zupa's. It's a wrong date of the survey.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can somebody grab them?
MS. HULSE: You can just amend that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But if we are going to do that, I want them to
know what we are doing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So it's a minor administerial error.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's just an administerial error. You were
looking at the old. We just have a clerical fix. We have to
open up and re-do the resolution. We didn't want you 1o panic that
we are doing something.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: First I'll make a motion reopen number four,
Mary Zupa, 580 Basin Road, Southold.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I want to amend the resolution that I had
put forward. I had stated the survey dated January 7, 2002.
It's actually revised March 31, 2010. $o with that amendment, I
would make the resolution.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. ZUPA: Thank you, again.
TRUSTEE KING: Number five, MARK & BARBARA MADDEN request a
Wetland Permit for the existing 3x75' catwalk, replace the
existing 3x12' ramp with a 3x20' ramp, and for the existing
6x24' floating dock. Located: 2600 Cedar Beach Road, Southold.
Is there anyone here to comment on number five, the Madden
application?
MR. MADDEN: Good evening. Mark Madden. I just wanted to know
what the proposal is.
TRUSTEE KING: There were actually two floats, am I correct, not
just for the one existing 6X24 float.
Board of Trustees 40 May 19, 2010
MR. MADDEN: It's an L-shaped float.
TRUSTEE KING: Right. So it's actually a 5x16 float and a 6x24
foot.float in an "L" configuration.
MR. MADDEN: Yes, sorry
TRUSTEE KING: Because that was not in the wording here. I just
wanted to make sure we got everything. So you are looking to
replace a 3x12' ramp with a three 3x20' ramp and for the
existing 5x16 and 6x24 float.
MR. MADDEN: Right.
TRUSTEE KING: So extending that ramp moves everything seaward.
MR. MADDEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: I understand. I guess there is a lot of history
here on this dock. There is a lot of covenants. I guess three
people have the use of it.'?
MR. MADDEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Conservation Advisory Council supported the
application with the condition there is minimal disturbance to
the wetlands. There are no plans to do anything on the dock, so
that would be left alone.
MR. MADDEN: At most, every once in a while replace planks on the
decking.
TRUSTEE KING: The field notes, the only recommendation we had,
if this ever has to be completely rebuilt that it be rebuilt
lower and we would like open grating on it to meet the newer
standards. But you can repair it now. But if something happens
where it has to be completely replaced, we would go for the new
type structure.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Actually the wetlands underneath it is still
pretty good, because it's so high.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just thinking of the esthetics of being lower
and less obtrusive.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Where does that water line go? Does it all the
way back to the house?
MR. MADDEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's a long way.
TRUSTEE KING: It was found inconsistent with the standards of
the LWRP. Piers, docking facilities and catwalks must not
result in unnecessary interference of the use of public trust
lands. Alternative to long piers and docks include use of
dinghies to reach more boats in mooring in a nearby marina.
This is a dock that has existed for many, many years, fl
pre-dates the LWRP. In my mind simply adding eight feet to the
ramp is very insignificant change. It just gets you out into
little deeper water
MR. MADDEN: The one resident, one of the three people that
occupied the inner most, you see the white spot in the picture
there, he literally cannot get his boat there because he's
sometimes, with the Iow tide, he is laying on the ground.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Actually as far as consistency of it, I
don't wish to totally go counter to the LWRP recommendation but,
basically, mean high water is landward of the steps and the
Board of Trustees 41 May 19, 2010
seaward part, Dry Heads Basin is extremely muddy, I would really
defy somebody to walk to walk the fringe there. It's one of
those places, it's a headwater that individuals can move along
the mean high water part in Dry Heads Basin on the firm upper
marsh, which we would not encourage, but they would have the
ability to move freely around and access the waters at any point
they wanted.
MR. MADDEN: There is nobody that can access the water, because
it's private property, no?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, mean high water is public trust.
MR. MADDEN: I see what you are saying. I think I have two pair
of shoes in there already. So it's a little difficult.
TRUSTEE KING: If this was a new application with a new
structure, I could understand the inconsistency. But what it
is, in my mind, I would make the recommendation that we find it
consistent because it's such a minor change. Is there anybody
else who wants to make any comments from the audience? Board?
(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 and we find it is consistent with LWRP. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. MADDEN: Thank you.
MS. MADDEN: I would also like to thank Lauren for all the help
she gave us.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. She does a great job for us,
Unappreciated
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number seven, Costello Marine Contracting on
behalf of MEK REALTY HOLDINGS, LLC., requests a Wetland Permit
to construct a 4x16' ramp onto a 4x35' level dock section with a
4x20' "L" section at offshore end. Install one eight-inch
diameter mooring piling. Located: 5345 Vanston Road, Cutchogue.
This was tabled last month to get soundings, I believe, on
the survey. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine on behalf of the
applicant. I could not get the soundings done in time. I could
not get permission from the people that paid for the soundings
to actually use them toward another homeowner's application,
because they paid for it privately to have the whole thing done.
So I could not get hold of Mr. Rust to actually get permission
to use his property for this application. So I was hoping that, and
everybody has seen the stakes and I talked to the association
president, he thought it was out of the way, the dock was completely
out of the way, but if the Trustees still do need that hydrographic, I
still have to table it again to until I can get hold of Mr. Rust to have
Board of Trustees 42 May 19, 2010
permission to use his hydrographics. Because his cousin, he didn't want
to spend anymore money on doing their own, I was just going to borrow
Bob's. I couldn't get in touch with him.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think ultimately we need that record in the
file.
MR. COSTELLO: Okay. I knew you had asked for it, but, like I
said, I couldn't rightfully take his stuff out of his file and use it for another.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand. But I think in being consistent
with what we require, I think we need that.
MR. COSTELLO: Fair enough. Can we just table this again. As
you know, there is no house there. It's not really a pressing
issue on this application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. We can do that. Are there any comments
while we have this open?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to table this application to get soundings.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number eight, Costello Marine Contracting on
behalf of BENJAMIN & JOCELYN SUGLIA requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 4x16' ramp onto a 4x70' level fixed dock with
32"x16' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6x20' seasonal floating
dock secured by 2 two-pile anchor dolphins using eight-inch
diameter piles. Located: 4639 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue.
As I recall, I think we opened this last month, but we
wanted to verify the pier line. So the Board went out. We saw
the stake and, as you can see, we took some pictures and, just
to confirm the pier line. Is there anybody here who would like
to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine, on behalf of the
Suglia's. The floating docks are in at the other adjacent
properties. As you noticed, I mean they were not there
yesterday when I was there, so establishing a pier line is still
the same as it was last month. But we did go ahead and submit
new plans to the Trustees. We were asked to move the inshore
end of the dock to the north to put, to a less vegetated area.
I don't know if you remember that. We submitted the plans. And
the stake that was out there originally is indicative of where
the end of the dock is going to be. I had restaked it earlier
this week to show you where the corners of the float was. But
that original stake didn't really move. That was very accurate
to where the end of the dock was going to be. And I went back
there and I staked the property line. I don't know if you got
out there and saw it. The property lines and the corners of the
float was staked and inshore was staked to a new location in the
less vegetated area. I would like to point out Mr. Suglia is
here to give any testimony about where the channel may be or
interference with the moorings, but it doesn't really seem like
this structure could possibly interfere with anybody,
Board of Trustees 43 May 19, 2010
considering the seaward end of the float is only in
two-and-a-half feet of water. The structure is pretty much
minimal. And it's not close to, you know, anything else, any of
the moorings or anything. I thought with the staking was --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The revised plans, you are talking about the
ones from the early part of May, right, May 5?
MR. COSTELLO: Revised plans --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Revised May 3, 2010.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yeah, we had those when we went out. I admit
that when you look at the survey, it does look as if it extends
past the pier line, but when we were out there, you can
obviously see, it looks good to me. Is there any comments or
questions from the Board on this? I think once we got out there
and took a hard look at it, we were satisfied, no?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I did go out and looked at it today and stood
down at the end of the neighboring dock to the north to try look
down the shoreline toward the south. And it's hard to tell
where the pier line would be of the other docks to the south
because they don't have their floats out there. Also, the float
that I was standing on has structure beyond it, two pilings, and
since I can't walk on water I was not able to go out and look at
that. But I agree with what the applicant has talked about in
that I think it is not going to interfere with navigation, is my
feeling, and that I think if I was able to go out and stand
where those outer pilings were, we find it would be in the pier
line of at least that southern tip of shoreline that is there,
if not probably within the pier line of that far dock with the
float attached to it. I am familiar with this area and I know
the channel is well offshore. The dredge channel is well
offshore in the middle of the creek there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I will point out that LVVRP did find this
inconsistent because it would be located in a New York State
Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area. But as you can see,
we already have docks in that area. Also, it was concerned that
the length of the structure didn't show the boat. It did not
take into consideration the length of the vessel and wasn't
preserving the public interest in and use of lands and waters
held in public trust. Once again, I'll just mention there was a
letter from Michael First, it's in the file, that has been part
of this, as part of the record. Mr. First is at 4585 Pequash
Avenue. He's concerned this dock would impede access to the
deep water channel. And as I recall last month, Mr. Wetzel's
letter was read into the record.
The Conservation Advisory Council, at that time, in April,
requested the Board of Trustees to table it and allow the
Conservation Advisory Council opportunity to further evaluate
the location. Did the Conservation Advisory Council do that?
MR. HARDY: I don't think the stakes were in when we went there
to inspect.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. Any other comments?
Board of Trustees 44 May 19, 2010
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just one comment. The need for two two-pile
anchor dolphins on the end of this floating dock. I know this
Board has questioned this before whether there is truly that
significant an ice problem where there is a need for two
two-pile dolphins. This is a seasonal float, so the floats can
be taken out. I don't know how the other Board members feel
about that.
TRUSTEE KING: We kind of got away from the dolphins and used
just the one pile for about the last ten or 15 years.
MR. COSTELLO: If that's a sticking point, that's fine. I'm
willing to accept that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Use two one-pile anchor dolphins, eight inch
diameter?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Jack, have you seen, not to get off the subject,
have you seen any of those fiberglass piles? We actually just
had a presentation here.
MR. COSTELLO: Pearson Piles.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, we actually put a whole bunch in for South
Ferry last week.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We saw the pictures tonight.
MR. COSTELLO: It was a test thing, we'll see.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They ten a boat into it today and it survived.
That's what he said, he said he went out there specifically to do that.
MR. COSTELLO: I think they gave it to him at cost, as an
experimental thing to try it. I'm finding them in -- a lot of
engineers are using them on the south side as part of their
outer part of their piling foundations, along with the CCA
pilings on the inside. So they are doing a lot of leg work
trying to get those things out here.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If there are no other comments or questions I'll
make a motion to close the hearing. Wait a minute.
MR. HUNTINGTON: Ray Huntington speaking for Fleets Neck Property
Owners Association. The Suglia's and the people you mentioned
the Wetzel's, are you all members of our association. And this
is a difficult area. It's difficult to bring a boat in without,
in order to get into that canal, in effect, that runs over to
Pequash Avenue, you have to kind of go north and then cut around
to go southwest and then into the canal. So it's very difficult
to tell from what I see here, and I wish I had more firsthand
experience to know exactly how to navigate in that area. I just
want to bring up from the association's point of view that this
is a tricky area, It's very shallow. You have to find the
water to get in here.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Did you supply soundings?
MR. COSTELLO: Nowhere around this dock is channeled with
navigable water.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe we looked at that and saw the channel
was further out.
Board of Trustees 45 May 19, 2010
MR. SUGLIA: If I may speak. Benjamin Suglia. I appreciate my
neighbor Mr. Huntington's concerns on behalf of the property
owners association. And I spoke last time having lived in the
house for 14 years. Most of the boats coming into that little
canal have to hug those moorings offshore, then carve it around.
They are way on the other side of my neighbor's dock to the
south of me, far out to get in there, because it's all shallow
in there, unfortunately. So I mean there is no one within a 150
feet of the shoreline with anything more than a canoe,
obviously, because you won't be in there. There is not enough
water. That's the God's honest truth about it. But I
appreciate the concern. Whatever we need to do to try to
alleviate it, I would be happy to. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It shows that the structure is going to bring
you out to two-and-a-half feet of water.
MR. COSTELLO: That's hopefully we won't have to go back again
and again because the DEC is willing to do two-and-a-half feet
of water with a floating dock.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is no further comments or questions, I
make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application
with the change that instead of using two two-pile anchor
dolphins, we'll make them two one-pile anchor dolphins, noting
that is does seem that the pier line does conform to our code,
and that we looked at this and find it consistent with LWRP.
MR. COSTELLO: Do you need new plans or could you just denote on
those plans that we'll change that? Or do you need new drawings
on that?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think just a change of pilings, we can mark
it single pile instead of two.
MR. COSTELLO: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a second on that?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before we move on to the next one, is there
anyone here from New Suffolk Properties?
(No response).
I have a request to skip over that and go to Kraft, number ten.
Whoever has that file.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have that.
MR. HERMAN: I'm here, but I think Jill was asking -- they are
both mine, Jill. Sorry, I assume you meant was there anyone
else from the public.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I did.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, I'll go to Kraft. Number ten,
En-Consultants on behalf of DENNIS & IRENE KRAFT requests a
Board of Trustees 46 May 19, 2010
Wetland Permit to construct a fixed timber dock consisting of a
4x78' fixed timber catwalk, 3x14' hinged ramp, and 6x20' float
secured by two eight-inch diameter pilings and install one
eight-inch diameter piling for 1,500 lb., boat lift. Located:
1710 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck.
This was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council and
the CAC supports the application with the following conditions.
The end of the float should be staked. The float should be
perpendicular to the dock and parallel to the bulkhead. The
dock should be constructed with open-grate decking. The old
float should be removed, along with the removal of the dock
remains. Shorten the length of the dock to reach adequate water
depths, and drywells are installed to contain the roof runoff
from the dwelling. The LWRP review came in as inconsistent
because the subject parcel property already has public water --
access to public water via the existing dock structure. The
proposed dock is 112 feet in length. Chapter 275 requires that
the determination of the length of the dock must include the
dimensions of the vessel, and the vessel dimensions are not
specified. The proposed action is located within New York State
Critical Environmental Area. This -- to assure public access to
public trust lands and navigable waters, the proposed dock
structure will result in perpetual loss of unobstructed public
access and use of public underwater land equal to the dock and
vehicle dimensions. The length and fixed nature of the dock
will impede navigation for other vessels. And it has recommended
the Board require the use of a silt boom during construction.
And installation of erosion control structure could be
necessary. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant who are also here. I tried to quickly write down what
you said. I'll try to address each issue. First of all, I'm
not sure that this led to any confusion, but the project
description should of course include the removal of the existing
dock structure as is shown on the plan, which is a, essentially
a 4x20 ramp and 6x40 float. This is not an application for a
second dock. It's an application for a replacement dock due to
the fact that the existing float sits in insufficient water.
Generally, the dock that is proposed meets what is the Board's
usual, including legislated length requirements to the extent
that the dock, as designed, is a straight dock, as opposed to a
"T" float, would include length of the vessel, and we are well
within the one-third rule. And we also had the Kraft's invest
in the survey locating the neighboring docks to the north and
two properties to the south. And that pier line of those
neighboring docks are shown on the plan. Back in his heyday
as chairman, Jim King had met with us at a pre-application meeting
some time ago, and that was the issue we had discussed with Jim
was the idea of whether adequate water depth could be reached,
and when I say adequate water depth, not only for the Kraft's
Board of Trustees 47 May 19, 2010
from a practical perepective but also the 30 inches of water at
Iow tide the DEC requires for a seasonal float. We quickly
reached that depth and not exceed the pier line set by
neighboring docks in the area. And Jim had suggested that would
be at least his primary concern with respect to navigation, et
cetere. So we were able to accomplish that. I have sounded
this site three separate times under a higher Iow side, lower
Iow tide and mid-range Iow tide. I think the Kreft's were a
little tired after a while of how many times I was sounding the
area. And this relates to the question of impeding access,
which other than being a generic statement I'm not sure what the
context for that is on site-specific basis because I can tell
you that I almost needed rescue to get out of this area almost,
every time I sounded it. I mean, you sink immediately up to your
knees in this area.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any clams in that area?
MR. HERMAN: I seriously doubt there is any clamming or any
Sunday morning strells going along this particular stretch. By
foot, anyway. I mean I was going to say we could offer to
prepose stalin but I think that would be an absurd preposal here
because they would simply just go right into a foot-and-a-half
of muck anywhere close to the bulkhead. There was a mention of
the overell length of the dock being 112 feet, I think you said.
I don't know what that is based on. The overell length of the
dock of 105 feet is clearly depicted on the plan. With respect
to it being in a critical envirenmental area, as noted in the
same report, there is already a dock here. So I'm not sure
whether the LWRP inconsistency is based on introducing a dock or
the fact there is already a dock here, but there is a dock here
to be removed, it would be replaced with this one. I think we
attached to our LWRP application an aerial photo that shows, as
the Board is familiar, this area is riddled with docks up and
down the shoreline, and again we would be consistent in length
and charecter with those. In fact, as the Board typically
seeks, the fact that we are removing 6x40 feet worth of float,
and basically reducing the amount of coverage directly over the
water by 50%, by putting in this dock, of couree the fixed
portion is, would be new, as there is no fixed portion there
now. But that is the very reason why the float sits in what is
deemed by the state to be inadequate water death. So we are
trying our best to juggle between the requirements of both
agencies. With respect to interference with navigation, again,
I'm not sure what that is, the context of this comment is as
again we are inside the pier line of the neighboring docks,
notwithstanding the very, very short float immediately to the
south that sits in the mud at Iow tide. But we would be
consistent with the extension of the docks otherwise to the
north and two preperties to the south, and, again, that is what
I had discussed with Jim.
So it worries me a little bit again that this LWRP report,
again, doesn't seem to be particularly site specific. We have
Board of Trustees 48 May 19, 2010
put a lot of time and effort into looking at this site, having
the adjacent waterway surveyed, having the adjacent docks
surveyed, having this area sounded and taking into consideration
every one of those issues and, including that, all of that in
our LWRP application, which continues to seem to be ignored and
just replaced with stock comments.
The roof runoff issue, I don't see how that has any
relation to the application. It has not been this Board's
policy to require unsolicited upland improvements that are
totally unrelated to marine construction. So we would
respectfully pass on that suggestion. I think I covered
everything that Dave had read from the two sets of comments, but
I'm here to respond further.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, when the Board was out there, the end was
not staked. Is there a reason why it was not staked?
MR. HERMAN: I was afraid you were going to say that. We had
staked it some time ago and I was not totally sure of the, what
the lifespan of the stake was going to be. Again, the bottom is
just touch and go here. It took a lot of effort to actually
make sure each time it was sounded that we were not going, you
know, below the layer of silt. But it's so soft it is really
difficult to keep it in some of those spots. So we could, if
the Board wished, we could stake it again, we could try to
arrange for the staking, you know, if you felt that a second
inspection was required. But again, the adjacent structures are
surveyed and we do show the pier line on the plan.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Where is the stake in relation to the existing
piling? The seaward piling?
MR. HERMAN: Well, that's a little hard to say because one of the
things that was not addressed is we would be changing the angle
of the dock. Right now the dock is at a right angle because it's
basically a hinged ramp. So it's always been set at a right
angle to the bulkhead as opposed to kind of going out in a
straight line with the adjacent structures. So I can tell you,
I could tell you the distance seaward of that existing piling,
that the dock would extend, but it doesn't extend in a straight
line, so I'm not positive how much that would help you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought maybe it would help us.
MR. HERMAN: It's less than -- it's about, would be about 45, 46
feet seaward of that piling. But, you know, on a straight line.
I mean even you if you extended it out at the same angle, it
would put you farther into the creek, and that was one of the
reasons why we did make it straight. Because we did not want to
go any further than was necessary. In other words, the idea
here, not only to line it up so as not to inter[ere with the
Meyer's property immediately to the south, because once you
start to project this out further, it starts to project across
the extended property line in front of the Meyer's house. So we
specifically wanted to avoid that. And in doing so, we also end
up staying in line with the adjacent structures and getting to
the 30 inches of water a little bit quicker. So again, there
Board of Trustees 49 May 19, 2010
was a lot of thought put into this, and we think this would be
the best layout as opposed to simply extending the angle
structure seaward. But I do apologize, I mean we would, if the
Board wanted to take another look at it, if you felt that was
necessary, we would have to try get it staked, really more in
coordination with the timing of your inspection. So I do
apologize for that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, just to possibly address some of the
Conservation Advisory Council's suggestions, would the applicant
consider making it a "T" instead of a straight-out dock, the
float at the end?
MR. HERMAN: Well, the issue with that here, again we looked at
that, because the bulk of our applications do end up being
"T's". In most cases, a "T" is less desirable just as a
standard issue because when you have the float going straight
out, you can easily dock two vessels at a time. Whereas if you
are trying to thread the needle with water depth you really
can't dock anything on the inside. You lose that. But often we
have no choice because between your Board's concerns with
length, navigation, intrusion, et cetera, and the DEC's focus on
water depth, we are almost always at that critical juncture of
trying to get the dock just in tight enough while still getting
the required amount of water. That's not really the case here.
Even with the overall length, we have some reom to spare. And
where we start the float is actually a little bit under 30
inches. And we are hoping the DEC will allow us this because
most of the float really is in 30 inches. So we are really
limiting this as much as possible. If we turned it to a "T" we
would have to turn it at the most landward point. Then we have
probably about four feet. Now, normally switching a 20-foot
float, you gain about 14 feet. But with that four foot, given
the depth, you would only be gaining about ten feet. So here,
given the fact that we are otherwise meeting all the length
requirements and we are not really struggling with that here,
the applicant wishes that the Board would consider this,
particularly in light this would be consistent really with the
design of the adjacent structures and would allow them the
flexibility of having the two docks. We really don't have
anything appreciable to gain by switching it to a "T" here, as
is so often the case that that is required in order to get both
agencies on board.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would the applicant consider construction using
open-grate decking?
MR. HERMAN: Yes. I think that was already discussed. The
decking that we are showing would be either untreated timber or
composite material only as opposed to the open-grate, only
because this is not a situation where there is a vegetated
marsh, there is not an aquatic grass bed here. This really,
again, is completely unvegetated, really silty bottom. So
normally, the open-grate decking, the purpose of that is to
allow the light to get through it, as the Board knows, to keep
Board of Trustees 50 May 19, 2010
the vegetation. But here there is no vegetation. So as long as
the material is untreated I don't think we are gaining anything,
in fact I know we are not gaining anything ecologically by using
open grate. I mean if that was a deal breaker, I'm sure I could
talk them into it. But I don't think there is, there would be
any justification for it here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The other thing I noticed, it's not in the
description, the plans call for water and electricity to be
included with the construction of the dock. I just want to make
sure that's on the record and to be in the description.
MR. HERMAN: Yes, I have that on the plans. I figured out to
start doing that and now I have to figure out to start including
it with the description.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: How does the Board feel about requiring him to
stake it and us go back next month versus accepting what has
been said tonight?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know if I want to start this precedent,
but can we maybe approve it subject to the staking inspection,
since we have all been out there, the plans show it doesn't go
further out and he just doesn't get his permit until we are
satisfied. And if we are not satisfied, then we can come back
and open that up again. Is that something that is doable, Lori?
MS. HULSE: Sorry, what was that?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we can approve this, the plans are pretty
clear, approve it subject to inspecting it again and seeing it
staked again and if we are satisfied with that, then we can
issue the permit and if not, we'll call him back in and reopen it.
MS. HULSE: Sure.
MR. HERMAN: Certainly we would not object to that requirement.
I mean if the staking just verifies what you are already looking
at, sure. If it poses some shock or something that doesn't look
right, as has happened once or twice, then, you know, I'll be
here next month anyway.
MS. HULSE: Just based on the result of inspection being --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can make it a condition of the - that way
it doesn't hold you up another month.
MR. HERMAN: I appreciate it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just call the office when it's done and I can
go out there.
TRUSTEE KING: The only comment I have, I think you need to
change this wording on the boat lift. Boat lifts are prohibited
in the Sound. It's more like a davit, not a boat lift. I think
just call it a davit and not a boat lift. Just a clarification.
MR. HERMAN: Yes, I wasn't -- and, again, on that issue, this is
not, it's not the kind of lift that goes out on the end of the
dock. It sits on a single piling, um, on the bulkhead itself.
And it is, you know, it's called a swinger lift, so I didn't
want to be in a situation that we were trying to call it
something other than what it was. I mean we have, if you want
me to, we could show you what it is. I can't remember if I
submitted it or not. But that's from the company's website.
Board of Trustees 51 May 19, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: (Perusing).
MR. HERMAN: And we do want the Board to look at it explicitly
because, as we told Jim, there is a little bit of history with
this lift because Mr. Kraft had originally ordered this and then
kind of learned that the whole process and everything that he
had to go through, and cancelled his order and suffered some --
so we want to make sure the Board knows what it's approving.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it would meet the code. Show it to
Lori
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Under our code, boat lifts currently are not
allowed.
MS. HULSE: It just says boat lifts.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We were going to work on that.
TRUSTEE KING: The code says residential boat lift, floating or
fixed, are prohibited except in privately owned basins or on
private property, at the discretion of the Board of Trustees. I
thought that was more like a davit. Hoisting a dinghy up and
swings it over the bulkhead. But it's not. It's a fixed
bulkhead-mounted lift.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, it's not approved currently.
TRUSTEE KING: No, it doesn't cut it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just one other question for the applicant. If
it would agree to the use of a silt boom during construction of
this dock.
I'm trying to address something in the LWRP.
MR. HERMAN: I don't see any reason not to use it. Obviously they
have to install the piles. So the silt boom would serve to
contain turbidity. Again, there is not much growing in that
area but it is really silty. So it would be a spot that would
potentially make some sense. So I think we would be agreeable
to that, sure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think the Board is in agreement here that is a
boat lift and would not be allowed under the code. Again, a
davit would not be an issue. But --
MR. HERMAN: Has there been some discussion about any sort of
allowance for, again, obviously --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Right now the code says it's only allowed in
commercially zoned area or private boat basin, over privately
owned bottoms.
TRUSTEE KING: There is one in Greenport we approved, it was a
cut-out basin on his property.
MR. HERMAN: Again, that was, in discussion, I didn't want to
have a situation where you approved something, thinking it was
something else, then when it goes up, go out there and, so.
Sorry Dennis. If something changes on that, we'll, I mean, we
could always come back. Just assuming it sounds like the Board
would be amenable, would you want to substitute the ability to
install a davit there on the pile there or is that not, would
that not really serve the purpose?
MR. KRAFT: If it would lift like an inflatable.
MR. HERMAN: For the stuff you have now, the kayaks and all that,
Board of Trustees 52 May 19, 2010
I mean a davit --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: A davit would lift an inflatable. A small --
when you say inflatable -- but, yes, a small, inflatable dinghy
as well as kayaks, rowboat, aluminum rowboat, something like that.
MR. HERMAN: It won't serve as your ultimate vessel for the dock,
obviously, but maybe we could amend the plans -- obviously we
would have 1o amend the plans to remove the boat lift, and just
get permission for a davit in the same location.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Was there anybody else who wanted to
speak for or against this application?
(No response).
Any other comments from any members of the Board?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we thoroughly went through it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then I'll make a motion to close the public
hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
En-Consultants on behalf of Dennis and Irene Kraft as described
at 1710 Deephole Drive, with the following conditions:
One, that the boat lift that has been proposed be changed
to a davit; that water and electricity be included with the
description; the removal of the old dock structures, as a
condition; and subject to inspection next month by a Trustee or
the Trustees to see, to look at the staked end to make sure it
falls within the pier line as depicted on the plans dated April
28, 2010. And with the use of a silt boom during construction.
And with those conditions, the Board would determine it
consistent under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Revised plans showing --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. And subject to receipt of revised
plans.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERMAN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just notify the office when it's staked and
we'll go out and look at it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Someone can go out and inspect it for you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Going back to number nine.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: En-Consultants, the next hearing in the
matter of En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of NEW SUFFOLK
PROPERTIES, LLC, dba NEW SUFFOLK SHIPYARD, requests a Wetland
Permit to construct approximately 69 linear feet of vinyl
bulkhead in place of existing timber bulkhead and construct
approximately 20 linear feet of new vinyl bulkhead to extend
bulkhead to existing concrete boat ramp; construct 16' return;
backfill with approximately 25 cubic yards clean sand to be
trucked in from an upland source; replace existing light post
Board of Trustees 53 May 19, 2010
and evergreen trees; and reconnect broken Southold Town drainage
pipe. Located: 3350 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue.
The Conservation Advisory Council made a recommendation to
not support the application and recommends a more, the
requirement of a more comprehensive approach to the storm water
runoff problem. So if Mr. Hardy wants to expound on that more,
I know the Trustees had concerns along the same lines. We saw
the pipe when we were there.
MR. HARDY: It's at the end of the road and there seems to be a
complex water runoff problem into the area. So we thought that
that should be reconsidered before the final application.
Generally, the engineering part of it, of the bulkheads and so
forth, seem to be quite creative.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If I might say, in the storm water runoff
committee, this whole area is in our top five priority list.
And with this repair in mind, we have been talking, the
applicant and myself, have been talking with Pete Harris from
the Highway Department and Jamie Richter in the Engineering
Department, and we have requested when the town repairs the
drain, which they have an easement, through the Planning Board,
to have a drain there, that they put additional catch basins up
the road. This is a small catch basin and it is very little
depth in that area. The plan is much bigger than just a couple
of catch basins. So it is in our top five priority list. And a
lot of the problem in this area is the lay of the land and the
houses on the opposite side of the road have very steep front
yards, that everything runs down into the road. There is a lot
going into that road. So it's a difficult project for the
Highway Department to field. But it is in our, in the
forefront, and we are trying to get approvals from DEC to do
major drainage in that area.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Also, I wish to add the LVVRP
review found it consistent, but did make a recommendation for
the use of a silt fence during the construction.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I also want to mention that maybe the
description should not mention the reconnection of the pipe
because that's a, the town is going to be doing that project,
not the applicant. And, as I said, they have an easement and
it's part of the town maintenance, and it would not be done from
the shipyard.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just to correct the record, sorry, I
indicated a silt fence. I meant a silt boom during the
construction to keep the silt from getting into the waters.
Anyone here on behalf of the applicant?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants, on behalf of the
shipyard. I think Mr. Hardy's comments and the Board's comments
illuminate the fact it's a fairly routine application with
respect to the bulkhead application, but the town pipe here
makes it a bit more involved. Of course it's the failure of
that pipe that has sort of forced the shipyard to act a little
sooner than they probably would have on replacing the bulkhead.
Board of Trustees 54 May 19, 2010
You can see the area that has been washed out. I think that the
owners are happy to handle this however the town sees fit.
Certainly, it's a difficult situation because in a broad sense
it's, as Mr. Hardy mentioned, taking the larger approach to the
storm water situation is really beyond the means and out of the
proper capacity of the shipyard. It really has nothing to do
with the shipyard as an individual property owner, but in an
immediate sense they have to replace the bulkhead. So something
has to be done because if the pipe is not either completely
removed with some other alternative set in place, or restored,
then you are going to have the same situation behind the new
bulkhead. So I think Jill is probably right, it's perhaps not
appropriate to grant the permission to the shipyard to reconnect
the pipe, but we just wanted to address it, kind of force the
issue so we know what the plan is. So we can certainly
eliminate that from the proposal. But if there is, as you
mentioned, as easement, and there is some plan to, by the town
to be the ones to restore it, there would just have to be some
sort of, you know, condition that it be done in, at the right
time in terms of the bulkhead being repaired.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Peter Harris has indicated that he wants the
shipyard notified that it's doing construction and he'll be down
there in a timely fashion to fix that.
MR. HERMAN: Maybe you could fashion your approval on that notion
and then we could simply --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't want to dictate what Mr. Harris does.
But he verbally said he would do that.
MR. HERMAN: I don't mean you would have to put some onus on him,
but if the permission can't be granted to the shipyard, then
somebody has to steward it because othem/ise again we'll be in
the same situation where if they go out to do the construction,
there has to be some resolution to this. Because it's not
within their capacity to fix it.
TRUSTEE KING: How about if they just contact Highway Department
when they commence work.
MR. HERMAN: That's fine. However you want it.
TRUSTEE KING: Let them notify the Highway Department, such and
such a date we are commencing work on a new bulkhead, you have a
town pipe here that needs to be fixed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That is the discussion and we can certainly put
what is on the record now.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: With all due respect to what Jill has said, um,
we have seen, items on the storm water runoff committee's top
five list that have not been addressed in years. Not months,
but years. And I would not want to tie this into a promise for
the Highway Department to do something because we can't speak on
behalf of the Highway Department. I'm uncomfortable
approving a pipe through this bulkhead. I think it's the
responsibility of the town to address this issue, not the
property owner. And so I, you know, I appreciate the fact that
the applicant is stating that he's going to remove that from
Board of Trustees 55 May 19, 2010
that -- when I say "that," removing the pipe from the
description for this project -- because I cannot in good
conscience vote for an application that would include a pipe
that will produce direct discharge into a creek which has
already been declared unsafe to harvest shellfish from by the
DEC. So I certainly do not want to tie the applicant to some
promise by the Highway Department or the town that this Board
cannot make because it could be years before those promises are
kept.
MR. HERMAN: Well, I mean the normal method of operation would,
with these kind of applications, where 95% of the time the pipe
is privately owned or managed or whatever, you simply require we
cap it. So I mean the shipyard would be happy to cap it, and
that certainly might force the town to act pretty quickly. But
again, I'm not certain we can seek your permission to cap a pipe
or whatever, that doesn't belong to them, that belongs to the
town. And it's just a strange situation. Maybe Lori can come
to the rescue here, but I mean we are seeking permission from
one arm of the town --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think if we just take that part of the pipe
out of the description and not give you the approval, and if the
shipyard wants to notify the Highway Department that the
construction is being done, and the Highway Department will do
what it has to do.
MR. HERMAN: I don't want to get between you and Dave, but I
don't want to leave it completely unattended. We can't just
say, okay, you gave us a permit to repair the bulkhead. Because
if they go and repair the bulkhead and the town doesn't act,
then the entire area will wash out again, and that will be your
problem again because you'll all that siltation going into the
creek. It's a unique situation, but I don't want to leave the
issue totally unattended where the only thing that I deliver to
the client is a permit saying you can repair the bulkhead and
that's that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All I could tell you is what Pete Harris
directly told me and he said I could mention at the meeting he
will, once the applicant notifies him, he'll get down there and
he'll do his maintenance on the pipe. And there is a catch
basin there. So it's not -- although it's not a deep one. I
don't even know if it's two feet there. But it can't be more
than that.
MR. HERMAN: All I could do is request that the Board somehow
address this in the permit to the shipyard on the bulkhead
because I just fear, I mean I appreciate this conversation is on
the record, but it's once it's done and the permit is issued --
MS. HULSE: But how are they supposed to address it, Rob? Are
they supposed to direct the Highway Department to do something?
MR. HERMAN: Well, that's the question I'm asking you.
MS. HULSE: No, I don't think they are going to do that in the
permit. Maybe as an aside.
MR. HERMAN: The question, what remains, Lori, the issue to say,
Board of Trustees 56 May 19, 2010
well, we can't give the applicant permission to deal with it. We
don't have the authority to deal with it nor do we have the authority to
tell someone else in the town what to do with it. So therefore it's left
totally unaddressed. And I'm just asking is that your desired outcome.
I have no agenda on this. It's not their pipe.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand what you are saying. And I think
at this point we only have Pete Harris' words through me, and I
don't have, I'm not comfortable saying anything in the permit to
that effect. He's not here to speak to that himself.
MR. HERMAN: Then maybe the permit can simply read that it's
approved with the condition that there is no permission granted
for the shipyard to replace the pipe, and we'll have to give you
revised plans pursuant to that condition, the same as we would
any other condition.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Can we ask Pete to come down? Can we table this
and ask him to come down?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We've already had meetings with the town
attorneys, we have already been through this whole process. Rob
has not been involved in it, though. We had a meeting with
Jennifer and Lori and Jamie and Pete and Jim and myself to
discuss this issue. And everything was related to the
applicant. And then he proceeded with the permits.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay.
MR. HERMAN: I mean, I don't have a problem with what you are
saying, just as long as there is some record we were directed to
take this away. That's all
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think your record has to be the minutes,
unless we can think of something else.
MR. HERMAN: Why is it any different than the condition of
anything else, that something --
MS. HULSE: What is the condition language you would like to
include, Rob?
MR. HERMAN: That the condition is the proposal to replace the
town's drain pipe be removed. That it not be approved or
removed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Removed from the description in the plans, yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Just stop this thing at evergreen trees. Stop the
description at the evergreen trees versus reconnect. Just delete that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what my suggestion was.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further comment?
MS. MOORE: I have a comment. Sorry. Are you opening it up to
the public?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MS. MOORE: I'm having to deal with this in Buds Pond. That's
why it's real -- I'm dealing with this now. The town takes the
position that they have an easement and if you have an easement,
you have to honor the easement. So if the Highway Department,
if there is a pipe there, you don't address the pipe, you are
not asked to remove it or touch it or do anything, but if you
do, you can't tell him to remove it, he can't remove it. The
easement is there.
Board of Trustees 57 May 19, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are telling him remove it from his
description.
MS. MOORE: So it's not addressed, but the easement, it is still
subject to an easement.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. When we said remove, remove it from his
description. Not to physically remove it.
MR. HERMAN: Remove our request to reconnect it.
MS. MOORE: Okay. Because what happens when you remove these,
all of a sudden you get major flooding because there is no
alternative. There is no place for the water to go.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you for the clarification. We are
talking being removing the wording from the description.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I can just comment on that, Pat. The area of
Buds Pond, the substrate there is a heavy clay area, and we
worked round and round and round with that area and realized
that the town is greatly limited on what they could do in
drainage in that area when there is such heavy clay. The
substrate in this area is completely different and there are
options for the town to address the storm water runoff issue
here that they didn't have available in Budd's Pond
MS. MOORE: No, it's good. And I hope the town does address it.
But you are absolutely right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't want to compare this to a location where
it's completely different, that's all.
MS. MOORE: It's just those pipes that go through bulkheads,
those are the problems. They are the problem child all over town.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are aware.
TRUSTEE KING: And in the code, no discharge pipes are allowed
out or over bulkheads unless permitted by the Trustees. So
MR. HERMAN: But you can't permit it.
MS. MOORE: As long as there is a record for him.
MR. HUNTINGTON: Ray Huntington, speaking for the Fleets Neck
Property Owners Association. The first thing I would like to
say is that the operators of the marina have been good neighbors
since they bought the marina nearly a decade ago. This
application appears to be a continuation of the good faith in
how they run this marina. So they certainly deserve every shot
at fixing this problem that we can give them.
The association would like to make five comments with
respect to the application. The bulkhead should be repaired and
extended to restore function and appearance, is the first
comment. The second comment is, seeing no other timely
solution, the drainage pipe should be restored and routed
through the bulkhead. And on that point, I see, within the MS-4
program, I don't see anything happening in, easily, a year.
Having some familiarity with the program, nothing is going to
happen for at least a year and perhaps two. So meanwhile you
saw a picture of the bulkhead. The time is now to do something.
There is another problem here, and that is quite related. Let
me give you some paper, just so as to help you follow my
comments a little better. (Handing).
Board of Trustees 58 May 19, 2010
I was about to address my third comment, which has do with
a gutter restriction, call it a gutter, but it's the edge of the
road, where the concrete ramp is improperly constructed and in
effect dams the flow of water down the road toward the south.
You can see from the picture where the ramp is, and that's a
little bit higher there. And the water can't get by. There is,
I understand, a pipe under that ramp, but that pipe is clogged.
I don't know if clogged is the right word. It may be filled
with concrete. I don't know what it is in it. But it doesn't
flow any water. Let's put it that way. So that is part of the
picture, as you can see, how the water backs up here. Now,
going on to another part of the permit, though, point number
four is that we would like to see no increase in landward
illumination coming from the light pole that will be replaced.
That is shrouded by some trees which we would also like to see
retained. And it looks like they can be retained. They are
rather large trees and help block the light. That light was the
subject of many discussions with the Building Department over
the years and it kind of got to a point of accommodation. So we
don't want to see an increase in the landward illumination.
Finally, the road runoff and sometimes sea water that form
Lake Latham, as it's called, named after the resident in front
of that area, should be relieved by careful regrading of the
street. Now, you mentioned before about Pete Harris saying he
recognizes the need to regrade this and another area in the
same, another piece in the same area. It would be very
carefully done, because we don't want to lock the sea water
inside the road, on the landward side of the road. This could
be done with a pipe under the road to pass that water back out
should it get in there. But there is a history in the area
where that, the sea water can go to the other side of the read.
So these are the things that the association would like to bring
to your attention and hopefully to address now because these are
current problems. We can't be putting it off two or three years.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you, I'll pass these on to Highway and
Engineering.
MR. HUNTINGTON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further comments?
MR. HERMAN: John, just for clarification. I'm just, is the
Board going to issue a resolution that I remove that or are you
asking me to just remove it as if we never asked for it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't see that we need a resolution for you
to do that. We have not done that in the past with other
things. If you are agreeable to remove that from your
description, we can just remove it. Lori? Is there a problem
if we do a resolution to remove it? It's not consistent with
what we normally do.
MS. HULSE: Is that what you are asking for? You are asking for
a distinction between you having to remove the pipe or remove
the language from the resolution? The Trustees are inclined to
remove the language from the resolution. Is that what you are
Board of Trustees 59 May 19, 2010
requesting?
MR. HERMAN: I think what I'm requesting is that we be formally
directed to, because you are taking the position that you cannot
grant us permission to restore the pipe. And I think that's
correct. That the resolution grant the permit with that as a
condition, that we remove, that we eliminate the request,
because we are not, you are not authorized to give us that
permission.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's seems reasonable.
MS. HULSE: I don't understand the reason for making it a
condition of the permit. It's a much better alternative would
be just to remove the language.
MR. HERMAN: Well, just to include it in your resolution the way
you always do, that you reviewed this and the LVVRP was reviewed
and bla, bla, bla. Because, I mean, otherwise what happens,
Lori, is at the end of the day, it's as if we proposed to do
nothing with the pipe and we have no permission to do anything
with the pipe. Which leads you us back to square one of what
Dave is saying of, who knows, maybe it will get fixed, maybe it
won't. I hear what Jill is saying, somebody is promising
verbally to fix this, but at the same time I have a
responsibility to my client to make sure we address this
somehow. And so I just want a record that we made this
proposal, and that we were requested to eliminate the proposal
simply because the Board doesn't have permission to grant it.
Same as you didn't have permission to grant the boat lift.
MS. HULSE: So then I'm going to recommend to the Board that they
remove the language from the resolution and resolution be read
into the record without that language.
MR. HERMAN: That's fine, but that's the language that goes into
the permit.
MS. HULSE: Correct.
MR. HERMAN: You also issue a resolution that runs along with the
permit that says this was considered, that was considered. I
feel like I'm asking for something here that is very simple.
MS. HULSE: We have a record here of this hearing, Rob. It's not
like this hasn't been discussed and debated. It's just the way
the permit should be issued should not include a condition where
there doesn't need to be one and it would just create, to me, a
condition the Trustees don't have to include. I think the
better course is to remove the language and proceed like that.
You have your record.
MR. HASSELDINE: My name is Ed Hasseldine, I live directly across
from that sorry hole that you see there. I also own the
adjacent property next to New Suffolk Shipyard. While you are
trying to decide how to handle this problem, if you let this
gentleman go ahead with the bulkhead, which is sorely needed,
and there is no way to drain the water off that read, it's not
going to bother you because you are sitting up there. That water
will be in my garage. So I sure would like you to find some
way, even if the bulkhead contractor puts a port through the
Board of Trustees 60 May 19, 2010
bulkhead and caps it. So that the Highway Department can attach
to it at a later date, but let's get the bulkhead in and let's
get that water flowing temporarily. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we can close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to close the hearing in
this matter.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In the matter of New Suffolk Properties,
En-Consultants on behalf of New Suffolk Properties and New
Suffolk Shipyard in this matter, I would move to approve this
application subject to the removal of the language --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me, Jay, Lori suggested that we just
read the project description --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just read the project description without
it; is that correct?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. HERMAN: Why is there an objection to what John is moving?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He can do what he wants. I'm just reiterating
what Lori said.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If that's what counsel wishes, that the
Board approve the wetland permit to construct approximately 69
linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing timber
bulkhead and construct approximately 20 linear feet of new
bulkhead to extend bulkhead to existing concrete boat ramp, to
construct 16 foot return, backfill with 25 cubic yards of clean
sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Replace existing
light post and evergreen trees. With additional conditions that
said light not shine any further landward and that during the
construction phase to accommodate the request of the LWRP that a
silt boom be put in place. Any other --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only part of the resolution I'm not
comfortable with is subject that the light not illuminating any
farther landward. I don't know how to determine how far
landward it illuminates now. I think the question that was
brought up, it's a very valid question, was, will the trees be
there to block the light, and that's already in the permit
application.
MR. HUNTINGTON: The permit says they'll be replaced. And that
might be replaced with a three foot tree.
MS. HULSE: I'm sorry, there is a motion on the table. We are
not taking public comment now. We have a motion on the table.
There has been additional comment. The motion needs to be
seconded or changed or -- there can't be public comment now.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can we just say the lighting conform to the
code, because there is a code section.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll amend my motion to, that the lighting
conform to the Town Code, and is there a second on my motion?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 61 May 19, 2010
MR. HERMAN: Just to be clear, there was no condition that we
remove that language. That's what was just read.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The language of the pipe is not in the approval.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He left that part out when he read it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I left that part out.
MR. HERMAN: Okay.
(After a two-minute break, these proceedings continue as
follows).
TRUSTEE KING: Number eleven, Peconic Permit Expediting on behalf
of ALLISON TUPPER requests a Wetland Permit to construct
second-floor dormers onto the existing dwelling. Located: 3050
Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold.
Is there anyone here to speak for this application?
MR. LENHERT: Rob Lenhert here on behalf of the owner. This is
pretty simple, after the last couple.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Don't say that, Rob.
MR. LENHERT: We are basically proposing two dormers on the
second floor of the existing dwelling.
TRUSTEE KING: It's exempt from LWRP. That's good news. And the
Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the
condition gutters, leaders and drywells are installed to contain
roof runoff. Is there any provisions for that on these plans,
Rob?
MR. LENHERT: We'll have gutters, leaders and drywells.
TRUSTEE KING: I think in the notes we questioned why it was not
just an administrative permit, being it was just two dormers.
MR. LENHERT: That was my question also. I asked about that when
I originally filed it and they said do a full application process.
TRUSTEE KING: It looks pretty simple to me. Any other comments
from the audience?
(No response).
Comments from the Board?
(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 with
drywells, leaders and gutters.
MR. LENHERT: Could you make it part of the permit?
TRUSTEE KING: With the condition the roof runoff is taken care
of and drywells.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. LENHERT: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 12, Samuels & Steelman Architects, on
behalf of ROBERT & SUSAN GATEHOUSE request a Wetland Permit to
Board of Trustees 62 May 19, 2010
demolish the existing dwelling and abandon the existing sanitary
system and construct a new two-story dwelling with new sanitary
system and new attached garage. Located: 2870 Peconic Bay
Boulevard, Laurel.
This is consistent with LWRP. And Conservation Advisory Council
supports the application with the condition that lateral access
stalin are constructed over the jetty, every effort to made to
save trees and ten foot non-turf buffer is installed landward of
the bulkhead. Anyone here to comment on this application?
MR. SAMUELS: Tom Samuels on behalf of the owners, who are also
here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We all looked at it and it was very nicely
marked out. And we would, we like the fact everything is being
moved landward. I'm just looking at comments from the
Conservation Advisory Council with the buffer. Do we have any
kind of buffer on there? Is there lawn all the way to the bulkhead?
MR. SAMUELS: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: This is a common two-bulkhead job.
MR. SAMUELS: It's a double bulkhead, so there is not really that
same tendency to runoff into the bay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We use the distance between the two bulkheads
as your non-turf buffer.
MR. SAMUELS: Right. Which is non-turf.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think we really had any questions on
it. It was clear, you have the drywells on there. Everything was
moved back; the septic is out of our jurisdiction. Any
questions from the Board?
(No response).
MR. SAMUELS: I would just add it's moved back obviously for your
benefit, or the benefit of the Town Code for the Trustees, but
also obviously for the DEC and for the town building, zoning code.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's in line with the other houses and the
house with the one side is in front of it. Is there anybody
else who wants to comment?
TRUSTEE KING: I just have a question. On the zoning setback is
75 feet from the bulkhead. Do that they go from seaward or landward?
MR. SAMUELS: Seaward. That's the way the zoning code is worded.
TRUSTEE KING: It was just a question in my mind.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, hearing no other comments, I'll make
a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application
of Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of Robert and Susan
Gatehouse as applied for with plans dated 11/23/09, received in
the office April 14, 2010.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. SAMUELS: Thank you.
Board of Trustees 63 May 19, 2010
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 13, Patricia Moore, Esquire, on behalf of
PETER & STEPHANIE COSOLA requests a Wetland Permit to construct
a 13.5x45.5' addition to the existing residence, a 19x24'
screened porch and install drywells, as required. Located: 2880
Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold.
LWRP finds this application to be consistent with LWRP.
The Conservation Advisory Council has resolved to support the
application with no conditions. We all went out in the field,
we saw it. We were okay with it. It was not staked but we were
okay with it as per the plan. Based on what we have in the
plans. Now, there has been some revised plans we just received
today. From what I can tell, it was to relocate the relocated
proposed drywells to be minimum of 75 feet landward of the tidal
wetland boundary, as I recall. I believe that was the DEC's request.
MS. MOORE: Correct.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Substantially the project remains the same
except it meets DEC requirements. Does anybody want to see
this? It's just relocating the drywells, that's all.
MS. MOORE: The drywells on the side, um, the DEC asked us to
move it at least 75 feet from the bulkhead. So we just moved it
closer to where the shed is.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think we had any kind of problems with
it. Anybody here to address this application?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. and Mm. Cosola, here
to answer any questions. It's pretty straight forward, and we
have Zoning Board approval. We are pretty much at the end.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any comments, questions from the Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any comments or questions from the audience?
(No response).
Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Motion to approve the application made by
Patricia Moore on behalf of Peter and Stephanie Cosola as
submitted, and noting that it is consistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing matter, Creative
Environmental Design on behalf of ROB & CLAIRE RlCClO requests a
Wetland Permit to remove the temporary staked wall, excavate
bluff for construction, install a new 6x6 timber wall and
backfill, install erosion jute plants; install two 12" catch
basins piped to a drywell and remove wild bamboo from bluff
area. Located: 6512 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic.
We have it exempt from LWRP, which noted it is consistent but
requests that some consideration be given to identifying the
Board of Trustees 64 May 19, 2010
type of lumber to be used in the wood retaining wall, whether it
be treated or untreated. There is a letter that, excuse me, a
facsimile of a letter received from a neighbor that I would like
to read. It is addressed to the Board of Trustees, from Sue
O'Dell. To the Board of Trustees, my property and the Riccio's
are contiguous. The Riccio's do not have my permission to do
anything to my property or anything on their property that will
adversely affect my property. The problems they may be
experiencing on their property appears to be self created, as
trees and vegetation on the bluff in question have been removed
over the last few years. If you have any questions, feel free
to contact me. And the phone number is listed here. Thank you,
for your attention, Sue O'Dell.
And the comments of the Conservation Advisory Council were to
support the application with a recommendations for conditions
and they would be recommending the requirement of a drainage
plan for the property and additional hay bales to be installed
or replaced during construction.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Dave Chicanowicz, Creative Environmental
Design. You have all been to the site. There was a question as to
the type of material, the timber, it was planned to be ACQ, entirely,
which is kind of consistent. This is the upper portion of the bluff, and
we'll be using galvanized tie rods, back to deadmen set approximately
12 feet landward of the bulkhead for extra support.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's the standard formulation now, as for
non-water contacts. So it was considered a consistent LWRP
review. I think it would be a concern if it was in direct
contact with water and there was a question.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Dave, can you briefly explain your drainage
since the Conservation Advisory Council had a comment.
MR. CHICANOWICZ:e right, the drainage, there has already been
installed an 8x8 solid precast drywell landward of the bluff approximately
30 feet. I think at the time we had the site visit I kind of placed out and
located it for you. At that time we also mn the pipes with anticipation,
regardless, we needed to control more water going over the bluff.
The only thing lacking was the actual installation of the catch basins that
will actually collect the water at that point and send it
landward. And it is not a problem as far as putting silt fence
and hay bales, which we do anyway. But absolutely.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any other concerns, any other people, anyone
else to speak on behalf of the application, Trustee concerns?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve the
application of Creative Environmental Design on behalf of Rob
and Clair Riccio as applied for, consistent with the plans
received in the Trustee office on April 28.
Board of Trustees 65 May 19, 2010
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. CHICANOWlCZ: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And finally, Young & Young on behalf of NANA
BAFFOUR requests a Wetland Permit to renovate an existing
four-bedroom house and construct a new 24x48' and two-story
artist studio. Located: 4252 Grand Avenue, Mattituck.
The Board did go out and looked at this property. The
Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application with the condition that a comprehensive drainage
plan includes a buffer, and it was found consistent under the
LWRP. But again, but also suggesting the inclusion of a buffer.
As I said, the Board went out and looked at this property. Is
there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. WOLPERT: Yes. Thomas Wolpert with Young & Young representing
the applicant Nana Baffour.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question we have for you, this is stated in
the description as a renovation. We were just, we wanted to
check with you. Is this house going to be torn down.
MR. YOUNG: No, the house is not going to be torn down. The
proposal is to renovate a portion of the existing house and to
add a new two-story addition to the south portion of the house.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just so the applicant understands, if this does
result in the tearing down of the home, you have to stop the
work and have to come back to us for modification to the permit.
MR. YOUNG: I understand. There is no intention to tear down the
existing house. That I'm aware of.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. I was looking at the plans and I was
trying to determine where would be an appropriate location for a
hay bale line, because this is, there are no contours on this
survey, but this is a structure with a very steep slope going
down into Long Creek there. And when I measured it out, it
appears between the high tide, the landward limit of the tidal
wetlands as delineate odd this survey, which by the way is
received April 23, 2010. And the house, seems to be almost
consistently 100 feet of distance there. So my question for the
applicant, if he would consider hay bale and silt fence line 50
feet landward of the tidal wetland limit. In other words that
would still provide you with 50 foot of area to do all your work
that you need.
MR. YOUNG: I don't see any problem with that at all.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, currently, and I can't remember, maybe
other Board members will recall, if there is some type of buffer
from the tidal wetland area up toward the house. I thought it
was pretty much, in these pictures we are looking at right now,
depict pretty much naturalized non-disturbance area that
currently exists. So my question, Mr. Hardy, with the
Conservation Advisory Council, seeing the pictures there, I know
you, the Conservation Advisory Council wanted to include a
buffer. But as you can see, it's pretty much naturalized. Do
Board of Trustees 66 May 19, 2010
you think, along with that 50 foot limit from where we now
placed the hay bale line and silt fence, that location of that
hay bale line and silt fence seaward to the wetland boundary, as
long as that is retained naturalized there, that would satisfy
the Conservation Advisory Council's consideration of a buffer?
MR. HARDY: It seems a reasonable request. I, personally, was not
assigned that property. So it would be difficult for me to say.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. So as long as all work can be limited
to landward of the proposed silt fence and hay bale line.
MR. YOUNG: Correct. I see no problem with that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, were there any other questions any Board
members had related to this project?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other members of the audience wish to
comment for or against this application?
MR. YOUNG: If I may add some additional comment?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure
MR. YOUNG: The application included a separate structure which
was depicted on our survey as a garage and artist studio and
just today the architect for the applicant changed that
description to call it a tennis changing house. So the
footprint is exactly the same, the location is the same, and I'm
not sure, because it's landward of the primary structure,
whether this Board is even concerned with that structure.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it's completely out of our jurisdiction.
MR. YOUNG: Okay. If you were going to write a resolution or a
permit, I would want to have the correct terminology just so we
don't have an issue with that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we just say two-story studio. So you
would you rather change it to two-story structure. Because it's
out of our jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE KING: Accessory building.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY; Accessory structure.
MR. YOUNG: That's even better. Then they can change their mind
again.
TRUSTEE KING: It's a two-story accessory building.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Who gets the bell?
MR. YOUNG: I'm not sure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I just measured it out, definitely the
secondary structure is outside our jurisdiction.
MR. YOUNG: Fine.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments?
MR. YOUNG: I have no other comments
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anybody else wish to comment on this
application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 67 May 19, 2010
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Young & Young on behalf of Nana Baffour as described at 4252
Grand Avenue, Mattituck with the condition that a silt fence and
hay bale line be established 50 feet landward of what the limit
of the tidal wetlands as depicted on the survey that was
received by the Trustees office April 23, 2010, and that area
between the silt fence and hay bale line to seaward to Long
Creek will be maintained as a non-disturbance buffer.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And it is found consistent under the LWRP.
MR. YOUNG: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Loft, did you have a chance to look at my
resolution?
MS. HULSE: Yes, just to let you know, I forwarded it to Martin
because I know it's been the subject of discussion of a Town
Board meeting and he has not commented on it yet.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I'll move it nonetheless so the Board
can enter their comments at the public hearing with the GSA
because it appears they are going to be moving on a fairly
strict time line. I have another question for you, Lori.
MS. HULSE: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I took a look, I did look at my thesaurus
and although I've used the word "calmity" before, in the
resolution, it comes up no word exists. Now, I don't know if
it's an Old English or something I pulled from someplace but I
guess I want to amend it so we don't --
MS. HULSE: I actually noted that word myself. I said, wow, that
one I have not seen in a while.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, anyhow, I don't know if I was
having a moment, but I'm just going to amend it and I'll read
the resolution into the record. Actually, the other thing I
would like to do, with the Board's approval, I would like to
enter this resolution in the record in honor of our town
historian who I know is pivotal in providing a lot of
information on the patent to me. I know Jill lived through,
when we had our 100th anniversary, just to let her know, this
may be a tree that beare no fruit, on the other hand it may be
something that is very good for the Trustees.
This resolution is for Trustee participation in the
National Environmental Policy Act scoping session for Plum
Island to be held at the Greenport School, Greenport, New York,
May 20, 2010.
Whereas the Southold Trustees were pivotal in the ascent of
democracy in this region when a patent was negotiated in 1676
giving all right, title and interest to the lands of Southold
including the said Island Plum.
Whereas the Southold Trustees, one of the oldest
independent and continuously functioning bodies politic elected
by the people were separated by the Town Board under the New
Board of Trustees 68 May 19, 2010
York State laws of 1893 to continue the people's trust in land,
waters and natural resources.
Whereas not specifically adopting a resolution as a
"cooperating agency" in the instant ElS process, but nonetheless
known for closeness to the people of the town and for respect
and rectitude in their dealings with all agencies.
And whereas the Southold Town Trustees are the proud
conservators of the remaining undivided land of the Corchauge
with whom all our ancestors' deeds were peaceful and honorable
and shall always remain.
Whereas the people of the United States have invested
themselves g.reatly in the said Island Plum with activities
proper and necessary to advance the safety and security of the
homeland, the food supply, the health and well being of both man
and animals, while advancing the sciences that benefit us all.
Whereas the Southold Trustees are mindful that such proper
activities may have had unintended consequences to the
environment and may have included activities that
unintentionally altered the undivided lands of the people of
Southold that may have co-existed contiguous to the property of
the people of the United States for all these years, we
thereafter call upon the GSA, the Government Service
Administration; the USDA, United States Department of
Agriculture, and; DHS, Department of Homeland Security, all
contractors and cooperating agencies to include in the ElS, the
environmental impact statement, one: A thorough review of the
historical land ownership and land use practices on Plum Island
detailing in particular all activities that may have taken place
over time and identifying all operations which may have had the
effect 1o cut, fill, dredge, devegetate, depopulate areas now or
formerly known as but not limited 1o tidal marshes, formerly
connected wetlands, coastal fresh marshes, creeks, streams,
bays, ponds, lakes, tidal shoals and mud flats.
Two, a detailed review of property records and deeds
searching for any records of sales, leases, transfers or quit
claim deeds by the Board of Town Trustees to any entity and
specific detailed information whereof no such information is
found to exist.
Three, from a range of alternatives, include the no-action
alternative, discuss remediation and restoration of affected
wetland areas generally described in one above, including the
Southold Town Trustees and discussions of remediation of
aforesaid wetland areas insofar as is possible, especially for
lands, underwater lands or formerly underwater lands for which
the people of Southold may have a property interest if no deed
or quit claim deed was ever executed by the Trustees,
transferring ownership to prior owners.
And number four, the Town Trustees put a premium on
remediation efforts with due appreciation for ownership and
title which will recreate functional wetland systems with
outlets to the sea, where the people may pursue fish, fowl,
Board of Trustees 69 May 19, 2010
shellfish and all manner of sport and recreation, as has been
the custom in this place, I would move this resolution.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What this effectively does is, for those of
you here, to provide information, is put us in the mix and
protect Trustee interest; a very large marsh that is at the
southwest corner of the island may well have, we believe, may
have had an inlet into Plum gut or the vicinity or maybe even a
traveling inlet given the fact that it's, you know, a small
creek system, may have had a small inlet that would have moved
with the tides and seasons, so it feels appropriate for the
Trustees to at least ask the question, we don't know, we may
find there is a series of documents that we may have given up
title over time, but as part of the ElS process, because we
would not want to be in the position to have the federal
government possibly lease or sell Plum Island to someone who,
and then maybe be involved in a subsequent date to find out
well, gee, this might have been Trustee land. And this may get
questions answered beforehand to let us know, you know, where we
stand.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): You mean you don't want a nuclear plant
there?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Actually, I don't know if it's appropriate
to also ask the Board, maybe the supporting, some of the stuff I
put in, supporting stuff, I wrote a position paper to the
Trustees and I felt it was appropriate for Trustees to not get
involved in land uses or planning or things that are not the
prerogative of the Trustees but actually the prerogative of the
Town Board. We are interested in protecting our historic lands
and waters for the people of the town and there will be ample
other comment, I'm sure, through the ElS process, where others
will comment, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you for doing all that work, Jay.
MR. HARDY: It's a good move.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I will, I think I said I'll make a motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Will you be able to attend the meeting?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know, I may have a wake to go to.
I'm waiting to find out.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I was wondering, because I know Bob Ghosio
is such an eloquent speaker, if he might be available.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you for your confidence. Is that next
Wednesday?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, it's tomorrow night.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Six to eight. At Greenport School.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's on my calendar, actually. Yes, I might be
able to go. I might go. Anybody else going.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Unfortunately I'll be heading town to pick
my parents up in Florida. So I won't be available.
Board of Trustees 70 May 19, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a second to adjourn the meeting
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
RECEIVED
AUG 2 3 2010
~.