HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-04/21/2010Jill M. Doherty, President
James F. King, Vice-President
Dave Bergen
Bob Ghosio, Jr.
John Bredemeyer
Town H~lAnnex
54375M~nRoad
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NewYork 11971-0959
Telephone(631) 765-1892
Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OFTOWNTRUSTEES
TOWN OFSOUTHOLD
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
RECEIVED
sj ;,, c AUG 2 3 2010 e J:Ooc,.m.
outhold Town Clerk
Wednesday, April 21, 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, May 12, 2010 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 6:00 PM
WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of December 16, 2009.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Good evening, everyone, welcome to our April meeting.
We are just setting up our pictures that we usually have set up. I just want to update
people on what we are working on. We have been trying to work on stormwater problems.
As everybody knows, with these storms we've had lately, it's been a major problem with
everybody. But we have made, in the stormwater runoff committee, we have made
some progress and some projects are getting done. And hopefully, you know, it's not
going to solve it all, but hopefully it will make these real problem areas a little less hectic
when we get these downpours that we have been getting.
The other thing is we have our pumpout boat we are getting ready for the season. We
have quite a few applicants we'll be interviewing for pumpout boat operators, so we hope to
have plenty of operators that the pumpout boat will be out every weekend, so if anyone
needs a pump out, it's free. You just call on channel 73, and Saturdays and Sundays and
Board of Trustees 2 April 21, 2010
the holidays, the pumpout boat will be out there. We are fortunate enough, Dave is working
on this, we have a lot of inkind services to help us with this. Guys at DPW are doing some
work on the boat now. So we are saving money on not having to pay for labor on
that, and we have a lot of businesses around town that will give
us inkind services to get the pumpout boat ready. Is there anything else anybody wants to
add?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Some people may have seen the article mentioned
in the paper, in the town news, about the dredging of Brushes Creek. We did receive the
DEC permit for that last Friday and now we are waiting on the Army Corps of Engineers,
National Marine Fisheries, US Fish and Wildlife and New York Department
of State. That's all the agencies you have to go through to get
something dredged around here, believe it or not. But we are
progressing and hopefully we'll receive those so the county can
dredge Brushes Creek out next month. We hope.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The next field inspection is scheduled for
Wednesday, May 12, 8:00 AM. Do we have a resolution for that?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our next Trustee meeting will be Wednesday, May
19th, at 6:00 PM, with a work session at 5:30.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Approve minutes of December 16, 2009.
TRUSTEE KING: I read through them. I didn't see any huge
mistakes. I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?.
(Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye.
Trustee Ghosio, aye.)(Trustee Bredemeyer, abstain).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll abstain. I was not on the Board. I
was not at that meeting.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for March, 2010. A check for
$9,989.47 was forwarded to the Supervisor~s office for the
General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin board for
review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
Resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold
Board of Trustees 3 April 21, 2010
hereby finds that the following applications more fully
described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee
agenda dated Wednesday, April 21, 2010, are classified as Type
II Actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations, and are not
subject to further review under SEQRA.
The list of those applications are as follows. There are
quite a few. We were busier this month than we have been.
James & Janis Harrington - SCTM#122-4-5
Stanley Malon - SCTM#137-4-33.1
Carol R. Denson - SCTM# 56-6-8.7
Goldsmith's Boat Shop, Inc.- SCTM#56-7-1
Benali, LLC - SCTM#90-1-2
Henry Mazzoni - SCTM#22-3-18.15
Benjamin & Jocelyn Suglia - SCTM#125-3-7
MEK Realty Holdings, LLC - SCTM#111-14-1
Dean Stefanidis - SCTM#31-18-17
Thomas Shillo - SCTM#10-10-2
Leonard Orr - SCTM#4-7-14
Marion Lake Restoration Committee - SCTM#31-17-1&31-7-9
Robert Celic- SCTM#123-8-29
Patrick Lohn - SCTM#87-3-57
Thomas Ryzuk - SCTM#54-5-14
Kevin McGilloway - SCTM#144-5-30.1
For the Love of Family, LLC - SCTM#104-3-16.1
David & Ionna Moore - SCTM#51-4-17
Hernan Michael Otano - SCTM#53-5-12.3&12.4
Richard Kubiak - SCTM# 56-5-25
Joan E. Shannon - SCTM#126-11-7
Gilda Principi - SCTM#74-1-35.53
Vincent Curto - SCTM#74-1-35.54
New Suffolk Waterfront Fund, Inc. - SCTM#117-8-18
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As we go through these, we review them, we
inspect them and we try to move them along, and the ones that are
straightforward, we don't have an issue with, we try and group
together. So I think all of these, one through six, we can
group together, if I'm not mistaken.
TRUSTEE KING: Do the postponements, too.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you, Jim. There are a few applications,
before we go further, that were on the agenda, that were
advertised, that will be postponed.
Page five, number three, Richard J. Principi, Jr., on
behalf of GILDA PRINClPI requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal
Erosion Permit for the complete structural restoration of the
existing wood frame cottage; new 14x14' patio; install a 10x6'
deep drywell for roof run-off; construct beach stairs with
landings; revegetate the bluff; and remove stockade fence and
revegetate upland areas around cottage with native vegetation.
Board of Trustees 4 April 21, 2010
Located: 4690 Blue Horizon Bluffs, Southold, has been postponed.
Number four, Richard J. Principi, Jr., on behalf of VINCENT
CURTO requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to
renovate the existing 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, Soulhold, has been
postponed.
And number five, Docko, Inc., on behalf of LEONARD ORR
requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to repair
and regrout 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, has been postponed.
Page seven, number 19, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc., on behalf of BENALI, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a single-family dwelling 860 square feet stone
driveway and sanitary system surrounded by a retaining wall.
Located: 1275 Cedar Point Drive West, Southold, has been
postponed.
Number 20, 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 3xl 00', supported by 32 pilings 4x4",
comprised of non-treated materials. Located: 2455 New Suffolk
Avenue, Mattituck, has been postponed.
And page eight, number 21, 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 3.5x24' ramp and restraint piles, at or
waterward of the apparent high water line. Located: The
Gloaming, Fishers Island, will not be heard tonight.
I didn't introduce the Board yet. Sorry, I skipped a whole
section here. I just want to, the representative of the
Conservation Advisory Council, Greta Schiller is here. She is
on the Conservation Advisory Council who gives reviews of the
applications, as well, that we do. We have Wayne Galante
taking the minutes, so when you do come up to the mic and speak,
please state your name for the record, and we try keep our
statements brief on the public hearings.
Board of Trustees 5 April 21, 2010
So I'll make a resolution to approve number one through six
under administrative permits. They are all either consistent or
exempt under the LWRP. They are listed as follows:
Number one, CANDIDA HARPER, requests an Administrative
Permit to extend the existing fence by 66' and up to 47' from
the bulkhead. Located: 290 Cleaves Point Road, East Marion.
Number two, MICHAEL & KATHRYN RUSSO request an
Administrative Permit to trim the phragmites to not less than
12" by hand, as needed. Located: 775 Oakwood Drive, Southold.
Number three, MATTITUCK PARK DISTRICT requests an
Administrative Permit for the existing walkway and to include
2-3 steps along the seaward end, and to install two steps 4-5
feet wide to concrete revetment wall facing west from parking
lot. Located: 11020 & 11280 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Mattituck.
Number four, ROBERT & JUDY FINN request an Administrative
Permit to cover bulkhead foundation with approximately 12 cubic
yards of clean fill. Located: 8908 Peconic Bay Boulevard,
Laurel.
Number five, TODD & ELIZABETH CANTRELL request an
Administrative Permit to replace the existing driveway. Located:
2070 Grathwohl Road, New Suffolk.
Number six, Raymond W. Nemschick, RA on behalf of JONATHAN
P. WENDELL requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 173
square foot addition to the existing dwelling. Located: 7940
Indian Neck Lane, Peconic.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The next applications are for extensions,
transfers and amendments. A lot of these are just one-year
extensions and pretty straightforward. So I would like to group
the following together: Number one, two, three, four, five, six,
seven, eight, nine, 13, and 14. They are listed as follows:
Number one, DAVID SHAMOON requests the last One-Year
Extension to Permit #6620 as issued on May 16, 2007. Located:
2404 Camp Mineola Road Extension, Mattituck.
Number two, GREGORY M,~'~'ANOBILE requests the last One-Year
Extension to Permit #5631, as issued on April 28, 2008. Located:
1460 Lake Drive, Southold.
Number three, Patricia Moore, Esq., on behalf of JACK
CIPRIANO requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #6883, as
issued on May 21, 2008. Located: 8150 Main Bayview Road,
Southold.
Number four, West Creek Builders, LLC, on behalf of MICHAEL
& HEATHER GILL requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #6854, as
issued on April 16, 2008. Located: 1325 Lupton's Point Road, Mattituck.
Number five, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on
Board of Trustees 6 April 21, 2010
behalf of LLOYD KAPLAN requests a One-year Extension to Permit
#6839, as issued on April 16, 2008. Located: 105 Soundview
Avenue, Southold.
Number six, Paul Pawlowski requests a Transfer of Permit
#1602 from Paul Pawlowski to JANE DEY, as contract vendee, as
issued on May 3, 1983. Located: End of Holbrook Lane, Mattituck.
Number seven, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of 9105 SKUNK
LANE, LLC, requests a Transfer of Permit #7137 from Skunk Lane
Trust to 9105 Skunk Lane, LLC, as issued on July 22, 2009.
Located: 9105 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue.
Number eight, RICHARD & LISA ISRAEL request a Transfer of
Permit #6824 from George Garbe to Richard & Lisa Israel, as
issued on February 27, 2008. Located: 685 Osprey Nest Road,
Greenport.
Number nine, RICHARD & LISA ISRAEL request a Transfer of
Permit #1303 from George Garbe to Richard & Lisa Israel, as
issued on May 2, 1978, to repair or replace the existing
floating dock. Located: 685 Osprey Nest Road, Greenport.
Number 13, Garrett A. Strang, Architect, on behalf of
WILLIAM H. LIEBLEIN {PORT OF EGYPT) requests an Amendment to
Permit #7185 to extend the proposed roof a full 16' deep with
the width and distance to the wetlands to remain unchanged.
Located: 62300 Main Road, Southold.
And number 14, Garrett A. Strang, on behalf of PAUL
BETANCOURT requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit fl6972 and
Coastal Erosion Permit ~6772C to reduce the extent of the second
floor overhand on both the north and east sides of the home
thereby increasing their setback distance from the edge of the
bluff and east property line, step back the north side of the
second floor addition by eight feet so as to increase the
setback distance from the edge of the bluff although this
eight-foot area is allowed to be used as an open, second floor
deck, and increase the setback of the proposed garage from the
south (front) property line. Located: 1825 Aquaview Avenue, East
Marion.
I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jill, for number four, weren't we going to do a
resolution to remove the hay bales from that permit?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, we were going to do that as separate issue
because they didn't formally request it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you, though.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ill second the motion for those numbers.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Who wants to take number ten?
(No response).
I will.
RICHARD & LISA ISRAEL request a Transfer of Permit #106 from
Howard Stabile to Richard & Lisa Israel, as issued on March 4,
1983, and to Amend Permit #106 to resheath 20' of existing
Board of Trustees 7 April 21,2010
bulkhead using vinyl sheathing and backfill with approximately
four cubic yards of clean fill. Located: 14 Dawn Drive, Greenport.
We went out and looked at this and is there anyone here to speak
on behalf of this application?
MR. ISRAEL: Hi, I'm Richard Israel.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We inspected this and what we would like to see
is a five-foot buffer behind the bulkhead.
MR. ISRAEL: I have no problem with that, as long as it's walkable.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it's non-turf.
MR. ISRAEL: The question that I had was, as we did this work is
there any reason I couldn't stone even a little more than five feet?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. You can make it wider than five feet, if
you want. But no less than five feet.
MR. ISRAEL: I have no problem with that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Great.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is number ten, right?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Just out of curiosity, how is that 14 Dawn Drive?
MR. ISRAEL: I have no idea. We asked for an address, we kind of
found that 14 Dawn Drive may be the lot I bought it with, because I live
on Dawn Drive, so when I bought the lot behind my
house, the owner of that also owned this and he was willing to
sell it at that time.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is that the only private one? Because the
others are part of the association, aren't they?.
MR. ISRAEL: I don't know if this is part of the association or
not. I always considered myself part of the association because
we own three or four properties just within that same
subdivision, so it was just a matter, I guess, that this
bulkhead is starting to let go and it's weeping out of the
bottom, so. The dock is good and everything else it's just
dangerous now to step on the dock because of the hole.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They fixed the other section already.
MR. ISRAEL: We just re-did the bulkheads behind my parents'
house and Mr. Garby's house. And I like that sheathing, it
seems to be the right thing to do. So if it's the right thing to
to do, we just said, hey, it's only 20 feet, let's get it done
right, and it will be good for the environment.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Great.
MR. ISRAEL: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the transfer and
approve the amendment of permit 106 to resheath 20 feet with the
condition that there is a five foot non-turf buffer, minimum of
five foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Can we do 11 and 12 together?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't see why not.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll do number 11 and 12 together. These are
adjoining properties and the bulkheads are starting to fail so
Board of Trustees 8 April 21, 2010
they'll try and use these helix coils to pull the bulkhead back
in place. It's just a minor thing. I don't have any problem
with it. They read as follows:
Number 11, DAVID BERGEN requests a Transfer of Permit #4176
from Schuyler Bergen to David Bergen, as issued on May 26, 1993,
and Amended on March 22, 2006, and an Amendment to Permit #4176
to install up to six helix screws to support bulkhead and
backfill with 100 cubic yards clean fill. Located: 9525 Nassau
Point Road, Cutchogue.
And number 12, JANET DORAN requests a Transfer of Permit
#-4173 from Joseph Mandelbaum to Janet Doran, as issued on May
26, 1993, and to Amend Permit ~4173 to install up to six (6) 20
ft. helical screws for structural support after storm damage and
cantilevered platform atop stairs, and replace 100 cubic yards
of sand. Located: 9575 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
I would make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer,
aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye.)(Trustee Bergen, recused).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Note for the record I'll recuse myself from
numbers 11 and 12.
VI. MOORINGS/DUCK BLINDS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right moorings and duck blinds, numbers one
through seven are moorings that have, are replacing other
moorings out there with similar size boats. We have all
reviewed each file and I'll make a motion to approve one through
seven as applied for. They list as follows:
Number one, JOHN KNOUD requests a Mooring Permit in
Broadwaters Cove for a 24' boat. Access: Public.
Number two, CAROL TAYLOR requests an Onshore/Offshore stake
in Narrow River for a 10' boat, replacing Onshore/Offshore Stake
~6. Access: Public.
Number three, MARLO MANDALONE requests a Mooring Permit in
Goose Creek for a 17' boat, replacing Mooring #942. Access: Public.
Number four, PATRIClA BUERKLE, requests a Mooring Permit in
Jockey Creek for a 17~ boat, replacing Mooring #128. Access: Public.
Number five, DONALD STEWART requests a Mooring Permit in
Mud Creek for a 19' boat, replacing Mooring #24. Access: Private.
Number six, CHRISTA HILDEBRAND requests Mooring Permit in
East Creek for a 21' boat, replacing Mooring #758. Access: Public.
Number seven, DONALD STARZEE requests a Mooring Permit in
East Creek for a 21' boat, replacing Mooring #883. Access: Public.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The last three that we did under the
applications for extensions, transfers and amendments, we did
Board of Trustees 9 April 21, 2010
not mention, they are consistent with LWRP. And number 14, Paul
Betancourt, which we approved the amendment, the inconsistency
on that was the original application which I believe was, in
reviewing the original and putting some conditions on, we made
it consistent.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, that was reduced at the direction of DEC
and through the reductions and pulling it back further brings it
into consistency, I believe.
TRUSTEE KING: This was at the request of the DEC, I believe.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, that's why they had to come back to us for
it.
Number eight, under Moorings/Duck Blinds we have
CHRISTOPHER SHOWALTER requests a Duck Blind in East Creek.
Located: End of Harbor Lane, Cutchogue. Access: Public.
We reviewed this application. We also requested the review from
the bay constable and based on the bay constable's review I
would make a motion to deny this application for the duck blind.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For clarification, the bay constable recommended
denying this, correct?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, the bay constable recommended denial of
this application.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Did he give a reason for that; as to why he was
recommending denial?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He felt the area was 1oo populated to have a
duck blind in that area.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He mentioned he was concerned about the lead
pellets hitting the properties.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just wanted a clarification, that's all.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): I don't think it's legal to shoot lead anymore.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Lead, steel, whatever, pellets hitting people.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
Before we go into public hearings, we just want to get the
pictures straightened out and get a little organized.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jill, you don't have a vote yet on that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry, I thought I did. Jim seconded. All in
favor?
(Trustee Doherty, aye, Trustee King, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye.
Trustee Bredemeyer, aye)(Trustee Bergen, nay).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Note, I wish to vote nay on that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry for the wait everybody. As soon as
Lauren is ready, we'll get started. And actually, while we are
waiting, what I want to do is acknowledge Lauren and Elizabeth
in our office. Today is Administrative Professionals Day. I
guess that's what they call it. I still call it Secretary's Day.
Lauren and Liz really run our office and keep us together as
much as we can be kept together. And we appreciate all the work
they do for us, and for you. They really put a lot of time and
effort into their job and they take it seriously.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Excuse me, what was their title?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe they call it Administrative Assistant
Board o f Trustees 10 April 21, 2010
Day. Is that what it's called? I still call it Secretary's Day.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): What did you give them?
TRUSTEE KING: There is a container outside for donations.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Is that a Civil Service title?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it is.
I'll make a motion to go off our regular hearings go on to
public hearings.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The first application is in the matter of
Coastal Erosion permits for Mark Schwartz, AIA, on behalf of
DEAN STEFANIDES requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion
Permit to remove one existing dormer on the north side and
create a dormer with cathedral ceiling, install new windows and
exterior dooms, new siding and roof shingles, and add a 4x8'
drywell for roof runoff. Located: 780 Rabbit Lane, East Marion.
It is an exempt action under the town LWRP. Is there
anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz, architect for the project. As you
stated, it's a relatively simple project, we are not expanding
the footprint. It's a landward addition to the second floor,
new windows, siding and roofing. That's it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I went up and performed the inspection.
It's very straightforward. Drainage to drywell should be
exceptional, it's a nice, sandy beach. It looks
straightforward. Anyone else here wish to speak on behalf of
this application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing none, I make a motion to close the
hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve the application
of Mark Schwartz on behalf of Dean Stefanides as submitted.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, Costello Marine Contracting on
behalf of DAVID & IOANNA MOORE requests a Wetland Permit and
Coastal Erosion Permit to install 155' of new lower sheet steel
retaining wall; remove 155' of existing bulkhead and construct
new bulkhead inplace; backfill with approximately 600 cubic
yards fill and revegetate disturbed areas; and install drain
tiles from roof leaders and two catch basins. Located: 21075
Soundview Avenue, Southold.
Board of Trustees 11 April 21, 2010
The Board did go out and looked at this. It was reviewed
under the LWRP and found to be consistent. The Conservation
Advisory Council resolved not to support the application based
on the following: The deck is too close to the top of the bluff
and there are hoses directing runoff on to the bluff.
The town had already noted the deck issue and the town is
dealing with the deck, with the owners with the deck that is
present there. And we, the Board, as we'll discuss here, in
this application, are also concerned about the runoff from the
house, the hoses going down the bluff.
So, is there anyone anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine. We were going to
take everything else off the application for now, just so we can
address the bulkhead issue. I mean of course, you see what the
other problems are, but the bulkhead issue is what we need to
address now so we can get in there and fix that. I don't know
that you guys have been made aware of that. But that's what we
want to do.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, in other words you are saying you want to
amend this and just deal with -- because this also has
revegetating the disturbed areas, which would go hand in hand
with the bulkhead, we would think.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, that part, but as far as the stairs and the
deck goes and stuff like that.
TRUSTEE KING: You are saying you just want to apply for
rebuilding the bulkhead and doing the planting.
MR. COSTELLO: Right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There are pipes, drainage pipes running, we are
presuming from the house, but we are not sure because they are
coming out of the side of the bluff and I believe these are
probably the pipes the Conservation Advisory Council was
referring to, they are under the stairs, in that picture, and we
definitely, you know, I'm just speaking for myself, I could not
recommend even the bulkhead approval unless these are also
handled in this application, because if not, you'll just have,
the property owner will just have the same problem recur.
MR. COSTELLO: Absolutely. That has to be addressed as part of
the bulkhead. That was part of the problem, so. We plan on
dealing with that. The runoff and the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me clarify a little. He wants to get
approval for what he applied for how its read. They'll be
coming in later for the stairs and deck. That's what he's
talking about, not separating out the drainage from what he's
asking for now.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But on here it's construct beach stairs with
landing. Sorry, looking at the wrong one. Drain tiles. Do you
know what they are referring to with installing drain tiles? Is
that part of what do you want pull off of this application?
MR. COSTELLO: We may have to do it in conjunction with this. But
the drain tiles would lead the water into catch basins, but as of
right now we are trying to simplify the whole thing just to do
Board of Trustees 12 April 21, 2010
the bulkhead. Because you guys are well aware of the situation
there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I think to clarify, in the language here, you
want the language of this permit to end at "and revegetate
disturbed areas." In other words take off "and install drain
tiles from roof leaders into catch basins."
MR. COSTELLO: That's was a matter for you guys. I just want to
make sure the stairs are off. Which they are.
TRUSTEE KING: There is no mention of stairs here.
MR. COSTELLO: Because I knew there was an issue there
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there a permit for the stairs?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not originally, no. They have to come in and
get a permit for the stairs. What happened was they were
working on this application and then the stairs needed repairing
at the time, they were just going to get them permitted and the
storm came and really blew all this out and blew out the stairs.
So they have to figure out how they'll repair the stairs. So
they want to get the bulkhead work done as fast as possible. So
that's when Jack came in with let's just get this bulkhead
approved and we'll come in later once we figure out what we are
doing with everything else. That's where we are at with the
description here.
TRUSTEE KING: How will you access this?
MR. COSTELLO: Has to be by barge.
TRUSTEE KING: What about, looking to the east, they have a
serious problem there, too. Are you going to put any kind of
return or anything on this east end of the bulkhead? How are
you going to handle that with the neighbor having such a
problem?
MR. COSTELLO: If it continues to get worse, we'll have to do
something. I didn't look at the neighbor's property. But like
you said, there has to be some sort of at least a connection
made there.
TRUSTEE KING: Something. Because they are in trouble, too. So
I mean --
MR. COSTELLO: Right. There is only so far we can really go
with the return. There will have to be a makeshift connection
there and it will be very little connection to the neighbor's
bulkhead. We wouldn't be able to hold that up. We have to
worry about what we are doing.
TRUSTEE KING: It was a question in my mind how are you going to
handle it on that side.
MR. COSTELLO: Right. We have to cut back to make the
connection. You saw it. There is not much reom. Otherwise
there will be more water coming down.
TRUSTEE KING: It's a tough situation.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And since this is going to be lower retaining
walls, as indicated on the plans here, it will be steel, you
don't think there is any need for armoring the stones along
there?
MR. COSTELLO: No.
Board of Trustees 13 April 21, 2010
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other questions from any Board
members?
(No response).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anybody else in the audience wish to comment on
the application?
MS. SCHILLER: My name is Greta Schiller and I'm on the
Conservation Advisory Council. And we went and looked at this
property and felt it was kind of a poster child for how not to
build on the bluff. Because the deck was, the deck cannot
possibly be legal unless they didn't look at it before they gave
the permit. And we took photographs and you can see the deck,
which has a, you know, a gutter like one has in one's home, with
the open, with the open drain right on to the bluff. So
although the stairs were perhaps moved fudher by the storm,
they are actually eroding themselves. I mean they'll erode
right under the deck itself. And the black pipe, which you had
a picture of, you can very easily trace it right back to the
roof of the house. And so we felt like those things had to be
addressed like immediately just to at least run the hose on to
the lawn to water their plants or something rather than just
erode the bluff, immediately. And second of all, I'm not sure what
you mean by the town is dealing with the deck and the
stairs. But the deck seems like it, it must be illegal by not
only the letter of the law but also the intent of the law. So
we felt pretty strongly the whole thing should be addressed at
once. Because it looks like when they built the deck they
didn't do the proper permitting, so it's really just a really
big problem.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All the departments that are involved in
whatever permits are need for any of the structures there are
involved. And that's what Dave meant by the town is dealing
with it. The Building Department is involved. We are getting
them in to legalize, whether that means tearing part of it down,
applying for permits, we are working on all that.
MS. SCHILLER: Half of it would have to go because it's
overhanging the bluff.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, so you have the Trustees involved, the
ZBA involved, the Building Department involved, and they have to
conform to all those codes.
MS. SCHILLER: And I think the homeowner would want to deal with
it because eventually the deck would go off the bluff no matter
what you put at the bottom, how big the bulkhead is. Okay,
thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: I would not want to hold up the construction of the
bulkhead waiting for the deck to be fixed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, and we have in with the construction of the
bulkhead dealing with the drainage, so I'm satisfied with that.
TRUSTEE KING: Is this exempt?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I already said it's consistent.
TRUSTEE KING: All right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from the audience?
Board of Trustees 14 April 21, 2010
(No response).
Comments from the Board?
(No response).
Motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I make a motion to approve Costello Marine on
behalf of David and Ioanna Moore, as stated, with the condition
that the drain pipe currently running from the house to the
bluff is removed, which will -- so they are going to have to
address the drainage from the house under Chapter 236.
MR. COSTELLO: Fair enough.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Under wetland permits, number one, MARION LAKE
RESTORATION COMMITTEE requests a Wetland Permit for the cutting,
wicking and the removal of phragmites surrounding Marion Lake.
Located: Bay Avenue, East Marion.
They've been doing this right along, right?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The permit has expired and they were too
involved getting their DEC, they didn't ask for an extension and
it expired. They are re-applying and they are ready to do the
second phase of it, so it's exactly the way it was before.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this
application?
(No response).
This has been an ongoing battle with the phragmites around
Marion Lake. They are trying to get it straightened out so it
improves the quality of water there and everything else. It's
just a permit that is expired. There is no changes, 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: Motion to approve application as submitted.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?.
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two, GOLDSMITH'S BOAT SHOP, INC.,
requests a Wetland Permit to remove one 4,000 gallon underground
storage tank and install one 4,000 gallon double wall steel
storage tank with new double wall fiberglass pipe and new
dispenser. Located: 64150 Main Road, Southold.
This is just the typical replacing the storage tank to
upgrade to the current codes. The board reviewed it and we have
no problem with it. It's exempt from LWRP, and Conservation
Advisory Council supports the application, is there anyone here
to speak for or against this application?
Board of Trustees 15 April 21, 2010
(No response).
Any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought it was very straightforward. This is
the case of Goldsmith's having to comply with new state
guidelines regarding fuel tanks.
TRUSTEE DONERTY: All right, I'll make a motion to close the
public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DONERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we can all sign this permit tonight, please,
so they can get the work done.
(Board members complying).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number three, PATRICK LOHN requests a Wetland
Permit to demolish and rebuild inkind/inplace, the existing wood
frame deck (including footings) and to construct a 12xl 5' wood
frame deck extension to the northwest side of the existing deck
in order to square off the structure. Located: 2480 Minnehaha
Boulevard, Southold.
Conservation Advisory Council took a look at this and they
moved to support the application. LWRP does find it to be
consistent. However it refers to the original permit and is
suggesting that we require that the turf beneath the deck be
removed to allow for drainage and that untreated lumber be used
for construction of the deck, and I also note in the original
permit we also requested a ten-foot non-turf buffer along the
bulkhead. Is there anybody here to address this application?
MR. LOHN: Yes, my name is Pat Lohn, I'm the applicant. Back in
November of 2007, the Board was kind enough to approve this
project. Two-and-a-half years later, I got my DEC permit. I
get too frustrated talking about it, but there is one thing I
would like to ask the Board to consider. Those of us who are
not schooled in permit work, length of permits, everything else
that goes with this process, can get lost in the shuffle. I had
no idea that the permit that you issued me had run out. And
what I wanted to suggest to you all, if it's possible, that
perhaps every application that you have on file be flagged in
some way so 60 days before it expires, the applicant be
notified. Because I would much rather come down here and pay
for the extension than go through the whole process again.
That's just a suggestion from me. As far as the things that you
mentioned, everything stays the same. The non-turf buffer,
getting rid of the turf underneath the structure. It's all the same.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what I figured. So when I make the
motion I'll read the original permit instead of this description, okay?.
Board of Trustees 16 April 21,2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or questions?
TRUSTEE KING: Personally I think it should be the applicant, the
onus should be on you, when the permit is ready to expire, mark
it on your calendar rather than put it on ours.
MR. LOHN: Who keeps a calendar two years in advance?
TRUSTEE KING: I do.
MR. LOHN: I told you, I don't do this every day.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And for point of information, it is in the
whole description of the permit --
MR. LOHN: As time goes by, believe me, it's in one ear and out
the other.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's come up before and if it was a practical
thing to do in our office, and easy thing for the girls to do,
we would most certainly do it. We'll consider it again. But I
don't see -- it's too much of an onus on our office.
MR. LOHN: It's just a suggestion.
MS. HULSE: There's hundreds of applications that not only the
Trustees get, but the Building Department, Planning Board. It
would have to be across the board. It would cost the taxpayers a
ton of money to do that.
MR. LOHN: Let me ask you this. Are all the different
departments involved, are the length of the permits the same
amount of time?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No.
MR. LOHN: There you go. So like I said, that just confuses the
issue. You discuss it amongst yourselves.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think it's worthy of a discussion with our
IT people to see if there is an opportunity to do this.
MR. LOHN: That's all I'm asking.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It can be a daunting task for everybody.
MR. LOHN: Okay. I have one piece of paper about the notice I
notarized today if you can put that in the file (handing).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If there are no other questions or comments,
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I make a motion we approve the application for
Patrick Lohn to approve the wetland permit to demolish replace
and rebuild, inkind and inplace, existing wood frame deck
including the footings, and construct 12x15' wood frame deck
extension to the northwest side of said existing deck in order
to square off the structure with the condition that a ten-foot
non-turf buffer is installed along the bulkhead, the turf is
removed under the existing deck and deck extension and no CCA
treating lumber is used, and as depicted on the plans that we
received October 18, 2007.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 17 April 21, 2010
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number four, 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.
Just as a point of information, the Trustees do not have a
Local Waterfront Revitalization review, so we will not be able
to conclude action on the matter tonight, but we can open and
close the public hearing and take comments on the application.
Is there anyone here to speak to behalf of the application?
MR. RYZUK: Good evening, I'm Tom Ryzuk and I own the property at
790 North Sea Drive. We put this application in to install a
swimming pool in the back of the house. Do you have a copy of
the survey?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, we do.
MR. RYZUK: Back in '07 we placed the house where it is, pretty
much where the original house stood. And one of the reasons was
we wanted to try to save some of the vegetation that was on the
property. My architect and a few other people wanted me to move
the house forward, the view -- it was a little more than the
view for my wife and I. We were sensitive to the neighbors
where we wanted to place the house. We didn't want to be too
close to the east and west house. Also, again, we wanted to take
out as little vegetation as possible. So I'm applying for this
application, I applied for this permit because where the pool
goes right now, because between the house and the swimming pool,
I believe you were at my property, is a natural, I call them
like Bonsai trees. They are like oak trees that were beaten
down. it's an amazing phenomenon the way it was built. And I
don't want to take those out if we don't have to. I would like
to leave them there. There is not enough room between the deck
and that vegetation to put the swimming pool. And the best
place I could see would be behind the vegetation and keeping it
as close as I could to the vegetation without really disturbing
it. It's a nice, natural, real private look and I think it
serves the needs for me. Also the neighbors in back of me, too,
to look at my house. Actually, I think it protects them from a
little view of my house also. So we wanted to try to eliminate
that problem. Other than that, if you have any questions for me.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the Conservation Advisory Council
indicated they were in favor of the project. It looked like a
good effort to save the vegetation.
MS. SCHILLER: One thing that we asked that we were concerned
about was that we know this is an area of sensitive vegetation
so what he just said is really wonderful. And the other thing
is it's a salt water pool, so there is no chlorine runoff into
the ecosystem, which also makes it more attractive.
MR. RYZUK: Exactly. Any kind of drainage you see fit that we
need to put in, I'm the contractor, I'm the builder, we'll do
it. The most we are out of grade over there is ten to 12 inches
at best. That's on the north side of the pool. The south side
Board of Trustees 18 April 21, 2010
of the pool is actually level so it won't be a big grade change
is what I'm trying to say. Like I said, we are very sensitive
to that. It's just an incredible, like I said, just an
incredible, the way the trees grew like that. I hate to take
them out for the placement of the pool. If it's possible
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is one tree you have to take out that we
refer to as a Bonzai-type tree. Can you replant that?
MR. RYZUK: It's a black cherry tree. We went out there, my crew
and I, we shifted the pool around. Everything else we want to
leave the same, exactly the way it sits. There is a cedar
behind it. We want to leave that there. We'll dig the other one
out. There is a barren spot to the right, to the north of the
cedar. My excavator will scoop that out and we'll replant it
and hopefully it will grow. If not, I plan on doing some
vegetation on the back directly to the -- two houses to my west,
to shadow the view from the pool. We'll do a fence around the
pool that is going to be immediately around the pool. It won't
be all over the place. Just try to keep it as tight as
possible. Just, you know, inconspicuous as possible.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you show the fence on the survey?
MR. RYZUK: No, because we have not decided exactly -- we have to
fence the fool in but we want to just do a minimal type thing.
We want to keep to keep it out of the way. In the back of the
pool is a natural deer run, kind of where they walk back there.
We want to keep it out of that area so they have free reign. I
think it's about 15 feet to the south of the swimming pool.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because we have to approve the fence as well.
We have to include that in this, when we do that. So actually
since we can't do anything tonight, if you could come to the
office and mark on the survey --
MR. RYZUK: Lauren's office?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, just indicate where you want the fence.
MR. RYZUK: And I secondly want to comment on the staff. Lauren
and Elizabeth, are just phenomenal in getting things through for
me. Now, what was the reason we can't proceed tonight?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The town LWRP requires us to have all our
actions that we have to be reviewed, whether we are
consistent with the town's coastal policies and consequently
without a LWRP coordinator's report, we can't move forward on that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we have to wait 30 days. And after the 30
days if we still don't have a report we can move on. But it's
not yet 30 days.
MR. RYZUK: I understand. I know when we applied, I don't know if
it's the DEC issue or not but, when we applied, there was no DEC
issues, they actually told us at the time they were not, what
was it, the words they used, it didn't really fall in the
category for what they look at over there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was not on their freshwater wetland?
MR. RYZUK: That's exactly what they said at the time. That was
about six or seven years ago. I don't have any documentation to
support that, so just disregard that all. So, is there anything else?
Board of Trustees 19 April 21, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On the survey, I don't know if it's clearly,
the freshwater wetland area is marked clearly on the survey. I
don't know. We saw where it was, but for the record I think we
need to make sure it's marked on the survey correctly.
MR. RYZUK: Well, this is when we did the house. This is like
from three years ago. At the time this is what they put on
here. I mean, with the heavy rains, I'm sure it's moved up
somewhat. But I'm sure it will move back.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does it say on there? It shows the contour
lines. I don't know if it says wetland lines.
MR. RYZUK: It should. Can I approach?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, please.
MR. RYZUK: Edge of wetlands, right here. I believe. This line
is the wetland line (indicating).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
MR. RYZUK: So that's what they had. This is from when I got my
original permit to build the house.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it's a straight line.
MR. RYZUK: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And so Peconic Survey indicated the wetlands.
MR. RYZUK: Yes, they did the whole survey.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's the original stamped survey?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. I didn't see that
MR. RYZUK: I just wanted to make sure. I knew I had it right,
with the one I had.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the proposed pool is more than 50 feet from
the edge of the wetlands.
MR. RYZUK: Absolutely. This shows 75' from the edge there. And
I pinpointed that out when we were out with Peconic Survey. We
took this cutout here and we moved it around and -- it's
precise. And all the stakes you saw in the backyard are all
pinpointing where, exactly where the pool is going. Right to
the inch. And I'll make sure I follow the guidelines set up,
whatever it's got to be, I'll do it. So we'll hear from you in
30 days?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, it will be postponed to the next meeting,
which is May 19th. We'll make a decision then.
MR. RYZUK: 6:00 PM?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. RYZUK: Thank you, for your time. Appreciate it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to table until next month.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. RYZUK: Thank you
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five, Catherine Mesiano, Inc., on behalf
of ROBERT CELIC requests a Wetland Permit to replace three
existing wood jetties 68', 65' and 50', using 10x15' wood piles
@ six feet on center and C-Loc vinyl sheathing or equivalent.
Located: 910 Park Avenue Extension, Mattituck.
Board of Trustees 20 April 21, 2010
This is an application that has been pending for a long
time. So the review that took place under the LWRP was done in
2008, was found to be exempt. And it was reviewed by the
Conservation Advisory Council back in October of 2008, also they
resolved to support the replacement of the eastern most jetty
only. The other two jetties do not seem to be functional and
should be left to deteriorate or removed. That's the
Conservation Advisory Council's recommendation.
My understanding is that this was held up, this was applied
for a while back but held up because of the pending violation.
It's our understanding that violation has been resolved. Is
that correct, Counsel?
MS. HULSE: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody here to speak on
behalf of this application?
MS. MESIANO: Cathy Mesiano on behalf of Mr. Celic, and I would
like to hear the Board's comments before I comment because our
application is as, stands as it has from the beginning, and we
have met at the site, we've discussed it and I really don't know
what the Trustees' position is.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, we are looking at a survey, just for
clarification, it is stamped dated June 10, 2009. Just so we
make sure we are all looking at the same survey. The Board has
been out there several times and we have met with the applicant
at least on one occasion out there. And it appears on the
survey there are four jetties marked Jetty A, the farthest to
the west; proceeding east, Jetty B, Jetty C and Jetty D, which
is the farthest to the east. In looking at this, Jetty B, as I
recall, and Board members, correct me if I'm wrong, Jetty B was
a very short jetty that didn't seem to be functional any longer.
It's, it's a very small distance between Jetty A and Jetty B.
So there was a feeling that Jetty B could be eliminated without
much, without any type of detrimental effect on the shoreline
along there. So that was one comment.
There was also a suggestion to eliminate Jetty A, leaving
what are marked on here Jetty C and Jetty D because they not
only protect the beach but they also protect the inlet there,
the entrance to Deephole Creek. So the Board's preference out
there was to allow for the replacement of C and D, and eliminate
A and B.
MS. MESIANO: And was this based on an inspection that took place
six months or more ago?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, this was an inspection dated April 10. Last
Wednesday.
MS. MESIANO: Or April 14.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Apologize for that. The 10th and 14th were
transcribed. It is April 14, yes.
MS. MESIANO: Sorry, I interrupted
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's okay. So yes, that's when the last
inspection was done, on April 14.
MS. MESIANO: So what is the Board of a mind to do, to offer to
Board of Trustees 21 April 21, 2010
say?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Approve C and D as described.
MS. MESIANO: And with respect to A and B?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, to not approve them.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For A and B to be removed as a condition of
approval of C and D.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We also talked about maybe, possibly
lengthening D, if you wanted to. Because that will protect the
inlet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Right now on the plan they have D going to the
mean Iow water, both C and D extending to mean Iow water.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They have the extension on there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MS. MESIANO: All the structures shown on the map are as existing
and what we had proposed was in place replacement of three
structures, A, B and C. D had not been touched or a part of the
initial summons in the first place.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I believe you are correct there in that they
were not touched as part of the summons, yes. Replacing as
currently exists, one of the challenges we had was what
currently exists is not what was approved. In other words, the
summons was issued because the applicant raised those jetties at
one point in time. So, I just want to clarify, you are asking
for approval of the jetty as it was originally approved or as it
sits there now with the raised --
MS. MESIANO: At the very least, well, in the first place it was
never quote, originally approved, because those structures were
there since the '20's. We have maps showing that. And --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I believe you.
MS. MESIANO: And Mr. Celic was not even aware they were under
there until that storm that occurred --
MR. CELIC: '93, actually.
MS. MESIANO: Was when they first came up, and they disappeared
again?
MR. CELIC: Yes.
MS. MESIANO: Then they appeared again at the point in time when
this violation was alleged.
MR. CELIC: Can I interject?
MS. MESIANO: Yes.
MR. CELIC: I'm Robert Celic. I'm the owner, for the record. The
house is actually under my five children, under an LLC. These
jetties have been here since the early '20's, by CH Wickham.
The point was marshland filled in with boulders, stones, timber,
everything else. And cottages were built by CH Wickham and
rented out. Ultimately they were sold independently to
different people. This particular home belonged to my father-in-law
George Penny, and my wife inherited that upon his demise.
We have been losing sand -- and if Hank Drumm was here, he could
tell you -- for the last 40 to 50 years. The sand ultimately
ends up in New Suffolk. Over this past winter, and I'm not
sure, I notice you have this dated April 14 of this year, but we
Board of Trustees 22 April 21, 2010
lost about three feet of sand over the winter from the storms
that we have had. The roadway, the drive coming in to Maratooka
Point is inundated by sand and either ended up there or it went
into the Deephole Creek. In terms of these jetties you are
talking about, I believe the one farthest to the west, is not
even on my property. The one farthest to the west, I believe,
is on Parker Wickham, the granddaughter. All right. I believe
that is correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could step up. You could look at this.
Because we have the same question. So if you could step up and
look at exactly what I'm looking at, you'll see --
(Ms. Mesiano and Mr. Celic approach the Board).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We agree with you these jetties are close
together. This is definitely on your neighbor's property.
MR. CELIC: All these are original. This was put in by CH
Wickham.
MS. HULSE: Sorry, you'll have to identify for the record what
you are pointing to. We are not getting it on the record.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I can -- we are looking at Jetty A, what is
depicted as Jetty A on the plan, and then there is a jetty to
the west of Jetty A that on this plan, on this survey shows
being on the next door neighbor's property to the west.
MR. CELIC: Sheppard. That's correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sheppard, thank you.
MR. CELIC: Now, this is original.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jetty A, he is pointing to.
MR. CELIC: This is original.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jetty B.
MR. CELIC: This one.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jetty C.
MR. CELIC: And this one.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jetty D.
MR. CELIC: And those four, and we have surveys dating back to
when my father-in-law had it was reflected by Van Tyle.
Admittedly this whole thing started because we kept losing sand.
MS. MESIANO: If I could just interject one point. The jetty Mr.
Celic referred to that you identified as Sheppard, those, the
structures on the Sheppard property were approved for inkind
inplace replacement by this Board with no questioning as to
whether they should be pulled out or not pulled out or approved.
TRUSTEE KING: I disagree with that. That was to be a new Iow
profile vinyl groin, not a replacement. That was approved as a
Iow profile groin and I believe it was shortened.
MS. MESIANO: I stand corrected as far as the terminology goes.
And I believe that our request was for quote Iow profile groins
in place of what is there. But my point is that the same
request was made of this Board with respect to the
Sheppard/Wickham property and was approved without any
discussion, and we have been discussing this for years now, so,
Mr. Celic?
MR. CELIC: Just to go back to the comment, we originally did
Board of Trustees 23 April 21,2010
this anticipating to try and save our own property, having really no
knowledge and regrettably gone ahead and put in a few boards in
here, replacement boards, and that was five years ago, six years
ago, however long this has been going on. And regrettably, it
was a poor decision. However, I think I'm being chastised about
this whole thing because we are trying to protect our property.
For me to pull out existing bulkheads that have been there since
1920 makes no sense at all. If you recall, we had that meeting
with that specialist, your board came in, we walked with Gail,
my wife --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jay Tansky.
MR. CELIC: And Cathy, and that specialist indicated to us at
that time, he said, those structures help, not hinder. So what
puzzles me is why am I subjected to having to spend additional
money, which I don't have, quite frankly, to pull out something
that is there and has been there since the '20's and I'm being
subjected to the removal of those structures? That's not very
fair. And it's really nonsensical, based upon what your
specialist indicated to all of us. We all heard.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have the field inspection notes from that day,
which Jay Tansky was there. This is back in 2009.
MR. CELIC: It was in the Fall some time.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It says here September 9, 2009. Replace C and D
only. Groins Iow profile, 12 to 18 inches above grade. Jetty
should go out to the length of where you want to maintain the
channel. I'm just reading straight from the notes. But the
notes here --
MR. CELIC: C and D farthest to the east?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: C and D which we indicated we are okay with.
MR. CELIC: And the other two that have been there for years, I
have to pull those out?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just clarifying what his here in the field
inspection report from that meeting with Jay Tansky. You had
indicated, I thought you had just stated that he said all four
were fine. And what I'm saying is that is not what is on the
field notes here.
MR. CELIC: Gail, was that your impression?
MS. VVICKHAM: I did not hear him say that.
MR. CELIC: All right, I can't question that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just reading from the field notes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The other thing Jay Tansky talked about was the
distance between them. The formula that should be used based on
the length and the distance.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We had also at that time walked with Jay up the
beach to look -- when I say up, to the west, to look at some
other properties, and one of the questions we asked him was the
question of how far apart these -- and actually, they are
groins. Jetties support or protect the inlets. The rest are
groins -- so how far apart these groins should be. And he said
the distance between groins should be at least twice the length
of the groins. Two times the length of the groins.
Board of Trustees 24 April 21, 2010
MR. CELLO: They are pre-existing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I underetand that. I'm not saying anything
about pre-existing.
MR. CELLO: And even with all the bulkheading, we've lost two to
three feet over this past winter. Now, my house is going to go
fall into the sea. I'm paying almost $9,000 a year for a
seasonal residence, which is uninsulated, unheated. I don't
think it's really fair in terms of property ownerehip that I
should have to be subjected to removing those two when they are
there and have been there since 1920. And also there are
stones, that CH put in that clearly appeared since January of
this year, which we had the couple of storms, January through
March. And I mean it's amazing. You have 1o really look down,
go down, I don't know who did the inspection.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We all went down there.
MR. CELLO: Did you notice all the sand in the driveway and
everything else?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We did notice that sand and one part of this
application that we might be able to assist you with, if we are
successful in moving forward with something tonight, is
including in there permission for you to bring that sand that
has moved into your driveway there, and place it back on the beach.
MR. CELLO: How am I going to do that? How do I physically take
that sand, you know, there is no way to get to the beach from the road.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: My understanding is you and a couple of property
owners were concerned that that sand had moved up in the storm
and moved into what is really parking areas or driveways. And
we agree with you. And what we are saying is we would like to
grant you permission from our end to put that sand back.
MR. CELLO: I appreciate that but the reality is how do I do it?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: A contractor could probably give you advice on
that.
MR. CELLO: He can't even get around the house. The cesspool is
between us and the Wickham's. The other is another cesspool on
the other side.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I think if you talk to some landscape
contractors they can probably give you some ideas on how to do
that. They are used to working in various confined areas. But,
I don't want to get off track. But we want to help you with
that. We do want to help you with that.
MR. CELLO: I appreciate that. So what do we do?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, I look to my fellow Board members for
comments.
TRUSTEE KING: How do you feel about just removing the parts that
you have the violation for?
MR. CELLO: Pardon me?
TRUSTEE KING: How do you feel about removing the pieces you put
on top you got the violation for; just take them off and leave
the original groin? That's what brought the problem up.
MR. CELLO: I think most of them, the patch work we have done,
most of it is gone.
Board of Trustees 25 April 21, 2010
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So just to clarify, Jim, as a condition of
approval, of C and D, we would allow A and B to be maintained
but just the removal of what was put on --
TRUSTEE KING: Of what he got the violation for.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just want to make sure everyone is clear on
that.
MR. CELIC: If we could meet there and you point it out,
I'll take care of it. I'll remove it myself. It's a matter of
dollars and cents, too. I mean I wish I was a wealthier guy
than I had been in the past before I sold my business, but I'm
not anymore. And the real estate business is not all that
great. So I'm telling you, shooting right from the hip, it's a
matter of monetary concern. I'm sorry for what I did in the
past, but this has gone on for like four or five years and
believe me, I had no interest in hiring Gail Wickham or Cathy,
as well as Eric and to go through all this. Because it's all
monetary.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With respect to Jetty A and B, and with what
Jay Tansky said, the formula he uses for the distance between
the two, could we have Mr. Celic take off the top part that he
did on those jetties but not, somehow not -- say that he cannot
replace them? Just let them just be and let them deteriorate?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, that's a suggestion that can be made.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And that way we are not asking you to remove it
but we are not giving you permission to maintain it and replace
it. Then when Mother Nature has it gone, it's gone.
MR. CELIC: So if I have it in place, where I can apply to have
it rebuilt.
TRUSTEE KING: You can apply to have it rebuilt, sure.
MS. MESIANO: What we would like to do is let Jetty A and B stand
and withdraw them from this application, without prejudice, and
I'll give you my reasoning for that. I was present at the Sea
Grant meeting, and that formula, one to two, was talked about,
but it was talked about in a theoretical sense, when you are
looking at the larger picture. I have looked and studied some
of the aerials on here and it's between 85 and 100 of these
groins between there and Strong's Marina. That would be
James Creek. And to arbitrarily say, well, you have to pull
that one out. There is too big of a ripple effect to pull out one
structure or two structures and say, well, the formula doesn't work.
Because that is a wonderful theoretical position to take, but in reality, to
take out a structure, I don't think this Board has the expertise to say to
Mr. Celic we are ordering you to take that structure out because it won't
have any impact on the safety and security of your property.
You know, with all due respect, I don't think, I don't believe
this Board has that professional knowledge to be able to make
that statement. And I would certainly not turn to Mr. Celic and
say it's okay, go ahead and accept it, because I don't have the
knowledge. Nor would I expect someone to accept that condition
without certain assurances that it will not cause detrimental
and the degradation to his property.
Board of Trustees 26 April 21, 2010
I'm comfortable with withdrawing Jetties A and B from the
application without prejudice and if you and Mr. Celic would
like to meet at the site to identify any of the boards that are
the offending portions of the structure, I don't have a problem
with that.
MR. CELIC: I would be happy to do that, really.
MS. MESIANO: And with respect to Jetty C, if a point in time
comes that that needs to be replaced, we would like to have the
option of replacing that as a Iow profile structure to the mean
Iow water as it presently exists. And with respect to Jetty D,
I would say the same with respect to that. Mr. Celic, I'm sure
he'll jump in and stop me if I'm over-speaking, but I'm sure he
would be willing to cooperate with the town if the town wanted
to undertake a project to try secure the inlet into Deephole
Creek but, again, should it be Mr. Celic's responsibility to, at
his expense, lengthen a jetty, as you mentioned, to protect a
public creek --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was just a suggestion.
MS. MESIANO: Right, but I want to address that along with the
other items.
TRUSTEE KING: And I think the Board felt that would probably
increase, sand would accrete on that left side if that was
extended and that would benefit him.
MS. MESIANO: Ultimate, yes, it would. But sand accreting
doesn't cost anything and building a longer jetty costs more
money and, as Mr. Celic plainly said, it's about dollars and
cents at this point.
MR. CELIC: Also, one comment, and I know a lot of people who
live in this area, all the way from Pino (sic) and all the way
back, probably back to Salt Lake Village, just on the other
side, by James Creek, if they were to have a bulkhead from this
point, Maratooka Point, similar, maybe made out of stone or
something like that, similar to Mattituck Inlet Pier, on one
side, on our side, that ultimately would build up everything,
because the natural, the littoral flow goes from west to east
and that's why New Suffolk has fabulous beaches. That's all our
beaches in New Suffolk. So it would retain it. I know the town
doesn't have any money at the moment, no one has any money at
the moment to do something like that, but that would be a great
project.
TRUSTEE KING; Then you would have people to the east complaining
because they are losing their beach. You mentioned Mattituck
Inlet, I know exactly what is happening.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And Goldsmith's.
MR. CELIC: That cement or that pier, back to the west, and you
would not have that erosion factor, which we have now and we
have had for, since 1920. Since it was built. That's my only
comment.
TRUSTEE KING: I personally don't have a huge issue leaving these
two jetties as long as the additions are removed because, to me,
it was a violation and to approve it as is, is saying it's okay.
Board of Trustees 27 April 21, 2010
So I think the extension should be removed and leave the old
jetties alone. That's how I feel.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Has the DEC made a ruling on this or any DEC
permitting involved?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Cathy, the question was have you applied to the
DEC?
MS. MESIANO: No, we haven't.
TRUSTEE KING: That could change things dramatically.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: As we all know.
MR. CELIC: If you have any other questions of me.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just one housekeeping matter on the survey dated
June 10, it has cross-sections of Jetty A, B, and then Jetty C
and Jetty C. We don't want to assume anything. I'm assuming
the bottom one is actually supposed to read Jetty D?
MS. MESIANO: If I know John Ellers, I'll make the same
assumption.
MR. CELIC: I paid for the survey, by the way.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Take it up with John. I just want to make sure
we clean that up for housekeeping.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think for the record, why don't you just tell
us who Jay Tansky is. He was referred to as our expert, and
he's not.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, he works for the Department of State.
TRUSTEE KING: I thought he worked for Sea Grant.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: To be honest, I don't know. I don't have his
business card here.
MS. MESIANO: I think he works for Sea Grant and Sea Grant is
funded by the Department of State.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is the connection. Okay.
MS. MESIANO: Follow the money.
TRUSTEE KING: I would be inclined to table this until we go out
and see what's going to be removed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We know what's going to be removed. Bob, if
you could hand me the pointer.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I tend to agree with Jim. Since nothing started
with the DEC, we are not holding it up. If we could table it to
go out and meet with the applicant so we can specifically look
at A and B so we can talk exactly what is being discussed 1o be
removed so that we are all in agreement ahead of time.
MR. CELIC: Fine.
MS. MESIANO: The only problem we have is maybe with the legal
end of it that is before the Court and the matter in which the
agreement was structured, so we may be running out of time. If
there is a way for you to word your resolution that upon mutual
agreement of the Trustees and the applicant for removal of the
portion of the structure that was the subject of the violation.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What is the exact stipulation of time you are
talking about?
MS. MESIANO: 60 days.
MS. HULSE: It was, yes, it was 60 days. It was 60 days from the
date of the plea. But that's something we can obviously extend
Board of Trustees 28 April 21, 2010
by mutual agreement if Mrs. Wickham wants to do that. The fine
has not yet been paid, so I don't see why we couldn't, Gall.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me just clarify, 60 days to what? To get a
permit or 60 days to come in to the Trustees? What was the --
MS. HULSE: No 60 days --
MS. WICKHAM: Abigail Wickham, for the record. I believe the
court-ordered stipulation had a 60-day period within which the
plea could be withdrawn if a satisfactory resolution of the
permit had not been identified, and we picked that date to allow
two meetings.
MS. HULSE: But you could opt not to withdraw it, obviously.
MS. WICKHAM: I don't want to get us back into the same problem
that took so long to resolve. I don't want to do that. Because
that's why we couldn't get to the Trustees in the first place.
I don't want to have to be in a position because of the time
factor, having to withdraw the plea.
MS. HULSE: So I'm saying, why would you withdrew, Gall, if your
client is willing to consent to an adjournment to go out and
continue to investigate this, why not by mutual agreement among
the attorneys agree to extend the period of time beyond the 60 days?
MS. WICKHAM: I don't think we can do that, you and I, because I
think it's at statutory problem. I don't want to take up the
time of the Board.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, this is a very important point for both sides.
MS. WICKHAM: I think there is a statutory limitation under the CPL.
That's my problem. You and I could agree half an hour ago, but I
don't know that we have the ability to do that. Sorry. That's
why I think Ms. Mesiano is suggesting perhaps a conditional, a
permit conditioned on the applicant --
MS. HULSE: So then withdraw your plea, Gall. Then withdraw it.
Because the Trustees have spoken. It was really their decision
to make. That's why we made it worded the way we did. So I
don't want to push the Trustees into doing something they are
not prepared to do.
MS. WICKHAM: I'm not trying to do that.
MR. CELIC: Is it possible you can make the resolution with my
sincere promise that whatever you want me to remove I'll remove
on that particular structure. But at least I won't have to come
back again and tie your good time up on this matter. If you are
willing to do that, I have been in business all my life here,
I'm an ethical guy, my word is my bond. So if I could make that
promise to you, I hope you'll believe me.
MS. HULSE: Jill, just to let the Board know, he pled guilty and
paid, he has agreed to pay the maximum fine on the violation.
And there was a stipulation that he, in return, would come
before the Trustees and agree on something. Something that is
agreeable that would work.
TRUSTEE KING: What was the maximum fine on this?
MS. HULSE: Five-hundred dollars, at the time.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So that fine has not been paid yet?
MS. HULSE: It has. Mr. Celic has written a check. It has not
Board of Trustees 29 April 21, 2010
been processed, obviously contingent on what happens tonight.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So that was the deal that was made. And that
plea has a 60-day window of everything happening or --
MS. HULSE: Whatever you do here tonight, you do. Don't concern
yourself with what is going to happen because that obviously can
still be litigated if he chooses to withdraw. It could still go
to trial and go forward. So that was the way it was worded,
because Mr. Celic was hoping get something agreeable tonight,
but if not --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Couldn't the Board empower one of the
members to go out and there meet with Mr. Celic?
MS. HULSE: if that's what you want to do, sure.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I was going to suggest. Because we
have all been out there so many times and it's clear to us when
we are out in the field of what the extent of the height extension that was
put up there, so if it's a matter of conditioning the permit on somebody
showing Mr. Celic what is to be taken out and then somebody inspecting it
after to make sure the right amount was taken out, before he gets his C of C, I
don't have a problem with that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I know Mr. Celic. I don't believe there will be
any issue here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree.
TRUSTEE KING: I would be happy to move ahead here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just want to make sure we are legally dotting
our i's and crossing our t's. But I agree.
MS. HULSE: So why don't you make it conditional upon removal of
the structures as per the Trustees direction to Mr. Celic when
you have made that decision.
MS. MESIANO: The added portion of the structures, subject to the
violation.
TRUSTEE KING: That's the only concern I have.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are not going to tell you to remove more
jetties.
MS. MESIANO: And I would also like there to be a provision in
the resolution there is no prejudice with respect to A and B
because if there is an event in the future, he should be able to
come back to this Board with good technical knowledge at that
point and say to the Board I need to replace a structure for
this reason, and have the Board consider that under the
conditions at that point in time. I don't think he should be
precluded at this point in time from ever coming back and --
TRUSTEE KING: No, in the future he can come apply for a Iow
profile groin, whatever.
MS. MESIANO: That's what I'm asking.
TRUSTEE KING: I have no problem with that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Isn't that what he's applying for now?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. He's replaced three existing wood jetties,
68', 65' and 50' in length. So he's applying for three jetties.
And what we are referring to is Jetty C and D, which are the
farthest most jetties we are contemplating approval here tonight.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought they were applying for a permit for
Board of Trustees 30 April 21, 2010
all four but only replacing three.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The description is to replace three existing jetties.
MS. MESIANO: I think that's because at the time we made the
submission, the fourth jetty had not yet emerged. That's why it
says three.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Yes, because I noted that when we were
out in the field --
MS. MESIANO: Yes, and now it's very high and dry, and the
beaches --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did we measure that? Do you know the length of
that?
MS. MESIANO: It's on your survey.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Should we include that in the description?
MS. MESIANO: Yes, since it's appeared since then.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But if we are permitting it, then they are
allowed to maintain it and do work on it, and what I heard Jim
state was that they be left alone. We decreased the structure
that was put on a couple of years ago and then let those jetties
just maintain themselves just the way they are. If they
want to come in in the future and apply for a permit --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we would only be permitting two structures
tonight? Letting him leave A and B, leave A and B, take off
what was added on to A and B and then permit C and D and give
them a permit to replace C and D. Is that what we are looking
at now?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, that's my understanding.
MS. MESIANO: I think we had gotten a little bit past that in our
discussions because we went from taking out A and B to leaving A
and B to deteriorate and then there was more discussion about A
and B taking off the offending portion of the structure. And I
don't think Mr. Celic should be prohibited from maintaining the
portions of the old structure for the purpose of ordinary
maintenance.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, that's where I heard you say and my point
is if you don't have a permit for a structure, you can not
maintain it. You need a permit before you start maintaining.
That's my point. If we let you maintain those now, you need to
get a permit.
MR. CELIC: There is nothing to maintain. It's there. So that
one right there, you come down and tell me what you want me to
take off, Jim, or whomever, and I'll do it. The last one on the
end, number four, it's shot. I mean it's over the winter, it's
gone. It's like --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's D, yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So my point is, if we tell you to take the top
part off that you did, and we do not permit them, you cannot
touch them. You cannot maintain them.
MR. CELIC: That's all right. I want to get this over with.
It's five years.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you need to maintain them, you have to come
in and ask permission first.
Board of Trustees 31 April 21, 2010
MS. MESIANO: I would like to go back to our original, when we
first talked about A, C and D. B showed up somewhere along the
way and snuck in and we just --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Right there in the picture.
MS. MESIANO: Right. It showed up in the midst of all this. We
can keep ignoring B as we have in the past if we can address A,
C and D. And A, C and D is the subject of your approval because
those are the most functional on that property. I think if he's
allowed to maintain A, let B deteriorate, don't permit it,
maintain C and D, I think his property is protected. You've
gotten the surrender of one structure, which I think is
something that you would like to do. I think that it allows Mr.
Celic to protect his property. If he replaces D, that's going
to go to the town's benefit because that's the structure that
supports the inlet. I think then it's a win/win and you have
gotten what you want and he's gotten enough to protect his
property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The distance between Jetty A and the jetty to
the west, Sheppard, is approximately 20, almost exactly 20 feet.
And the Sheppard jetty is approximately 65 feet long. So I
think the jetty, groin, sorry, that is located on the Sheppard
property, about 65 feet in length, will provide the protection
for--
MS. MESIANO: We don't --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just saying. This is just my opinion -- of
Mr. Celic's property. So Jetty A being allowed to dissolve
really isn't going to affect whatsoever when 20 feet away is a
65' long groin --
MS. MESIANO: And I have to maintain, sorry, my position, that
again, with all due respect, your knowledge of this is not much
more than mine, and I would not want to promise him that it
would cause a problem anymore than you would want to promise him
that it would not cause a problem.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I'm going with the recommendation of Jay
Tansky, who was out there. And again, 20 feet away is a 65 foot
groin. So I think I made my point.
MS. MESIANO: If we were 200 feet or a thousand feet west of
there, that would be a safer bet, but being so close to that
inlet and the distance from Mr. Celic's property, bay front to
the creek front, puts him in a unique situation from all of the
other properties that are only water[ront on one side. If he
did not have the influence of the creek, I think it would be a
safer assumption.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have to agree with that. To try to rely
on a neighbor with the sheer forces we have had over the last
several winters and reliance on the structure's stability of the
neighboring structure, I mean you can talk about removing a few
boards but I can't see, the win/win is not a win for anyone if
the neighboring structuring goes and you already had to remove
both A and B.
MS. MESIANO: I just want to say one thing. The neighboring
Board of Trustees 32 April 21, 2010
structure was approved by this Board but the last time I
checked, that permit was never paid for so it shows to me no
intention of actually replacing or improving the structure. So
depending on a structure shown on the survey as being existing,
I don't think it's a reasonable basis to jeopardize Mr. Celic's property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's fair enough.
MS. WICKHAM: Jetty B was the only jetty I remember Mr. Tansky
saying maybe would be a question. He didn't mention A in that
meeting. He may have put it later in his field report but it
was that little one, he said it could either stay or go, it
might not make a difference.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would seem something that may not be
functional now might be functional very quickly when we have the
deletions that we've seen --
MR. CELIC: Very good point.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, I think we talked about this for some
length now and for myself, personally, I'm agreeable to the
replacement, permitting and replacement of C and D, under the
condition that the, to use your terminology, the offending
structure on A and D would be removed, and I would not agree to
permitting A and B. That's just myself.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But they can stay there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct, they can stay there. They don't have to
be removed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Pre-existing nonconforming structures, I
guess.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And in the future they can most certainly apply.
MS. MESIANO: But that also implies no maintenance can be done.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
MS. MESIANO: So if you have an event where something is
happening rapidly, Mr. Celic is not in a position to try
exercise self-help without risk of ending up in this same place
again.
MS. HULSE: But his recourse is to come in for an emergency
permit at that point. He can't make a repair to something that
is unpermitted. So that would be his recourse.
TRUSTEE KING: He can come in to apply to repair them and we can
say, the condition, you can repair, but don't raise the
elevation of it.
MS. WICKHAM: In this area there was a storm and once there is a
storm, the emergency has happened.
MS. HULSE: But the problem is, Gall --
MS. WICKHAM: I guess all we are asking is if you would
reconsider allowing him to maintain and not replace A.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For myself, no. I'm just speaking for myself.
I don't know how the other Board members feel. I just don't know.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a huge problem with maintaining as
long as there is no change in the elevation of the structure.
That's what caused this whole problem to begin with.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That means we have to permit this. You can't
maintain unless up have a permit for it.
Board of Trustees 33 April 21, 2010
MS. MESIANO: A, C and D, I think are reasonable for us to
request of you. Letting B go, I don't think is, would cause us
a loss. We can't rely on the neighbor's jetty, groin, in the
scenario that was discussed earlier, but giving us A, C and D,
provides us, I think, with a reasonable expectation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With the understanding that the boards are
removed on A.
MS. MESIANO: Yes, bringing the boards that raised A into the
violation, removing the boards that created the violation and
allowing us to maintain A. we'll let B go, what happens,
happens, with B. And C and D, we can maintain.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm a late comer to this, but I think, my
personal perspective having come in at this point, think it's
very reasonable. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels.
I know they have been here doing this a long time.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think that sounds reasonable. As long as
they remove the top of B and A.
MS. MESIANO: Yes, Mr. Ceiic has given every assurance --
MR. CELIC: I cross my heart
MS. MESIANO: (Continuing) make it part of the resolution, but
he's given you every assurance that he can. He's put significant
effort, he's appeared in court, he's done all the things he's
supposed to do, and I think his efforts are sincere and I think
that everything except the reality of the matter before us needs
to be set aside and, again, consider the fact that his property
is unique because it's surrounded by water. It's just not a
waterfront, you know, he has a greater risk than all the others
down that stretch
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think that's a good compromise, by letting B
go and not to rebuild it, if we make the condition you can't
even come in to apply to rebuild B.
MS. MESIANO: I'm fine with that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we would approve A so you could maintain
it. You know, I don't have a problem with that, being that they
have been there since the '20's and something that has been
there a long time, as long as it's a, you can maintain it, but
not, you know, if you are totally going to re-do it, you would
have to come in and do A so we can make sure it's Iow profile
and meets the current standards. That's how I feel about it.
MS. MESIANO: Could you reiterate that in the form of your
resolution so we all understand?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We were still discussing that. That was not
the Board's -- yes.
TRUSTEE KING: The only thing in the back of my mind is the same
thing going to happen that happened with the Sheppard one, it's
never going to be built, the old ones are just going to stay
here.
MS. MESIANO: Well, we have just gotten done explaining how
important it is to preserve this property.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And right now the Sheppard one, technically,
doesn't have a permit, because they never came and paid and
Board of Trustees 34 April 21, 2010
never picked up their permit, and that will expire before they
end up doing that. So we can't rely on the neighbor rebuilding
or not rebuilding.
MS. MESlANO: We have gone through great lengths to express our
need to preserve our property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. If somebody else would like to make a
motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion that we close the public
hearing in this matter. Anyone else here to speak on the matter?
(No response).
Motion to close.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I just want to make one comment. I kind of kept
quiet during the whole thing. I'm fine with what you want to
do. I think that somehow, it's nagging me, I think Jetty B is
more important than Jetty A. Or Groin B is more important than
Groin A. I think you are making a mistake abdicating your rights
to the second groin. That's just my opinion.
MS. MESIANO: I'm not -- we're not thrilled about it. But if it's
the only way to resolve it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would give up A and keep B, if it was me.
MS. MESIANO: Well, I'm afraid to -- then I would like the right
to come back for it at some point in time and let the Board, as
I said, consider the facts at that point in time.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to table this now and get some more
information about these two groins?
MS. MESIANO: No, because we'll end up in the same discussion a
month and six months from now.
TRUSTEE KING: We need to moved forward and let them go to the
DEC.
MS. MESIANO: We need to resolve it and not keep coming back.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the DEC might not give you what we are
giving you and might be coming back to us again.
MS. MESIANO: My personal feeling, belief, again, is I agree
wholeheartedly with Bob. Because I don't have the confidence to
say give it up. But if the Board is going to maintain a
position that, you know, we are going to take something from
you, then something has to be given up. But that's why I'm
trying to say if we can set aside any of the personal feelings
that are involved in this, and look at it from a black and
white, professional perspective, don't look at the neighbor's
property, look at Mr. Celic's property, look at the delicate,
tenuous nature of his property, and if you want to give us
permits for A, C and D, but don't preclude us from coming back
if we can prove that we need to preserve the property by
building a structure. At that time you might say, well, we'll
let you put that structure in but you'll have to give that up.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: At that point I would say we'll go back to what
I was talking about before, is approve C and D and not approve A
and B and make you take off that top portion and leave it at
that, and at a later date you can come and apply once you figure
Board of Trustees 35 April 21, 2010
out what you want to do with them.
I would feel moro comfortable, if you insist on coming back, I
don't want you to get rid of one and then give you permission to
come back and re-apply for it. Let's just not approve them now,
take off the top section, we'll approve C and D and at a later
date when we have more information --
MS. MESIANO: That leaves us too exposed. A, C and D I think is
a roasonable request and if five years down the road Mr. Celic
or whoever owns it at that time needs to come back, I don't
think they should be precluded from doing that. Because he's not
going to own this for the next hundred years. I think A, C and D
as it stands on its own is a reasonable roquest to protect the
piece of property.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, any further comments?
(No response).
Motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion we approve A, C and D with
the inspection of boards romoved from A and B and I'll take any
additional add-ons to that if there is a point of clarification.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any time limit under which those boards to be
removed? 30 days?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, 30 days within which to securo removal
of the boards and inspection.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The added boards, additional boards.
MS. MESIANO: Can that be 30 days from the date that a Board
member meets with Mr. Celic?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
MR. CELIC: Fine. All it takes is it a big hammer.
TRUSTEE KING: You are approving A, C and D as Iow profile vinyl
as per--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, as per the plan dated June 10 of 2009.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the added structures are to be removed
within 30 days?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: After a meeting with a Trustee designated by
the president.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And structure B is to be left alone and not to
be applied for?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Leave structure B alone. Motion made.
Anyone to second it?
TRUSTEE KING: I'll second it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can you do a role call vote, please.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll do role call vote.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Resay it then.
TRUSTEE KING: Reroad the rosolution.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Resolution to approve A, C and D with
removal of boards from A and B, inspection by a Trustee with
romoval within 30 days. That's it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And to leave B alone. The others are Iow
Board of Trustees 36 April 21, 2010
profile vinyl.
TRUSTEE KING: I thought that's what this permit is for, to
replace them all, Iow profile and vinyl.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Okay, we'll do a role call vote. John
Bredemeyer?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Aye.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Dave Bergen?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Nay
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim King?
TRUSTEE KING: Aye.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jill Doherty, nay. Bob Ghosio?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aye.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the reason why I'm voting nay is I wanted
part of it to not be able to come in and replace B. Because I
suggested this but --
MS. MESIANO: He may not. We never know what's going to happen
in the next storm in the next 50 years.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just think those are too close together and
one of them should not be replaced.
MS. MESIANO: We don't know what mother nature has in mind, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, note for the record the vote was
carried three to two. The motion was carried.
MS. WlCKHAM: Thank you, for all your time on this. My apologies
to the audience.
TRUSTEE KING: Number six, Aleet Enterprises on behalf of JOAN E.
SHANNON requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing roof
and expand the second-floor within the existing footprint;
construct new covered porch on the landward side of the existing
dwelling; and install drywells for proposed dwelling and
existing detached garage. Located: 7080 Peconic Bay Boulevard,
Laurel.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. LANG: I am. Gerald Lang, with Aleet Enterprises.
TRUSTEE KING: I believe this was approved and the original
permit expired, I believe, and you are doing the same thing all
over. There has been no change.
MR. LANG: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: I went out and looked at it. I didn't have a
problem with it. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to
approve, support the application, and it was found consistent
with the recommendation that was made back in 2007 on the
original permit. So I have no problem. Any other comment on
this? Board comment?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KING: 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.
Board of Trustees 37 April 21, 2010
It's simply a repeat of a permit that had expired.
TRUSTEE GHOSiO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: LES Associates, Inc., on behalf of RICHARD
KUBIAK requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing
bulkhead using C-Loc vinyl sheathing. Located: 185 Willow Point
Road, Southold.
This is exempt from LWRP and the Conservation Advisory
Council supports the application with the condition of a ten
foot non-tuff buffer along the landward side of the bulkhead.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
MS. SECCAFICO: I'm Linda Seccafico from LES Associates and I'm
here on behalf of Dr. Richard Kubiak, asking to have a permit to
reconstruct the existing bulkhead that was a Town of Southold
Trustee permit was issued for this bulkhead on April 3, 1972.
And we do have a New York State DEC Wetland Permit that was
issued on January 28, 2010.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, we have a couple of questions in the
field. One, with regard to the non-tuff buffer, we felt that it
should be probably equal to the neighbor, which would be about
12 feet. 12 to 15 feet. But no less than 12 feet. And that
would line up with the neighbor's non-tuff buffer. The other
thing we were talking about is maybe raising the bulkhead to the
height of the neighbor's so you don't -- you don't mention,
there is returns there but you don't mention you are rebuilding
returns and maybe it would be easier construction wise to raise
the height of the bulkhead to lock into the neighbor's.
MS. SECCAFICO: I don't see that that is a problem.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we would need better plans showing this.
Right now we just have a survey showing what the bulkhead is.
There is a slight cross-section on it but normally the plans are
more detailed.
MS. SECCAFICO: Okay, I can get that from the contractor.
TRUSTEE KING: The contractor should be able to supply us with
the plans.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the other thing, while you are doing all
these changes, we assume Dr. Kubiak would like water and
electric to his dock since there is some there now, and that
needs to be applied for and put into the description. I mean,
not the dock, the bulkhead. Sorry.
The wood platform, did we measure that? I don't think we
measured that wood platform. There is a wood platform.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The one Dave is standing on.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, that picture. That needs to be put into
the description. Did we measure that?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't think we did.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But if he wants to keep that, we are assuming
he would like water to that, I don't know. These are things
that usually the applicants request and we don't see a problem
Board of Trustees 38 April 21, 2010
with them. But they need to be put into the description.
MS. SECCAFICO: Should the surveyor know the size of that wood
platform?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MS. SECCAFICO: So we'll return to the surveyor on that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, for an inplace replacement.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: At this time since we do need a lot of information,
should we table this until we get all this updated or is the Board comfortable
moving ahead with this subject to receiving all this information?
TRUSTEE KING: I'm comfortable with it, contingent upon receiving
the plans.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, just thought I would ask. Are there
any other questions or comments from the Board?
(No response).
Are there any other comments from th'e audience?
(No response).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, hearing none, I'll close the public
hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Bear with me, a moment. I'll try to add this
in. I'll make a motion to approve reconstruction of the
bulkhead using C-Loc vinyl sheathing to be raised to the height
of the neighbor; to add a 12-foot non-turf buffer behind the
bulkhead; to include the wood platform that is existing; to add
water and electric to that area, all subject to receiving this
information on the survey with the dimensions of that wood
platform as well. Is that it? I'll make that motion subject to
receiving new surveys.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I just have one question. You have the DEC
permit?
MS. SECCAFICO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Did they stipulate any kind of buffer behind that
bulkhead? I'm just curious. It would be on their approved
plans, if they did it.
MS. SECCAFICO: They did give a copy of the approved plans with
the application. (Handing).
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. (Perusing). They don't indicate any
buffer at all. There is nothing on the survey that indicates that,
MS. SECCAFICO: On the permit is nothing about a buffer either.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: (Perusing). No.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, I was just being nosey.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number eight, Creative Environmental Design on
behalf of STANLEY MALON requests a Wetland Permit to renovate
the existing bluff stairs and deck and for the existing fixed
dock. Located: 1445 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue.
Board of Trustees 39 April 21, 2010
LWRP has found it to be inconsistent. Let's see why. The
proposed 96-square foot deck located on the bluff is not a
permissible action. The following standards are required for
all operations within the jurisdiction of the Trustees. Decks
and platforms: No decks or platforms shall be permitted on or
near bluffs. Platforms associated with stairs may not be larger
than 32-square feet.
The Conservation Advisory Council did do an inspection and
they voted to support the application with the condition the
disturbance to the bluff is minimized and appropriate
construction materials and engineered erosion control devices
are used when constructing the stairs.
I know when we met out there we had several discussions on
how to approach this. So is there anybody here who would like
to address this application?
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Dave Chicanowicz, Creative Environmental Design
representing Mr. Malon. As we had discussed while we were on
site, and I believe you now have a copy of an updated plan, that
shows, that I delivered just the other day, it shows the
non-turf buffer that did not exist, that we are going to create.
So it should show clearly on that plan going adjacent from the
most inward part of the deck and then flaring back to a five
foot along the top edge of the bluff inward toward the house.
TRUSTEE KING: It looks like what we talked about.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Exactly. And as discussed as well any
revegetation of disturbed ground. There will be, it will be
minimal disturbance on the slope as it is. It's fairly well
vegetated, as you saw.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The drawing shows a 10x10 deck at the top there
between those two trees.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have them moving that landward. So it's not
hanging off the bluff so much. And that's what he shows.
TRUSTEE KING: I felt, I know the deck is excessive in size
compared to what the code says, but some of the stuff was
downsized, and we put a non-turf buffer in, and in my mind it
just makes the whole area better. It's not being detrimental at all.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It brings it into consistency.
TRUSTEE KING: It's improved the area tremendously, even though
the deck is larger than normal. That's my opinion. You now have
a nice non-turf buffer along the top of that bluff.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there permits on this currently?
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Permits on the existing -- actually, when that
permit, we are actually applying for a permit for the existing
dock that is out in the water. Because there was nothing on
file. So as per your request, we included that as part of this
permit.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I see we have a letter of non-jurisdiction
from the DEC. Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We would have to add the dimensions of the dock
to this description, which would be --
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Jill, you should have detailed dimensions of
Board of Trustees 40 April 21, 2010
the dock and the water, that was supplied in the drawings.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Bob, do you have that, the details of the dock?
In the other drawings?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have a verbal description here, no
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, not verbal. It's on the survey. We have
to add this to the description.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, the dimensions are right here.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Of the dock, I'm saying, not the stairs.
Because the dock is not in the description that is on the
agenda.
TRUSTEE GHOSiO: (Perusing). No.
TRUSTEE KING: Is this right to scale?
MR. CHICANOWICZ: tt is to scale. Exactly to scale.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The survey doesn't show a length.
TRUSTEE KING: The drawing I have shows the dock as being 44
feet.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 44 foot?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And that's the new survey we just received.
TRUSTEE KING: 44X4' wide.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 44X4' dock. 10x10' deck. Five foot to ten foot
non-turf buffer. Are there any other comments from the audience?
Comments or concerns?
(No response).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or concerns from the Board?
(No response).
If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application by
Creative Environmental Design on behalf of Stanley Malon,
requesting a wetland permit to renovate the existing bluff,
stairs and deck, and for the existing fixed dock; that the
existing fixed dock is 4' by 44 foot long. The deck would be
10x10 and there is a five foot to ten foot non-turf buffer, all
as depicted on the site plan received on April 20, 2010.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me, by having the buffer placed in and
the reduction in the stairs that brings it into consistency with
LWRP. Was that part of your resolution?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number nine, Patricia Moore, Esq., on behalf of
JAMES & JANIS HARRINGTON requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing deck, redesigned and reconstructed, outdoor shower
enclosure and hot tub. Located: 1780 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this
Board of Trustees 41 April 21, 2010
application?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicant. Do you
have any questions?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No. The Board went out and visited the
property. It's presently considered inconsistent under the
town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan for the point of
satisfying the violation for activities without a wetland
permit. And the Conservation Advisory Council is concerned
about a proper drainage plan for the shower and the hot tub.
Those are comments we received from the Conservation Advisory
Council.
MS. MOORE: Drainage plan? Hot tubs don't usually have back flow
or anything because there is so little water, so, I don't know
how else -- I mean a pool, generally, yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Presumably either connected to a drain for
conventional plumbing or--
MS. MOORE: I don't know that there is even any plumbing.
Usually you fill it and replace the water when it gets dirty.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Conservation Advisory Council
representative is here.
MS. SCHILLER: What do you do when you drain the water to the hot
tub? We were wondering.
MS. MOORE: I don't know. I don't have a hot tub. To be honest,
I think it kind of goes down, you know.
MS. SCHILLER: They don't replace the water regularly?
MS. MOORE: I don't know, honestly.
MS. SCHILLER: You know when you put a drywell off the hot tub,
just put it next to it.
TRUSTEE KING: Sorry, this is one of my pet peeves and I'm going
to have to say. There is a 14-inch pipe from the read to where
the dock is right beside that property. We are worried about
drainage from the hot tub and we are worried about drainage from
the hot tub.
MS. MOORE: Did you say there is a pipe from the read?
TRUSTEE KING: Right there. It's a pipe directly from the read.
And we are worried about water from a hot tub.
MS. MOORE: Oh, okay, that's not his pipe.
TRUSTEE KING: No, but this is what happens. We go out to a
site. We look at the house and we tell people you have to put
downspouts to gutters and leaders to drywells, and you look
around the corner and here we are draining all the read runoff
into the creek. It doesn't pass the straight-face test. How
can you look at somebody and do this to them?
MS. SCHILLER: You deal with both of them. That's what you do.
MS. MOORE: The problem is you can't change drainage for the town
because it screws up the entire drainage system for everybody --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The town could address that. I'm sorry, the town
could address that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And this area is on the top ten of our priority list.
MS. MOORE: So eventually it will be dealt with.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, I've been doing storm water runoff for
Board of Trustees 42 April 21,2010
our years now and eventually is a word that is still out there, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If we could bring it back to the application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anymore comments on this application?
MS. MOORE: It was a house that was renovated, I think in the
late '90's, so at the time the Building Department, I guess he
went to the Building Department and they said you don't need a
permit because it's a renovation and when we went back to try
and check it all, it was just not a good paper trail. That's
why we are here.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, thank you. Anymore comments?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We need to address the inconsistency.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The granting of a permit would seem to
address the inconsistency.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No.
MS. MOORE: I'm confused. This actually was all constructed
prior to, I think the code was 75 setback. So I guess I'm
confused on, you have an existing structure with, so the fact
that the house is at less than 100 feet, it will always be
inconsistent, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: My understanding from what was read, the
inconsistency is not over the distance, the inconsistency had to
do with --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Comply with Trustee regulations and
recommendations as set forth in Trustee permit conditions.
MS. MOORE: But there was no permit conditions. He actually got
a permit for the dock when they built the dock, but the house
predates, so I think he may have misread what you had.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: A question for legal counsel. Is there a
violation outstanding on this piece of property?.
MS. HULSE: No. I don't think there was a violation issued on
this property. There was no violation issued.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just reading. He found it inconsistent
because it was built without Trustee permit, and it's in
violation of Town Code, so --
MS. MOORE: But it was built before.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we cannot issue permits to defendants in an
outstanding or unresolved wetland violation. I'm reading --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the LWRP report.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So since there is no outstanding violation here,
that would void the inconsistency determination.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. There you go.
MS. MOORE: Yay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further discussion on this matter?
(No response).
Take a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Make a motion to approve the application of
James and Janis Harrington as submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
Board of Trustees 43 April 21, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number ten, Thomas Wickham on behalf of the NEW
SUFFOLK WATERFRONT FUND, INC., requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing 4x340' dock, eight 3x20' long finger extensions and
approximately 165' long western walkway; 4x90' lower walkway on
the southwest side; 5x60' floating dock with a 3x10' ramp off
the bulkhead; inkind repair of winter storm damage consisting of
replacing and securing approximately eight four-foot wide
walkway planks and one 6x6' girder supporting the stringers; and
replacing one 12-inch diameter piling to support the girder,
replace girders, stringers and four-foot long walkway planks for
the farthest 58' of total rebuild of the dock; and fill not more
than 125 cubic yards of sand behind the bulkhead over a 75'
reach starting on the north side of First Street Extension.
Located: 650 First Street, New Suffolk.
This was reviewed under LWRP and found to be consistent,
with the recommendations to minimize the use of CCA wood; a silt
boom be deployed during construction of dock structures;
construction of new marinas or additions to existing marinas
shall require a pump out facility. It's recommending the
establishment of a pump out facility for vessel sanitary waste
be required.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is not --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. That was LVVRP. Conservation Advisory
Council supports the application with the condition that plans
submitted depicting the needed repair of the walkway in a four
to six wide lateral public access boardwalk is constructed.
Now, we went out and looked at this and met with a
representative of the New Suffolk waterfront out there, and used
plans stamped received April 2, 2010. And what we wanted to add
to this, which the applicant in the field seemed agreeable to,
was a 5x60' float. These were existing floats that had been
there in the past. A 3x10' ramp; and then in the southeast
lower walkway, a 4x90' to in this permit to include that walkway
so if they wish to, which is in the picture in front of you,
there is no walkway there. But there was a walkway, so if they
do want to replace the walkway it's in the permit, and 100 cubic
yards of fill to be included in there. That's in addition to
the, I believe it was 25 cubic yards that was needed for the
northern corner of the property. So that, again, the applicant
could, if they decide to construct that walkway, fill behind it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And just to note, the agenda reflects those
changes, what is written on the agenda reflects that. The
applicant came in and changed the description.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. SIMON: Michael Simon. Tom Wickham was unable to be
here this evening. I speak for the waterfront, Suffolk
Waterfront Fund. We appreciate the attention that we got from
Board of Trustees 44 April 21, 2010
the Trustees and even the suggestions, which actually exceed
what we had written up in the first place. As you know, this
is, this was in place and working and planned until the storm
came along, and what we are trying to do is simply replace the
dock around it and the boat slips, as it was last season.
Regarding the suggestion of a pump out station, we have
described and made it clear on our website where pump out
stations are. We do not at this point have any plans for this.
And I realize it's part of the recommendation of the LWRP,
whether that is entirely consistent what the LWRP says is for
the Board here to decide.
I think the application stands as its written, I have one
huge correction to make. It is not on the First Street
extension in the last full line but the Main Street extension.
That's the extent of my emendation to the proposal, and I
appreciate, as I say, the speed -- we are trying to get this
going so we can find a place for boat slips for people in this
and to complete that walkway, as you can see in the diagram, is
something we need, obviously for safety, as well as for the
esthetics of the waterfront.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree with you as far as Main Street versus
First Street on the plans dated April 2. They do show that's
the Main Street extension, so that will be corrected.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just have a comment on the pump out, with
regard to the LWRP report. Correct me if I'm wrong, I think
what you read was when you have additions to a marina you need
to put a pump out. There is no additions going on here. We are
approving what is there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The applicant has requested an addition, a
proposed total rebuilt addition that is not existing, has not
been existing for several years now on the end, and it was not
permitted.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Oh, right, right.
MR. SIMON: The section on the lower right-hand side of the
picture is what you are referring to?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, it's near the entrance to the boat basin
there.
MR. SIMON: From the water, yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The applicant has requested there be a total
rebuild out, so the dock is extended out beyond the breakwater.
MR. SIMON: That is correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And that is an addition, and I'm concerned that
under 275 that it does require a pumpout facility and this is
zoned M-2, as a marina.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I for one am glad that came up, because that's a
great idea, actually. I think the LWRP in this particular case
is right in making that recommendation.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree with you, Bob, but I think here we have
a situation, and I do agree, there should be a pumpout facility
or bathrooms of some type provided here, for any marina, it
doesn't matter where it is. Any marina. I know the applicants
Board of Trustees 45 April 21, 2010
wish to move forward with this fairly quickly. So to include a
pumpout facility for the summer could be a problem. If we,
just throwing out, require the presence of port-a-johns there
during the months that the docks are rented out.
MR. SIMON: In fact we have plans to do precisely that. You
haven't heard about it because you don't need a permit to put up
a port-a-john, or whatever you want to call it. I saw one
recently, has a wonderful name, Royal Flush, instead of
port-a-potty.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The purpose of a pump out station is to pump
out the boats, not so much to have a bathroom at the site.
MR. SIMON: That's correct.
TRUSTEE KING: They can hold it until they get to the beach.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Specifically, under 275-11.2, commercial docks,
marinas, yacht clubs, restaurants; construction of new marinas
and additions to existing marinas shall require the
establishment of a pump out facility for vessel sanitary waste.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we, if you want to take off the
requested addition, then we are not having any additions to
this.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are reading my mind.
MR. SIMON: We can do that -- and this is without prejudice, of
course -- we can re-apply as we are prepared to take care of the
pumpout station. As I say, right now, we don't have all the
slips rented. One reason is it's under repair. So we are not
likely to need that extension at this time.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, and you don't, you plan on building that
at this time, and I think this is a unique situation, I agree
with both Bob and Dave, that a pumpout facility should be
there. But in this unique situation where you are still not --
don't have the group together and what you are doing to do with
your expansion, I think if we just take that section off and we
can at least give this so you can repair and make it usable for
the season.
MR. SIMON: Yes. It's true, first of all, if the work permits
are granted it would have to be done piecemeal, we are trying to
raise the money for it, but we can certainly deal with the
season, perhaps, without the extension to the dock out there on
the northeast side.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to clarify, what we would be doing is
shortening by 60 feet. Because I just measured it out. It's a
60 foot is the proposed new extension on the end there. So the
removal of that would satisfy us.
MR. SIMON: We would be willing to do that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a 4x280' section instead of --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Actual 4x340' existing, then the proposed
additional 60 foot beyond that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought 340 included the 60.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, so it's 280. Okay, that's fine.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from members of the audience?
Board of Trustees 46 April 21,2010
(No response).
Comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: I think we could waive the silt curtain
requirement. There will be no excavation or dredging or anything.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, that's just a suggestion, and I would
agree. We are just putting in a couple of pilings in order to
complete the repairs of this area. 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 number ten, Thomas
Wickham on behalf of New Suffolk Waterfront Fund at 650 First
Street, as mentioned here, but this is on the Main Street
Extension, with the only exception to the description here that
the existing 4x340' dock will be adjusted to 4x280'. The rest
of the description will stay as is.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the plans need to be changed to reflect the
changes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Mr. Simon, if you would please
resubmit the plans with the extension taken off of it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And also as a matter of procedure and
housekeeping we need some kind of letter from Mr. Wickham saying
you can represent New Suffolk Waterfront, because he was in here
to represent, not you.
MR. SIMON: Right. We are both members the Board. Is that
sufficient?
MS. HULSE: Can you provide something on board letterhead, maybe.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just so we'll have it in the file.
MR. SIMON: One question. How explicit is the requirement for a
pump out station? Could we at least on an interim basis have
someone come in?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: First of all, the hearing is closed.
MR. SIMON: Just for information, then.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just for information, we reduced the addition
so you do not --
MR. SIMON: I understand that now, but I was wondering if later
on we have to have a full fledged pumpout station.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you decide to come back with a permit to
expand the facility, then we need a pumpout station. And the
DEC really has a lot of information available as to the
different types of pumpout facilities. They can be as simple
as a portable tank that can be pumped out by a local cesspool
company to as extensive as a floating pumpout facility. But
personally, I really commend the group for their idea of
providing port-a-johns down there this summer while boats are
there. Again, it's not a requirement of the permit but you said
you are considering that and I think that's a great idea.
Board of Trustees 47 April 21, 2010
MR. SIMON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number eleven, Condon Engineering, PC, on behalf
of CAROL R. DENSON requests a Wetland Permit to repair the floor
at the north end of the existing restaurant building. Located:
750 Old Main Road, Southold.
The CAC resolved to support the application with the
condition that drainage is assessed, and LWRP has found it to be
exempt as a minor action. I went out and took a look at it.
This is very, very simple. They are looking to repair the floor
on the landward side of the building and I see absolutely no
problem with this whatsoever.
TRUSTEE KING: Is it all interior work, Bob?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As far as the diagram is concerned, yes. They
are just replacing, fixing the floor on the north side of it, so.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just wondering if it would be an
administrative permit rather than full wetland permit.
Surprising they came in for a full wetland permit for something
so minor. But what is done is done.
MR. CONDON: I'm John Condon from Condon Engineering,
representing the owner Carol Denson. They were not sure when
they spoke to Liz whether it should be a full permit or
administrative permit so they just came in for full permit. All
the work is, they are going to temporarily support the walls and
replace the floor. It should not be any work on the outside.
It's all inside the building.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are they planning on doing anything at ail on
the siding or anything on the outside?
MR. CONDON: I don't believe so, no. It's, this work was done on
the southern end of the building back in 1989.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think everybody is familiar with this. I
don't see any problems with this even in terms of drainage. We
would not even really, we would not be concerned with drywells
here another because it's right in the sand, most of it. So if
there is no other comments or questions, I'll make a motion to
close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application
made by Condon Engineering on behalf of Carol Denson for wetland
permit to repair the north end of the existing restaurant,
located 750 Old Main Road, Southold.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. CONDON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you mention that it is exempt?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It is exempt, yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 12, Condon Engineering on behalf of
Board of Trustees 48 April 21, 2010
HERNAN MICHAEL OTANO requests a Wetland Permit to replace the
existing deteriorated and collapsing foundation and installation
of six 8x2' deep drywells. Located: Main Road & Sage Road,
Southold.
This is consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation
Advisory Council didn't inspect. So no comments. Is anyone
here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. CONDON: Yes. John Condon, Condon Engineering, representing
Mr. Otano, the owner of the property.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have a concern, as we do with all
applications that come in to replace the foundation, of what is
going to happen to the house when you lift the house. So this
is a pretty old structure. Do you feel the house can be lifted
and the foundation can be built?
MR. CONDON: Yes. In fact it's a wood grain structure. Granted
it's not something that you can find today in modern
construction. But it is stable, I did inspect it when I went out
and looked at the foundation. I have no problem at all with the
building being lifted. It may be a challenge with the deck that
extends off the back of the building, but as far as the main
structure is concerned, that should not be a problem.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And you understand that in the middle of doing
all this, if you find that there is a problem and you can't do
it, you have to stop and come back to us and amend the permit,
if one is given.
MR. CONDON: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And can you just touch on the drainage that you
have and how you came to that calculation?
MR. CONDON: Yes. I assumed a two-inch rainfall on the roof and
drainage of the water from the roof into the drywells that are
there. So it's a two-inch, basically code, two-inch rainfall
event. The reason there are five drywells is that they are only
two-feet deep. It's high groundwater conditions.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You mentioned five. There are six in the
description.
MR. CONDON: Sorry, six. The calculation is on the drawing, by
the way.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the septic --
MR. CONDON: It already has a cesspool on the property and that's
not being touched.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We just didn't know if it all needed to be
re-done. You can't really move it out of our jurisdiction in
that area anyway, so. Are there any other questions from the
Board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think our concern there was whether or not
this would turn into a total demolition. You know, based
strictly on just observations there onsite. But that's been
addressed that you would have to come back to the Board if this
turns into a total demolition.
MR. CONDON: I understand that. And so does the owner. He
doesn't want to see it collapse, so. That's the whole reason we
Board of Trustees 49 April 21, 2010
are doing this because when you were out there and saw the
foundation, it's just falling completely in. It's incredible.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have any questions, Jim?
TRUSTEE KING: I just have a question on the drywell. I guess
I'm just confused. It shows the drywell pool volume is, it
looks like you multiplied pi times the diameter, times the
depth?
MR. CONDON: Did I say diameter?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. You come up with 25 cubic feet.
MR. CONDON: It should be pi r-squared. What I could do is
modify that.
TRUSTEE KING: That was the only question I had.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You might be able to get by with --
TRUSTEE KING: You might have less drywells. Because the cubic
feet comes up with more.
MR. CONDON: Three times more.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we would need you to revise these plans.
MR. CONDON: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments?
(No response).
I'll make a motion - is there anyone else to speak on this
application?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN~. Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve the application of Condon
Engineering on behalf of Hernan Michael Otano as applied for, as
described, with the condition that the drainage calculations are
corrected on the plans and resubmitted. And that the, if the
house is determined during construction that it needs to be
altered or come down, that they must and back to the Trustees
for an amendment. With an understanding the house is not to be
demolished.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. CONDON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 13, En-Consultants, on behalf of TRUSTEE
UNV OF R.C. KOPF F/BIO KRISTEN POWERS requests a Wetland Permit
to construct a 25' vinyl groin extension to the landward side of
an existing timber groin and remove 14 linear feet of
adjacent deteriorating steel groin. Located: 220 Park Avenue
Extension, Mattituck.
Didn't we open this last month?
MR. HERMAN: This will be quick, Bob. Rob Herman, En-Consultants.
We had discussed this last month and after the hearing it was
decided that we were going to remove everything that is there
and build an entirely new Iow-profile vinyl groin closer to the
Board of Trustees 50 April 21, 2010
house. I did want to have the opportunity to touch base with
DEC staff after they had also done a site inspection to make
sure before I did all that that they were also going to be in
agreement with the Board. They did, they are, so I can prepare
the plans as we discussed, but I have not had an opportunity to
get that done by tonight. So I'm just going to ask that the
Board, it's up to you, if you want to close the hearing at this
point, we know that we can go ahead with what we discussed last
month, or if you prefer to just hold it open until I can get you
the revised plans and so you can take a look. It's totally up to you.
But the DEC is in agreement with what was discussed here.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I don't have a problem with it.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a problem moving forward with it,
based on the new plans
MR. HERMAN: Okay, so the only thing is I just have to come up
with a new overall length. It's going to be similar, we talked
about it being a little longer toward the house. I guess in
worse case scenario if you see something wrong with the plan we
could reopen it. But I'm sure I'll give you something that is
consistent with what you are expecting.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'm good with that. Any comments from the
Board?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sounds good to me.
TRUSTEE KING: It's what we talked about.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
applied for, based upon new plans, and I will just mention once
again that LWRP did find this to be consistent.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number 14, En-Consultants behalf of KEVIN
MCGILLOWAY requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately
25 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead and a 4' return in place of
existing concrete bulkhead and backfill with approximately one
cubic yard clean sand fill. Located: 430 Sailor's Needle Road,
Mattituck.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of Kevin
McGilloway. I think this is a pretty straightforward
application. We are working in a tight spot here. There is a
curva-linear concrete retaining wall that wraps around the
entire shoreline on the east side of the property and there is a
section of it that has collapsed, and so what we are looking to
do is replace that with a bulkhead that would be a continuation
of the bulkhead that is right on the west side of where this
wall is. Because of the location of the existing pool house, we
Board of Trustees 51 April 21, 2010
would not do any excavation or backfilling here. Well, you need
a little bit of backfill, but no excavation for a traditional tie
rod system. We'll use helical anchors and replace the wetland
vegetation in front of it. And the replacement would be limited
to the area that has been damaged.
TRUSTEE KING: This was found exempt from LWRP. It's a minor
action. They suggest a silt curtain be deployed during
construction. And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to
support the application with the condition of gutters, leaders
and drywells are installed to contain roof runoff from the
accessory building and the pool. And they want reassurance of
the disposition of the concrete from the existing location.
I went out and looked at this myself. You are right, Rob,
it's really tight there. There is almost no room to work. The
large chunks of concrete will be taken out?
MR. HERMAN: They have to be.
TRUSTEE KING: Removed to an upland disposal site?
MR. HERMAN: Yes. You would not be able to leave them in
because you would not be able to work. It's also a mess, so.
TRUSTEE KING: Like I said, it's a tight area to work in. But it
will have to be done. I didn't have any issues with it myself.
It's just, the pool house is there. The creek is there. It's
these big concrete blocks of bulkhead are just falling down. So
it's a completely necessary repair. With the silt curtain, I
don't know. It's a small operation, what, 20, 25 feet long?
MR. HERMAN: I don't know that you really need it for this job.
Particularly using helical anchors. We are not talking about a
situation where there is large amount of material going into the
waterway here.
TRUSTEE KING: Personally I would waive the requirement for a
silt curtain. I don't think it's necessary there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's just a recommendation.
TRUSTEE KING: To be quite honest, I didn't look at the pool
house as far as the runoff goes. I didn't -- I didn't really
address that when I was there.
MR. HERMAN: Neither did I. They may even have drainage on it.
I wouldn't normally look at something like that for this kind of
project just because it's unrelated to what we are doing.
TRUSTEE KING: That's my point. It's not, really not related to
the bulkhead construction. Like I said, I didn't have any issue
with it at all. My only concern is it's so tight to work there.
MR. HERMAN: Well, this will be the toughest spot to get done.
TRUSTEE KING: They'll have to come in by barge, I guess. How
will they do it, the access?
MR. HERMAN: I talked to Steve Pollack about it and I think
that's, unless he can get the material down there. But I don't
know about how he's getting the machine there.
TRUSTEE KING: The concrete, I don't think he can do it by land.
He has to do it by barge.
MR. HERMAN: And it's pretty deep around that island, so.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
Board of Trustees 52 April 21, 2010
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, item 15. En-Consultants on
behalf of HENRY MAZZONI requests a Wetland Permit to clear (as
necessary) up to 50' landward of the top of bluff and landward
of the coastal erosion hazard boundary line with associated
filling and grading occurring no closer than 75' from the
defined top of bluff, for the purpose of improving the vacant
subject parcel with a two-story dwelling and appurtenances
located no closer than 100' from the top of bluff. Located:
Stoney Beach Road, East Marion.
As a point of information for the Board, a scrivener's
occurred, a minor error, reading the LWRP determination, the
words "inconsistent" appear in reference to a determination of
inconsistency in February of 2008. In fact, in March of 2010,
based on the new plan, which was stamped in March 17, LWRP does
indicate that they reviewed the application and determined the
concerns identified in the inconsistent recommendation have been
addressed and therefore the new proposed action meets and/or
furthers the policies of the LWRP.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak behalf of
application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants. This application is
before you, again, tonight, because poor Henry missed his
deadline to extend his permit by about 48 hours. The plan that
is in front of you is not the plan that we originally came to
you with, as John just mentioned, and was deemed inconsistent, but
the plan that was the result of our, this Board's deliberations
on the application. So the application requests clearing no
closer than 50 feet from the top of the bluff, with that area to
remain as a non-disturbance buffer. That area has been
covenanted already to be maintained as a non-disturbance buffer.
That covenant was filed with Suffolk County Clerk's office, and
that covenant also included a no-fill buffer of 75, which again
was generated by this Board's review a couple of years ago. And
the structure is the same, i~ continues to remain outside of
your jurisdiction and the Board did issue a non-jurisdiction
letter for the house itself. That also has not changed.
So this really, again, is almost an administrative issue of
having 1o ask for a new permit for the same thing rather than
being able to ask you to extend it for a year, which of course
raises the conversation that perhaps the Board should consider
Board of Trustees 53 April 21, 2010
allowing for some sort of grace period of maybe 30 days of a
permit expiration within which an applicant could apply to renew
the permit conditioned on the assumption the project is exactly
the same, and the Board would have the discretion to do that.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we have had a zero tolerance in effect.
MR. HERMAN: Yes, there was zero tolerance here. Which is okay.
That's the way your code is set up. But other Boards and other
municipalities allow people to come in and renew after the fact
because it saves us all noticing neighbors again, coming in here
again and posting again, really just to ask you to do something
that you could have done in a much quicker fashion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I know the Conservation Advisory Council did
have some concerns.
MS. SCHILLER: I, actually, we had some concerns but we have a
couple of questions. One is, you know the asphalt road that
continues and goes through there?
MR. HERMAN: Yes.
MS. SCHILLER: Do you know what that's from? The whole thing
will be taken out, right?
MR. HERMAN: Yes, because there is a proposed pervious driveway
that would lead in that is shown on the plan. That is probably
something that was put in ages ago either at the time of or
before these properties were subdivided.
MS. SCHILLER: The other thing, considering how much discussion
has been gone on about loss of shoreline and, you know, building
closer to the bluffs, since - we were wondering when the last
time someone had actually gone up there. Because it looked like
there is quite a bit of erosion because the land runs down to
the bluff, and since it's a very first house in a new
subdivision of 15 properties, two of which have been Peconic
Land Trust protected, we would suggest that the whole house be
moved back like 15 feet rather than set a precedent of building
that close to the bluff, considering that the bluff, the bluffs
are eroding. So the guy will be much closer in a few years if
the storms continue as they are now. It's just a recommendation.
MR. HERMAN: I think the issue of the bluff was actually a point
of discussion a couple of years ago. There isn't really a bluff
here because of the environment and the fact that you are in a
coastal erosion hazard area and you are on The Sound at the time
this property was subdivided there was a top of bluff that was
identified in the area. But you are talking about maybe a six
foot differential between the elevation of the beach and the top
of what is defined as the bluff. So for all planning purposes,
this is continued to relate to what the town approved as the top
of bluff as part of the subdivision. And so we have
specifically stayed more than 100 feet from that line so that we
would, a, would be consistent with the requirements under zoning
and also we would be out of this Board's jurisdiction. So in
fact this Board does not have jurisdiction over the house. The
house is actually not part of the application.
MS. SCHILLER: We understand that. We were just saying that
Board of Trustees 54 April 21, 2010
considering, that there is erosion happening there and it will
continue to happen, and the more you, the closer you clear to
the mini bluff, let's call it, the bigger problem the guy will
have down the road.
MR. HERMAN: I think that's why at the time we had originally
proposed a clearing buffer that was half of what is shown now,
and I think that was why the Board had doubled the required
buffer here to 50 feet and had also required a no-fill buffer 75
feet from that line. So, again, I think those issues were
raised and addressed by the Board in the original permit. And,
again, I mean, I'm not sure that I would argue with the
substance of what you are saying but again, the house has been
legally determined by this Board to be out of their jurisdiction
so it's really nothing to do with the house as part of this
process. Whether it stays where it is or moves 50 feet farther
away.
MS. SCHILLER: So the part do you want clear, starting 50 feet,
according to this map, from the top of the mini bluff, from that
25 feet there, you are talking then the trees that exist on the
50 foot bluff you'll leave there?
MR. HERMAN: Yes, the area that is shown as the 50-foot wide band
is, has already been covenanted with the county as required by
this Board as a non-disturbance buffer, so there is no cutting,
clearing, filling, grading, nothing within that area. There
could be some selective clearing that could occur within the
next 25 feet but no filling and grading.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there something in Planning Board
subdivisions C&R's that talk about buffers?
MR. HERMAN: Yes, but I think, sorry, Jill, I don't remember off
the top of my head. I think you exceeded whatever the
requirement was with your --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There was also a review in the file, I
believe, because Peconic Land Trust also had an easement.
MR. HERMAN: Yes, and the Land Trust actually was required, I
believe, under the C&R's to review this plot plan and approve
it, which they did. The issue Mr. Mazzoni has had is that the
original developer is required by law to review and approve the
plot plan, and Mr. Mazzoni has had an awful time getting a
response, I think, from the original developer. That's why this
has kind of just stagnated to the point we are here again two
years later.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any other comments?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve the application
of En-Consultants on behalf of Henry Mazzoni as submitted on the
revised plan of March 17, 2010, noting that it has been
Board of Trustees 55 April 21, 2010
determined to be consistent with the town's Local Waterfront
Revitalization Plan.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 16, En-Consultants on behalf of FOR THE
LOVE OF FAMILY, LLC, requests a Wetland Permit to demolish and
remove existing two-story dwelling and appurtenances and
construct a two-story, one-family dwelling with attached garage,
porches, decks and patio, with a new pervious gravel driveway
and a drainage system of leaders, gutters and drywells; remove
existing sanitary system and install new, upgraded sanitary
system at least 135' from wetlands; and establish a variable
width (min. 50') approximately 31,000 square feet
non-disturbance buffer. Located: 9205 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found could be
consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the
application with the condition the landscape plan is submitted
depicting the locations of the non-turf buffer and
non-disturbance buffers.
We did go out and looked at this and what we noticed was
the proposed two-story frame house, the vast majority of it is
landward of where the current home is that will be torn down.
There was on the plan or there is on, and I'm looking at the
plan that is stamped received in our office April 8, 2010, a
non-disturbance buffer is identified going along the seaward
side of the, the bayside of the property. When I say "seaward"
it's a little confusing because we have bay here and we have
creek here.
MR. HERMAN: It runs along both shorelines.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. And we did notice the hay bale line
there. So is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. HERMAN: Yes, Rob Herman of En-Consultants, on behalf of the
applicant, For the Love of Family, LLC. As you noted, the
project consists of the removal of existing dwelling and
appurtenances and construction of new dwelling and
appurtenances. The house will be set farther from Hog Neck Bay
than the existing house and there is about 840-square feet of
structure that is actually within the Board's jurisdiction. And
that is relative to the dredge channel to the north. The
project incorporates various mitigation measures including
removal of the existing sanitary system that is located in
non-conforming distance, less than 100 feet from the wetlands,
and the installation of an upgraded system at least 135 feet
from the wetland and out of the Board's jurisdiction. Of course
installation of a drainage system, leaders, gutters and drywells
to capture and recharge roof runoff. And as Dave was referring
to, it's actually the permanent establishment of about a
31,000-square foot non-disturbance buffer which is about one
Board of Trustees 56 April 21, 2010
quarter of the nearly three-acre parcel. So this may be one of
the bigger buffers the Board will ever approve. Obviously the
buffer serves to provide and maintain wildlife habitat, limit
the setback from wetlands the area of the property developed
with structures and chemically dependent landscape vegetation
and of course provides an expansive area that serves as both a
sink and filter for storm water runoff and contaminants.
One issue that this property has dealt with as a result of
the last couple of stores, if you look on the bayside, I was
going to say "are," but I have to say there "were," fiber rolls
along the edge there that were permitted by this Board to the
property's previous owner. Those fiber rolls are gone and there is
a large chunk of that berm vegetated area that would be part of
the non-disturbance buffer that has been depleted.
And I remember, Jill, this came up on an application last
month. I think what we would ask the Board to do, obviously
contingent upon revised plans, that we could make some
calculations, but we would like to renourish that area back with
sand and vegetation and get the fiber rolls back as previously
approved by the Board. Because they really, actually that area
has held up very, very well, but like a lot of other places just
really got trashed in these last couple of storms, and we are
not really looking to do anything crazy there, just trying to
reestablish the existing and, amazingly enough, permitted
condition.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, a question. On the survey and site plan,
sorry, that has been submitted, has the log shed and wood deck
adjacent on the beach on Hog Neck Bay, showing there, where they
actually are gone, they have been gone for a couple of years
now. They got destroyed in a storm and actually they came to us
for a permit to relocate it on the northern side, creek side of
the property, and they never did that. So they are gone.
MR. HERMAN: You are right. I don't remember seeing those. I
don't think I even noticed that they were there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: My only concern is we would like to remove that
from this site plan because we don't want to permit in something
that is not even there.
MR. HERMAN: Mark has his eraser out already. Sorry about that.
That's purely an oversight by apparently three professionals.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There are several Board members who would love
this house just the way it is. So if you would please move it
to our property. It's beautiful. It's a nice house.
Are there any other comments from anybody in the audience?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
These erosion control measures that you have referred to, they
were previously permitted, you are saying?
MR. HERMAN: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm wondering if there is a permit number for
that someplace.
Board of Trustees 57 April 21, 2010
MR. HERMAN: I think we put it in the application. If I did my
job correctly. Let's find out. (Perusing). Yes, permit 5931
that was issued 5~26~04.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: 59317
MR. HERMAN: Yup.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: 5126104.
MR. HERMAN: So again we would just ask that we be allowed to
replace those fiber rolls in the same location as what is shown
on the survey and the site plan.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hearing no other comments, I'll make a motion to
close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Ill make a motion to approve En-Consultants on
behalf of For the Love of Family, LLC, as described at 9205
Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, with the inclusion of the erosion control
methods that were approved on permit number 5931 dated 5~26~04
and that a site plan will be resubmitted that will show removal
of the log shed and wood deck on piles.
MR. HERMAN: And we'll give you an approximate volume for the
nourishment.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The erosion controls, can they be put on this
plan as well?
MR. HERMAN: Yes, I would just ask Mark to label them as, you
know, lost fiber rolls to be replaced.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As long as it's on the plans so it reflects --
MR. HERMAN: They are on here now as existing. They were
existing when we submitted the application.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's on these plans, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do I hear a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERMAN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 17, Costello Marine Contracting Corp.,
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 came in consistent with LWRP, and Conservation
Advisory Council did not make the inspection, therefore no
comment on this.
There is a letter in the file that -- it's from Gall Carr,
basically what it says is she is opposed to this and feels that
it will be in the way of navigation right by the channel, and
all the -- I'm trying to I think of the direction -- of
all the boats in that direction, I guess it's west of this, will
Board of Trustees 58 April 21,2010
have a problem navigating around this structure with the boat on
it.
is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello on behalf of MEK. The structure is
as minimal as it can be and there is plenty of room across that
creek.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't have, I don't think we have on any of
the drawings, maybe on the survey we do, is where the channel is
as opposed to where the structure goes.
MR. COSTELLO: The structure is not even reaching the actual
channel. It's right on the edge of it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, and I would think we need to see that on
the drawing, where the channel is. Because the channel is not
marked on the drawing. The structure with a vessel on it
cannot be in the channel at all.
MR. COSTELLO: That's why it's placed right on the cusp of it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have to tell you, I'm very familiar with this
area, and have gone in and out of there in my boat, every year,
for the last five years. And you are right, the dock is right
on the edge, but a vessel tied to that dock, on the outside of
that dock, will be in the channel. And that's a very narrow
channel. I don't know what type of vessel they are looking at
but it's -- I'm familiar with the Carr's boat. The Carr's have
a 40-foot Viking.
MR. COSTELLO: And I could get by their boat at their dock and I
could get by this dock with my 100-foot barge, 28-feet wide,
because I was in there last winter. And without even coming
close to this dock or close to the stakes because this was
staked out once last year.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just telling you from my observations I
think the boat will be in the channel. I'm just wondering if
there is any way --
MR. COSTELLO: Would you like an expanded hydrographic to show
the whole channel?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would, yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would be great. That'd be super.
MR. COSTELLO: Did you go see the staking?
TRUSTEE KING: We walked down the mountain and took a look. I
thought it was about as close as were going to get it to the beach.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We had the pre-submission on this and it seems
you did what we had in the pro-submission, but I'm concerned
where we don't have the channel marked on your drawings. We
really need that.
MR. COSTELLO: I have a picture of the Google Earth thing but it
really doesn't come out good enough to scale so you can see
where the channel is. But like I said, you can see where the
dock ends before the channel. Considering the boat, the north
shore end it, and we kept it back as far as we could because we
didn't use a full floating dock. It's just a fixed pier.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we did soundings on this, maybe that would
help. That would show where the channel is on your drawing.
Board of Trustees 59 April 21, 2010
TRUSTEE KING: Even if we could grab like three feet, to get the
inside of that two-and-a-half feet of water, maybe.
MR. COSTELLO: Because it drops off sheer there. Most of that,
all that --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All along there, that channel is a sheer drop,
has been for many, many years.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, because originally I think it was all dug
from land. That's why the channel runs so close.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Not that I recall that. I'm too young for that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Anybody else?
MR. MCFARLAND: Yes. Patrick McFarland speaking on behalf of the
VVunneweta Pond Property Owners Association. I just got a call
on this, about four o'clock this afternoon. So I apologize for
my lack of knowledge as to exactly where the dock is located.
We have been on that creek since 1977 so we are very aware of
the water, the nature of that channel, and it was basically a
manmade lagoon with a channel dredged very close to the
shoreline. The concern here is not so much for me the dock, as
we are all boaters on that pond. It's just the location of the
dock and the extension into the channel and obviously with a
boat extended on to that dock further into the channel, it could
create an obstruction to the channel for all of us, further up
the creek and then also further along the other side of the
creek where the Cardinale's and the Rust's are. We all have
access to the mouth of the channel through that one main channel
which runs right along the shoreline. At high tide it probably
doesn't present as much of an issue as it does at lower, you
know, mean water, where there is very little water in that creek
outside of the channel. And it's literally a three or four foot
difference means being in three feet of water or being in a half
foot of water.
So I did get the call today, there was some concern from
the property owners, just to the location of it, the extension
of it into the creek, and then possibly a large boat on the
outside of that finger dock, that could potentially have a beam
of, I don't know what kind of boat they are planning on putting
there, but if it's a 35-foot boat, you are talking about a beam
of 12 or 13 feet extending even further into the channel, and
for all of us at Iow tide it would be difficult to access it. So
I know there is a real concern, not that we want to prevent the
building of another dock. We just want to make sure we are able
to get through.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For clarification, how beamy are the other
vessels that have to transit through there?
MR. MCFARLAND: Behind that, the boats that have to get out,
there is about a 40-foot troller that has a beam of about 14
feet. Matt Carr's boat, which is a 41 Viking, probably has a
beam of about 13, 14 feet. My boat is a 30-footer with an
11-foot beam. There is a sailboat further up, probably about
35-foot sailboat, again, ten, 12-foot beam. And then the Rust's
I believe have a 31 or 35 Cabo with about a 12-foot beam.
Board of Trustees 60 April 21, 2010
MR. COSTELLO: That would not effect them, though.
MR. MCFARLAND: Yes, it would. The channel follows itself ail
the way around and you have to come to the base right where the
Hansen's are and then come across. So that's -- and then like
Matt Carr's boat, he's directly up. Remember where Rambo used
to be.
MR. COSTELLO: That was last year, right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there an opportunity to switch the dock
configuration around and can he go bow first?
MR. COSTELLO: The dock is so short. You know what I'm saying?
It's a sheer drop off. Literally, the edge of the dock is, the
boat will be in water. The dock is not really -- I understand
what you are saying, but.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We need to see that on the drawing.
MR. COSTELLO: We can do that with the hydrographics. And I'll
have Bob expand on the hydrographic to go across the channel.
It's a narrow channel but there is certainly plenty of depth there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we need to table this to get that
information.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: I agree.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other questions that the Board might want
answered?
TRUSTEE KING: Do you think you could tuck it in any closer?
MR. COSTELLO: Marginally. I don't think much. Why don't we just
wait on the hydrographic. Like I said, I'll have Bob go all the
across the creek. Like I said, when I did the staking it's a
really small, you know, the structure is minimal because we
realize thero is a lot of people that do have to get by there.
MS. MOORE: Is it staked out now?
MR. COSTELLO: It is staked out now.
MR. MCFARLAND: I'll probably be going out in about a week. So
depending on where the stakes are, we have a pretty good idea if
we are able to get by it, and try to figure a boat on the other
side of it, so.
MR. COSTELLO: That's actually a better part of the channel.
MR. MCFARLAND: Where it comes together. I haven't even seen a
map yet --
MS. HULSE: If you could just direct your comments to the Board
and if you want to have a conversation about that later, you can
do that yourselves.
MR. MCFARLAND: Okay. Yes, I have not seen a map yet. So I'm not
quite sure exactly where the structure is intended.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are welcome to come in the office and
review the file.
MR. MCFARLAND: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to table the application for
further information, more information.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board o f Trustees 61 April 21, 2010
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 18, Costeilo Marine Contracting Corp. 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 two 2-pile anchor dolphins using eight-inch
diameter piles. Located: 4639 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue.
The Conservation Advisory Council moved to table the
application and requests the Board of Trustees table the
application to allow the CAC the opportunity to further evaluate
the location of the proposed dock.
TRUSTEE KING: Bob, do you have an extra set of plans?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes (Handing). The LWRP has found the
application to be inconsistent with LWRP because it is located
in a New York State Department of State Significant Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Area. The fact that the dimensions of the
vessel are not specified, and it's likely the construction of
122-foot dock structure will hinder or obstruct the navigable
waters in the area.
And there is a letter in the file. It's a brief letter so
I'll just read it into the record. This is from JP Wetzel at
4635 Pequash Avenue. I have examined the above request and have
identified several problems for your consideration. On
275-1 l(b) dock location and length excesses length of 104 feet
into East Creek resulting in reducing navigation of seven
families living along East Creek by obstructing passes through
the channel in East Creek at Iow and mid-tide. Under 275-11(c),
length of proposed dock is not consistent with other docks in
East Creek and most creeks of Southold Town. The length of the
adjacent dock owned by S&W Graph mirrors area docks. Docks of
this size, if approved, will change creek docks in all of
Southold since boat owners are dealing with constant filling in
of creeks because of farm and erosion runoff.
The whole Board was out and took a look at this and I'll
open it up for comment. Anybody here who would like to address
the application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costeilo on behalf of the Suglia's.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are just waiting for a set of plans. What we
have here is a survey with no dock on it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All you have to do is ask.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The only concern, I think what we discussed when
we were out in the field, was the idea of actually moving it to
a different spot. It seems there is a better spot to do this.
Moving it to the north, there is an opening in the marsh that is
about 20 feet wide.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The other thing I noticed --
MR. COSTELLO: We can't go any further to the north, I don't
think. Maybe slightly.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The other thing that I noticed is what was
staked in field and what seems to be on the plans is not the
same. It seems on the plans you are going further out than the
Board of Trustees 62 April 21, 2010
neighboring dock, but what was staked didn't seem like it was.
MR. COSTELLO: When I staked it, the dock wasn't in, the dock to
the --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The dock in the picture there.
MR. COSTELLO: That would be to like the northwest there. If you
go in the other direction, the dock was not even in. It was
laying on the beach.
TRUSTEE KING: That's north, so this is to the south.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm talking this dock here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We see that. It's the other dock was not --
TRUSTEE KING: That dock was stopped there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I got the impression the stake was about here.
(Indicating). I got the impression -- what does that stake
represent?
MR. COSTELLO: That's a very offshore dolphin. That's the very
end of it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, it seems to me from your drawing that
that would, that stake would match up more to the seaward end of
the catwalk. If you want to come up here, I'll show you what
I'm talking about.
MR. COSTELLO: I mean that stake is at 120 feet, straight out.
It's the best I could pull that line out.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When we were out there it looked like the stake
was more like here, then it would be in line like this. You
know, then you look at --
MR. COSTELLO: Well, I put a stake here and a stake here, and
pulled my measurements off. So where that stake is is actually
where this dolphin is.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. So that looks like it's going further
out. Here it didn't look like that stake was further out than
the structure.
MR. COSTELLO: If you stand here and look at it, if you go out on
the end of the dock. I'm not 100% sure when that drawing was
done. I think that dock was actually in when he did it. You
know, as far as this plan goes, it might have been some
extrapolation work. I know that was not in. I'm not sure when
that was in.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry, Bob, for taking this up. Where the
channel hugs this, that's what I'm concerned is if this goes out
further than the other dock.
TRUSTEE KING: It really goes out further if you draw a line,
that's a problem.
MR. COSTELLO: I think this is not, I think he just kind of,
because how can you tell. It was not in there. It's still not
in there, to my knowledge. I thought it was going to be one
that would benefit me because this is in a point. It seems
like we are always trying to build a dock on the point.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Can I make a comment?
TRUSTEE KING: We could probably see some aerials to get a better
feel for it.
MR. SUGLIA: My name is Benjamin Suglia, I'm the property owner.
Board of Trustees 63 April 21, 2010
I've lived on that creek for 14 years, in that house. The
channel is more toward the middle of the creek. There is a set
of mooring buoys out there. That's actually the channel.
Anyone else who tries to get through beside that will get stuck
at Iow tide. I mean, I appreciate Mr. Wetzel's comments on
being restrictive, but no one is ever that close to the
property. You can't be. The water is not there. There is a
hydrographic survey that Jack has shows it. You are under two
feet of water, less than 100 feet from the shore.
MR. COSTELLO: You have the hydrographic, right?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I passed that down when they asked for the plans
and they sent it back.
MR. SUGLIA: I can't imagine, my can I kids are out there with a
dinghy fishing and crabbing. I mean, it's nothing. You can stand
there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm not familiar with exactly where that
channel is and I'm just relaying comments I got today.
MR. SUGLIA: I understand. And I just wanted to clarify. I
clarified it with Jack before I came in. You can't miss it. But
unfortunately to get out, you have to kind of head out toward
the mooring buoys, head back up the creek and go around behind
the mooring buoys and continue on the other side to get out to
the channel.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm familiar with that channel. I'll support
exactly what you are saying.
MR. SUGLIA: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Going back to the notion of moving it to the
section of the marsh that actually -- it shows in your plan
here, on the dock plan, that area of clearing there, I think the
Board really was kind of interested in having you use that
section rather than go over the live marsh area.
MR. SUGLIA: There was no dock structure there when I moved in.
There was two pilings and a bridge is where the dock was
originally.
MR. COSTELLO: So you are suggesting moving it closer to the
northern property line.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
MR. COSTELLO: I'm not opposed to that.
MR. SUGLIA: Wherever it is better to be placed is fine. The
grade is a little better there, too, possibly, also.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's just that it's already been damaged, it's
been used and going over the high marsh, why do that when we
have a section we can just use anyway.
TRUSTEE KING: Can I see the soundings again, Bob?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sure.
MR. COSTELLO: How close do you want it to the property line?
What you are suggesting?
MR. SUGLIA: The shrub line, the other side of that shrub line is
my property line.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We measured it, to be honest, just measured to
make sure it was more than 15 feet. We did take a measurement
Board of Trustees 64 April 21, 2010
off of, if you look in the field notes, there should be a
measurement there. Because we measured it out. It hopefully has
it in the field notes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All it says in the field notes is move it to the
north to an opening in the marsh. 20 feet.
MR. COSTELLO: Which is fine. Because we are 35 feet off now,
SO.
MR. SUGLIA: So come back 15 is what they are suggesting.
MR. COSTELLO: About 20.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you look at it, it's pretty obvious there is
an opening there, there is a lack of Spartina, even the poles
from the old dock was there before either of us were born, leave
it at that.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just wondering if when they go to the DEC is
the DEC going to come back and say oh, no, no, no, they have to
go out another 40 feet. How many times have we run into this.
MR. COSTELLO: Well, I think the only thing with the DEC we might
have to do is keep the overall length the same. The overall
length is 120 and turn it to an "L" to the south. That way the
whole, the offshore end of the whole float would be in 2.5 feet
of water. Is that something the Board would be -- because at
the time I talked to the DEC and they wanted to make sure the
offshore end of the float hit 2.5 and now they are saying every
single bit of it has to be 2.5. It depends who you talk to and
what analyst you get. But if the Board would like that, we
would gladly change it to an "L" to the south and maintain the
overall structure and put the float in 2.5 feet of water, the
whole thing.
TRUSTEE KING: My only concern is the pier line situation, too.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you could squeeze it in there and still get
two-and-a-half feet and still stay within the pier line. We
would have to change it to an "L."
MR. COSTELLO: I would not object to that. That's fine. As long
as it doesn't change the overall structure.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: At it might help with the LWRP consistency.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, by moving it over into the cleared area in
the marsh and changing it to "L" will bring it further away. I
think it would bring it into consistency.
Do you want to table it and have him redo it?
MR. COSTELLO: I could bring new plans tomorrow, if anyone is not
opposed to it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Does anyone want to see it restaked?
TRUSTEE KING: Where are you with the DEC?
MR. COSTELLO: I don't know. I didn't check on that.
TRUSTEE KING: So if we look at it next month, it's not going to
hold him up.
MR. COSTELLO: I don't know where we are with the DEC.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Why don't we get a revised set of plans, stake
it in an "L" configuration, give us a little better idea.
MR. COSTELLO: Do you want me to move the stake over? Because
the overall length won't change. I have to just move it over
Board of Trustees 65 April 21,2010
15, 20 feet.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Because there was a question, it doesn't look as
far out as the plans go.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Maybe we can walk on the neighboring dock and --
TRUSTEE KING: We can stake the "L" configuration, too, would help.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you could stake the "L," restake it.
MR. COSTELLO: Okay. You are not opposed to that?
MR. SUGLIA: No, that's fine. Let's be clear about it. That's all good.
MR. COSTELLO: So change it to a 15-foot setback, go as close to
the property line as we can and make it an "L" to the south.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You'll see the end. He knows where I'm talking about.
MR. SUGLIA: Yes, sir.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You and I talked about it a couple of years ago.
MR. SUGLIA: Yes, sir.
TRUSTEE KING: And I have always questioned this extension of
property lines into the water for years, who comes down on an
angle and keeps going out on the same angle. I had
correspondence with people there is a different way of doing it
where you can actually go straight out. You don't have to
extend that property line. It depend how the channel is,
depends on the shape of the shoreline. There is two or three
different ways you can do it. Just because your neighbor's line
comes in like that and you go straight out.
MR. SUGLIA: On the plans -- I agree it looks very inconsistent
on the plans, because his dock is on a point, this gentleman's
dock is very short and I'm kind of sticking out. But once it's
staked, and I stood on both docks and said it's well within the
lines of the other docks. On the plans it looks very long and
big but, I agree with you, if it's correctly staked, and I said
this to Jack. If it's correctly staked, it looks better in the
creek than on paper.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to table this application and
revisit it next month.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?.
(ALL AYES).
MR. COSTELLO: So, Jim, would you like to see the dock running
with the property line or would you just want to see it starting
through that unvegetated area?
MR. KING: I would go more straight out.
MR. COSTELLO: Just leave the property line out of it.
TRUSTEE KING: Whichever way you can do it. But we are not bound
to follow that line out.
MR. COSTELLO: Fair enough.
MR. SUGLIA: Thank you.
MR. COSTELLO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: rll make a motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
RECEIVED
AU6 2 3 20~0 P- I'.C~ Pm
Soulhold Town Clerk