HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-10/20/2010Jill M. Doherty, President
James F. King, Vice-President
Dave Bergen
Bob Ghosio, Jr.
John Bredemeyer
Town HM1Annex
54375M~nRoad
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone(631) 765-1892
Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
Wednesday, October 20, 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, November 10, 2010, at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, November 17, 2010, at 6:00 PM
WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of September 22, 2010
(Time noted is 6:08 PM).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: My apologies for starting late. I would like
to go over the postponements. Page four number one, Costello
Marine Contracting on behalf of STUART THORN requests a Wetland
Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to resurface 10ff+/- of
existing bulkheads seaward side using two-inch T&G sheathing
installed horizontally. Remove existing stairway to beach.
Construct new 2x4' platform. Reinstall existing stairway.
Install 425 ton of 1-3 ton rock armoring in front of 170' of existing bulkheads.
Located: 19375 Soundview Avenue, Southold, will be postponed.
Board of Trustees 2 October 20, 2010
Page five, number six, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of EVAN GINIGER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
docking facility consisting of a 4x46' fixed elevated catwalk
supported by six 4"x4" pilings and six 6"x6" pilings; 3x15'
hinged ramp; and 6x20' floating dock secured by two 6x6"
pilings. Located: 315 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue, will be postponed.
Page five number 11, Jeffrey T. Butler, PE, on behalf of STEVE KUBRYK
requests a Wetland Permit 1o construct a 4x24' fixed dock attached to the
existing bulkhead, 4"x4" CCA piles with open-grate decking on surface.
Located: 355 Lake Drive, Southold, will be postponed.
Page six, number 12, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of
DON JAYAMAHA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x94'
fixed dock with a 6x20' "T" section offshore end, with
open-grate decking. Located: 243 Maiden Lane, Mattituck, will be postponed.
And page six, number 13, Frank Notaro, PA, on behalf of CHRIS MESKOURIS
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new one-and-one-half story dwelling
on pilings, attached deck and sanitary system.
Located: 530 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck, will be postponed.
Those will all be postponed and not heard tonight.
I just wanted to, before we start, the Town Board adopted a
fence, deer fence policy for the code Chapter 280, I believe it
is, and the Trustees are going to propose to the Town Board and
code committee a small code change to Chapter 275 of the Wetland
Code. We already have a section in there, 275-11 that discusses
fences, and what our proposal will be is that if you are in
conformance with Chapter 280, Chapter 275 and the deer fence is
ten feet away from the wetland boundary line, it will be exempt
from coming to the Trustees for a permit. If you want to go
within that ten feet, within the wetland, then you need a permit
from the Trustees. So basically most of the deer fencing will
be exempt from coming to the Trustees. We didn't want them to
have to go to the Building Department for a deer fence, then
come to the Trustees for a deer fence. Especially when we have
it all spelled out in the code, if you meet that criteria, you
should not have to come for a permit to the Trustees. So we'll
be hopefully moving that along quickly and that will be adopted
by the Town Board, hopefully. All right, we'll get started.
Our next field inspection is Wednesday, November 10, 8:00 AM.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Work session at 5:30.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Minutes for September 22, 2010, we just got
them the other day, I had a chance to read them, I only had two
minor changes I gave to Lauren.
TRUSTEE KING: I haven't read them.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I read them today and I had no problem with
Board of Trustees 3 October 20, 2010
them.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I didn't have a chance to read them, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of
September 22, 2010.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second it. All in favor?.
(Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye.
Trustee Ghosio, aye.)(Trustee Bredemeyer, abstain).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Abstain.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll read them.
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for September, 2010. A check for
$7,277.96 was forwarded to the Supervisor's office for the
General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin board for
review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
Resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold
hereby finds that the following applications more fully
described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee
agenda dated Wednesday, October 20, 2010, are classified as Type
II Actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations, and are not
subject to further review under SEQRA.
They are listed as follows:
Albertson Marina (William Witzke) - SCTM#56-6-2.2
William & Dolores Kreitsek - SCTM#114-9-14.1
Evan Giniger- SCTM#137-4-14.1
Margaret McNamara - SCTM#87-6-10
Steve Mitchell - SCTM#86-7-8
Goldsmith's Boat Shop, Inc. - SCTM#56-7-1
Fishers Island Club - SCTM#1-1-3.13
Fishers Island Development Corp - East End Road
George, Florence, Alexander & Demetrios Vasilakis - SCTM#135-1-6
North Fork Beach Condominium - SCTM#135-1-22.1
Mary Beth Henson - SCTM#33-1-6
Robert & Carol Abrahams - SCTM#104-7-7
Don Jayamaha - SCTM#140-1-8
Stuart Thorn - SCTM#51-1-20.1 &21
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Resolutions - Administrative Permits. Number
one, PAUL LEARY requests an Administrative Permit to trim the
Board of Trustees 4 October 20, 2010
vegetation encroaching onto the beach area. Located: 780 East
Road, Cutchogue.
We all looked at this. From what I understand, I believe
he has a path to go through the vegetation to get to the bay and
he wants to abandon that path and make a new path.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jill, I encourage you to look at the description
because I thought he wants to maintain the original path plus
maintain another path. I could be wrong but that's how I interpreted it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I read in the agenda, it just
sound like --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Look in the file, though.
TRUSTEE KING: I thought he wanted to change the location of his path.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I thought originally. If you look
at the pictures that are there, on the right-hand side, look at the description there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It just says trim -- trimming vegetation
encroaching on beach path. I don't see any vegetation
encroaching on the beach path in these pictures. And on the
picture that he has -- oh, I guess he already did it. No, there is the path.
TRUSTEE KING: He said there had been a path.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: it will remain as is, grass, vines will be cut
-- oh, he wants to cut vines out of this.
TRUSTEE KING: He wants to restore what must have been a path,
maybe years ago. I would just leave it alone.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And make it two paths.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I see. All right. Because then on the other,
it says I don't want this area to take over path as it did in
picture one. Both sides to be trimmed.
TRUSTEE KING: Well, I don't have a problem if he wants to
maintain that existing path.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For me, it's one path or the other, but not two.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. Because this, if you look at this tree,
that's this path here.
TRUSTEE KING: I think he is asking, in my mind, maybe he's using
this as an example of what would happen here if we don't let him trim.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: There seems to be some vines that he cut. I think
he should just leave that area alone and maintain the existing path.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, is he asking for this, to trim this
existing path? Because if he's asking to trim the existing
path, then I don't think we have a problem.
TRUSTEE KING: But he also says brush area to be trimmed back
here. We don't want that. That's to remain natural.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So if we can make it clear, just give him
permission to trim this existing path and not trim anywhere
else. Would that be okay?
TRUSTEE KING: Would that be the path to the east on the property?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let me see what you are talking about.
TRUSTEE KING: This is the existing path.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's to the east, yes.
TRUSTEE KING: This is what he wants to maintain. This is what he
wants to trim. This brush should be left in its natural state.
Board of Trustees 5 October 20, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can say the existing path to the east of the
property can be maintained.
TRUSTEE KING: Can be maintained. There is to be no disturbance
-- can we use the pictures in the file, picture number one, as a
reference? I don't know.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Lori just said yes. Just number the pictures
and make reference to it in the resolution.
TRUSTEE KING: There is no be no trimming in the area depicted in
the area depicted in picture one. There is to be no trimming in
that area. The area shown in picture one is to be left in its
natural state, and we'll let him maintain the path on the east
side of the property as is.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In picture number two.
TRUSTEE KING: In picture number two.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we just say he can only maintain the
path that is existing in picture number two and not touch any
other vegetation on the property.
TRUSTEE KING: We can do that, too. I think that would bring it
into consistency see also.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, then I'll make the motion to grant
permission to maintain the path that is on the eastern side of
the property in picture number two that is in the file, with the
condition that no other vegetation be trimmed on the property.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll second it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, in the wording you said you are granting
permission. We are granting an Administrative Permit to do
that. That's different. I just want to make that clear. I
think that's different than permission.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The next two we reviewed and inspected and are
very straightforward.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Could I please request they be separated out.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two, NYSDOT/USACE-SPONSORED BY THE TOWN
OF $OUTHOLD requests an Administrative Permit to reconstruct the
easterly portion/end of the concrete seawall. Located:
Orient/East Marion Causeway.
This is a new extension to the existing seawall so it
requires a permit from this office. If it was just maintaining
the seawall, it would not require a permit but since it's adding
a new section, it does. He we have reviewed the CD's that came
with it and we have all the maps and reviewed it. Does anybody,
any Board members have any questions on it?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I do. It's my opinion that this is similar to
the permit that we had out in the same area for a public utility
to come in and do work so I think there should be a full permit
and not an Administrative Permit.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm inclined to agree with you, Dave.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to be consistent.
Board of Trustees 6 October 20, 2010
TRUSTEE KING: It's a substantial amount of work that will be
done there. It's a lot of work.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This was different than the discussion we had
in our open worksession a couple of weeks ago when Jamie
Richter asked what kind of permit do you want to go for, we all
discussed it, I believe, maybe it was at one of our field
inspections, and we decided as a group it would be okay for an
Administrative Permit and that's why it was applied for as an
Administrative Permit. If the majority changes their mind, then
we can postpone it and tell them to go ahead and do the
paperwork work for a full permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sorry, I don't recall meeting with Jamie
Richter on this.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We didn't meet with Jamie Richter. Jamie
Richter asked the Trustees, number one, do we need a permit
and; number two, is it administrative or full permit.
I discussed it with the whole entire Board. I believe it was on
a field inspection day, on Wednesday morning when we had a
noticed meeting in the office and it was discussed that it would
be simple enough for an Administrative Permit, so that's what
was relayed to Jamie and that's why it's on the agenda for
Administrative Permit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I do recall you questioning us whether we
had an objection, if it was a problem with an admin permit and I
do recall that. This discussion did take place, it was a real
discussion, but what Dave is saying now though does make an
awful lot of sense when you are talking about a previous public
utility extension in a roadway versus a seawall construction in
the tidal zone.
MS. HULSE: If I could just add something, Jill, I had
conversations with Jamie about this and I actually reviewed the
underlying agreement. The work on this has already been
reviewed and approved by the DEC and Army Corps. They are
actually working in conjunction with the town, and the purpose
of it is to, it's an extension of an already existing seawall,
and the purpose is to avoid additional erosion. And that is
really the extent of the work. That is why I think Jamie viewed
this as something dissimilar from the Suffolk County Water
Authority application which envisioned a great deal more
involvement, more work. And this he viewed almost, to make a
comparison, to a bulkhead. Bulkheading. A similar type of
rationale he used to apply as an Administrative Permit, but
obviously it's up to the Board.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I see the only difference between, at this
juncture, the only difference between an Administrative Permit
and a full permit is the full permit would be noticed. Is that
what you are looking for?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. And I feel it should be a full Wetland Permit.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Does the state actually have to come to us all?
MS. HULSE: Jamie is coming to you as the town; a town employee
applying. We would typically seek to have someone come in and
Board of Trustees 7 October 20, 2010
tell us they are doing this project. Jamie really, I suppose
this is at the end of this project. He could have come in
earlier but envisioned that it would be something the Trustees
would be in favor of as opposed to -- I think he thought it was
good environmentally so he didn't see the need for a full permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why wasn't this discussed in the worksession.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to clarify, I'm not stating that I don't
think it's a project worthy of a permit, at all. I'm just
saying, to be consistent, it's an extension of a wall. The
other one was an extension of water service. It's, I think it
meets the criteria for a full Wetland Permit. That's all I'm saying.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. I'm just frustrated because this is
at the 9th hour. We had a worksession Monday night and we went
over this. Why wasn't this discussed Monday night.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was not present for that discussion. I
apologize for that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well --
TRUSTEE KING: When do they propose starting the work?
MS. HULSE: The work already started.
TRUSTEE KING: So it's kind of late in the game to change
everything.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what my point is. Everybody has
approved it. We considered it. We had discussions on it,
considered it. It's minor in nature.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Listening to the comments of our attorney,
where it is essentially a bulkhead structure and relative to the
extent of the current seawall, which is a functional public
safety structure that has been there for years, it's extending a
public safety item, I guess looking at the totality of the
discussion here, I think I'm inclined to go with the admin
permit as our prior discussion.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I am, too, because this has been going to for
years. This is not a surprise. I mean, and I viewed the CD
back in June, I think. We had it for a while.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I looked at it back in June also, and at
this point if we were to delay, I can't envision anyone coming
against it, whereas our failure to act, with winter storms
coming and to delay work could actually leave the road bed and
the ability for emergency response to Orient, to and from the
fire department, the rescue squad, is in peril. So I think an
admin permit, Administrative Permit is actually correct.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree.
TRUSTEE KING: I feel bad because I didn't review these plans.
They are coming in ten feet seaward of the high water mark, into
the intertidal area. I'm surprised he was given a permit for this.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, it sounds like we have a majority to say
keep it as an Administrative Permit.
MS. HULSE: Do you want take a vote on it, Jill.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll move to approve it as an Administrative
Permit as presented.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think what I'm hearing Lori say is I should
Board of Trustees 8 October 20, 2010
take a, we should take a vote.
TRUSTEE KING: There is a motion on the floor. I'll second it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(Trustees Doherty, Ghosio and Bredemeyer, aye).
We'll take a role call vote.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are you asking for ayes?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have three ayes. Jay?
TRUSTEE BREDEMERY: Aye
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Dave?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Nay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim?
TRUSTEE KING: Nay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I say aye. Bob?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aye.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let the record show that the Administrative
Permit for DOT sponsored by the town has been passed three to two.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number three, Donald Salvitti on behalf of
SHERRI KELLY requests an Administrative Permit to change all
windows and location of windows; replace exterior doors and
install new slider in new location; replace siding and roof;
construct roof layovers on front and right side of dwelling.
Located: 500 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This came in, this was consistent with LWRP. I
went out and inspected it. It's just simply changing, just
simply what it says. So I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Applications for extensions, transfers and
administrative permits. Most of these are fairly
straightforward and simple. We all reviewed them. I would like
to lump together a bunch of them.
Numbers one, two, three, four, six, seven and eight. They read
as follows:
Number one, MARY S. ZUPA requests the last One-Year Extension to
Wetland Permit ~6762, as issued on November 14, 2007. Located:
365 Basin Road, Southold.
Number two, Frederick R. Weber, PA, on behalf of DANIELE &
ANTHONY CACIOPPO requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit
#7001, as issued on November 19, 2008. Located: 1455 Inlet Way,
Southold.
Number three, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of ALVAH &
ALLAN GOLDSMITH requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit
#-6985, as issued on October 15, 2008. Located: 2550 Hobart Road,
Southold.
Number four, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of
GOLDSMITH'S BOAT SHOP, INC., requests a One-Year Extension to
Board of Trustees 9 October 20, 2010
Wetland Permit fl6983, as issued on October 15, 2008. Located:
2620 Hobart Road, Southold.
Number six, William Ryall on behalf of WILLIAM ADAMS requests an
Amendment to Wetland Permit #7364 to revise the septic plan at
the request of the Department of Health. Located: 1060 Northview
Drive, Orient.
Number seven, Gluckman Maynor Amhitects on behalf of LAURA A.
WElL requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit fl6702 and Coastal
Erosion Permit #6702C to show the relocation of the new
plantings along the western edge of the front yard; new fence
with gate to extend to house at eastern edge of deck; new
four-foot gate to interrupt the new plantings along the eastern
edge of property line; remove existing fencing on property and
install new three-foot height invisible mesh fencing enclosing
the front yard; install fencing along north edge of entry porch
to extend five feet to mask steps; and existing asphalt driveway
to be replaced with new oil and stone driveway with a gravel
finish. Located: 2760 Village Lane, Orient.
And number eight, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of 9105 SKUNK
LANE LLC requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7137 to
reflect the reduction in the size of the approved dwelling from
55'x50' to 30'x50'; replacement of a 25'x55' deck within the
100' setback to the structure, from 75' 1o 95'. The
non-disturbance and non-turf buffers remain unchanged. Located:
9105 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue.
I'll make a motion to approve them as applied for.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number five, MARY S. ZUPA requests an Amendment
to Wetland Permit #7303 to reflect the revised footprint of the
proposed single-family dwelling. Located: 580 Basin Road, Southold.
The only reason we are separating this one out is not
because we have any issue with this, but there is a pin oak that
is diseased and half dead at this point. It's just on the
seaward side of the hay bale line, and just to make sure we have
everything in order, I just wanted to include that in the
amendment so they can take down the tree. It's in the non-turf
buffer, so they would have the ability to be able to do
something with it anyway, but I just wanted to make sure it was
clear. It would be on the northwest side toward the corner of
the hay bales, where the hay bales terminate. And it's just on
the seaward side. I just wanted to include that in the resolution.
TRUSTEE KING: Are they just going to trim the tree, no reot
removal? Just trim it to ground level?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, they are going to take it town to ground
level. With that, I'll move that we approve the application for
the amendment.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 10 October 20, 2010
VI. APPLICATIONS FOR MOORING & DUCK BLIND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Applications for mooring and duck blinds. We
have two. Number one, DONALD HOWE requests a Mooring Permit in
Goose Creek for a 12' boat. Access: Private.
And, number two, Include the name of RICHARD SMITH on the Duck
Blind Permit of JAMES ANDREWS, located in West Creek.
The Board reviewed these and had no problem with them, so
I'll make a motion to approve both.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to go off the regular agenda
and on to public hearings.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS TO WETLAND PERMITS AND COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number one, Kevin McLaughlin, Esq., on behalf of
GEORGE, FLORENCE, ALEXANDER & DEMETRIOS VASILAKIS requests an
Amendment to Wetland Permit #7178 and Coastal Erosion Permit
#7178C to include the as-built 14x12' deck and stairs down the
bluff. Located: 21625 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
This came in inconsistent with LWRP and the CAC supports
the application with the condition of a ten to 15 foot non-turf
buffer with plantings and public access be provided. The CAC
observed storm water runoff coming from the driveway and running
out to the read to the east.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Good evening, I'm Kevin McLaughlin, here on
behalf of the applicants. I handed in a letter this evening,
albeit for everyone, from the builder. My clients came in, got
the requisite permits, started to do some of the bulkheading
work and according to the contractor, some winter storms came up
and there was damage to the existing 14x12 foot deck that caused
him to have to reconstruct a substantial portion of it using
what usable portion was left. And that's what happened.
I know there is wording in the original permit that is a
little bit vague, saying you could repair the deck but you could
not rebuild it. But the deck was damaged in storms, according
to the contractor, and he did what was necessary in order to put
it back, repair it and put it back the same size, same position
deck that existed prior to the applications.
So my client is here seeking amendments to both the Wetland
and Coastal Erosion permit to allow the deck that is currently
there now to exist.
Board of Trustees 11 October 20, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I want to read a portion of the permit number
7178 that was granted September of '09. It says: And to remove
the existing 14x12 deck and stairs down bluff during
construction and replace on to new deck posts while repairing
only necessary areas due to damage from removal with the
condition the existing 14x12 deck with stairs down the bluff
cannot be reconstructed without further review from the Board of
Trustees.
I don't think that's so vague. I think it's pretty clear
if they have to reconstruct the whole thing, they have to come
back to us first.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Again, what they did was, at least according to
the contractor, was they used what was left, that was usable,
and reconstructed the deck. Should they have come back? I
think you are probably right, they should have come back and
asked for permission before they did that. That's not what
happened, and that's why we are back here now, at this point,
seeking approval for what does exist.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was there a violation issued for this?
MS. HULSE: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Has that violation been taken care of?
MS. HULSE: No
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Well, I'm not sure what we mean by "no." A
violation was issued. It's in front of the Justice Court. We
asked for an adjournment so we could come. We immediately filed
with the town Trustees this application and the matter before
the Town Justice Court is adjourned pending resolution before
this Board.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And just so you understand, this Board does not
grant permits for projects where violations are pending on those
projects. And I understand, I hear what you are saying, it's
kind of a Catch 22; you are hoping that the Board might come to
some resolution tonight that would assist you in the court case,
and what we are saying is our practice has always been for the
matter to be, the violation to be taken care of first before we
grant a permit. That doesn't mean we cannot take comment
tonight, I'm just saying that's our usual process.
MS. HULSE: Mr. McLaughlin and I understand that I think you are
ready to resolve it when and if you need to do that if you are
going to be issued a permit. We had a discussion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Jill, you said it was inconsistent under
the LWRP but you didn't give reasons or sections.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, the 6.3, protect and restore tidal and
freshwater wetland; comply with statutory and regulatory
requirements; propose replacement of the existing,
non-conforming deck located on the bluff is not a permissible
action pursuant to construction and operation standards of 211;
the following expansions are required in operation 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.
Board of Trustees 12 October 20, 2010
And that's what it says.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have a question, Lori, under the Coastal
Erosion. Now, from what I understand, Coastal Erosion, if you
have a structure and you completely remove it, you cannot
replace that structure. Is that how that reads? Because we gave
them permission to remove the structure and replace it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When was that?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In the permit.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What was the date of the permit?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: September of '09.
MS. HULSE: I thought you gave them permission to --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Remove the structure and replace it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You are allowing them to restore the
structure, is that what you are saying?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. I think the reason why we worded it this
way is we allowed them to replace it with the existing, replace
the existing structure. They had to remove the structure to
build the bulkhead and then replace that existing structure, not
to use new material. And they ended up using new material. And
I think that's the difference in the Coastal Erosion. If they
use the old material, then it's just repairing. I think that's
why we worded it this way in the code. So there is -- am I
getting too technical? I don't know.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: But the permit did allow for repairing any damage
that was done and the removal of the deck and the stairs.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, with the condition that if it had
totally rebuilt, that you had to come back to us.
TRUSTEE KING: It's obvious it's all new material.
MS. HULSE: Yes. That's not permitted under Coastal Erosion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's one thing, during construction of the
bulkhead having to lift, or in this case a deck or some other
structure, stairs or whatever, up, so then, for the contractor
to come in and replace the bulkhead, and then just put that
structure right back again. It's a different thing to
completely remove the structure and rebuild it completely.
That's where I'm having, just speaking for myself, that's where
I'm having an issue here. Because if this had just been pick
the deck up, build the bulkhead, put the deck right back in its
place, everything the same, that's one thing. We went out
there, this is entirely, in my opinion, entirely new structure,
new footings, new everything. I think what happened here the
contractor just assumed it would be okay without knowing the
details of the code. And that's not incumbent upon the town,
that's incumbent upon the contractor to understand.
MS. HULSE: Using pieces of the old structure does not help at
all. It doesn't save it from being new construction. You can
use pieces of the old structure and it's still a new structure.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Except we have permission to repair. So that
there was clearly the understanding that new portions of, could
be used to repair. Now, the degree, I don't know, to be honest
Board of Trustees 13 October 20, 2010
with you, I'm not a contractor. All I know is what the letter
says. The contractor says he re-used that portion of the
existing deck and stairs that were reusable after the damage to it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it's, from the pictures and from the Board
going out there, it's clear to us it was all new wood that was
used. He might have used the wood that was left over from
building the bulkhead, but it's still new wood. It was not the same
wood the deck was made of before. So to us this is a total rebuild.
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Okay, that's not what his letter says, but.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, so what I'm saying, I guess, is I
disagree his letter. So what does the Board want to do with
this? We can't really make a decision tonight because of the violation
MS. HULSE: You can make a decision as long as you don't issue a permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we want this removed, do we want it
downsized. Do we want to leave it alone. I don't know what --
the Coastal Erosion code is basically pretty black and white on
this, that we can't approve it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I mean, I would agree with what you just said.
Unfortunately, this is the code and in my opinion it was, this
was a completely, it's a new structure. Which is not allowed
under the code. So I'm not inclined to approve this structure
and I think then it will be up to negotiations between the Town
Attorney and the applicant or the applicant's attorney to figure
out what will happen with the legal matter.
TRUSTEE KING: We had a similar incident down by those condos
where the deck was destroyed during the storm and they cannot
replace it, but we allowed them to put it further back at a
smaller size.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I know what you are referring to now.
TRUSTEE KING: If this had been brought to us before this was
all built that's probably what would have been worked out.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the pleasure of the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: I would be inclined to deny this, myself.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would, too.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, any other comment from the audience
(No response).
Any other comment from the Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to deny the request for an
amendment under Coastal Erosion and also deny it under Wetland
because it does not fit into the criteria of the code.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: May I say something at this point?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The matter is closed.
Board of Trustees 14 October 20, 2010
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I know the public heating is. I just have a
question for the Board. I heard some indication about the
possibility of coming back for a new application for a deck,
perhaps a smaller deck?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Under Wetlands. But under Coastal Erosion
there is no new structures in the coastal erosion. I'm not sure
exactly where the coastal erosion line is on that, but if you
can get behind the Coastal Erosion line you may come in and
apply for a deck under the Wetland, as long as it complies,
conforms to what the Wetland Code says.
MR. MCLAUGHIN: Thank you.
MR. VASILAKIS: I understood we were grandfathered in.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sir, the time to speak was during the public
hearing and I had just asked if there was any other comments. Sorry.
MR. VASILAKIS: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Number two, MARGARET MCNAMARA requests an
Amendment to Wetland Permit ~6642 to construct an extension to
the existing easterly bulkhead return and install new support
pilings adjacent 1o all existing face pilings along 120' of
existing bulkhead and 20' east return. Located: 640 Takaposha
Road, Southold.
We all went out and looked at this. I don't think anybody
had a problem with this. It's simply an extension. It's an
extension of a return and to hold new piles to the existing
piles along the face of the bulkhead. Which is pretty simple.
Any comment from anybody here?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: And before we go that far, the CAC did not support
the application because the project does not provide for public
access. There is currently no buffer in the perpendicular
bulkhead, it is increasing erosion on the Suffolk County and
Town of Southold properties. I believe that return is going in
on his property, not on town property.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So are we opening the public hearing again?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, just to get these comments on. I'll make a
motion we reopen the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I think this was exempt, it's exempt from LWRP.
Replacement, rehabilitation and reconstruction of a structure or
facility inkind on the same site. So it meets that criteria.
Makes it exempt. As far as the public access goes, it's a
bulkhead on a piece of property. The bulkhead, I believe, has
been there for many, many years. I want to scale off this plan.
The plans show the high water mark approximately between ten and
12 feet seaward of the bulkhead, so there is adequate public
access on there. I think the only place they are interested in
Board of Trustees 15 October 20, 2010
is this land that would be to the east, I believe.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the town, isn't it.
TRUSTEE KING: Which is Town and Suffolk County. But this return
is not encroaching on that. It's on his property line. I don't
think it's an issue. Because it does not, in looking at these
plans, it does not interfere with any public access. So, with
that being said, now I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Raymond Nemschick, PA, on behalf
of STEVE MITCHELL requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #-4201
to construct a 12x10' platform at the bottom of the beach access
stairs. Located: 7132 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic.
Reviewed under LWRP and found to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency was for the following reasons: That decks and
platforms, under chapter 275, no decks or platforms are
permitted on or near bluffs. Platforms associated with stairs
may not be larger than 32-square feet. The location of the
proposed 120-square foot deck located on or near the bluff is
not a possible action.
It was reviewed under the CAC. The Conservation Advisory
Council resolved to not support the application because of the
concerns with the size increase of the structures in the
area. The Board did go out and looked at this project. Is
there anybody here who wants to speak for or against this project?
MR. NEMSCHICK: Raymond Nemschick on behalf of the client here
to answer any questions. It sounds like we pretty much made up
our mind at this point.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: As was stated, the Board did go out and looked
at this, Ray, and there was already a large deck that exceeds
code, that was granted by this Board, to the west of the stairs.
And so now the applicant is seeking even greater relief from the
code for decking to the east, and I guess we would like to know
why greater relief, in addition to what has already been
granted, should be granted for this permit.
MR. NEMSCHICK: I take the applications to the town as a mass,
but he's looking to tie up some trampoline for his
grandchildren. So he asked me to come in front of the Board.
He's doing the right thing, instead of somebody just building
it. I said, listen, I really don't know how they'll react to
this. They have already given you ample deck to begin with, but
I'll take it to the Board. So that's why I'm here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Comment from the Board on this
application?
TRUSTEE KING: I think they have enough there, myself. I don't
like the idea of tearing up the beach grass and putting a deck
Board of Trustees 16 October 20, 2010
in place of it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't see a need for it. It's on the top of
of a bulkhead. It's at the bottom -- I don't know if you could
really call it a bluff, but an incline.
MR. NEMSCHICK: He's done a substantial amount of work to the
bluff to begin with.
TRUSTEE KING: To the base of the bluff, technically. Instead of
a set of stairs -- he has a set of stairs going down, a good
size deck to the right, at the bottom is stairs, and now he
wants to put another deck to the left of it, at the base of the
staim. And it's pretty well vegetated, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anybody want to see a set of plans here? Any
Board members?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I saw them already.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I saw them already
MS. HULSE: Can I see them. (Perusing).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking at a picture. It's very well
vegetated on both side of the existing deck that is there now.
It's very dense -- he's done a great job of vegetating that area.
MR. NEMSCHICK: And that's why I think he decided he would take
his chances and say I've done a lot to shore this up. As well,
I don't think there is any idea that -- I mean we have had this
discussion before about what a crested bluff is or what a bulkhead is
and there is no chance of any runoff going past that bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, in my opinion, this is just my opinion,
the code is pretty clear that any decks associated with stairs
or attached to stairs can't be more than 32-square feet. And
again, the applicant sought relief, I can't remember when, but
in the recent past, and was granted relief for a larger deck
there. So I'm not inclined to approve even more decking down
there. That's just my opinion, again.
MR. NEMSCHICK: Is there any alternate that he can provide to
have some kind of maybe a temporary or something he can remove
from a seasonal basis? Is there any way for him to get any kind
of relief down there, outside of building a deck?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think the problem, at least the problem I
have, is just tearing up all that vegetation, when he already
has a substantial area of deck.
MR. NEMSCHICK: He put all that vegetation in himself.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand that. I just, I don't see a
reason for it. I feel he has sufficient decking already. And
we granted him a relief from that based on the fact that he had
it for a while and it's been there. So I'm inclined to not
approve if further.
MR. NEMSCHICK: I understand. I'm simply asking if there is any
alternate. Even some kind of tie down, if we put in some kind
of tie down so he could tie down his trampoline at the end of
the season.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why can't he tie it down to the existing deck
that he has?
MR. NEMSCHICK: Then he would not have any deck to use. He would
Board of Trustees 17 October 20, 2010
not have a place to sit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the trampoline -- seems like most
trampolines fold up and they can't take it to the house?
MR. NEMSCHICK: No, this is a floatable one. He wants to bring
it up and tie it down so it doesn't float away.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a floatable trampoline. I apologize.
haven't seen a floating trampoline.
MS. HULSE: 275, obviously, under the decks and platforms
section, discourages decks or platforms near the bluff and I
think the one that is contemplated associated with the stairs,
he already has an eight foot one associated with stairs, and he
has a 10x12 one at the bottom, at the base, and I'm not sure
that the code really contemplates that. But it's an exception
that this Board granted, so I think he's already got a great
deal more structure than typically would be something that would
be contemplated by the code. At this point.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I concur.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments?
(No response).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I can't think of any other solution, any other
alternative at this time.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to deny without prejudice the
application of Raymond Nemschick on behalf of Steve Mitchell as
described at 7132 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number one, Creative Environmental Design on
behalf of JACK BIGGANE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
timber stairway on the bluff. Located: 8871 Oregon Road, Cutchogue.
Is there anyone theory speak on behalf of this application?
(No response).
The Trustees have visited the site, noticed the blow-out
out on the bluff. We have comments from the Local Waterfront
Revitalization coordinator recommending that the Trustees rely
on previous best management practice issued for a prior permit
to this site, as well as encourage the Trustees to include a
recommendation in their permit for a full review under the
Chapter 236 for drainage, which would be consistent with a
letter in the file we also received from James Richter, the
Office of the Town Engineer. The Conservation Advisory Council
issued comments not supporting this application, running along a
similar thought. They indicated there is a serious drainage
condition on the bluff. The location is questionable for beach
Board of Trustees 18 October 20, 2010
stairs because of the close proximity of the property line and
blowout and the CAC recommends best management practice. The
LWRP recommendations and the fact that we know it's a shared
stairway seem too address some of those concerns right out of
hand. And further, reading directly from the letter from Jim
Richter, he indicated, he recommends that the Trustees consider
requiring formal drainage review under Chapter 236, and this is
largely because the applicant's contractor was considering
putting in another leaching pool but there was a concern the
soils are already saturated on the site and another leaching
pool may further hydraulically Icad the soils and just to
encourage the current problem with the blowout on the bluff.
Any comments?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I spoke to Jamie on this and I also spoke to
Dave Chicanowicz from Creative Environmental and he is planning
on abandoning the current one that they have and the -- the
current drywell they'll have. And the proposed one is 75 feet
from the top of the bluff and he, you know, will go down deep
enough to hit the correct soil and I suggested, you know, if
Jamie wanted to do the testing, and I suggested to Jamie would
it be all right if when he digs the hole that Jamie goes and
inspects it at that the time, to save the cost of the separate
step. And Jamie said yes. So the applicant and Jamie can work
that out. But it's up to the Board. If the Board wants to have
that formal review, that's fine. I suggest maybe we have, under
the other permit that we granted these people, we have the
condition of the drainage in that permit. And he's following
that condition but replacing this. We can just do it as a
condition of this permit by saying it has to conform with
Chapter 236, which would tie into that, and we would still have
to do it. That's what my suggestion would be.
TRUSTEE KING: And the other, CAC, was concerned about the
stairway being so close to the property line. I believe it is
going to be a shared stairway between the neighbor and himself,
so it's better than having two stairways.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are there any additional comments?
(No response).
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 would make a motion to approve this
application with the condition that the applicant work with the
town engineer in the installation of the new drywell to seek
proper sand for drainage.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And to conform to Chapter 236.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And to conform with the requirements of
Chapter 236.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 19 October 20, 2010
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number two, JMO Environmental Consulting on
behalf of FISHERS ISLAND CLUB requests a Wetland Permit to
maintenance dredge (at the 14th hole) approximately 4,000 square
feet of sand bars and stone shoals to a maximum depth of -1' ALW
to establish a better flushing between an existing tidal pond
and East Harbor. The spoil, approximately 340 cubic yards of
sand and stone shall be placed on the adjacent beach for beach
nourishment. The existing timber golf cart bridge shall also be
reconstructed. Dredge (at the 12th and 13th holes) an existing
tidal pond (approximately 8,250 square feet) to -I'ALW and to
widen the existing four-foot wide channel to eight feet. The
resulting spoil approximately 535 cubic yards of sand will be
disposed of at an upland site. Use existing rocks to create a
new stone slope; remove and reconstruct an existing golf cart
bridge; and remove existing concrete weir which is located under
the golf cart bridge. Located: East End Road, Fishers Island.
It's a mouth full. This has been commented on by the LVVRP
and it was found to be inconsistent with LWRP. I'll give the
basic idea here. The proposed action is located in the
significant fish and wildlife habitat area. It's recommended
that the Board require the applicant submit a full environmental
assessment form. Application made to the Board by their agent
indicates there should be no negative impacts upon the waters or
wetlands, however no documentation indicating such has been
submitted. Protect existing plantings throughout construction
is mentioned in the proposed dredging of holes 12 and 13 but
there has been no method of protection identified. And they are
suggesting that there may be, in policy 6.4, protecting
vulnerable fish, wildlife and plant species, and rare ecological
communities to the greatest extent practicable, it is
recommended the Board contact Penny Sharp, the Ferguson Museum
board president to discuss the potential impacts to shore and
wading boards that frequently utilize these systems.
Conservation Advisory Council did not make inspection therefore
there is no recommendation made. Is there anybody here who
would like to address this application?
MR. JUST: Glenn Just, JMO Consulting for the applicant.
TRUSTEE KING: Glenn, isn't this in the middle of a golf course?
MR. JUST: Yes, it is.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what I thought.
MR. JUST: If you may recall, about 14 years ago we came before
the Board and secured the permits to do the dredging at the 13th
and 14th. It's shoaled up. It's a stone cobble beach with
rocks about this big. I don't really see, there is a comment
about shore birds and nesting birds, things like that. It's
just not the habitat for piping plovers and stuff like that.
Material will be put on the beach for beach nourishment. It's
two tidal ponds that are choked up they want to increase the
flushing of them.
TRUSTEE KING: I know when we were all out there, we did a
pre-inspection on this, we all thought it was a good project.
Board of Trustees 20 October 20, 2010
That was my take on it.
MR. JUST: I had that impression as well.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mark Terry of the LWRP called me. i guess a
primary concern that he had is absent the Iongform and I guess
some concern he was not familiar with the particular pond, I
don't believe, but concern based on the application that the
location of spoils and/or protection of the ponds during the
dredging was a concern of his. And there may have been some
discussion with Ken Edwards and others on the island that are
concerned that are avid bird watchers, even though it is the
middle of a golf course, I understand it's a very significant
stopover point for migratory water fowl and shore birds. Yes,
it's a golf course but it's also, like most of Fishers Island,
it didn't get the critical environmental area designation
because it's not valuable wildlife habitat. So it's sort of a
dual function. It's good for the golfers and it's good for the
bird. So maybe some of the questions that were in the LWRP
could be addressed here, maybe you can provide some information.
MR. JUST: If you want to go back down one at a time, I'll address it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe that would help us with our
consistency review.
TRUSTEE KING: In my mind, I thought the work that was going to
be done would actually enhance the area.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I did, too.
TRUSTEE KING: And make it better for the wildlife than it is now.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we all agree on that, and the LWRP
coordinator may not be aware, I believe these were manmade
ponds. These were not initially natural basins, are they; do you know?
MR. JUST: It's really hard to determine looking at some of the
old maps.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That was a question I was going to ask. It looks
like a wetland that was created when they created the -- I know
they can build golf courses around natural environs but my
impression was it was made with the course.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know if I'm remembering correctly, but
I think we asked that question out in the field and I don't
remember the gentleman's name that was there but I think his
response was, they were manmade, it was a Iow spot. So that's
why they took that area and made it a pond --
MR. JUST: That was Don Beck, superintendent of the golf course.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: (Continuing) and it was dug out further to make
it a pond.
MR. JUST: In going back, as far as endangered species and stuff
like that, when the last permit was issued by DEC, they
required, I was the environmental monitor on site, I happened
to wear both hats. I was the monitor on site. One day in the
process of doing the dredging, there was nothing there, at the
time of the year, the ospreys were gone, the piping plovers were
gone. Again, it's not habitat for either one of those species.
Feeding for maybe ospreys, that's about it. But not nesting.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What kind of amphibian life is there, do you
Board of Trustees 21 October 20, 2010
have any idea?
MR. JUST: It's tidal, so no turtles, no frogs.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Any other questions?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I had one question on that. When did they
envision, I know based on previous work you have done there,
that this might take place?
MR. JUST: There is a lot of windows we have to work through with
the DEC and Army Corps of Engineers, with winter flounder and
other endangered species so it would probably be January or
about this time of year next year right, after late September.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I can tell you from being familiar with
dredging, this is the time of year that is favorable for
dredging with regard to wildlife and species because there is no
nesting going on, there is no spawning going on. So I think if
it was conducted during this time of year I don't think it would
be any issues related to the wildlife.
MR. JUST: Again, it would be a one-day or perhaps two-day
operation.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The other suggestion, and I just make this as a
suggestion for consideration by the Board is to have a monitor
there for that one day and in doing so that might assist with
bringing ii into consistency under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's a good idea.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you want to specify somebody?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would leave that up to the applicant.
MR. JUST: There is a list.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is a list of qualified applicants, as long
as they meet DEC qualifications, I have no problem with who they select.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Okay, any other comments or questions?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A question on the location of the spoil?
MR. JUST: For the little pond at the northern end at the 13th
hole is a little bit silt. I would like to take that, an
excavator would load it right into a dump truck and bring it to
a dewatering area at the golf course where they store their top
soil, their loams, their sand, in the normal process for the
golf course. And where the stone and gravel that would come out
from the 14th and 15th it would be, just last time we did it we
put it just to the west on the beach for beach nourishment and
replaced the spring high water line, again, just to the west of
the mouth of the creek, if you are looking at the plans on
sheet two.
MR. YAXA: Good evening. Dean Yaxa, Southold, Greenport. Is this
a tidal pond? I'm sorry, I didn't pick up on that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
MR. YAXA: I'm a shellfisherman and with regard to shellfishing,
shellfish stop actively feeding and pumping when the water is
about 50 degrees. So they still are growing and feeding now,
but like someone said before, January, they are asleep. So
maybe that would be a better time.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think there is any shellfish resource in
there. It's very shallow, very stagnant.
Board of Trustees 22 October 20, 2010
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a very stagnant pond. The action that
they are proposing will probably increase the dissolved oxygen
levels. It's filled with filamentous algae, the plant matter was
already going down. It was very stressed.
MR. JUST: Most of the material is rock to cobble, about that
big. It's not the type of stuff you would find --
MR. YAXA: Any mussels there? Muscles are like barnacles. They
survive.
MR. JUST: None whatsoever.
MR. YAXA: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have a picture here of the tidal zone where
you would see the mussels. I'm not seeing anything in these
pictures at all. Not that they could not be there. But I doubt they are.
MR. JUST: I have been there many times over the years, I have
not seen a single muscle there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And comments or questions?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would make a motion to approve the application
as written with the exception of stipulating that a DEC approved
monitor be there during the dredging of this project, and having
that monitor, it would bring it into consistency with LWRP.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number three, JMO Environmental Consulting on
behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP., requests a Wetland
Permit to construct an 8x132' Thru Flow boardwalk in the area of
"Grey Gulls"; and construct an 8x300' Thru Flow boardwalk
supported by helical anchors and elevated 18" above grade in the
area of "Barleyfield Cove". As mitigation, constructJcreate an
area of freshwater wetlands adjacent to the 1 st and 18th holes
of the Fishers Island Club golf course. Excavate the area down
to elevation three feet and remove approximately 1,920 cubic
yards of material and stockpiling it. At proposed elevation
three feet create approximately 9,650 square feet of open water
wetlands and in that area between elevation three feet and
elevation four feet create approximately 26,450 square feet of
vegetated wetlands. Regrade portion of the fairway located to
the south of the proposed wetlands to control rainwater runoff
by stripping sod off the fairway and stockpiling it.
Approximately 1,050 cubic yards of fill shall be placed in the
exposed area to raise the elevation of the fairway to elevation
seven feet. Area shall be replanted with the stockpiled sod.
Located: P/o East End Road, Fishers Island.
It's a rather lengthy description. The Board has not
looked at this new site. I just want to review the plans here.
(Perusing). There are a couple of sections of plans. The LWRP
Board of Trustees 23 October 20, 2010
finds this consistent and the CAC did not inspect it, so they do
not have a comment.
Is there anyone here to speak to behalf of this application?
MR. JUST: Glenn Just, JMO Consulting, if theirs are any questions
from the Board or the public. I thought, if I may, I just want
to bring some photographs up. These were taken at various
stages during the construction of the bike path. This is the
one at Barleyfield Cove. This is the one that's in the file.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We saw them this summer, I think. Not during
construction, but afterward.
MR. JUST: This is the first half of the application where they
want to widen it. The four-foot path is already in. They airs
requesting to widen it to eight feet. The widening part, may
not be clear on the plans, will take place between the path and
the road, not to further encroach on the wetland. At this
particular site.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Why do they want to widen it?
MR. JUST: Theirs has been quite a few people that got hurt riding
bikes, that hit the guardrail or ran off the path. In these
particular locations they feel that an eight-foot path would be
more prudent.
TRUSTEE KING: Didn't they start offway wide path and it was
downsized?
MR. JUST: Back and forth, back and forth. And it should also be
noted at the Barleyfield Cove where the pond is out toward the
golf course, the Board and the DEC had approved where the
cantilevered concrete wall, almost like a jersey barrier that
the path would can built the off of.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Here is the other map that Glenn was just
talking about now.
MR. JUST: What they propose to do now is widen it, a good
portion of the widening would be on the road side, not the
wetland side.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, theirs airs three different plans heirs.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was following on this set of plans.
MR. JUST: That's Barleyfield Cove Road.
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to take a look at it myself.
MR. JUST: That's what we kind of had thought the Board wanted to
do. Again this was --
TRUSTEE KING: Wasn't theirs at one time talk about observation
platforms along there?
MR. JUST: They wanted to do observation platforms, interpretive
signs, things of that nature.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Where is this in relation to the clubhouse,
Glenn?
MR. JUST: There is two points they want to widen the path. One
is halfway down East End Road. The second is just before you
get to the clubhouse, the big curve, where it's marked on both
sides of the road.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They have not actually done the
construction.
Board of Trustees 24 October 20, 2010
MR. JUST: They redid the read, they didn't redo the path.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The path stops at that point.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, do you want to table this
application in order to inspect it?
MR. JUST: Just on a quick note before you table it. The
mitigation plan calls for creating a 24,000-square foot fresh
water wetlands and pond. In lieu of disturbing about 1,100-square
feet of uplands and wetlands during, in the two spots they would like
to modify the plan. We have gone to three different property owners
on Fishers Island that would like to donate land to do this mitigation plan,
and we have come up with this final one.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to table this application in order for the
Board to go on to Fishers Island and inspect it.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number four, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting, Inc., on behalf of ALBERTSON MARINA (WILLIAM WITZKE)
requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge an underwater
area measuring 15,000-square feet within the
western/southwestern section of the marina to a navigable depth
of -4'+/- at Iow tide. Approximately 400 cubic yards of dredge
spoil is anticipated to result from the proposed maintenance
dredge, which is to be transferred to onshore trucks and
deposited within an approved upland location; and
replace/reconstruct the existing floating dock structure
situated centrally within the marina. The current floating dock
consists of the central floating dock 5x195', eighteen (18)
finger piers 2.5'x15' situated perpendicular along the length of
the floating dock (9 per side), and access ramp 3x13.7'
connecting the dock to the existing bulkhead. The overall
structure is supported by typical billet floats, and secured by
ten (10) pilings 10" diameter situated on the ends of various
finger piers. The entire structure is to be replaced inkind and
inplace. Located: 61025 Rt. 25, Southold.
The Board did go out and looked at this area. It was
reviewed under the LWRP. LWRP found it to be consistent and
exempt. And, I'm sorry, the CAC tabled the application and
requests accurate details are provided on the site plan with
regard to the dock. As I stated, the Board did go out and
looked at this. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicant. There are two things that are being proposed
here. One is a dredging project, and I would like to place on
the record a request that there be a ten-year maintenance
associated with that project. The area to be dredged is maybe
the most critical area of the marina because it's the area
Board of Trustees 25 October 20, 2010
directly related to, adjacent to the travel lift and it's also
the area, obviously where the channel is necessary for the
function of this marina. So the dredging is critical so that
the business at Albertson's remains viable. So I do want to
make that point. The soundings that you see there were all done
by surveyors. They are all verified and so forth. It would be
done, we anticipate it would be done by bucket and barge. And
also, as far as the floating dock is concerned, the details
provided to you are what is there. We are simply looking to
replace something inkind and inplace because it's just undergone
deteriorated -- it's in a deteriorated condition. I don't know
that anymore detail will make that clearer. We will build and
replace exactly what is there. That's really all I have to say.
I have one question, and that is that we intend to take the
spoils to an upland site, but there is another alternative and
that is we believe the sand that is filling in is driven from
what is called Tern Island which is that island that is in front
of Port of Egypt. They call it Tern Island because terns nest
there. But we think that's where the sand is coming from. That
island is owned by a very elderly man and it has been difficult
to communicate with him. Bill Witzke asked me to get a sense
from the Board, he thought maybe it would make sense to place
the spoil back on the island. I really have no intention of
doing that this year because I don't have the time to fool with
that, but while I'm here I'm curious to know if anybody has an
opinion on putting the spoils back on the island. I think I
would put it on the south side of the island. I think that
would probably make more sense.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know I'm familiar with the area because of the
dredging that is done at Budds Pond by Suffolk County. And Tern
Island is, that's the spoil site for the material on that
dredging. So I certainly can't speak on behalf of the DEC, but
the DEC already approved that as a material site for Suffolk
County to put that material from Buds Pond in there, which is
obviously immediately adjacent to this area. So you know, I
think, myself, personally, that it is a viable spot for this material to go.
But of course it would require DEC approval for that
MR. ANDERSON: We don't want to go there because we don't have
time to fool with it this year but we may come back in the
future for an amendment for that. As I said, we were going to
ask for a ten-year maintenance plan for this.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: When we were out in the field, one of the
concerns we had was that there was dredging that was going
really close to the western shoreline, and I see on this survey,
it's the property of O'Hara and Dalton and others, to be
specific about what areas I'm talking about. Dredging that
close to the western shoreline there, and there is even a point
there that comes almost across from one of the floating docks --
sorry, docks are not labeled here as A,B,C or one, two or three
or anything. But I think you see where I'm talking about.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
Board of Trustees 26 October 20, 2010
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And my concern there, again, is dredging that
close to that area is going to be viable. An alternative could
be for that, and again, this is up to the other adjacent
property owner, so we are not considering requiring this of the
applicant, but a Iow sill bulkhead could be put in along there
that could really maintain that shoreline and work very
effectively. But again, that's my concern, out there in the
field, again, was that area, dredging that close to the
shoreline, what damage might be caused to that shoreline. The
rest of the project is from a dredging perspective, because I
know this is two projects; the floating docks, replacement and
dredging. But the rest of the project regarding the dredging I
don't have an issue with.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, let's look at, if you go to page two of six
and you'll see the transect A, I believe that's the area you are
speaking of with regard to the proximity to the western
shoreline, do you see that?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking at page of two of six. Transect A.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, if you go back to your cover page, I think
that's the shoreline you are referring to.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. A way to address that would simply be to
provide for a, perhaps like a four on one slope down there. You
would slope it down. The, I think the drawing is a little
misleading in that it seems to show all of that to be removed
when in fact that would be a sloped. That's how you would do
it. I mean, it is done by a bucket but what can happen here is
if, as we work from the center out toward the end, really all
the intent there is to provide for navigable water and what
would result is a slope. It will not be a vertical cut adjacent
to the shoreline. So what I would suggest is perhaps just to
revise that drawing and make it clear that it's a sloped channel
and not a vertical channel there. I think that might take care of it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just trying to remember the slopes that are
in the permits for dredging -- and I don't have any of them here
-- that are bulkheaded areas. And I believe that is a three to
one, against a bulkhead. And there is no bulkhead here. So
four for one might work then. Again, I'm just concerned for
that property owner there. And I would be interested in other
Board members' feelings. I'm just concerned for the property
owner there that they might, that this project could result in
damage to their property.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we all had the same concern out in the
field, that that was kind of close.
MR. ANDERSON: I would offer simply to amend that cross-section
to make it clear that it's not a vertical cut.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I appreciate that. But, again, in working
with the plan that has been submitted, that might require the plan to be
changed slightly so that the area of dredging moves a little bit toward the
east from where it currently, what it currently shows these plans.
MR. ANDERSON: Right.
Board of Trustees 27 October 20, 2010
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Other comments from Board members, first with
regard to the dredging, then we'll get to the docks.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think you covered it quite well.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: With regard to the docks, again, I don't have
any questions that was listed as exempt under the LWRP. The
replacement inplace of what is currently there. And what type
of material will be used for these docks?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, we would comply with the rules pertaining to
docks. So the, it would be inkind inplace, the decking would be
non-treated. The piles would be standard and we would be happy
to specify that. We have no problem with that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. I was just curious. Any Board
members feel the need for flow-thru decking on any part of these
docks?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Given the bottom that is there, I don't see the
need for it but I just wanted to see if there was any feeling
from the Board with regard to that.
TRUSTEE KING: You have the float. The floats really won't do
anything for you.
MR. ANDERSON: I would just specify non-treated lumber for the
decking portion of it. That's the easiest way to do that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from anybody in the audience
with regard to this application?
(No response).
Are there any other comments from any Board members?
(No response).
If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of Albertson Marina
as described as 61025 Rt. 25, Southold, with the following
stipulations: One, that with regard to the dredging, that this
will be a ten-year maintenance dredging permit. And secondly,
that it's contingent upon receiving new plans that will
demonstrate that the dredging that is taking place in the area
marked as transect A on the set of plans, is going to be shown
that there will be a four to one slope in the dredging that
comes up to the western boundary of that area and hence it will
result in a decrease of the area that will undergo maintenance
dredging on the new set of plans in that area. Does that make
sense?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, it does.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, that's my motion.
TRUSTEE KING: Second
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing is number five, Suffolk
Board of Trustees 28 October 20, 2010
Envirenmental Consulting 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.
Local Waterfront Revitalization consistency review has this
listed as inconsistent. It has a large number of comments, but
largely indicates that the preposed action is not entirely
consistent in that the criteria for a dock, identified for
recreation use, doesn't indicate the type of vessel and it
extends a minimum over public trust waters for launching and
retrieving non-powered vessels. The CAC indicated support with
a condition of a 20-foot non-turf buffer. I know the Board has
been to the site numereus times, particularly with the changing
elevations of ground water affecting the lake water level, and
had discussed the fact that I think, in general, the Board felt
that there was, there were not any large docks structures there
existing but there were some smaller platforms so I think there
was a general feeling of the Board maybe we can have an
accommodation to have something slightly smaller. That is the
general thought I think at this point. Is there anyone here who
wishes to speak on behalf of the application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, for the applicant William and
Dolores Kreitsek. This is kind of a difficult application to
draw and propose. It was filed, initially, in the Spring. And
we got a, as you may recall, we got something like a
five-and-a-half-inch rain storm. And that elevated the level of
this pond about two-and-a-half feet. The plans that are before
you show that it goes out 24 feet from what we would consider a
normal water level for this pond. So really what it is it's
an open-grate catwalk to get to the pond edge. And it's long
because if you get that kind of rain storm and you get that kind
of elevation of the of the pond, if you don't make it
sufficiently long enough, you wind up with a platform out in the
middle of the water. That's why it was laid out the way it was
laid out. Now, the, from a normal edge of pond it shows, the
plans show that it would go out approximately 24 feet. We did
that to achieve greater water level. Water depth. It shows
that on three of three. Now, to cut the seaward end of the dock
makes actually more sense than to cut the landward edge of the
dock. Because the only boats that will be out there will be
their kayaks or rew boats, which addresses the LWRP concern, I
think I heard in the beginning. So what I would suggest is
perhaps bring it back ten or 12 feet from the seaward end, which
gives you, it has the same effect as the platform, and I think
it's probably advisable to leave the length, so you would reduce
it from 100, right now laid out, to maybe 90 or 88 feet and go
with the buffer, because I think that's, the I think the buffer
is fine because it's going, it becomes a buffer anyway when it's
underwater. You see what I'm saying. It's not an area you
could effectively mow all the time anyway.
Board of Trustees 29 October 20, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Bruise, I had a thought on this. We would
grant whatever length that we would agree on, but use instead of
having a fixed catwalk, use those floating docks. You have
sections, you could probably get them in and size you want and
then he could put out the sections when he need them. So when
the water stable Iow, he doesn't need all those sections on his
lawn, we could take them up. And when the water level comes up,
he had leave the sections and add those sections.
MR. ANDERSON: It's a thought but would not a thru-flow to allow
vegetation to grow underneath be a better idea for conservation.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. It's just a thought I had that way he can
enjoy his lawn, because there are times the water table is Iow
and stays Iow.
MR. ANDERSON: I personally think the 20 foot buffer is the best
conservation idea, from what I have heard. Because there is
really not a point to having a lawn that just extends into what
becomes mush when the pond is high. So I really -- I think
that's really the better conservation idea. And by the way, you
would not really mow it anyway because you prebably would just
rut it up if you tried to. So I think it's a practical item as well.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This year I don't think anything grew there
because the water table was so high.
MR. ANDERSON: Right. It changes from year to year, as you know.
This year was a particular tough year for homeowners down there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are there any additional comments?
TRUSTEE KING: What you are proposing, a 90 foot structure?
MR. ANDERSON: I think that's fine. Because you are not having
power boat in there. So it's sort of drawn like a standard DEC
type drawing, but it doesn't really fit the resource from the
standpoint of things they usually worry about.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So then under configuration of 90 feet,
presumably we would want to have an updated plan. How far would
that extend.
TRUSTEE KING: The third pole in.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would be the third pole in. And that
would certainly seem --
MR. ANDERSON: But I want to take it from the seaward end, not
the landward end.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. And that still should provide adequate
depth for kayaks and canoes
MR. ANDERSON: I would think so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If we end up in a Iongterm drought or
different ground water situation certainly --
MR. ANDERSON: It may wind up on the shoreline in a drought.
Look, you are get what you have in the Spring, the water will be
over on the dock, which the is another good reason for
thru-flow. This was adjourned for a period of time because you
could not see the stakes until the water receded. The ground
water, that is, receded.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further comments?
Board of Trustees 30 October 20, 2010
TRUSTEE BERGEN: One other, the fence. I know, I believe when we
were out there in the field, we already discussed previously the
goose fence that is along that water line, asking for that to be
removed. We noticed it's still there. It is a violation of the
code and I think we would have to put it in this permit, the
condition that the goose fence or that fence that is really in
the water, in the lake, be removed.
MR. ANDERSON: That's fine. I would recommend you make that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing no further comment I move to close
the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve this application
subject to submission of new plans showing a total length of 90
feet, reducing it ten feet on the waterward side, and the
condition of a 20-foot non-turf buffer and no fencing in or on
the lake or the buffer area. So moved.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: I have a question. Generally. That's fine. I
don't know what the fence is all about. Sometime folks will put
fences up to discourage geese and stuff. How does the Board
feel about people just putting a line, you know what I mean,
like a monofilament line stretching across to discourage geese.
Is that something that is frowned upon? I don't know what is
there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't foresee a problem with that.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If it works, let us know. See if it works with
deer, too.
MR. ANDERSON: If you go across Shelter Island, you'll see where
they keep horses, instead of a big horse fence, put in posts
with just a string that seems to, a line that seems to confine
the horses.
TRUSTEE KING: Horses are not the brightest animal either. I
think a goose is smarter.
TRUSTEE KING: Eh-Consultants, number seven, on behalf of NORTH
FORK BEACH CONDOMINIUM requests a Wetland Permit to remove the
existing +/~400 square foot deck and stairs, and construct
inplace of removed deck a 10x10' deck with 6x12' stairs to
beach; and construct 6x6' platform and 6x14' stairs to deck.
Located: 52323 County Road 48, Southold.
This has been deemed inconsistent with the LWRP. The
proposed 100-square foot deck located near the bluff is not a
permissible action pursuant to 275-11. 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 CAC recommended to support the application.
Board o f Trustees 31 October 20, 2010
Just a straight support. No conditions. Is there anyone here
to speak for or against this application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants, on behalf of the North
Fork Beach Condominium. First I guess I have to address the
LWRP determination. Might as well wake up Lori. I think this
again relates back to a reoccurring problem with this 268 review
where there is a determination of inconsistency being rendered
based on a section of the code before it's properly determined
whether 268 review is legally allowed. And I sent a letter to
Mark with a copy of the application, and I will read from the
code that demonstrates, and Lori can correct me if I'm wrong,
that the application is exempt. Pursuant to Town Code 268-5
review of actions and corresponding definitions of action and
minor action by 268-3 definitions, the proposed construction
activities meet the following definition of minor action.
Quote, B, replacement, rehabilitation or reconstruction of a
facility inkind on the same site, inplace, except for structures
in areas designated by the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Law,
where structures may not be replaced, rehabilitated or
reconstructed without a permit. Because both the, quote,
stairways constructed solely for pedestrian use and built by an
individual property owner for the limited purpose of providing
non-commercial access to the beach, end quote, and the
replacement deck to be constructed over open timber framework,
quote, with a top surface area of less than 200 square feet,
end quote, are defined as unregulated activities by 111-6, their
construction is not regulated by Chapter 111 and therefore may
be constructed without a coastal erosion management permit. The
proposed additions therefore quality as minor actions that are not
subject to waterfront consistency review pursuant to Chapter 268.
It was for that reason that we did not file an LWRP
consistency assessment form with the Trustees. If the action
is a minor action and it is exempt, it cannot be reviewed under
268. There is nothing that we are proposing here that is
reviewable under 268, therefore we can't have a determination
that the project is inconsistent because of its inconsistency
with some portion of 275 or any other code.
With respect to the substance of the project itself, the
Board may recall it was almost a year ago that we met out there
with Eric Star, Dawn McReynolds, I believe, and Karen Graulich
from the DEC. This is a structure that provides use for dozens
of members of this condominium association and has for decades
upon decades upon decades. It was discussed however that as the
structure has not been maintained in good enough repair to
simply be repaired through ordinary maintenance, that we would
have a tough time making the case to rebuild a four-hundred
square foot deck over the beach area fronting Long Island Sound.
However it seems to be the opinion both of the state and of this
Board that to completely remove the beach access from all of
these owners on a property that they own and pay taxes on for
the sole purpose of having beach access would not only be unfair
Board of Trustees 32 October 20, 2010
but it would in effect take away their use and enjoyment of the
property.
So the agreement that we had come to at the time was that
so it would -- and, again, this was with Eric's guidance as well
-- that we build a structure that was less than 200 square feet
top surface and therefore would be not regulated and in effect
allowable under coastal erosion. Not that it's allowable under
a permit but that a permit is actually not necessary for the
construction. Because of its proximity to tidal wetlands under
275 and also under article 25 for the state, it was the opinion
of both this Board, or at least the members, I can't recall if
all of you were there, but at least for the members that were
there, and the DEC, that we maintain the deck at no greater than
100 square feet.
That is what we came up with. It has taken us so long to
get in front of you because you may recall the condominium folks
had also discussed the possibility of some sort of erosion
stabilization project there that was ultimately determined they
didn't have the funds to proceed with that at this time so they
just wanted to proceed with the access. That may be something
that come back to you with in the future.
So anyway, what we what you have before you tonight is what
we had discussed in the field. I hope you find it does meet
with our agreement, and if you have any other questions or
comments, I would be happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE KING: I remember being out there and the discussions,
so. I have one question, I was trying to find it here.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So our attorney is in concurrence
essentially with the issues surrounding an inconsistent review
or sort of void it or remove it from the discussion, if the
cogent argument that you presented meets with her approval
MS. HULSE: I don't agree with that. I don't think it falls under
minor action. I don't really see the exemption you are speaking
of. If you are talking specifically about B, I don't agree with that.
MR. HERMAN: I'm not sure why.
MS. HULSE: Because it's not a reconstruction of a structure
inkind on the same site. This is different.
MR. HERMAN: It's smaller.
MS. HULSE: It's different. Also aren't you also including an
additional platform or decking?
MR. HERMAN: That's the platform at the top on the read. I don't
think that is what the objection is.
MS. HULSE: Well, I'm not going to replace my opinion for the
LWRP coordinator's. I think he is well within his right to
review this.
MR. HERMAN: I respectfully disagree.
MS. HULSE: At least it was respectively done.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, this meeting that took place, I believe
this, in the field, it was last December?
MR. HERMAN: It was, yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And for the record, I was not there at the
Board of Trustees 33 October 20, 2010
December meeting, at the December field inspections last year.
Myself personally, I do not think this falls within code. I
think it, the size of the deck has got to be downsized because
what you are talking about is a removal of the deck, rebuilding
and replacement of the deck and we just had an application
earlier this evening where we went through this, and we denied
that application. So for myself, I just feel this has got to be
downsized within the limits stated in the code.
MR. HERMAN: Well, I think that with respect to the spirit of
section of the code that relates 1o decks on bluffs, and this
may not be consistent with the Board's, or I should say with
your interpretation, based on the agreement of the rest of the
Board members who were there with this plan, I would hope that
they would retain the agreement. However, and again, just with
respect to what Lori is saying, I think the spirit behind that
section of the code that dissuades or prohibits construction of
decks on bluffs is, has a lot to do with not only safety but the
integrity of the bluff. So if you have a substantial bluff on
Long Island Sound, that is well vegetated and is in stable
condition, the Board and the town wants to discourage somebody
from going out and for purely recreational purposes having
dinner or drinks or whatever, constructing a large deck that
overhangs the edge of the bluff that would threaten to
destabilize the vegetation on the bluff. I don't think there is
anything even remotely similar to that situation here. This is
a bluffthat you could almost jump down. It is a severely
eroded area adjacent to a public roadway where this deck has
always sat in effect seaward of the bluff itself, and has
already been used as a recreational structure for this
condominium associations with dozens and dozens of owners that
use this beach. This is not the whim of one private owner who
wants 1o come out and propose this brand new structure that
threatens the integrity of a well-vegetated bluff. This is a
deck that sits, for all practical purposes, seaward of the
bluff. And there is no environmental condition here that is
threatened by maintaining this deck. In fact we are proposing
to reduce it from four-hundred feet, four-hundred square feet to
100 square feet. And this, my argument with Lori on something
being different has come up before. I mean to that I would say,
okay, well let's propose it to be four-hundred square feet.
That gets the LWRP out of the way because now it's exactly the
same. And then we'll cut it down with you. But I don't want to
to play Stratego between 268 and 275. The purpose of the
meeting last year was to come to a fair and reasonable agreement
where I got out every involved agency person there was on one
day at one time, everyone who devoted time to this and came up
with this agreement, which is now what I have come to the Board
with. What was the purpose of all that now if we are going to
say, well, let's not do that, let's take the use away from the
property owner.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With respect to 275, I just want to note that
Board of Trustees 34 October 20, 2010
we have granted relief on these types of decks. We talked about
a property tonight that we had granted relief before. This deck
has been there for years and years, and that is the type of
situations where we do grant relief. And he is substantially
reducing the size of the deck, so I feel I want to stick with
the agreement that we made and at the time we felt it was doable
and I still feel it is.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I agree. I was out there for that meeting and I
believe this is what we discussed and I believe all agencies and
all folks that were there at the time felt it was a good idea
and a good compromise to what is there. Comparing it to the
deck on a bluff on Soundview that we denied earlier tonight, I
see there to be a substantial difference between that and this,
as you already stated. I also think there is a difference in
what it's being used for. I think it's, you know, how many of
the condos are there, 30, 40 condos, and individual owners have
a right to access their beach. And in fact I think a smaller
structure would probably be too limiting for what it is that
they do. I think it's a great compromise.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: With all due respect, limiting the deck down to,
as the code states, 32-square feet is not limiting their access
to the beach. Their access to the beach is thero through the
stairs. And so the deck has nothing to do, in my mind, this is
just my opinion, with accessibility to the beach. The stairs
allow that. So they have full access to their property, they
have full access to the use of the beach. I'm just trying to
adhere to the code. That's all.
MS. HULSE: I would agree with Dave. I don't think either of
these decks comply with what the code says and there is no
authority in the code where the Trustees can use their
discretion to grant a variance. It's an operation standard that
is in the code.
MR. HERMAN: My only reaction to that is the same one, again. It
seems it's becoming, it seems like the Board is ceasing to
differentiate between what is truly a new project, a new
structure, new construction, versus what is clearly and as laid
out in 268, replacement, rehabilitation or reconstruction of a
facility inkind on the same site, et cetera. My point is that
if the code, if the town has chosen to use language like
"replace," "rehabilitate" and "reconstruct" there is an explicit
acknowledgment that certain structures exist and have existed
since prior to the code that may be replaced, rehabilitated or
reconstructed. And it seems like there is a continuing trend to
say every time somebody takes a pre-existing structure and
completely dismantles it for the purpose of re constructing or
rehabilitating it, it's as if the structure never exists and now
it's a new construction, just as if this was a vacant lot and
now there is new construction. Which means you are stripping
every owner in this town of the vested right of maintaining
preexisting, nonconforming structures that pre-date code. And I
always harken back to the language that is actually in the
Board of Trustees 35 October 20, 2010
original code that ultimately gives all the towns, including
this one, its authority, which is the state wetland law. And
judges have upheld the language in that code that says there is
nothing in Article 25, under New York State, that may allow an
agency to force an owner to remove or prevent them from
replacing, rehabilitating or reconstructing a pre-existing
non-conforming structure that predates the date of the code.
There has to be differentiation by this Board between what is
quite literally new and what is quite literally a replacement.
We should not be punished because we are asking to downsize a
pre-existing, nonconforming structure from four-hundred square
feet to 100 square feet because it's not 32-square feet. It's
arbitrary.
MS. HULSE: But you are making an academic argument and you are
asking them to do something that is against exactly what the
code says and what they are charged with enforcing, the code. I
mean you could make this argument all day long, but the state
requirements, for instance, in the building code, you can't just
replace something that has existed for 50 years. Sometimes
things are upgraded and changed. Sometimes those reasons are
not just environmental but for safety, health and welfare as
well. So you are making a generalized argument because you want
your applicant to get what he wants, but I don't think that's
necessarily --
MR. HERMAN: I'm making the argument, Lori, because in principal,
it's right.
MS. HULSE: I disagree with you as well. Things change. As
Trustees point out all the time. There are new -- they are
more educated now, there are different standards that are in
place, and there are reasons for those. And those could be good
reasons. It's not to divest the property owner of certain rights.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a question. What if they merely move
the existing deck and in other words it would still exist, then
perform ordinary repairs on it which might include a request to
amend it and make it smaller? It seems to me as a body politic
when you meet with all these other groups and try to come to an
accord on how to treat applicants fairly, and then you come to
this point and then you go and say you can't do it, particularly
where it's a very substantial downsizing, it seems on face value
to me you are denying use of property. It seems improper on
face value to me, where you are just making people jump through
more hoops. I mean, they can apply to amend, I assume there is
an existing permit for the structure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Don't make that assumption.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It predates.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It predates so, in other words to move it
would make it a new structure. They could do things more step
wise instead of making people go through more hoops. It seems
there was an attempt here to do the right thing
MS. HULSE: It's not what the code allows. The code does not
allow it.
Board of Trustees 36 October 20, 2010
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So, in other words you are suggesting the
actions of all these groups meeting with an applicant in good
faith should be voided.
MS. HULSE: I'm just telling you what the code says.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I appreciate that. Understood.
TRUSTEE KING: Seems like we have a dilemma.
MR. HERMAN: We are not going to downsize it. So if the Board
wants to deny it, we'll respond. It's just we pushed and pushed
and pushed and at some point it's beyond what is reasonable.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is different than the other application
we discussed earlier in that the other was coming in for an as
built. These people have been trying to work with the Board.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Instead of having a full blown battle on
something like this, this goes to a lot of issues, I almost
think tabling it and discussing with code committee or the
Trustees putting their heads together. I can't see, if we have
a problem with the code here, maybe we have to fix the code
instead of undermining our relationship with individuals who are
trying to work with us.
MR. HERMAN: Lori, could you just read the section of the code
again that we are talking about.
MS. HULSE: You know what, I have given my advice to the Board.
They can do whatever they want. I'm just telling you what the
code says. As you know, Rob, we have been through this numerous
times. It's what the code says.
MR. HERMAN: Can you read the section of code we are talking
about? I just want what the exact language of the code is.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 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.
MR. HERMAN: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's in 275.
MR. HERMAN: So if I could move this far enough seaward, then we
would be completely over the beach and no longer within the
bluff area. That be could possibly be one alternative. We
would have a lesser wetland setback area but we would not be
interfering with the bluff. Does that make more sense?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any other permits that you need
permission from any other agencies?
MR. HERMAN: No, not yet. But again, this was, I actually, since
Karen Graulich's departure from the department, I did speak with
Alexa Fournier again just to verify what had been discussed and
had been assured the DEC would be issuing the permit. Just
because there had a been a lag.
TRUSTEE KING: I think the biggest thing that bothers me,
personally, is that we all met in the field and we all said yes,
this looks like a good idea.
MR. HERMAN: I would say it bothers me as well.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, I was not part of that.
MR. HERMAN: I could go back through my files and I don't recall
Board of Trustees 37 October 20, 2010
which year that language was put in.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 2005.
TRUSTEE KING: But we have legal advice that we should listen to
also. I don't want to ignore that. But, I don't know.
Somebody help me.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we should go for code amendment for
100 square feet. I think 32-square feet, even if you need an
engineering assessment and/or separate vegetation plan, I just
think 32-square feet for stairways and landings is too
confining. Limit it to one landing or one area of 100 square
feet and it seems a recurring theme we are getting hooked on
this with LWRP consistency. I don't know, obviously, like you
said, it's actually arbitrary and it's just a personal feeling
I have, we are getting hooked up on these things and it seems a
10x10 deck is a pretty small deck.
MR. HERMAN: Well, 200 is allowed under Coastal
Erosion, with the presumption that deck is actually on the
bluff. So you've got, in effect, language in a Wetland Code
that is really, I don't know whether call it circumventing or
trumping or whatever, I mean this Board has to judge those two
codes. So just on its face the fact you are allowed 200 square
feet under Coastal Erosion and 32 feet under 275, I mean, based
on what?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Rob, I don't think this is the time to table it
to do a code change. I think if we need to do a code change,
that's something different that we need to talk about. I think
we need to move to this application. I don't want to table this
and do a code change based on this application. I think we need
to move on this application, and if we do do a code change in
the future, then by all means they can come back and amend if
they have to or re-apply or whatever the case may be. So I
think we need to move on and make a decision on this.
MR. HERMAN: So make a motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With all due respect to Lori's opinion, we have
in the past, several times, made, I can think of a couple, I
can't remember the names but I can think of a couple spots in
town where we made relief to the 32-square foot size. One of
them being tonight, that we didn't do it tonight, but the
application was before us.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are talking about an application that we did
not act on tonight.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. We acted, on the Mitchell one, where he
in the past has gotten relief and has a current permit for a
deck larger than 32-square feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For myself, I think we are comparing apples and
oranges. I would like to see if there are no other comments,
that we move on.
TRUSTEE KING: Are we ready to make a motion?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have to close the hearing first.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
Board of Trustees 38 October 20, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I think we need to get this straightened out once
and for all. I'll make a motion to deny the application that
has been submitted.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Role call vote. Trustee Bredemeyer?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Trustee Bergen?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Trustee King?
TRUSTEE KING: Aye.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Trustee Doherty, no. Trustee Ghosio?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Resolution to deny fails.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let somebody else make a motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think that's the end of it, right?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The motion to deny, lost. So now if somebody
else wants to make a motion to approve, they can.
MS. HULSE: Of course.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to table.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For what reason?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: To have further discussion on this matter.
In due recognition of legal counsel and the work of individuals
trying to work together, that we continue a discussion instead
of being confrontational through a no vote, that we work on this
through a medium of discussion, possibly with the code
committee, as a larger principal, not just looking at this one
but looking at this, there is a ripening, to my mind, there is a
very ripe inconsistency between Coastal Erosion Hazard and the
Wetland Act in terms of what they are purporting to do here. I
don't particularly want to rest on an individual who tried to
work with this Board, this kind of problem. I would like to
draw on a principal going forward. And that's my reason.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Motion is on the table. Do we have a second?
(No response).
What happens when we don't have a second?
MS. HULSE: The motion is lost.
TRUSTEE KING: Someone else can make a motion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. Trustee Bredemeyer?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Aye, reluctantly.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Trustee Bergen?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Nay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Trustee King?
TRUSTEE KING: Nay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Ghosio?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aye.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the motion has passed to approve with a
three to two vote.
Board of Trustees 39 October 20, 2010
MR. HERMAN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do we want to address the inconsistency in that?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think in reducing the structure from
four-hundred square feet to 100-square feet brings it into
consistency.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number eight, En-Consultants on behalf of MARY
BETH HENSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct onto existing
two-story, one-family dwelling; dormer additions to the second
story; a one-story addition, covered porch and steps onto the
front side of the house, partially in place of an existing,
raised masonry patio to be removed; a screened porch in place of
an attached garage to be removed from the west side of the
house; and new deck in place on an existing deck to be removed
from the waterside of the house; remove existing hot tub and
concrete pad; and construct a new hot tub and swimming pool.
Located: 3300 Sound Drive, Greenport.
The Board was out there and took a look at this. LWRP has
found it to be consistent, and the CAC moved to support the
application. Is there anybody here who would like to address
this application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants, on behalf of the
applicant. Sounds like we are going well so far so I'll just
say if I can answer any questions the Board has.
TRUSTEE KING: It can only get better, Rob, it can only get
better.
MR. HERMAN: And I hope you appreciated the splendid stake out
that was done by the surveyor, the painted words in the
driveway.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We stepped right on that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The only note from the field inspection were it
the leaders, gutters and drywells per Chapter 236.
MR. HERMAN: I think they are on the site plan. They are. In
fact we even have drainage calculations based on house roof area
and two-inch rainfall. It's underneath the site data chart to
the bottom left-hand corner. There is one 8x8 storm drain that
is shown just to the southeast of the southeast corner of the
pool. There is also a separate backwash drywell provided for
the pool.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Plans are showing a proposed ten-foot non-tuff
buffer as well. Hay bale lines on the plans.
MR. HERMAN: There is a ten-foot non-tuff buffer that exists kind
of in that corner of the property. We are just going to extend
it across.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any questions or comments from the
Board?
(No response).
It was pretty straightforward.
TRUSTEE KING: No, this was an easy one.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Most of it is out of our jurisdiction
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
Board of Trustees 40 October 20, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted, noting that we would like to make sure that drainage
is covered as per Chapter 236 and includes a ten-foot non-turf
buffer that's on the site plans, and that's it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number nine, En-Consultants on behalf of
GOLDSMITH'S BOAT SHOP, INC., requests a Wetland Permit to
maintenance dredge (for ten years) approximately 450 cubic yards
sand/silt spoil from +/-30'x+/-225' inlet channel to marina
basin and place resultant spoil in adjacent upland boat storage
area. Located: 64150 Main Road, Southold.
I inspected this site. I saw the proposed spoil area,
which was a previous spoil area from the last ten-year
maintenance dredge permit that was given. It comes in
consistent with LWRP, however they ask for a silt boom during
the dredging. And the CAC supports the application. Is there
anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants. I just want to hand
up, we actually got the DEC permit today. I know sometimes you
like to have the state permits and conditions for the dredging.
I figure that would impress Dave. I filed it three weeks ago.
Actually the contractor is here. Any problem with getting your
silt curtain out?
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Not a problem.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any questions from the Board?
(No response).
This has obviously been dredged before and it's a privately
owned bottom. So there is no town charge on there. I make a
motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve, subject to silt
boom during dredging.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. GOLDSMITH: Albert Goldsmith, Jr., from Goldsmith's Boat
Shop. I would like to thank the Board for your consideration on
our approval. I appreciate it very much.
TRUSTEE KING: En-Consultants on behalf of ROBERT & CAROL
ABRAHAMS requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 89
linear feet of vinyl bulkhead and a +/-8' return in place of
existing timber bulkhead; backfill with approximately '10 cubic
yards clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source; and
remove and replace (inplace) 3x4' steps. Located: 1300 Mason
Drive, Cutchogue.
Board of Trustees 41 October 20, 2010
This is found exempt from the LWRP, always good news. The
CAC resolved to not support the application. The CAC does not
support the application because the proposed 89-foot bulkhead
was not staked. The Conservation Advisory Council recommends
removal of the bulkhead, installation of Iow sill bulkhead to
reestablish the marsh. In addition, leaders and gutters were
not connected to drywells. So that's their recommendation. Is
there anyone here to speak for or against this application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. The proposed bulkhead is to go in place. Well,
actually maybe that Conservation Advisory Council request will
have more merit than it first seems, as I tell you what I'm
about to tell you. I had spoken with the DEC just a couple of
days ago and, you have seen this before, one I can think of was
Alan Cardinale's bulkhead on Nassau Point. When there was marsh
vegetation up against the base of the bulkhead, the request was
actually to install the new sheathing immediately landward of
the existing bulkhead and then remove the outer bulkhead so as
to minimize as much as possible damage to the marsh. And so
that is actually what we are going to do. Assuming there would
be no objection from this Board 1o stepping the bulkhead
immediately back from where it is now. Which will in fact
actually create additional marsh once that bulkhead is
established.
I think there had also been some question, when we had
spoken in the field, about raising the wall a bit. I went out
tonight on the way here. What I'm going to suggest is raising
the bulkhead probably about six inches, maybe as much as nine
inches, and I'll tell you will why. Because I think -- Dave, I
don't want to misquote you, but I think you had mentioned maybe
going up to the height of the adjacent wall. The wall to the
west is actually about 16 to 17 inches higher than this one at
the top of the cap. Whereas the rest of the property actually
is not that high. That property is also about nine inches or so
higher than this one already. So if we went all the way up to
that height, we have to bring in tremendous amount of fill. And
there is actually not much a slope here toward the water. There
is a slight slope. But if you go to the east side by the town's
right of way, that area over there is also about nine inches
higher. And if you go to, I don't know if I brought my camera.
I took a picture with the intention of showing it to you. If
you are looking toward the neighbor, the bulkhead is up like
this, but the grade is actually retained by railroad ties lower.
And that's about nine inches higher. So I think anything higher
than nine inches is actually going to end up putting this lawn
higher than the adjacent grade and you would end up having
almost a backward slope at that point after you brought in that
kind of volume of fill. So I would say ideally I would ask the
Board to be allowed to be raised six to nine inches. Six inches
would bring it up to the top of the existing dock, which the
contractor had already been contemplating. So based on your
Board of Trustees 42 October 20, 2010
advice, we would just put that into motion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think that is fine, Rob, because we did notice
in the field, there is a slope down to the present top of
bulkhead. And what you are mentioning will address that.
MR. HERMAN: Right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I don't have a problem with that. One
suggestion, because again I don't see it in the description, but
I notice there is an existing flag pole marked on the plans to
be maintained, but I didn't see it in the description. If it
had not been previously permitted, I would just suggest it's
permitted in tonight with this contemplating some type of
approval here this evening of this project.
MR. HERMAN: Yes, it didn't -- you see I'm getting there, Dave.
Now I have it on the plans and I'm showing it to be maintained.
It just didn't rise to the level of the project description.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You're getting there.
MR. HERMAN: But it's within that area, so you are right, we
should, I don't know that I need to do anything, but it should
be included it the language of the permit.
TRUSTEE KING: In the field notes we had a ten-foot non-turf
buffer required.
MR. HERMAN: I think we have that.
TRUSTEE KING: The neighbor, I guess it would be to the west,
where the new plastic bulkhead is, is required to have a 15-foot
non-turf buffer, so we want to stay consistent with the
neighbor. Who by the way has not put it in yet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Isn't this back a little further?
MR. HERMAN: Yes. This house, I think --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the ten-foot would be in line with the 15-foot.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You're right.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a big issue with it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought that's what we had discussed in the field.
MR. HERMAN: We show a ten-foot now, which I thought would kind
of -- I don't know what they required, but it seemed like they
had something that would, maybe it's just on that one end.
TRUSTEE KING: I could live with a ten-foot buffer. Any other comments?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application and
the bulkhead can be raised anywhere between six to nine inches
in height, and ten-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the flag pole.
TRUSTEE KING: And the flag pole.
MR. HERMAN: And also with the change that I'm going to give your
revised plans to show the wall immediately landward of the
existing as is required by the state.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. The bulkhead is to be put in place behind the
existing bulkhead and the existing bulkhead is to be removed.
Board of Trustees 43 October 20, 2010
MR. HERMAN: Right. mean, the new pilings will still be in
effect in the same location or seaward of the existing bulkhead,
but the sheathing will be landward. And it actually seems to work.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have a motion. Do we have a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERMAN: Thank you.
VIII. RESOLUTIONS: - OTHER
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Resolutions, we have a couple of resolutions.
Number one, we have an amendment, it's a simple housecleaning
amendment to a previously resolution on our 9/22 meeting and we
inadvertently put the wrong name on the permit so I would like
to read the correct name. Amend Resolution dated 9/22/10 to read
as follows: Robert Barratt, PE, on behalf of OYSTERPOND
HISTORICAL SOCIETY requests a Wetland Permit for the existing
6x21' concrete dock, install an eight-inch diameter piling
positioned 32' off seaward end to support mooring line pulley,
six-foot wide access steps, and boarding ladder. Located: 1440
Village Lane, Orient.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we have the scallop season resolution,
which I'll read. The Town Board of Trustees opens the following
date to scallop harvesting pursuant to Chapter 219 of the Code
of the Town of Southold. From Monday, November 1, 2010, from
sunrise to sunset through Thursday, March 31,2011, inclusive,
in all Town waters as per Town Code, with the exception of
shellfish and eel grass sanctuaries in Hallock's Bay. Do I have
a second on that?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Point of discussion. Does it specify, is
it open to just recreational for the first couple of weeks?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In the shellfish code, it's the first two weeks
are recreational.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
MR. YAXA: Under the last item.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me make a motion to go off our public
hearings on to regular meetings. We should have done that
before the resolutions.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 44 October 20, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there anyone in the audience who would like
to say anything?
MR. YAXA: Dean Yaxa, Greenport Southold. It's so nice so see
you Trustees again, and your attorney who just flew out. This
is a little bit different. I'm actually here for some guidance
and advice from you. I came down last week or so and got an
application for mooring stake permit, et cetera, in town
controlled waters. I want to get - I want to put or place a
stake or mooring on town-owned land, but it is not controlled
by, the water is not controlled by the town. Okay, it's, I have
a picture of the site. Where I want to tie a dinghy to a stake
or mooring. The pulley system is no good because the water is
turbulent and the boat would sink continuously. It's in Pipers
Cove in Shelter Island Sound. Here is, excuse me, here, that's
my five-foot dinghy on a cement block that I have been using for
five or six years. It's not really super correct because it's
sitting on town property. Okay, but it's not the place to have
a stake out with a pulley on it because of the openness of it.
So I would, I'm willing to change the cement block to a stake or
to a mooring, okay, if --
TRUSTEE KING: It's just to keep the dinghy in place?
MR. YAXA: Yes, and in filling this out, there is only one or two
things here I can answer. Everything else is not applicable.
And my boat is in the background there. It's a five-foot dinghy
that I paddle out in.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the property on the other side?
MR. YAXA: Town beach.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
MR. YAXA: It's about a 60 or 70-foot stretch of town beach at
the end of the read.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What read is it?
MR. YAXA: Silver Sands.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So that beach is maintained by --
MR. YAXA: The town. It's maintained, and everybody thinks of it
as Silver Sands, but what is happening is the trailer park
people are recommending them to go there, and on weekend's
especially, everything happens on weekends, forget about during
the week, and it's getting crowded. Silver Sands maintains that
they rake it and they put sand, pay their own money to put sand
there all the time.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is that sill Silver Sands farm?
MR. YAXA: Correct. They get washed out repeatedly and what they
do is order extra sand and it spills over on to the town property.
TRUSTEE DOHERT¥: Yes, we have given them permission to do that.
MR. YAXA: Sure, good people, the whole thing, but.
TRUSTEE KING: So this area is 60 feet wide.
MR. YAXA: Roughly, yes.
TRUSTEE KING: So it's not a typical road end, not at all.
MR. YAXA: It's not a typical read end. There a split reil fence
that Silver Sands put up there because of the --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's not a Sound beach though, Silver Sands
Board of Trustees 45 October 20, 2010
maintains it as a regulated bathing beach --
MR. YAXA: The frequency of the kayaks and the jet skiers
launching their boats in there and it kind of disrupts a nice
situation they enjoyed for years.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Change is not easily taken sometimes.
MR. YAXA: And they have no problem with that. They, I work in
conjunction with them.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Would they let you put that on their side of the
fence?
MR. YAXA: The problem is on their side of the fence is summer
kayaking and canoeing is becoming popular. So every weekend, the
people come there and keep their kayaks there tied up overnight
or what have you, so it gets to be, for the summer month,
crowded. And actually I'm looking to come into compliance. I'm
not squatting or I am squatting on the town's property but I
just want to be okay, and I'll put a stake there or anchor, but
I want you people to know I'm willing to pay the 25 bucks and
the appropriate fee for the length of the dinghy.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What I think we can do there is to typically
think on it and discuss it further.
MR. YAXA: The reason I came here and give you this is I would be
back here a month from now I would be here doing the same thing
trying to explain it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I have this so it has your information on it.
MR. YAXA: The picture, when you all see it is --
TRUSTEE KING: This is not a typical road end.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll discuss this and get back to you.
MR. YAXA: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll get back to you in a couple of weeks. I
don't know when we'll meet again to discuss it.
MR. YAXA: You have November.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: November 17, is our next time.
MR. YAXA: So if you want to call me or write me by letter, I'll come.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. All right, any other item to discuss?
(No response).
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
Jill I~'oherty, Pr~
Boai'd of Trustees