HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-11/17/2010Jill M. Doherty, President
James F. King, Vice-President
Dave Bergen
Bob Ghosio, Jr.
John Bredemeyer
Town Hall Annex
54375 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southo]d, 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, November 17, 2010
RECEIVED
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, December 8, 2010, at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, December 15, 2010, at 6:00 PM
WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of October 20, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Good evening, everyone, welcome to our November meeting. If
you follow the agenda, we'll go over the postponements. I believe there are only two on
the very last page. Is there another one?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, there are several.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry, I haven't looked at the last minute.
Page five, number 12, 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 1st 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
Board of Trustees 2 November 17, 2010
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: PlO
East End Road, Fishers Island, has been postponed.
Page six, number 13, Catherine Mesiano, Inc., on behalf of PEGGY SCHWARTZ
requests a Wetland Permit to install a 30"x14' ramp and 6x20' floating dock with two 8"
diameter anchor piles. Located: 3210 Little Neck Road, Cutchogue, has been
postponed.
Page six, number 14, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., 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, 3xl 5' hinged
ramp; and 6x20' floating dock secured by two 6"x6" pilings. Located: 315 Fleetwood
Road, Cutchogue, has been postponed.
And page six, number 15, Ocean Consulting on behalf of ALI REZA HOMAYUNI
requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct inplace the existing stairway/walkway down
and across the bluff consisting of a 3x8' walkway, 4x15' walkway, 4x5.5" stairway down
to a 4x13' landing and 4x12' stairway down to beach. Located: 22195 Soundview
Avenue, Southold, is also postponed.
So those applications won't be heard tonight. If you have anything to say, please come
up to the mic and say your name for record. Wayne Galante is here, he's taking the
Minutes. And please keep your comments brief; five minutes or less on the public
hearings.
Our next field inspection is scheduled for Wednesday, December 8, at 8:00 AM.
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our next Trustee meeting will be December 16, 6:00 PM with a
work session at 5:30 PM.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The Minutes for October 20, 2010.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Move to approve.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for October, 2010. A check for
$9,025.60 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the
General Fund.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is the time of year we collect mooring
renewals. That's why that is up nicely.
Board of Trustees 3 November 17, 2010
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for
review.
IlL 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, November 17, 2010, are classified as
Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations and are
not subject to further review under SEQRA.
The following are listed under that.
Ali Reza Homayuni - SCTM#135-1-20
Michael & Gillian Wilson - SCTM#57-1-6
Janet Thorp & Trust U/W/O Francis Thorp - SCTM#38-6-15
Edward & Virginia Thorp - SCTM#37-6-3.3
Joseph Battaglia - SCTM#64-3-3(2)
Peggy Schwartz - SCTM#103-9-12
Anita Brush - SCTM#128-4-18
Harvey & Robert Sladkus - SCTM#128-2-1
Julie Anderson & Anne Adriance - SCTM#111-14-30
Luke & Rita Licalzi - SCTM#70-4-46.1
John & Valerie Kramer - $CTM#70-4-45.3
Selim & Judith Samaan - SCTM#111-9-10
Steven & Olga Tenedios - SCTM#23-1-14.1
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a motion on that?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
MR. STANKEVICH: George Stankevich. I object.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is not a public hearing.
MR. STANKEVICH: I understand that. I have a jurisdictional objection.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Under SEQRA?
MR. STANKEVICH: I believe, yes. I believe the Tenedios portion of these should be
dealt with after our public hearing because a number of factors will be brought up that
will indicate at this time you do not have jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That doesn't really have to do with the SEQRA
determination.
MR. STANKEVICH: Yes, it does. You don't have jurisdiction at this time to deal with it.
And I'll make that argument in detail at the appropriate time, so I just ask you to withhold
that portion of your proposed motion regarding Tenedios until the end of the meeting.
MS. MOORE: Mr. Stankevich always comes in with arguments that
have no merit. This being one of them. We have an application
where the Board has to actually act on SEQRA before they can act
on the decision. The determination of non-significance is
because it's a Type II action, therefore no further SEQRA is
Board of Trustees 4 November 17, 2010
required. That then leads to the public hearing which in this
case I think we have an amendment -- we have a public hearing
for the garage, but an amendment.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll stop you there. Thank you. What is the
feeling of the Board? My feeling is that this is a SEQRA
determination and whether it is jurisdictional,
non-jurisdictional, approved, disapproved, the SEQRA
determination can be made.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I agree.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I move we include this with the rest of
them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The gentleman's objection is on the
record. I would move that we approve item three, State
Environmental Quality Reviews as stated.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We try to move these along, the ones we
reviewed and are straightforward, basically, you know, easy
applications, so Ill make a motion to approve numbers one
through four. They are all either consistent or exempt with
LWRP, and we have all reviewed these applications, as I said.
They read as follows:
Number one, Stanley Skrezec III on behalf of GAYLE AREVlAN
requests an Administrative Permit to install three leaching
pools for the existing septic system. Located: 165 Bayview
Avenue, Southold.
Number two, Catherine Mesiano, Inc., on behalf of BETTY
SULLIVAN requests an Administrative Permit to construct a
second-story addition and two-story addition to the existing
single-family dwelling. Located: 380 Inlet Lane, Greenport.
Number three, GreenLogic on behalf of FREDERICK B. POLLERT
requests an Administrative Permit to install 10kw solar panels
onto the roof on the existing dwelling. Located: 375 Lighthouse
Lane, Southold.
And number four, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of
ROBERT & KARLENE CALl requests an Administrative Permit to
construct a new addition with covered porches and interior
renovations. Located: 580 Old Salt Road, Mattituck.
So I move to approve one through four.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You might want to split out four. I see we
may have to deal with it on the agenda. Did I get it wrong?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's number five.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, I transposed it. Sorry.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have a second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five, Patricia Moore, Esq., on behalf of
Board of Trustees 5 November 17, 2010
STEVEN & OLGA TENEDIOS requests an Administrative Permit to
located a picket fence along the seaward side of the dwelling
and for the existing landscaping, including the removal of
bramble and weeds in order to plant natural vegetation. Located:
17327 Main Road, East Marion.
This is inconsistent with LWRP. Lori is on the way. This
application was approved a couple of years ago. The house was
built and there was a violation issued on this property, and
that's what brings this into play. The area where the fence is
was not supposed to be cleared. As a understand it, the
violation has not been taken care of.
MS. MOORE: No, it was. Yes, it was. It was actually resolved
last week. The document was signed and Lori and I, we are fine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have not gotten notice of that. Hopefully
Lori will be here and --
MS. MOORE: When Lori comes she can confirm it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, this is not a public hearing. This is on
for Administrative Permit. We went out there and the fence and
the clearing are in our jurisdiction, therefore it does need a
permit. What is the Board's feeling on this?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know I went out and looked at this with the
Board. Not by myself, but with the Board. And to be honest with
you, this one really upset me. We were pretty clear in when we
gave the original permit, what we gave the original permit for.
And there was a whole, it was a good deal of vegetation, natural
vegetation that was not to be removed because it was not
requested in the tirst permit to be removed. And it has been
removed. A fence has been put up. Irrigation has been put in
right down to, as well as sod, and it really upsets me. Because
this was not what I felt we approved and should not be there.
So for my self, personally, not only do I think this should be
denied, but I think this fence should be removed. I think the
sod should be removed. I think the irrigation should be removed
and I think natural vegetation should be planted within our
jurisdiction as approved in the first permit, the original permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments?
TRUSTEE KING: I'm inclined to agree with David.
MS. MOORE: If I could say something, briefly.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me just -- Jay, do you have a comment?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, because I was not a member of this Board
so the prior condition is not one I'm familiar with.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Pat?
MS. MOORE: Yes, thank you. The original permit was dealing, was
based on the construction phase, okay. There was a limit of
clearing that was part of the construction. My client should
not certainly have put up that fence. It's a picket fence, so
it actually provides some privacy from certainly was an issue
earlier during your work session that people want, waterfront
people want to the have some privacy to limit the activity from
the public beach, particularly when you have the public beach
there right, the state beach to the east, and then you have the
Board of Trustees 6 November 17, 2010
common part area for this subdivision right within the boundary
lines of the same property. Planting, historically, has been,
the Board has not objected, and I sent letters in the past, in
advance, had my client asked me I would have said, well, to
protect you, I would certainly have written a letter to you and
said that we want to add vegetation, may we do that. And
routinely I get a letter back saying you are not prohibited from
planting. The plantings that, the plants that he planted there
are native, drought tolerant. The area you call sod is just,
the backyard but you've got the planting bed which is probably
about ten feet in width of planting bed with the plants, the
landscape plants.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me interrupt you, Pat. The problem is not
that he planted. Because that's exempt from the code. You can
plant. The problem is he ripped up everything and disturbed the
ground. There are limits of clearing and it clearly shows the
hay bale line and he went beyond that.
MS. MOORE: But understand that when you say ripping, you have
bramble and you have invasive vines and so on, so in order to
plant good plants you've got to make an area clear for those
plants to grow, otherwise it would make no sense.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But it has to come to us first to ask if he can
do that.
MR. MOORE: Absolutely. No doubt. And that's why we are here. And
you punished him. You issued a violation. He paid the fine.
He's here for a permit. But as far as punishing what is the
ultimate end product, it is a beautifully planted buffer, on the
other side of the fence are all of the natural plants that grow
along -- we have, it's not a top of a bluff, it's an incorrect
term. It's kind of a landward vegetation of the beach area. So
those plants are actually thriving because what the landscaper
did is cleaned out all the vines that grow in between it and
allow them to get full sun and they are really hardy, beautiful
buffer area. So all the things he did, I understand how you
feel and he apologizes for the process because he was not aware
that plants and the fence would be a problem, because
historically, you know, from the numerous applications I have
made, he's always come in for permits prior to acting on this
property. So we have multiple history of permits. So he has
been adequately punished. But the plants that are there now,
the vegetation that is there is thriving, so it doesn't make sense.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, I think we need to move on this.
But we really need to wait to see when Lori gets here, do we
need to be notified by her that this was taken care of.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. We talked, my office and her office
talked with each other all week long.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: She usually notifies us, and the last word we
got from her the other day is it was not settled.
MS. MOORE: Okay, I don't know why, but I'll talk to her.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we need to confer with her. is the Board
ready, do you want to make a motion on this, do you want to
Board of Trustees 7 November 17, 2010
table it until Lori gets hera? But we need to move on it one
way or another.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We can't act on it not knowing that the
violation has been resolved. Let's just table it and wait for Lori.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. I'll just confirm it with her. My goal
is to get it all done prior to this date and particularly
resolving it without a fight was in good faith in order to have
the vegetation approved, so I feel somewhat surprised of the
Board's attitude that I'm hearing because --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's just some members of the Board. We are
in discussion of it and I don't, I'm looking for the --
MS. MOORE: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The inconsistency on the --
MS. MOORE: That didn't make sense at all, but his consistency
and inconsistency, to me, sorry, never really quite made sense, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't see the inconsistency report at the
moment. When we find it, I can read it into the record.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think I'll make a motion to table this until
we can confer with Lori, the attorney, on this.
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 amendments. Again, these were all basic office
procedures. We have reviewed every file, inspected everything.
They are listed as follows:
Number one, ROBERT JAKLEVlC requests a One-year Extension
to Wetland Permit #6999 as issued on November 19, 2008, and
Amended on April 22, 2009. Located: 900 Old Harbor Road, New
Suffolk.
Number two, Amend Administrative Permit #6104A issued to
CHRIS RIVERA to allow for a seasonal split-rail fence 210' from
the southeast survey marker seaward. Located: 250 Sound Beach
Drive, Mattituck
Number three, MARK BAXTER requests an Amendment to Wetland
Permit #7096 to reflect the revised footprint of the proposed
single-family dwelling. Located: 5805 Main Bayview Road,
Southold.
Number four, Donald Salvitti on behalf of SHERRI KELLY
requests an Amendment to Administrative Permit #7415A to reflect
the additional windows, slider and gable layover, and all as
depicted on the plans received on 10/25/2010. Located: 500 Deep
Hole Drive, Mattituck.
Number five, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of MICHAEL &
HEATHER GILL requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #6854 to
eliminate the second-story addition; convert existing attached
Board of Trustees 8 November 17, 2010
garage to habitable space; add 22x25' garage; and change the
location of the previously approved driveway and new septic
system. Located: 1325 Lupton's Point Road, Mattituck.
Number six, En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of ROSE L.
MILAZZO REVOCABLE TRUST requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit
#7054 to raise the first floor elevation of the approved
dwelling from EL 10' NGVD 1929 to EL 13' NGVD and to modify the
sanitary system design accordingly. Located: 1165 Island View
Lane, Southold.
And number seven, JMO Environmental Consulting Services on
behalf of MARTHA PAUL requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit
#7381 to charge the name from Martha Paul (Nassau Point Club
Properties, Inc.) to Martha Paul. Located: 930 West Cove Road,
Cutchogue.
And all of these, one through seven, rll make a motion to
approve.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES).
VI. APPLICATIONS FOR MOORING & DUCK BLIND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Applications for mooring and duck blind
permits. We have one, and it's for John Bredemeyer requests a
Duck Blind Permit in Hallock's Bay. Access: Public/Private.
This is an area where a duck blind has been before. We
inspected it. rll make a motion to approve this application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
TRUSTEE
please.
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
BREDEMEYER: Do a role call vote, I have to abstain,
DOHERTY: Bob?
GHOSIO: Yes.
DOHERTY: Me, yes. Jim?
KING: Aye.
DOHERTY: Dave?
BERGEN: Yes.
DOHERTY: John?
BREDEMEYER: Abstain
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: rll make a motion to go on public hearings.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: rll second that motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
AMENDMENTS TO WETLAND PERMITS AND COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number one, MICHAEL & GILLIAN WILSON request an
Board of Trustees 9 November 17, 2010
Amendment to Wetland Permit ~L5438 to change the dock from 20x4'
to 30x4', add a four-foot fiberglass open-grate walkway along
the bulkhead and designate a ten-foot non-turf buffer landward
of the walkway. Located: 590 Tarpon Drive, Southold.
The Board went out there and looked at this. This is
consistent with LWRP, and the Conservation Advisory Council does
not support the application because of previous non-compliance
with the requirement of non-disturbance buffer.
This property has a non-disturbance buffer as opposed to a
non-turf buffer. Is there anyone here to speak on this?
MR. WILSON: Michael Wilson. We are asking the Trustees to
approve the same changes that the DEC recently approved. We are
keeping, as the DEC has requested, the sea grass between the
bulkhead and the retaining wall. The DEC has approved beyond
that for a ten-foot non-turf buffer, part of which will be sea
grass and we request that you approve that, too. Basically,
that's it. I don't understand the violation.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What do you mean?
MR. WILSON: I thought you mentioned there was a violation.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They are talking about previous, the history
MR. WILSON: There was once a violation.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. The previous non-compliance with the
requirement of a non-disturbance buffer.
MR. WILSON: Well, what had happened was -
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me for interrupting but I think that was
their reasoning for not supporting it, but that really does not
come into play with our review, so we can --
MR. WILSON: That was a problem with the agent, the person that
was doing the bulkhead for us said he would get everybody's
approvals for a change to a 30 foot buffer. We, he got the DEC
approval. He forgot to get you. Then he came in at the next
meeting and said, yes, it was my fault, it was not the Wilson's
fault. I should have come in. And retroactively you approved
the changes basically because he needed to get heavy equipment
in and didn't have a choice about changing the size of the buffer.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have a copy of the DEC approval you are
talking about?
MR. WILSON: I submitted it to you, with the request. I can give
you another copy, if you would like it, but I did submit it,
didn't I, Lauren, the request? I gave the whole thing.
MS. STANDISH: (Perusing).
MR. WILSON: Basically I have --
MS. MOORE: Michael, do you want mine?
MR. WILSON: Yes. Thank you, Pat.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have it.
MR, WILSON: Okay. I basically have just asked for exactly what
they approved.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: (Perusing).
MR. WILSON: I was attempting to ask for exactly what the DEC has
asked for.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: (Perusing). I'm just trying to find the plan that the
Board of Trustees 10 November 17, 2010
DEC refers to in our file. Because that's a different plan than, a different
dated plan than we have. So I wanted to see if the plans are the same.
MR. WILSON: That is exactly as they sent it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: (Perusing). Okay
MR. WILSON: I submitted an original plan.
TRUSTEE KING: They gave you an approval of an open bay walkway.
MR. WILSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: And then they approved the ten-foot non-turf
buffer behind that first bulkhead. Between the two bulkheads is
a non-turf buffer.
MR. WILSON: Well, it's six feet. Roughly six or seven feet
between the bulkhead and the retaining wall. So the plan is to
put, they said put the fiberglass walkway up against the
bulkhead. That would cover some of the sea grass, but then the
rest of the sea grass would stay there. And after the walkway
you start the ten-foot buffer. Some of that would be sea grass
and the rest would be above the retaining wall. So it's a total
of four feet plus ten feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just for the record, the gateway, grated
walkway, the DEC approved says having a minimum of 60% open
space.
MR. WILSON: Yes, 60% open-grate walkway. I asked, of course,
for the solid one but they said no, I have to have the open-grate.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Now, the non-disturbance buffer, Jim, do you
remember when that was placed on this property?
TRUSTEE KING: When the house was built.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: By who? By the Trustees?
TRUSTEE KING: The Trustees. I thought there was a DEC
non-disturbance buffer, too.
MS. MOORE: Maybe I could help. I actually did the old permits
prior to the house being constructed. It was 1990s, late 90s.
I was just asking him because I don't have that file with me. I
submitted the same plan to the Trustees and the DEC and we had
the vegetative buffer but called it non-disturbance because at
that time that was the only type of buffer both agencies were
really regulating. They were not making, recognizing a
vegetated buffer in some instances particularly a dredged canal
made more sense than a non-disturbance buffer. So that
terminology was used and applied throughout, and I think that's
been kind of a sore point for the community and certainly how
the property has looked. So if that clarifies it for you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we need to see what is in the original
permit for the house. I don't know if we have that here tonight.
MS. MOORE: I thought I saw that attached.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I'm saying, just dealing with
non-disturbance buffer right now, not with the dock.
MS. MOORE: No, it's here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Good luck reading that. The font is like point
three.
MS. MOORE: This is a replacement. The 2001 that is attached is
Board of Trustees 11 November 17, 2010
the replacement of the veneer bulkhead. Remove and replace,
inplace, certain, 115 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead.
That was what, that was in 2001. The house construction was, as
I said, in the '90's.
MR. WILSON: We bought the land in the '90's, house construction
actually finished in 2000.
MS. MOORE: No, the permit was before you bought. Because it was
subject to permits.
MR. WILSON: Yes, that's true.
MS. MOORE: I mean the important part of the non-disturbance here
are the wetland grasses, that you have a picture of it, there
are two tiers. You have the upper tier which is the property,
then you have the lower tier that has the vegetation, which is
what floods and really is the productive area for the canal, to
keep the canal clean. So that's, the important vegetation here
is that vegetation. Because the non-disturbance vegetation or
buffer area, the rest non-turf areas, you have typically looked
at for controlling drainage. You don't want to have storm water
drainage or storm water runoff carry itself into the canal.
At this point, well, when he built the house, the drywells
and gutters were put in, so there is no runoff from the house.
And the, everything else is being captured prior to coming into
the canal. So I think what he is suggesting is a non-turf.
MR. WILSON: Yes. Actually you'll probably hear from our
neighbors who regard our backyard as an eyesore. It would be
much easier if it be could be a non-turf buffer throughout so
that we could put something in that was not just left to run
wild, which causes our neighbors distress.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll say when we went out to take a look at the
site, while we were there, I did note that the surrounding
properties are much more developed, of course, than yours are,
the bulkheads and non-turf buffers.
MR. WILSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And I turned to one of the other Trustees and
said, as I look at this, I wonder if we are being fair if we
were to deny this. Which is something I happen to consider in
most of the decisions I make anyway. And it was pointed out to
me that while it may not seem fair, having them keep it the way
it is, that this non-disturbance area had been established prior
to the construction of the house. In other words, I don't know
if you were the one who built it or whatever.
MR. WILSON: Yes, I was.
TRUSTEE GHO$10: You knew the non-disturbance buffer was a
condition of you doing what you did on the property. So the
question of fairness, to me, really doesn't come into play then.
MR. WILSON: The only thing I would say is I had no idea that I
would not be able to do any maintenance and therefore the
property would look the way it is, with invasive species moving
in, invasive grasses moving in, and it just looks like a mess.
And it just doesn't seem that that is appropriate for the
neighborhood.
Board of Trustees 12 November 17, 2010
MS. MOORE: And I'll actually take fault for that because I did
the permit work and I'm telling you in the '90's, we didn't
have, or at least the applications as I recall, because time
flies when you are having fun, but I don't recall
non-disturbance. We didn't talk about non-turf. Non-turf kind
of came in in the 2000 ere when we got more refined and
understood what the purpose of that area was for. And new
administrations started seeing that, again, the fairness in how
it looks and let's take it property by property rather than a
blanket non-disturbance throughout. So I think over time we
have gotten better in how we regulate each property on its own.
And certainly I will take blame for the fact they accepted a
non-disturbance, but at the time when we were going through the
permitting process, that was the terminology.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The only reason I mention, I want to point out
that it does, it makes it kind of a conundrum for me because I
understand what you would like to do, and I don't necessarily
have a problem with that, in general. But I also have to, do I
want to overturn another Board's decision on a non-disturbance
area. That's what it boils down for me. I don't know about
anybody else.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with you, Bob
MS. MOORE: It's really not overturning. Every Board and every
year, you learn. If that were the case then you would be
approving extremely long docks with outdated material because
that was a permit that was issued in the past and you honor old
permits because they were issued in the past. But every year,
every application that comes before you, you consider and you
look under the current knowledge that you have on materials and
condition, so I don't look at it as overturning what another
Board has done, I think it's looking at the facts and the
scenario in front of you and I wish we knew in the 90s what we
know today, t think every application, if you go back to the
90s is a completely different application from when you come in
today. You can't count on whatever permit you've gotten then to
be absolutely the same today. You impose buffers when you
didn't impose any then, you know.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there anybody here that -- I would be curious
to know is there anybody here who wants to speak against this?
MS. MOORE: I think everybody here is in favor.
MS. STARKEY: May I say a word? I'm Gayle Starkey, I live in the
house next door to the Wilson's. And all along we have been
very disturbed at the way his yard looks. You mention you went
out and looked. Because our yard is adjacent and across the
canal are well groomed, we don't have any runoff, they have been
established before the Wilson's moved in, and we could not
understand the ruling when it took place in the first place and
we look at this as a chance to correct that situation, if it's
possible, and keep his house in accordance with the rest of us.
We put a petition and pictures in the file of his backyard and
the Maino's backyard, which is across the canal, and ours, which
Board of Trustees 13 November 17, 2010
is adjacent, and I think you can see the comparisons there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me just touch on what you said. The reason
why the previous Board put that non-disturbance area is because
the science behind it. And since the other houses were built,
science came up that you need more of a buffer. And that's why
that was done; because they have learned, we learned over the
years. So all the other houses were built prior to this, so.
MS. STARKEY: And I think that's what Ms. Moore is talking about
MS. MOORE: But I would say that's not true because the
application, the Maino's and others that have come in, you had
the opportunity to impose non-disturbance buffers but you
realized it was not necessary.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But we made it wider buffers.
MS. MOORE: Wider buffers but non-turf.
MS. HULSE: I'm sorry, I have to interrupt. He's trying to take
a record and this is not going to work. This lady has been
recognized. She has the floor. She is speaking. And maybe we
can wait until after she is finished.
MS. STARKEY: The only other point I want to make, the Maino's
had to re-do their bulkhead last year and gotten entirely
different directions how they could.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, because their area was disturbed
already, so it can't be a non-disturbed area if it's already disturbed.
MS. STARKE¥: It can't be non-disturbed if they have to disturb
it again.
TRUSTEE DOHERT¥: Right. And we did widen their buffer, at that
time.
I would like to move off this and go on to other parts of
the application for a moment, if I could. I don't think the
Board had any problem with the 4x30 dock that still fits within
our code. How do you feel about the fiberglass open-grate
walkway on the lower bulkhead, on top of those grasses?
The DEC, as I said, has it 60% open-grate, which is pretty
open. It just gives it a harder surface they can walk on and
the grasses will come through it. I don't particularly have a
problem if it's built like that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we talked in the field of a four-foot
path and this, in my mind is a little better than we what we
talked about in the field because it will allow for vegetation
to grow through it. So for myself, I don't have a problem with
that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: How do you maintain that open-grate walkway
as far as vegetation? Does it get cut with a lawnmower or do
you use pesticides on it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The grass, when it comes through and doesn't
get cut.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If it's American beach grass how do you walk
on it? I don't understand. I'm a little conflicted as far as
the plan with how you deal with that. That's why I said, if we
have American beach grass there existing now, if you put a
walkway on it, you'll have beach grass coming up through it a
Board of Trustees 14 November 17, 2010
foot, two foot high.
MR. WILSON: If I may interject. It was suggested to me I could
put like a broom handle underneath it just to stop it when the
grass came up so I would be able to walk on it. Not cutting it,
just keeping it from coming through. Because I want my
grandchildren to be safe, too.
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to say something.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure.
TRUSTEE KING: I was on the Board when this was approved the
first go around. This was a completely undeveloped lot. That's
why the 50 foot non-disturbance buffer was put in place. We
continued to this date with undeveloped lots, most times with 50
foot non-disturbance, whether it's fresh water or tidal. If we
start changing this around now we'll have applicants coming with
non-disturbance areas where they'll want to go in and plant a
lawn. I think we are opening an awful can of worms with this.
MS. MOORE: I don't think anybody is suggesting turf. I think
everybody has been saying make it non-turf. Which clearly keeps
the pesticides consistent with what you wanted. I think the
problem here is calling it non-disturbance, because it means
it's just unruly.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It can't be disturbed.
MS. MOORE: It can't be disturbed, obviously.
TRUSTEE KING: That was the whole idea of it. Leave it alone.
MS. MOORE: Well, it's not too easy to live in a neighborhood
that is completely developed and live with a house that has a
non-disturbance --
TRUSTEE KING: Like I said, this was a completely undeveloped lot
when this first took place.
MS. MOORE: On a manmade canal. So whether it made sense at the
time or not, here we are, it doesn't make sense practically.
The neighborhood thinks it looks terrible. My client thinks it
looks terrible. I say my client. My friend.
TRUSTEE KING: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
MS. MOORE: Well, I don't know how you live. Your property is on
the creek, you have docks, and you have things, you are a
Iobsterman, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we need to --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jill, I thought there was somebody else who
wanted to make a comment.
MS. MAILER: Virginia Mailer. I live next to the Maino's. We
have made a beautiful spot. They were allowed to move back
further and I see no reason why the Wilson's can't move it back
further, have a wall put in the same as the Maino's have. Make
your buffer, if you wish it, 50 foot back, and put some decent
looking plants instead of poison ivy and everything else, sumac,
whatever you want there. But who wants their grandchildren
running through poison ivy and everything else. I think that is
absolutely inconsiderate of the Board to allow them not to pull
out weeds and overgrown things that destroy their children and
grandchildren. Thank you.
Board of Trustees 15 November 17, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. What is the distance from this
bulkhead to here? Because that's where the buffer is, the
non-disturbance buffer end there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I believe the gentleman said that's seven feet
so it would be 43 feet left from the retaining wall landward to
the edge of the what is currently the non-turf buffer.
MR. WILSON: Plus or minus.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Plus you have the four-foot path, right? Then
you have the non-turf. That would leave us with 36 feet of
non-disturbance area. So what about as far as a compromise?
Maybe we can give him a ten foot to make nice or whatever, as a
non-turf area plus the four-foot flow-thru and then the rest has to be
non-disturbed. Then at least we can have a decent compromise.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Non-disturbance or non-turf?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It would be non-turf for the 14 feet, then after
that it would have to be, you know, I'm just throwing this out.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I think these comments should be on the
record, also. So, Bob, what you are saying is it should be 14
feet of non-turf from the very first bulkhead landward, then
from that 14 foot line to the 50 foot line would be
non-disturbance. Is that what you are saying?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm offering that up for discussion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just want to make it clear.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is that something you would consider?.
MR. WILSON: It doesn't solve my neighbor's problems in that it
looks a mess. And it will continue to look a mess. That's -- I
personally do not, I mean there may be some science, but if I
have a non-turf buffer, which means I'm not going to have
something there that I could possibly maintain slightly, that to
me is a lot different than a non-disturbance buffer where it
just has to become overgrown and look terrible and the neighbors
don't like it just as much as I don't like it. So if you can
make it non-turf. That I think would be good because that would
give me an opportunity to do something that would look nice for
us and the neighbors.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I was going to suggest for the
Board. What do you think about the whole entire non-disturbance
area, make it a non-turf area and ask him to come in with a
planting plant before we even come to a decision.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That makes a lot of sense, and some
consideration for minimum heights, in other words vegetative
heights, that have to be maintained and a comprehensive
maintenance plan that might include removal of certain exotics
so we don't get it clear cut and it doesn't turn into turf.
MR. WILSON: I don't know whether I should have mentioned this or
not mentioned this. I do have an Administrative Permit to move
some of the bushes, that I have not implemented yet. But that
is not, I can change that permit if you like to be consistent
with what Mr. Bredemeyer said.
Board of Trustees 16 November 17, 2010
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the Chair suggested to come in with
comprehensive plan. I think that makes a lot of sense. If you
are going to withdraw a notion of a non-disturbance buffer, it
should be looked at fairly comprehensively.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we table this and you can come up
with a planting plan for that whole entire area, not just the
ten feet. We can review, we do not have the house permit with
us now. It's in the office. We can review that and maybe
review the Minutes of that to see, you know, how that developed,
and we can look into it more and then discuss it next month.
MR. WILSON: The house does have drywells around all of the pipes
that come down.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Leaders and gutters, yes.
MR. WILSON: And I don't have any flooding there or anything like
that, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we table it. You can come up with a
planting plan and a maintenance plan, submit that to us, we'll
do further review of our records and we'll finish discussing it
next month.
MR. WILSON: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I'll make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to go off the public
hearings and back on to Administrative Permits. Do I have a
second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Administrative permits, number five, Patricia
Moore, Esq., on behalf of STEVEN & OLGA TENEDIOS requests an
Administrative Permit to locate a picket fence along the seaward
side of the dwelling and for the existing landscaping, including
the removal of bramble and weeds in order to plant natural
vegetation. Located: 17327 Main Road, East Marion.
Lori, we discussed this before. First of all, was the
violation finalized?
MS. HULSE: Do you have it.'?
MS. MOORE: I didn't know you wanted it today. It's signed. I
have my client here. We signed it and today we were talking to
your office. As to did I hand deliver it to court directly or
whether I sent it to you.
MS. HULSE: It has to come back to me.
MS. MOORE: It's in the mail now. It went in the mail today.
MS. HULSE: It's in the mail.
MS. MOORE: I don't know if I have it in my file. I'll swear as
an officer of the court and my client is here, right here, and
he'll swear that it's been signed and put in the mail. So it
was revolved last week, as a matter of fact.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that sufficient enough for you, Lori, or do
Board of Trustees 17 November 17, 2010
you need to actually see it?
MS. HULSE: That's fine, I'll take Pat at her word.
MS. MOORE: I would not lie. All right, back to the issue at hand.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If I could just read the LWRP. What Mark did
is he did one LWRP for the whole property. And pertaining to
the Administrative Permit, it's inconsistent, and it says
maintain buffers to ensure the adverse effects of adjacent or
nearby development are avoided. Maintain buffer to achieve high
filtration efficiency of surface runoff. Avoid permanent or
unnecessary disturbance within buffer area. Maintain existing
indigenous vegetation within buffer areas pursuant to Chapter
268. That's why it's inconsistent.
MS. MOORE: Okay. If I could, again, I already pointed out, we
actually created, voluntarily, a vegetative buffer. That's what
we want to keep. The code allows people to put up fences within
50 feet of the wetlands. We were, I don't know, the survey said
it, off the top of my head, I think it's 80 feet from the wetlands,
I think it is. Sorry, I was up and down so many times.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What is 80 feet from the wetlands?
MS. MOORE: The picket fence. All we are talking about here is
the picket fence and vegetation.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just didn't know what you meant.
MS. MOORE: Sorry, I put it back in my box. What I did is rather
than rely, because there was some confusion. I had Mark
Schwarz's drawings, so I actually had my client update his
survey so we would have the exact location of the picket fence,
and you can see it runs landward of the coastal erosion hazard
line. And the vegetation actually runs, I would say
approximately along the coastal erosion hazard line, the natural
vegetation. It's a big, I don't know what kind of plants they
are. They have reddish stems. I don't know. But it's natural,
that was there before, so.
MS. HULSE: Is this an Administrative Permit?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, this is an Administrative Permit.
TRUSTEE KING: Under resolutions.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is it Rosa Rugosa, maybe?
MS. MOORE: No, Rosa Rugosa is prickly. It's not a prickly plant.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Pat, I think we need to -- let me just ask Lori
a couple of questions. So the application, the violation was
taken care of, so we can move on this. Can we, we can approve
part of it and deny part of it, if we wish to.
MS. HULSE: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because I, I'm kind of thinking the fence
should not be there. And my opinion, I didn't want to see the
vegetation taken down. It was, it was and is nicely planted
now, so to take all that up and disturb it again, it doesn't
make sense to me at this point. However, the vegetation that is
to the west that was not cleared down, I don't want to see
touched. Because all that is very high. So I would not mind, I
would put before the Board that we maybe approve the vegetation
that is there, the lawn that is there, but not approve the
Board of Trustees 18 November 17, 2010
picket fence. That's my motion that I want to make.
MS. MOORE: I just want to --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me.
MS. MOORE: I'm sorry.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have a motion.
MS. MOORE: I have a client that is upset here behind me.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is not a public hearing. I'm not being
rude, I'm just -
MS. MOORE: I know. I think part of the problem is it's a picket
fence.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have a motion on the floor.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, is that motion open to discussion?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I respectively disagree. I think what has
happened here is this Board approved a house and a project.
Including a house. A project, let's call it. And did not even
consider, because it was not requested, for any of that natural
-- tall, natural thick vegetation to be removed. And now the
applicant did it so that he could have a very nice view. So he
could have a very nice yard. And now he's coming back to us and
asking to us to approve this after the fact. And I'm sorry, but
I feel that, as I said earlier, that not just the picket fence
should had been removed. The sod should be removed. The
irrigation system in that area should be removed and if there is
vegetation that is there is natural, great, leave it there and
let it grow up and maybe add to it some other natural vegetation
that will grow in where you are removing the sod. But I do not
feel that just saying to somebody, okay, remove your fence is
maintaining, environmentally maintaining what this Board
approved originally. That's just my own feeling.
MS. MOORE: It's just--
MS. HULSE: Them is a motion on the floor. There is no more
comment.
MS. MOORE: I understand but there is a misunderstanding of
facts.
MS. HULSE: There is no comments, Pat.
MS. MOORE: But this was --
MS. HULSE: Pat, stop. There is a motion on the floor. There is
no public comment at this time.
MS. MOORE: I want to clear up facts.
MS. HULSE: This is not being taken into the record, Pat.
MS. MOORE: The facts are wrong.
MS. HULSE: You can't speak at this point. I'm sorry. You can't
speak at this point. It's not appropriate.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Is there a second on the motion?
TRUSTEE KING: No, it's still discussion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What do other members feel? I have a motion on
the floor.
TRUSTEE KING: How much of the sod do you want to see removed?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Back to -- well, when we were out in the field,
we went -- when I say "we," it was Jill and I, went and measured
Board of Trustees 19 November 17, 2010
the distance, and I know on this survey I'm looking here, and
it's dated, stamped received in our office November 3, 113 feet
goes all the way up to the house. You back that up about 13
feet and a lot of the lawn is in our jurisdiction. Obviously we
can only work on what is in our jurisdiction. And I think
within 100 feet there, we can go out and look at it again but
anything within our jurisdiction there should be, the lawn
should be removed, irrigation should be removed. Allow the
natural plants that he put in to stay, so they'll grow
naturally, and the picket fence to be removed.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's fine. Originally you said to rip up all
that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. I did. And I'm amending that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I can amend my motion to say any area that
is within 100 feet of our jurisdiction to be planted, sod
removed and be planted with natural vegetation, and the fence to
be removed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I also stated the irrigation system.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the irrigation system that is in that area.
MS. MOORE: Doesn't the irrigation water the plants that are
there? You have a drought area.
MS. HULSE: There is a motion on the table, Jill. It either has
to be withdrawn or make a new motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a second on my motion?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Which one? I'm sorry.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The new motion that I have is to --
MS. HULSE: Okay, we'll withdraw the first motion. Let's make a
new motion now. What is the new motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The new motion is to remove the fence, remove
any sod and irrigation that is within the Trustees' jurisdiction
and plant with native plants. And leave the plantings that are
there already and further plant with native plants in our jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a problem with that because
unconsolidated beaches within the jurisdiction of the Trustees
and when I was out there taking photographs for the Board, I
believe the unconsolidated beach material is extremely close to
the fence. I'm not really sure where that line might strike.
So I think it might be wise to have the Board table the matter
and take a look at the conditions in the field.
TRUSTEE KING: 100 feet from the Spring high water mark puts us
ten feet inside.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's a point certain.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: So it's ten feet inside of the fence.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not that much.
TRUSTEE KING: This is 100 feet, Dave. And this is the fence.
So if we remove all sod along there, ten feet inside of the
fence, all sod would have to be removed.
TRUSTEE KING: Again, that would fall in line with what I had
suggested within Trustee jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Trustees have jurisdiction within all
Board of Trustees 20 November 17, 2010
beach areas, that being where we could write a permit, but then
setting the wetland boundary line as the Spring high tide, that
would put, that would then be in a jurisdictional line, so you
are saying remove irrigation, sod.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, within that area.
TRUSTEE KING: Is that where the original jurisdiction line was
taken, from the Spring high tide?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. So anything within 100 feet of the Spring
high tide is in our jurisdiction and that should be not lawn, no
sprinklers and no fence.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And we can certainly go out and assist the
applicant in determining where that line is.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That sounds reasonable.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Again, do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Motion carried. And this was inconsistent with
LVVRP. The other one is consistent. This was inconsistent. And
I think by removing the sod and removing the fence finds it
consistent with LWRP. I make that part of my motion.
I'll make a motion to go back on to public hearings.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim, do you want to do the next one.
TRUSTEE KING; Number two, JOSEPH BATTAGLIA requests an Amendment
to Wetland Permit #7028 to place 70' of natural boulders along
the southeast side of the wetland line; replace fill, soil and
screening to restore property back to original condition;
replace native plants; and a One-Year Extension to Wetland
Permit #7028, as issued on January 21, 2009, and Amended on
February 24, 2010. Located: 2000 Hobart Road, Southold.
This was found consistent with LWRP. Stipulated that all
intertidal construction and excavation requires installation of
a silt boom and will retain all suspended sediments within the
immediate project area. I don't think there will be a lot of
excavation here. It's mostly boulders along the toe of the
bluff, toe of the bank.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do we have a cross-sectional diagram?
TRUSTEE KING: That's what I wanted to look at. (Perusing). The
drawing does not show an awful lot here, not much detail.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is that the elevation that was submitted?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The cross-section? (Handing).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: (Perusing).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Where are the boulders going to be coming from?
MR. BA'FI'AGLIA: I'll probably purchase them locally from Latham
or Peconic, natural boulders.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you have of an idea what the diameter will be
or the weight will be?
MR. BATTAGLIA: The boulders on the bottom will probably be maybe
Board of Trustees 21 November 17, 2010
two by three feet, and as you increment up, they'll be smaller.
Whatever is going to be most effective for the for the retaining
wall. I'm not a professional landscaper but I would say the
bigger ones will go on the bottom and the smaller ones toward
the top.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim, just a note for the record, the violation
on this was taken care of. So we can move on this.
TRUSTEE KING: Where this section is, that's what I'm trying to
figure out. (Perusing). I know there is something, you haven't
shown it on the survey where these boulders are going to go. Is
there another drawing down there?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There was one marked up.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Mine just shows the cross-section and the side
view.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, he just marked --
MR. BA'I-I'AGLIA: There are two surveys.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The problem is where you drew the cross section
is not the ones where you marked up where it was going.
MR. BATTAGLIA: You already had those. I already submitted those
so I couldn't, you know, do it on the same plan. You requested
the cross-section afterwards.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: This is the 30 foot line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are showing --
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to see a little more detail here.
This is so loosely drawn.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are showing the rocks going through the
whole 30 foot non-disturbance buffer all the way into the lawn.
Is that what you meant or you just want it right at the base?
MR. BA'F[AGLIA: No, actually the rocks will be just at the base
of erosion right up against the soil. They are really not even
in the buffer. They are on the opposite side.
TRUSTEE KING: Your circles are in the trees. I don't know what
all these circles are.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You drew all these circles in the buffer area.
MR. BATTAGLIA: That's for the vegetation. I think we were
applying for a vegetation plan. I think you might be looking at
the vegetation plan.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we need to see where you want to put
the stone.
MR. BATTAGLIA: Can I come up?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, please. I think that's where we are
confused.
MR. BATTAGLIA: Because we had submitted four plans. One I'll
revegetate, the Planning Board had some concern with. So you
should have two surveys with planting. I tried to make it as
clear as possible. This is revegetation, you should have two of
these.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We do.
MR. BATTAGLIA: And I think you have two with the cross-section
and two with the boulders. So you should have six.
Board of Trustees 22 November 17, 2010
TRUSTEE KING: I don't mean to insult you. This is really crude.
It's really hard to visualize it.
MR. BATTAGLIA: I'm doing the best I can, sorry, with the budget
I have left to work with. The elevation is 4.4, it will
maintain grade. The boulders will hug right up against the
eroded line. I don't want to protrude and eat up of the beach.
I'm surprised those trees didn't come down last night with that
wind. Because half of the trees are --
MR. BATrAGLIA: Do you have the other plan with the boulders?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you see the other plan he gave you? Do you
have something else drawn on there?
TRUSTEE KING: I think we need to see more detail. It really
doesn't show a lot of the -- I know what he's trying to do, and
I agree with what he's doing.
MR. BATTAGLIA: I have the sketch I drew for the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have it here.
MR. BATTAGLIA: With the boulders?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. BATTAGLIA: Great.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think what Jim is saying is normally it's not
hand drawn, we have an engineer draw it. An engineer drawing.
MR. BATrAGLIA: Nate was going to do it for me. He was going to
put circles in the same spot I did. I would just give circles
of what I want, he was going to do it on the same plan. Just to
make it more productive.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does the Board want to look at this? Here is
where he's proposing to put the boulders. And there is the
cross-section on that.
MR. BATTAGLIA: Do you have the photographs also?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All the Board members have been out there, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: (Inaudible).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What Jay is saying, maybe you have an option of
moving forward with this subject to a revised drawing showing,
revised drawing by engineer showing it to scale.
MR. BATTAGLIA: What I could do is put it on one.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Drawn to scale.
MR. BATTAGLIA: Have him put the cross-section, clarify it a
little better. And the boulders.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You'll have to specify what size boulders.
MR. BATFAGLIA: It's hard to do.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's not actually that hard.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They have a formula they use.
MR. BATTAGLIA: I can do that and I'll just submit it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think when we were out there, none of the
members really objected to doing it on the spot.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We visualize what you want to do. We saw what
you want to do. But we need to have it, reflect that in the
file accurately.
MR. BATTAGLIA: I can go back to Nate and have him do the cross
sections a little better for Jim, and he'll basically try to
size up the boulders a little better. That's not a problem.
Board of Trustees 23 November 17, 2010
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICES): We can't hear what's being said.
TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we table it and get a set of real plans.
That's what I would like to do. Drawn to scale.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm all right with that.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm looking for the original permit. What was
that permit for, for the house?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. That was, it should be --
TRUSTEE KING: I just saw one.
(Board members discussing off the record).
TRUSTEE KING: I would make a motion to table this.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to ask for any other comment?
TRUSTEE KING: Does anybody else have any other comment on this
application?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Step on up to the mic.
MR. PENNY: My name is Bill Penny. Just a couple of quick
questions. The boulders that are being proposed going in to
that area, are I think already, it's already started.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. PENNY: For what? Is it for erosion control?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
MR. PENNY: I have lived there 15 years. I have never seen any
erosion, anything. As a matter of fact that area is natural
drainage coming from the road out to the creek, where it used to
go, years ago, when the road was not there, maybe it went
completely across. Urn, I have seen the worst storms you could
imagine; high tides, everything you can think of. I don't
understand what erosion control is needed on the creek. It's
not like the Sound where you have big waives crashing or
whatever, in a hurricane. I mean, I have seen that cove with
maybe two foot white caps. So I don't understand what erosion
control we are doing here.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to up here, Mr. Penny, just to give
you an idea. There are a bunch of pictures here.
MR. PENNY: Sure.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is just one section that is in need.
TRUSTEE KING: This is the toe. See the tree roots. Right here
is the same thing. He wants to put the boulders up against
that. That's the proposal.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just that one section. Not across the whole
entire property.
TRUSTEE KING: There is a couple of bites in there that are
really getting eroded pretty badly.
MR. PENNY: Okay, I didn't understand. I walk the beach all the
time. I didn't understand.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You are welcome to come in the office and look
at the file.
TRUSTEE KING: It's approximately a 70-foot area that he wants.
That's the proposal
MR. PENNY: All right. Let me get back to the mic so everyone
can hear me. We got a little bitty thing in the mail that I
think you got and I didn't quite understand what was going on.
Board of Trustees 24 November 17, 2010
The other thing, are boat lifts allowed in Southold Town now?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: At this moment, there are no boat lifts
allowed. That's on the next application. So we'll save that.
MR. PENNY: Just because I went through that whole ordeal also
with the boat lifts. And the other thing, too, is not that the
-- it's a huge house, no question about it, but we never got any
notification that anything had been changed. When I had seen
the original plans, what was going on, there was a subdivision
going on over there and there was, looked like a big house but
not like something that a Harry Potter movie was going to start
in. I was just a little shocked when it went up. It's gorgeous,
it's a huge house.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We come across that all the time. Our Board --
we review the footprint. We don't review the plans, the height
and everything else. We just review the footprint of the house.
MR. PENNY: I'm glad I'm not heating it.
TRUSTEE KING: There was a slight modification to the original
application, it was shifted around a little bit.
MR. PENNY: I just didn't understand the erosion thing. The
docks, too, I mean, when I built my docks I was told Southold
Town you are only allowed four-foot wide?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the next application. If you could save
your comments for that.
MR. PENNY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else?
MR. FISCHETTI: Good evening, my name is Joe Fischetti. I have
lived on Hobart Road for 35 years. I'm not here to oppose Mr.
Battaglia, I'm here to get some information. I have walked my
dog down on Hobart Road recently and I noticed there were red
flags on some of the phragmites. Could you answer what those
flags are? Does this Board know what those flags are?
MR. BATTAGLIA: I can.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. Battaglia?
TRUSTEE KING: Possibly a wetland delineation. I'm not sure.
MR. BATTAGLIA: What those were, were markings that my surveyor
and I had added to the property just to make sure we maintain
the 100 wetland Board of Trustees boundary when we work on the
construction.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
MR. FISCHE'I-rI: So it's wetland boundary. You didn't mark that.
MR. BATTAGLIA: No, it's not the wetland boundary. It's just
markings. It's actually got footage, you know, from Mr. Penny,
you know, Mr. Penny's line, those are just markings, 50 feet, 25
feet, for our own reference, so we know what to disturb and what
not to disturb. So they are just really yardage markers, basically.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
MR. FISCHETTh I kind of disagree with wetland markings that
were done by En-Consultants. I have been there -- let me
finish. I have been there 35 years. The old maps of that area
had the creek going across Hobart Road. That creek actually
Board of Trustees 25 November 17, 2010
went across Hobart Road to the other side of the street. When
Hobart Road was built, which was, it ended up on Landon Lane,
they put two culverts in there, and the tide went in and out
from that read. It went underneath Hobart Road. It's my
feeling that that wetlands has been disturbed wetland and it's
been filled in over the years. Now, what has happened there
now, I, what happens is that is a natural drainage area from all
of founders. All the runoff from all founders ends up at that
point. I complained to DEC some months ago, maybe even a year
ago, that the drainage structure at the Iow point on Hobart
overflows every rain fall and goes into the creek at that point.
I spoke to Jamie Richter. The property across the street is
owned by an elderly man. And I said to the town needs to
purchase that property and use that as a retention basin. Now,
that would be perfect for allowing the water to filter before it
goes into the creek, at that point. But that would be something
that this Board could do. But whether that happens or not, but
what is more important is that that drainage runs at that point
where that phragmites is now, and you know that phragmites is
disturbed wetland. So that wetlands, actually what has been
marked is actually wetland. What I would recommend this Board
do is approve this application subject to bringing those
wetlands back to what it was before and planting them with
grasses so that we could have a filtration from what is
happening in that creek.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have, with the house permit, we have a 30
foot non-disturbance buffer in that area, that he has to not
disturb. And this is just a small section. I don't know how
many feet, we need to get more clarification on the plans, of
just putting some stone at the toe of that.
MR. FISCHE'I-rI: I understand that, Jill. There is nothing wrong
with that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So the comments should pertain to this
application.
MR. FISCHE'I-I'I: It does pertain. He should not be allowed to do
that unless he tries to give back to the community and to this
town that disturbed area that is actually filled in wetlands.
You need to be proactive. This Board needs to be proactive.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Fill in the wetland, you don't mean recently
filled in.
MR. FISCHE'I-]'I: The wetlands are filled in. That should be
restored, You have the ability to take that drainage that has
feces in it, that goes in the creek at that point, and to make
that better by making that wetlands a filtering.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are you talking read drain or are you just
talking --
MR. FISCHE'I-rI: The road drain goes into the creek right at that
point.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. And that doesn't, although I agree with
you something needs to be done with that, it doesn't pertain to
this particular application.
Board of Trustees 26 November 17, 2010
MR. FISCHE'I-I'I: I understand that. I'm saying that there is no
erosion at that point. If you allow him to do that, you should
allow it with conditions. He needs to give back. That property
has been built to the complete, as much as can be placed on that
property. He's within six feet of the height limit. He's on
all the side yard limits.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That doesn't pertain --
MR. FISCHETTI: I understand. It comes to the point he's asking
for something from this Board. And this Board, fine, give it to
him. He wants to put boulders there, fine, but we need to get
back something from it. Which has not happened. This Board
needs to be proactive. There are lots of things that have
happened over there that this Board has not reacted to. All I'm
saying is you have the ability to be proactive. Those wetlands
need to be restored. You have the ability to do that without
anything. They were wetlands at one time, and they have been
disturbed. This Board should ask them to be put back to where
they were, so they become filtration for what is going into our
creek at that point. You guys don't care about it. You are
supposed to be protecting our waters.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have to take exception to that last comment.
Excuse me, if I could --
MR. FISCHETTh Take care of it. All I'm getting is negatives.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have to take exception to that last comment
that this Board doesn't care about the drainage.
MR. FISCHE'I-]'h That is --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you'll let me finish.
MR. FISCHET]'h Sure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What you are describing is there is a problem
from the roads and drainage from the roads going down into this
area here that needs to be addressed. And I agree with you, the
town has a responsibility to address that. Not the private
property owner. We deal and the town, I know there was an issue
recently, in a whole other area of town, where the people were
very upset because the town was putting a drain in on the road
because all the water was draining off the road on to the
private property and they said, these people came in and said
town money should not be spent on that drain, it should be the
private property owner's responsibility to repair the drainage.
And, no, it's a town road that water is coming from. That needs
to be addressed by the Town Board and the Town of $outhold. Not
by the private property owner. You can't hold him responsible
for water draining off the road on to his property. So, again,
it's two separate topics to us. And I think what we need to deal
with is the one issue here before us and that is with this
erosion control he's doing on his piece of property.
MR. FISCHETTI: Fine, we'll leave it at that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
(No response).
The Conservation Advisory Council recommended supporting the
Board of Trustees 27 November 17, 2010
application with the condition there is no damage to the salt marsh.
And it was found consistent, I believe.
I'll make a motion to table this application until we get better plans.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. All in favor?.
(ALL AYES).
MR. BATTAGLIA: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, JOSEPH BATTAGLIA requests an
Amendment to Wetland Permit ~64-3-3 for the existing seasonal
jet-ski lift and 6x19' floating dock. Located: 2000 Hobart Road, Southold.
The Board did go out and looked at this. The Conservation
Advisory Council looked at it. The Conservation Advisory
Council resolved not to support this request of the application
because boat lifts are prohibited per Chapter 275 of the town
code and the size of the dock is inconsistent with the permit.
It was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be exempt. Now, in
January of 2009, the Town Trustees issued a transfer of the
permit, and I'll read here, this is again, dated January 21,
2009. Resolved, the Town Board of Trustees approved a request
for transfer of permit 64-3-3 for the existing dock as issued on
January 28, 1993, with the condition that when the dock is
repaired or rebuilt, that it shall conform to Chapter 275 of the
Wetland Code. Is there anybody here to speak for or against
this application? Yes, sir. If you would just introduce yourself.
MR. FRIESE: My name is Paul Friese, and my partner Andy Semons
and I live next door, 1580 Hobart Road. In any event, when the
Board, we were present at the meeting in 2009 when the transfer
was requested and approved. Unfortunately at that time there
was no mention nor application for the installation of the
floating dock nor the jet ski lift. Looking at the surveys of
the two properties, you have Mr. Battaglia's survey and I know
that on part of it is our dock, which is immediately to the
north of Mr. Battaglia's, also appears. Our contention is that
the installation of this floating dock and the boat which is
installed on it, in addition to the jet ski, which are
protruding to the northward side of the dock, is interfering
with our ability to get in and out of our waterfront. Our dock
is 20 feet away from the water line, and Mr. Battaglia's, I'm
not our exactly how far it is, but with these incursions with
the jet ski, and also the floating dock, and the transom of the
engines of his boat make it extraordinarily difficult for us to
launch our small watercraft out of the boathouse on our
property. Given the prevailing winds are westerly, it's kind of
tricky to sail out of there without crashing into something.
It's become a problem.
We are not in opposition to Mr. Battaglia having either the
floating dock nor the jet ski lift, we have a problem with the
placement of same. And this may be closing the barn door after
the horse got out, but this is the first time we were aware that
the floating dock required a permit. And that the jet ski also
required a permit. We saw the two of them go in but took no
action on it because falsely or incorrectly we presumed Mr.
Board of Trustees 28 November 17, 2010
Battaglia had followed the letter of the law and had gotten the
correct permit to get these items installed. So what our
request is is that the jet ski lift be removed from the north
side of the dock and reinstalled on the south side of the dock.
We have no problem with that. And that the floating dock be
shifted at least three or four feet to the south so it opens up
the passage between the two docks. And that's what we have to
say.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Just for clarification for the next
comment. Permit number 64-3-3 which is, it started all this,
grandfathered a permit by 8'x85' dock. The original permit was,
8'x85' dock.
TRUSTEE KING: What was the date on that?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was dated January 28, 1993. Yes, sir?
MR. BATTAGLIA: I believe the Town Code, that you just have to
allow, I believe it's ten feet offthe property line -- 15.
Okay, and we are maintaining that 15 feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
MR. BATTAGLIA: And then some. And the dock was approved, the
transfer and everything, nobody had a problem with it back in
2009. Everybody went out to look at the dock, the placement of
it. It was a survey. And we do have an underwater land grant,
if that helps. Which is part of the deed when I bought the property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And we will take other comments if there are
other comments from members of the audience.
Question, again, going back to the January 21, 2009
transfer, it said the condition was when the dock is repaired or
rebuilt it should conform with Chapter 275. What we found when
we were out there is this dock has definitely been repaired, if
not, in essence, rebuilt. And it does not conform with Chapter
275 now.
MR. BATTAGLIA: Well, as far as I know I was maintaining a
permitted structure. And everything that I did on it, I didn't
use CCA lumber on the top decks, I maintained it with something
to keep up to code. I used, you know, a vinyl, non-arsenic
product. And I just basically, you know, little by little I
maintained it. Actually, there is still some parts of the dock
that need more work, you know.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I could just tell you what the Board's opinion
when we were out there, it was definitely repaired. No doubt
about that. And whether it was rebuilt or not, you know, there
is a question whether it was rebuilt or not. But even avoiding
the word "rebuilt," it was repaired. And now according to that
transfer it must be brought into conformance with current
Chapter 275.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We feel it was repaired beyond our, the
expectations of repair, and that is where we wanted you to come
in and conform, when you went beyond that line.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you let this gentleman speak first.
MR. FRIESE: The Board did go out and see the dock and
unfortunately the situation is such that there is nothing
Board of Trustees 29 November 17, 2010
remaining of the dock which was there before Costello Marine
came in, and every last piling and underetructure of that dock
was removed and replaced. There is nothing left. The damage
that needs to be repaired that Mr. Battaglia is referring to is
the damage that was caused because of the naturel flood that we
had, I believe last November. It overtopped everybody's dock.
And what it ended up doing was lifting his float, which ought
not have been there, and it caught on the poles and pulled the
pilings on the end of the dock out to give him a little half
pipe at the end of the dock. Insofar as any part of that
structure is remaining, that is sadly untrue, because one of the
things we were astonished at was the efficiency and speed with
which Costello Marine came in and did the work, and how they did
it without having to drive pilings. They used this water jet
thing. We were expecting to hear pile driving going on. So
insofar as any part of the dock existing from before, that is
significantly not the case.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Somebody wants to speak next?
MR. BATrAGLIA: I'll speak. That's not true. First of all, Jack
did not do any work on the dock. Jack is right here to testify
on that, on my behalf. And there are still 12 to maybe 14 old
pilings that still remain in place from when Doug Greene had
owned the preperty, and obviously you can see they are old and
they are cracked and are split and they need to be maintained in
the near come future. So the Board can actually go out there
and see it for yourself. You can obviously see the difference
between the ones that were maintained and the ones that have not
been maintained. And 50% of them may be great, weren't even
touched. And, you know, go to the site. It will speak for itself.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jack?
MR. COSTELLO: I was never -- I was on the site to look at the
job. I never did any work there.
MR. FRIESE: My apologies.
MR. COSTELLO: I knew it was a sticky project and I knew what was
going to happen. I knew Joe was a little upset with me, that I
didn't respond to the bid. Thank you.
MR. FRIESE: Just on the record, I want to apologize for the
errer. Sorry.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Pat? You wanted to speak?
MS. MOORE: He can speak for himself, obviously. He's very good
at it. Historically, what we did here is prior to his buying the
property, we went out, i pulled all the permits for Creighton.
The property, as he pointed out, it kind of went by, I don't
know if anybody actually paid attention, but the dock here sits
on his property. It's a town grant. So it's actually his land.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Underwater land, yes.
MS. MOORE: As far as the language in the trensfer, I read to him
word by word what the code says, and you are allowed to maintain
your existing structure. You have a permitted, the key is you
have a "permitted" structure. This is a permitted structure.
Board of Trustees 30 November 17, 2010
It is certainly larger than what you would allow today, but it
was there prior to the '70s. I think it was the '50s when it
was first built. And it had been maintained over the years, and
that's how you maintain a dock, is you keep it functional.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You maintain it by repairing it.
MS. MOORE: Whether or not, you know, repair in the instance of a
transfer, keep in mind you have a dock that was permitted, you
have the code that allows you to maintain it and the Board, the
way we understood the permit, listen, if it goes away by storm
event and has to be replaced, a significant repair due to storm
damage, then yes, then there is not much to maintain at that
point. You can't maintain a structure that is not there. That
was not the case. It's been there, I mean, live in the
neighborhood. I pass it every day. It's been there. And it's
still the same structure. That's all I can tell you is that he
followed the letter of the law. And we were very careful to
make sure that we transferred the permit prior to his purchasing
the property. Because it is a valuable asset. He paid dearly
for that property, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else who wants to speak for or
against this application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Members of the Board, how do you feel about this
application?
MR. BA'I-I'AGLIA: Can I say one more thing. Sorry.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Go ahead.
MR. BATTAGLIA: I would like to just, I really would not do
anything without a permit. As you see from my past history,
I've applied for permits to pick up garbage off of the beach.
I've applied for permits to trim trees. I've spent an
exorbitant amount of money on legal fees.
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
MR. BATTAGLIA: To try and preserve -- I love the water. My
children, we clam right there on the end of the canal. I don't
want to damage the water. I love the water. So I try to follow
and play ball fairly and, you know, I'm just trying to do the
right thing. I'm improving the property. I'm going to be a
very well taxpayer for Southold once I get my CO. I'll be a
great contributor of tax dollars, I should say. And all I'm
asking for is my dock, my boat. I could have stayed at Port of
Egypt for $4,400 a year if I didn't want privacy. And that's all
I could really say. I applied for a permit for everything. I
paid a fine already to the town which, you know, I contributed
some more money. You know, I'm just trying to do the right
thing, you know.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think at the very least the jet ski lift,
it's currently in the code, it is not allowed. So we obviously
can't approve that on this part of the application. That has,
in my mind, that has to be removed.
TRUSTEE KING: This lot is considered for a subdivision lot. Is
this lot being considered for a subdivision?
Board of Trustees 31 November 17, 2010
MS. MOORE: Yes, we are going through the process.
TRUSTEE KING: So if that lot gets separated out and sold, you
don't own the dock anymore, do you.
MR. BA'I-I'AGLIA: We don't plan on selling the lot. It will be a
family inheritance. But yes, further down the line, if it had
to be sold, I would not have a dock, I agree.
TRUSTEE KING: But you could apply for a dock off the new
property.
MR. BATTAGLIA: Yes, that's basically what the regulation says.
One dock per residential lot. Down the line, you know, I might,
I might not, financially, or esthetically, I don't know what the
situation may be, what the future brings, but the lot is not for
sale and I don't think it's going to be for a very long time.
The only reason we are subdividing it is hopefully one day my
daughter, if she gets married, she might want it. My
daughter will be 21, finishing school.
TRUSTEE KING: Before the subdivision goes through, the dock
should be reduced to four feet. Because there will be another
dock.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know how we can make that a condition
of this.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The original, I'm just trying, for
clarification, when we did the other amendment, it said that
should there be any repair or replacement done, it was to be
brought up to code. It's pretty simple to me. And that
eliminates this whole other notion with the second property and
the second dock. So that would be my recommendation.
TRUSTEE KING: I agree.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I need to be a little more specific. Are you
saying that the --
TRUSTEE KING: The dock should be reduced to four feet.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And that takes it totally out of the issue.
Whether or not it's subdivided is no longer an issue.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. Battaglia, is there a thought maybe you can
make this an "L" shaped dock instead of a "T", to get it further
away from your neighbors? Move the float over more?
MR. BATTAGLIA: I think you guys should go back out there, with
all due respect, and take a look at the setbacks and property
line. There is plenty of reom.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's just a question.
MR. BA'I-rAGLIA: No, I'm just saying, my neighbors thing, Sunfish,
whatever you want to call it, is two feet wide. And their
dinghy for the sailboat is three feet wide. So between,
actually they mentioned to m~ once turn the boat around so my
anchor wouldn't fit. And I accommodated them like that. So I'm
doing what I can. But there is still 15 to 20 feet between my
property --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But the question was would you consider
adjusting that float so it's L-shaped rather than T-shaped.
MR. BATTAGLIA: To accomplish what?
Board of Trustees 32 November 17, 2010
TRUSTEE BERGEN: To bring the dock farther away from that
property line that is I guess to the north.
MR. BATTAGLIA: The dock or the float.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, the float.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: To move the float further away from your
neighbor's property.
MR. BATTAGLIA: Right, further south to accomplish what?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: To accommodate the navigation needs of other
people in the creek, it's not an unreasonable request to request
that there is no apparent problem with foming a dock closer to
the lot line, even though it's on your property.
MR. BA'I-I'AGLIA: I understand that. I don't think it's necessary.
I think there is plenty of room.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So your answer is no.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm asking the simple question, yes or no.
Would you consider making it an "L" rather than a "T."
MS. MOORE: Let's clarify something. I was hearing some comments
about the size, cutting the dock back and so on.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, Pat, I would appreciate an answer to my
question. And then you can comment if you would like.
MS. MOORE: Before he answers yes or no, I want to hear the
clarification of this because the application he's got --
what's the float for?. Is it for the jet ski?
MR. BATTAGLIA: No, I put this in as an amendment because I
didn't know it would need a permit for a float.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is getting -
MS. MOORE: I thought before he said something wrong. I'm
clarifying, I understand.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: $o we asked the question would you consider
changing it from a "T" to an "L"? You don't have to.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If the answer is no, I just asked if you would
consider it.
MS. MOORE: He has to see if it affects his navigability as well.
MS. HULSE: I think the Board needs to make a decision on the
application that is here. There are plenty of other people here.
MR. BATrAGLIA: I would like to do the right thing.
MS. HULSE: I'm sorry, Mr. Battaglia, there is only one person
that can talk in order for him to make a record. There is an
application that is what needs to be voted on by this Board,
unless there is going to be an amendment to the application.
MS. MOORE: That is what you are asking for, a modification.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let me return to the discussion per Trustee
Ghosio. Again, I asked for comments from the Board and what Bob
had suggested is that because the transfer came with the
condition that it could not be repaired and if it was repaired
or replaced, it must be brought up to code. That this is pretty
simple. It's been repaired. It needs to be brought up to code,
which means a four-foot wide dock.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I agree.
TRUSTEE KING: Bottom line.
Board of Trustees 33 November 17, 2010
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments from the audience
at all?
(No response).
If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion that we, with regard to the
application of Joseph Battaglia the amendment to Wetland Permit
64-3-3 as described that we deny the seasonal jet ski lift, that
we approve the float, and that since the dock has been repaired,
as per the transfer done, conditions of the transfer done
January 21,2009, that the width of the dock be reduced to four
foot to comply with Chapter 275.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's my motion. And, sorry, this was exempt
under LWRP. That's got to be on the record.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to put a timeframe on when that has
to come into conformity?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then I'll have to make a motion to reopen the
hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I mean.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Ill make a motion to reopen the hearing of
Joseph Battaglia.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You just need to rescind your resolution.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, I'll make a motion to rescind the
resolution that was just approved by this Board on Joseph
Battaglia. This is amendment number three on the agenda.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?.
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, I make a motion to deny the seasonal jet
ski lift, to approve the 6x19 floating dock, and in order to
comply with the transfer that was done on January 21, 2009, that
stated when the dock is repaired or rebuilt that it shall
conform with Chapter 275. Now that it's been repaired, that it
be brought in compliance with Chapter 275, meaning being reduced
to four foot in width, and that this work must be accomplished
by June 1,2011.
TRUSTEE KING: That's being gracious.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a long period of time.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application for coastal erosion
permit, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of STUART
THORN requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to
Board of Trustees 34 November 17, 2010
resurface 100'+/- of existing bulkheads seaward side using 2"
T7G 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.
The LWRP has this project as consistent. The Conservation
Advisory Council gave us a fairly extensive report and largely
against this project, largely because of the large stone
armoring that they feel would be on public land. Is there
anyone here who wishes to speak on this application?
MR. LANCEY: I do. My name is Paul Lancey. I abut the properly to
the east. We have been friends. The Thorn's are great people.
Unfortunately, the only questions we have, it's more questions,
was the size of the boulders. A three-ton boulder is 6,000
pounds. The car I drove here tonight was 3,500 pounds. So I
was a little concerned about the size of the boulders. I was
concerned about how far out on to the beach the boulders would
go. In my own mind I felt that, I spoke to Mr. Costello, I
believe it was you, Jack?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, it was.
MR. LANCEY: And he said to the end of the property line, okay,
and unfortunately to the west of the Thorn's, the man who lives
there is very ill, he lives by himself, so he can't really speak
to his behalf. I think Mr. Costello said that the boulders
would start tapering down about 12 feet from the line, the
property line?
MR. COSTELLO: The way it works here, we have to address the
Board.
MR. LANCEY: The three concerns we have is where they taper down,
when they reach the property line, and how far out into the
beach, and the height. Our height, in my mind, I lived there,
on that stretch for 13 years, 11 in my current location and I
feel the height should not go any higher than two feet above the
top of the existing bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you get a chance to come into the office
and look at the file?
MR. LANCEY: I was actually was mailed the file. It was not
clear. It was hard for me to decipher.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. Just a note to everybody, when you get
the neighborhood notice, they just have to give you a portion.
And you are more than welcome to come into the office and look
at the full file. That might help.
MR. LANCEY: We spoke on the phone and I'm just really, my only
question is the size, how far out into the beach, the height and
how far from the property lines. It should be just some defined
limitations there. Simple question.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let us measure this and we'll let you know.
MR. COSTELLO: If I may, Jill. Jack Costello, Costello Marine.
There is a line of boulders out in front already. That was
going to establish the toe of the wall, as they lay now. I'm
Board of Trustees 35 November 17, 2010
sure those boulders were placed there when the wall was
originally constructed 30 odd years ago.
MR. LANCEY: You mean the two or three boulders, not the line,
those are naturally occurring.
MR. COSTELLO: They were natural stones that were moved out of
the existing bulkhead line when the bulkhead was there.
Probably.
MR. LANCEY: So how far is that?
MR. COSTELLO: They are approximately ten feet out.
MR. LANCEY: That's fine. And the height, could we keep the
height to two feet below the top of the existing bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what the plans show. Just below the top
of the bulkhead.
MR. LANCEY: I'm asking for two feet, to be clear. Because I
couldn't really tell.
TRUSTEE KING: Two feet would cut the height almost in half.
MR. LANCEY: In the winter time you have almost ten feet from the
sand to the top of the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The plans show it's just below the top of the
bulkhead.
MR. LANCEY: I just want to be to clear not to exceed two feet
from the top of the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know if we can do that. The design and
the engineering of it, I don't know if that's possible.
MR. LANCEY: Okay. I thought about, maybe it was explained, I
don't know if you could tell, to the property line. When will
is it start grading down?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: (Perusing).
MR. LANCEY: So you are telling me ten feet out is the distance.
You are saying just below the top of the bulkhead. Now how
about to the property line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe it's going to the edge of the
property lines.
MR. LANCEY: Jack, you said to me it was going to taper?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When they build these, put these stones on,
they usually taper it off so it doesn't overflow on to the
property lines.
MR. LANCEY: To be specific, how far --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want come and look at these plans?
MR. LANCEY: You could just tell me, if you could read them.
I'll be happy to. If Mr. Costello knows, he can tell us.
MR. COSTELLO: As quickly as we can taper it off. Of course we
can't encroach on the property line. And I can't have a sheer
wall on the property line. So 18 feet back depending on the
height of the wall, this is eight feet tall. It will take me 15
to 18 feet to taper down to zero. I have to end at zero.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does that answer your question?
MR. LANCEY: So to about 15 to 18 feet before it will taper down
to ground level. It will go out about eight feet.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, eight to ten feet. You can see because the
line of stones is already there.
Board of Trustees 36 November 17, 2010
MR. LANCEY: You are talking the stones.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me, sir, if you could go back to the
microphone and direct your questions to us.
MR. LANCEY: One more question. So that sounds reasonable that
it will taper down about 15 feet. That's what the plans say.
We'll keep that in mind. Eight to ten feet. I can live with
that. The height, you tell me it's below the top of the
bulkhead, not the actual post but the bulkhead; is that correct?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what it shows.
MR. LANCEY: So the last question is, three ton boulders is two
care. I'm concerned about the size.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, they have to be big enough to do their
job, you know. You put small boulders there, that water will
come and just wash, you know --
MR. LANCEY: Right. Is it three ton and you build up the smaller
boulders; is that how it works?
MR. COSTELLO: Generally the toe stones are larger stones and
they get built up. A car's weight as opposed to a rock's weight
is not really a good barometer of that.
TRUSTEE KING: The plans indicate the base of the stone will be
about six feet seaward of the face of the bulkhead. It's closer
to the bulkhead.
MR. COSTELLO: There is basically a line of stone already there.
Established. And they will be fit in behind these naturally
occurring stones. They are natural stones, they were probably
pushed out of the way when the wall was originally built.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The erratic boulders look to be about ten
feet out. And if you recall there is a series of gabions there
that failed. Obviously they probably get tossed around like
toys with the winter storms.
MR. LANCEY: What was the first person's contention that you
read?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was not a person. The Conservation
Advisory Council is concerned that the public's right to move
along the foreshore is diminished and that the placement of
stone on what would be lands under high water is not appropriate
in this case, but there are few alternatives to protecting
private property on the Sound.
MR. LANCEY: You know what it is, not even at high tide, ten feet
out gets pretty close to where you can't walk the beach. I have
a picture here and I understand the concern. This is the actual
picture from that location.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have any other questions?
MR. LANCEY: No.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No further comment, I'll take a motion to
close the hearing in this matter. Wait a minute, I'll hold that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just a question, Jack. We noticed when we
looked at this property all the way up on top, looks like there
is a pretty steep erosion taking place up top there. As a
matter of fact a brick patio is starting to slide down. Does the
Board of Trustees 37 November 17, 2010
property owner have any plans to address that at all?
MR. COSTELLO: He plans on straightening out the bricks. How
that will be addressed, we have not established that yet. He
talked about taking bricks up and putting a better brace under
them, Like a more course, granular stone to help alleviate that.
But the whole thing is gravitating down.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's a future application, right?
MR. COSTELLO: And he's really just being proactive about trying
to address the situation before it's catastrophic.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, just curious.
MR. LANOEY: When will construction begin?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me, sir.
MR. LANCEY: I'm asking you, Jill.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When a permit is granted from the Trustees, it
is good for two years and you are allowed to apply for two
one-year extensions.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, no further comments, I'll make a
motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve the
application as submitted.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Noting that it's consistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Noting it's consistent with LWRP, thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Wetland Permits, Frank Notaro, PA, on behalf
of CHRIS MESKOURIS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new
one-and-a-half story dwelling on pilings, attached deck and
sanitary system. Located: 530 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck.
This is an extension of a hearing we have held open. Just
to recap, it has been found to be consistent with LWRP. As I
recall, the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application with the condition of a drainage plan for the
new construction and a pervious driveway. And then there was
discussion of whether we were going to ask to have the house
setback to be in line with the other houses. And that brings us
to where we are today to have some further discussions and
findings which, if someone here would like to address that, I'd
appreciate it.
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants. Frank Notare is here.
Frank is the agent. He had asked me to get involved on behalf
of Mr. Meskouris, as you know, just to offer some expert
testimony. As you know, we met in the field, and the question
that had arisen during the hearing last time, as I understand
it, was there was an issue of where the Board's jurisdiction
Board of Trustees 38 November 17, 2010
actually began and ended. When we met in the field, there was,
it's a difficult site to determine a dune feature here because
the topography is pretty flat. It's undulating, with the
exception of what I would consider the primary dune formation
that is nearest to the unconsolidated beach. But at the time,
the edge of the beach grass, landward limit of the beach and
those one foot contour elevations were not shown on the survey.
The two-foot contour elevation, everything was so gradual over a
two foot rise in run that we talked in the field about
submitting a survey with one-foot contour elevations. I
E-mailed the relevant sections to all the Board members and also
to Lauren with the hope that she would get it to Jim. This is
three copies. That's the three copies of the map. When I sent
the E-mail to the Board, what I had pointed out was that if you
look seaward about where it says "filed map line" on the survey,
there is a nine-foot elevation contour that sort of undulates
around. It's where you go from an elevation of six on the
beach, then it rises fairly quickly three feet up to that
nine-foot contour. And then there is a slight dip where the
other side of the nine-foot contour ends. I think that's about
where Dave and I were standing. And if you recall, we both kind
of said it looks like we are out about the same elevation, even
though there was a bit of a swale between us. So that swale is
actually less than 12 inches. So you can see if you look at the
nine-foot contour, I was probably standing on the seaward side
of it and Dave was probably standing on the landward side of it.
That a similar swale occurs again up until where the property
rises to nine feet again. Where it then rises a foot to ten
feet, I think, is where that vegetation area is just on the
seaward side of where the house is staked, and then it continues
on, again it is sort of dipping below ten and back to ten, then
when you get up toward the read, it starts to gradually drop in
elevation toward Sound Beach Drive.
My only suggestion was, you know, we are dealing with a
situation here where when the code was changed, you were given
jurisdiction within 100 feet of beaches and dunes. In addition
to wetlands and bluffs. But there is no setback information,
there is not really much in the way of definitions in the code
to give you much guidance beyond you have jurisdiction within
100 feet of these features. Where the setbacks and definitions
of wetlands and bluffs are very specific. So my only
suggestion, based on what I found on the survey, I felt the
survey basically revealed what we had seen in the field. And it
seems to me that the most demonstrative dune feature here is
really the most seaward feature just landward of the beach,
which we had identified. And that is a feature that is fairly
consistent along the shoreline. And I think it would be an easy
natural feature to replicate from application to application and
property to property.
Conveniently, on this property and probably the ones on
either side of it, if you extend your jurisdiction 100 feet from
Board of Trustees 39 November 17, 2010
that, what I would say the top of that dune, your jurisdiction
ends pretty much on the landward side of the coastal erosion
hazard line so at least for in property and the two immediately
adjacent to it where the conditions are fairly consistent, your
jurisdiction, your dual jurisdiction under 275 and 111 would
both kind of end at the same spot. So at least you could have
something that could you replicate saying if you keep your
house, whether it's new house or remodeled house or whatever, on
the landward side of the coastal erosion zone, and that will
also be landward of the 100 foot setback from the dune, folks
would really probably only need a permit from you if they were
going to propose any clearing seaward of that point. But
otherwise you would know as long as the houses were set behind
the coastal erosion hazard line they would probably be outside
of your jurisdiction. Now, that may change as you head west
because the shore does start to indent in that direction. So
100 feet from that same dune feature might actually extend a
little closer to the road than the coastal erosion line. But,
as I say, on this particular property that's about where it
would end up. Dave had had some conversation when we were there
about whether there was a secondary dune feature. I can't
really see it here. There is just, I mean a 12-inch difference
in elevation that tends to rise and fall pretty consistently
back I think is a tough thing to identify as a definitive
secondary dune. But ultimately, it's just my opinion, I did the
best I could with this. This is tough because it is so fiat.
But anyway I think that's what Frank and Mr. Meskouris had
asked me to look at and that just follows up on what we
discussed in the field, and obviously at this point the Board
has to make a decision what it wants to do. As a practical
matter, if you happen to agree with me, they would still have to
update the survey to show, to identify that as a dune. They
would have to identify your 100 foot jurisdictional area, and if
they were going to propose any clearing seaward of the most
seaward part of the house they would still need your permit.
You would still have to set a clearing limit and non-disturbance
restrictions, and at the end of the day I think that's what you
want, you want to make sure that area of beach grass and natural
sand area remains natural. You know, to the maximum extent
practicable. That's ali I have.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I went out there and spent about an
hour-and-a-half today. I walked this extensively and I was
reading the town wetland --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not nice to be retired.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, I was concerned about this application
greatly because of some of the jurisdictional questions and
trying to organize thoughts for the Wetland Code revisions that
might come in the future. And looking at everything from the
basic definitions; what's a wetland plant, in other words if
there needs being a hydrophilic and hydric soils and wetland
hydrology, and of course you look at American beach grass, gee,
Board of Trustees 40 November 17, 2010
why isn't this one of our indicators. We are talking a pure
meadow there of something that is, you know, has a competitive
advantage and it only exists in that place. And we have a plant
such as Baccharis which is listed as tidal wetland indicator
which we probably have a couple of the edge of the parking lot
here. So these were going through my mind. And actually, the
analysis that they made seemed to be fairly protective with
respect to looking at those features. If you went purely based
on unconsolidated beach material, I measured 125 feet to the
proposed house from the seaward most edge of the American beach
grass. So it's a matter of jurisdiction. And then if it's
jurisdictional, then the question is the setbacks. But if we
are behind our jurisdictional line with construction, it becomes
an area for discussion. But I did labor over this, regardless
of my current employment status.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So, what, in your opinion, this is out of our
jurisdiction?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It is. Shoulda, woulda, coulda. I think
American beach grass, it's interesting, we don't mention, our
code doesn't provide specific mention for eel grass either, and
that has huge beneficial meadows, but of course it's below the
mean high water mark. But in this case, if there was no
American beach grass we would all be calling this a dune because
we say it's windswept and it looks like a dunal feature. And
then I was looking and, gee, does the existence of a plant on
soil make it all of a sudden, is that sand aggregate, which is
under there. We know it's basic open sand, does it make it in
fact a wetland merely not a wetland because it's now
consolidated soils because of the beach grass plants, all
grabbed on to the roots. No, I totally agree with the
assessment that was made.
MR. HERMAN: I think that's what I was getting at, John. When
the code revisions were done I don't think there was a lot of
focus or foresight on this particular kind of application.
These are certain areas of Long Island Sound that lack bluffs.
That's really what we are talking about. If you are on the
south shore you've got an Atlantic Ocean dune system that runs
from one end of the town to the other. And up here you have a
bluff system that runs, for the most part, from one end of the
town to another. But the exception is that some of these areas
were just glacial material ended a little differently, and there
is just, there is a part in the code that just frankly does not
really pay attention to this kind of a site. And so it leaves
you all, and us, at a little bit of a disadvantage. Because
several years ago, basing, as John just said, or as we discussed
with Jim in the past, the high water line or higher high water
line, it was just a very easy measurement to make because you
took where the highest high water was, you took 100 feet and
that was your wetlands jurisdiction. This is a different kind
of feature. I mean, beach grass, you want that to be a
protected species, but biologically it's not a wetland species,
Board of Trustees 41 November 17, 2010
so it doesn't fall into your Wetland Code. There is also, I
think we can agree, no bluff. So you are kind of stuck with one
of these two terms that were just kind of thrown into the code.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Actually, the bluff is across the street.
MR. HERMAN: Right, but without giving you any real language to
follow, unless you are inside the coastal erosion hazard area,
which this project, of course, is not. So it probably is
something that you want to address at some point with the code
because if you are going to take jurisdiction from what is
defined as a beach or a dune you probably want to have the
definitions of those features enhanced and you'll want to have
some sense of what your setbacks will be once you are within
that jurisdiction. Because they are laid out in great detail
for bluffs and wetlands but not for beaches and dunes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In this case, the highest storm rack, as a
point of information for the Board, those very high tides we had
on the new moon, I think it was, the rack line was right at the
seaward edge of the American beach grass, which is 125 feet. So
we are talking about a huge buffer. You know, huge natural
buffer, I mean, great buffer.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let's assume that we agree with all that's been
said and let's move on to the other areas.
TRUSTEE KING: I just have one question. Why did they have to go
to the Zoning Board of Appeals on this application?
MR. NOTARO: Because they consider behind the coastal erosion
zone line the buildable lot. So we exceeded that. They gave us
leeway on that.
TRUSTEE KING: Are they assuming then that is all beach or bluff?
MR. HERMAN: No, because the way "buildable land" was redefined,
either last year or the year before, what the town used to do,
never mind you folks or anybody else, once you got to the
building department for the purpose of determining your lot
coverage where you are allowed 20%, let's say you have an acre
lot, about half acre of that was tidal wetland, you now only
have your half an acre, you can only fill 20% of your half acre.
When they redefined buildable land, they added, in addition to
tidal wetlands and bluffs and other protective features, the
coastal erosion hazard area line. So now you have to discount
all your land seaward of the coastal erosion hazard area line.
So his buildable land becomes that.
TRUSTEE KING: I understand that. I tried to fit why they
consider that.
MR. HERMAN: Because in theory they decided that's an
un-buildable area. But again, this starts to get into that
sense of well, if you are within the coastal erosion area but
you are not within a natural feature, they didn't mess with any
of that.
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't see that in the code. I missed it.
MR. NOTARO: If I may say something. When we spliced together
all of the lots along that road, I think I gave you a copy of
the coastal erosion zone line on each individual survey is all
Board of Trustees 42 November 17, 2010
over the place. It conveniently misses pools, it's back, the
next one is 20 feet further out. You know, there is a lot up
for grabs with that because when they scale it off that very
large map, the pen width is ten feet wide. So where you place
that ten-foot buffer can be anywhere. I mean, I gave you a copy
of that. It's amazing there is no consistency on that at all.
And that can have some bearing on some particular site in the
future.
MR. HERMAN: It didn't used to, but it does now.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think if the Board is of the opinion that it's
outside of our jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think the building itself is outside our
jurisdiction but the building is right on that line. So there
is going to be construction within our jurisdiction. And
normally, when there is, even though the building itself is
outside our jurisdiction, if there is going to be clearing or
any other disturbance within our jurisdiction, we have them go
through the permit process.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I can tell you based on just as a point of
information, looking at the Board of Appeals paperwork, they are
finding there can't really be anything done seaward of the
coastal erosion line because of the plants that are there and to
keep it in compliance with the consistency report from the LWRP.
So if you want to stay consistent with what they said, then the
limit of clearing or disturbance should be the landward edge of
the coastal erosion line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there going to be clearly marked during
construction? Does the ZBA put conditions on it for that?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No.
MR. NOTARO: If I may mention, we are not building a foundation.
We are putting pilings in. They are very non-destructive, so to
speak. So our piling will be from the coastal erosion zone
line, will probably be three feet back, and we'll set up a
buffer. We really don't have to go any further than that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because of the area, what would be the
problem with a silt fence, a barrier on the coastal erosion line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. Some type of silt fence or something on
that line, to make it clear to everybody.
MR. HERMAN: If they establish a project limiting fence on the
landward side of the coastal erosion hazard line and there was
no disturbance seaward of that have then actually the whole
project would be out of your jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Which is what I'm trying to get to.
MR. HERMAN: The question is if they want to give themselves ten
feet to say to the seaward side of the coastal erosion hazard
line then you would have to issue a permit for that. But I
can't answer that. If Frank can put up a fence and not breach
it, that would be the way to go.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lori, can we issue a non-jurisdiction letter
with a condition?
MS. HULSE: No.
Board of Trustees 43 November 17, 2010
MR. HERMAN: Well, you always issue a letter with the condition
that it has to be no disturbance within your jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, I'm just saying if we, we can make a
suggestion you put a silt fence or some kind of silt fence or
some kind of fencing delineating that non-jurisdiction line.
MR. HERMAN: Lori, couldn't the Building Department mandate that,
in order to ensure compliance with the Trustees' letter of
non-jurisdiction that a non-disturbance fence go up at that
line, and if there was any intrusion seaward of that they would
have to come to this Board for a permit?
MS. HULSE: You mean can they make that part of a building permit?
MR. HERMAN: Yes.
MS. HULSE: I don't see why not.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So all we would have to do is write a letter.
MR. NOTARO: If you can clarify for me, isn't that beyond the
coastal erosion zone line toward the Sound? We are talking
about where your jurisdiction lies. We are going to stay -- we
don't want any trouble with the federal government. We would
stay on this side of the coastal erosion line.
MR. HERMAN: Their point is they need you to be able to
demonstrate that in the field before you begin. Because we can
say that the limit of disturbance will be here, but if you are
clearing out to here, that would require their permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we are all in the room here, but the
contractor and construction guy is not here. And things lose
translation as they go down the line. So we just want to make
it clear.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We just want to make it clear it's right up to
the line.
MR. NOTARO: But I just put pilings before up to John Burn's
house.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand that. I just want to make it
clear as it goes down to each person involved in this.
MR. HERMAN: We have to give you a revised survey identifying the
dune and the 100 foot setback and we'll depict the project
limiting fence at that boundary of your jurisdiction. If you
then issue the letter based on that map, that's it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's fair enough
MR. HERMAN: In they contravene that, then it essentially renders
the letter useless. And it will be Frank problem.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: At this point, if I'm not mistaken, they can
withdraw the application.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Lori, can that happen?
MS. HULSE: Yes, that's fine.
TRUSTEE KING: We can issue a letter of non-jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Then send an inter-departmental letter to the
Building Department requesting that they issue the criteria that
they have to put up a limiting fence on the landward side of the
coastal erosion line.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So at this point you can request to withdraw
the application
Board of Trustees 44 November 17, 2010
MR. HERMAN: Okay. So based on that agreement 6f what we would
show, your hundred foot jurisdiction and the project limiting
fence, then we would respectfully request to withdraw the
wetland application without prejudice.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I just have a technical question. Did you
ever get in writing you can act on behalf of the applicant?
MR. HERMAN: I didn't. I was offering testimony as an expert.
So, I guess, technically, Frank would have to be making this
statement. But I can submit for the record as agent
authorization from Mr. Meskouris.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If Frank can just get up to the mic now, then
there is no letter required.
MR. NOTARO: I would like to request that we withdraw our
application to the Board of Trustees on this permit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And ask for a refund.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Partial. Because we've already done --
MR. NOTARO: I have to be quite honest with you. When the
Meskouris' came to me and said why are we under your
jurisdiction, I could not, personally, answer that. The wetland
line, high water line, usually delineate that. And I couldn't
answer that. So I asked Rob, can you take a look at it. And
that's how the whole thing started.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two, Patricia Moore, Esq., on behalf of
STEVEN & OLGA TENEDIO$ requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
detached garage landward of the house, pool and pool house.
Located: 17327 Main Road, East Marion.
This was found consistent with LVVRP, and the Conservation
Advisory Council supports the application with the condition
gutters, leaders, drywells are installed to contain roof runoff.
The Board went out and looked at this when we were looking at
every other part of the property, and at one point in the
beginning when we were, a couple of years ago, we were reviewing
the house construction, we were not sure if there was some fresh
water wetland between the proposed house and Rt. 25. Since
then, Mark Terry from LVVRP is telling us there is not fresh
water wetlands in that area. So I really don't know if this
garage is in our jurisdiction. That being said, is there anyone
here who would like to speak?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Thank you. Actually, yes, I'm glad you point
that out because the testimony right before where Rob was
testifying as to the definition and whether it's wetland or not,
whether we are in wetland jurisdiction or out of jurisdiction,
it's always been fuzzy because we have the exact same land
features as was just discussed in Mattituck. The East Marion
area has no bluff, and it's a beach area. So consistently we
have been measuring from the Spring high tide and we have been
landward of the coastal erosion. So I similarly agree that this
garage is not within the jurisdiction. And based on what you
previously ruled, we are going to identify the 100 foot line and
what activities we conduct landward of the hundred foot line is
Board of Trustees 45 November 17, 2010
permissible.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We just had a question why this even came in as
an application.
MS. MOORE: Being ultra-cautious, given the neighbors'
involvement, again, I have been trying to protect my client to
do everything right and so I would rather have you tell us it's
not in your jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We revisited that area that could have been,
that Iow area on the property, and we were informed again --
MS. MOORE: I don't know which property you are talking about.
The Stankevich property?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, the Tenedios property, between Rt. 25 and
the developed part of the property. At one point when we first
reviewed the proposed house there was a concern that there might
be freshwater wetlands there. So I think that's why you thought
you were maybe coming in again, but there is not.
MS. MOORE: No, to our knowledge we have no wetlands on this
property other than the beach.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we were just trying to figure out why you
came to us with this portion and we thought maybe you want us to
revisit that. We did, and there are no freshwater wetlands as
far as we know.
MS. MOORE: No, because our original application had a garage on
it and this was included in the original permit. So I didn't
want to have a situation where we go and build and I get a
violation because a previous permit had a garage in a wrong
location. So I think it's a clean up. This application
modifies the original permit with the house and the garage, so
to that extent we have a new location and I would rather just
have you send me a letter saying it's out of our jurisdiction
rather than my withdrawing it, because I think it cleans up the
record of the original house permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think -- you have applied for a permit, so if
it's non-jurisdiction I think you need to withdraw the
application and then we would --
MS. MOORE: I mean we'll have the testimony here, that's fine,
but how do I reconcile the original house permit that had a
garage in a very similar area. I think the garage was maybe
even more landward, actually, than this proposal. Because our
original application was everything that was being proposed on
the property.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The letter of non-jurisdiction would go into
that file and this would be --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Simply submit a corrected site plan and we'll
just stick it in the file.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, just say for your records here is the
updated --
MS. MOORE: This is it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Instead of applying, withdraw the application,
then you just submit a letter saying here is the updated survey
showing the garage.
Board of Trustees 46 November 17, 2010
MS. MOORE: The revised location of the garage, which remains
outside your jurisdiction. That's fine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. And that will be part of the record. I
think it's the simple way of doing it. Then we don't even do a
letter of non-jurisdiction.
MS. MOORE: As long as it documented so at the end we don't have
an issue. That's fine. Then I'll withdraw the application for
the garage and submit it with a letter revising the original
location remaining outside your jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
MR. STANKEVICH: I have several questions. George P. Stankevich,
attorney for the property owners to the south of this and also
one of the property owners.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The application has been withdrawn. So in
other words it's closed.
MR. STANKEVICH: But I withheld my comments from your earlier
proceedings, since they were not hearings, and I have a couple
of questions.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You had comments on the other --
MR. STANKEVICH: Yes. For instance, my question to your
secretary, she said she filed -
MS. HULSE: This is not proper.
MR. STANKEVICH: Excuse me?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are in the middle of a meeting. If you have
procedure questions, I would be glad to talk to you at some
other time.
MR. STANKEVICH: It's not a procedure question. She said she
filed a violation with the Justice Court. I would like to know
when that took place.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That had to do with the other application that
you spoke on. Not this application.
MR. STANKEVICH: But I withheld my comments until now to make it
easier.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The time for you to make these comments was on
the other application which the violation was on.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was not a public hearing.
MR. STANKEVICH: It's a simple question, can you tell us when you
filed, Ms. Hulse?
MS. HULSE: You can call my office tomorrow, I'll be in the
office. We are in the middle of public hearings now. This is
not testimony. We can do testimony on the next hearing but this
is not appropriate for this particular time,
MR. STANKEVICH: I called you this afternoon. You said you would
bring the materials with you tonight.
MS. HULSE: I didn't speak with you today. At all. So I don't
know what you are talking about.
MR. STANKEVICH: Well, I spoke to the Justice Court and they have
no record whatsoever of any filing to the Trustees regarding
that violation.
MS. HULSE: That's incorrect. You can call my office.
MR. STANKEVICH: It's not incorrect. That's what they told me.
Board of Trustees 47 November 17, 2010
MS. HULSE: Well, it's incorrect. I'm in the town attorney's
office. Feel free to call me tomorrow. I handle the
prosecutions. He paid the fine. It's done. But this is not
the subject of a hearing, so they'll have to move on.
MR. STANKEVICH: So you are refusing to answer the question.
MS. HULSE: I wquld like to answer the question if you call me
tomorrow.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you, we'll have to move on.
MR. STANKEVICH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of JANET
THORP & TRUST U/WIO FRANCIS THORP requests a Wetland Permit to
construct 67 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing
timber bulkhead; replace inkind/inplace two sets of stairs; and
replant existing +/-16' wide embankment behind bulkhead with
native vegetation (using up to 10 cubic yards clean sand
backfill as necessary to restore grade), an area to be
maintained as a non-turf buffer. Located: 230 South Lane, East
Marion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For the record, I would like to abstain from
the discussion of this application.
TRUSTEE KING: This was found to be consistent with LWRP. The
Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the wetland
application as it was submitted. Does any here wish to comment
on this application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. It is a routine replacement of a bulkhead that is
actually located well above Spring high water. If the Board has
any questions, I'm happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE KING: We all went out and looked at it. I don't think
anybody had a problem with it. Like you said, it's
straightforward. Any other comment on this application?
(No response).
Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's very straightforward.
TRUSTEE KING: I11 make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES). (Trustee Doherty abstains).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of EDWARD
& VIRGINIA THORP requests a Wetland Permit for the existing
3.5'x4' platform and 3.5'x8' stairs down embankment. Located: 80
South Lane, East Marion.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be exempt. The
CAC reviewed it and resolved to support the application. The
Board did go out and looked at this. Is there anybody here to
Board of Trustees 48 November 17, 2010
speak on behalf, either for or against this application?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Again, I would like to abstain from this
application.
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. This is also a pretty simple application. It's just
a set of access stairs down that little embankment there that,
according to the owners, were constructed, used and maintained
since the time the house was built prior to 1930, but for a
period of years they were allowed to deteriorate and went unused
and then since the time that the Board would have had
jurisdiction, the stairs were reconstructed in the same location
and configuration but without the benefit of a Trustee permit.
So in order to legalize what was a reconstructed pre-existing
structure, we are before you tonight.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would anybody else like to make any comments for
or against this application?
Any comments from the Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's very straightforward.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Not hearing any comments, I agree. We went out,
we looked at it and felt it was a straightforward application.
So I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Motion to approve number four, En-Consultants on
behalf of Edward and Virginia Thorp as described at 80 South
Lane, East Marion. And it was found exempt under LWRP.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES). (Trustee Doherty abstains).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number five, En-Consultants on behalf of
JOHN & VALERIE KRAMER requests a Wetland Permit to install
approximately 137 linear feet of rip-rap, consisting of +/-1' to
1.5' diameter, approximately 100-300 pound fieldstone (on filter
cloth), and backfill with approximately 50 cubic yards sand to
be planted with Cap American beach grass (18" on center); and
construct approximately 148 linear feet of vinyl retaining wall
and backfill with approximately 45 cubic yards sand to be
planted with native vegetation and maintained as a natural
vegetated buffer. Located: 2225 Calves Neck Road, Southold.
The CAC moved to support this application. The LWRP found
portions of the application consistent and one portion
inconsistent. The inconsistency pointed out use of vegetative
and non-structural measures to manage flooding and erosion
hazards. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on this
application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the
Kramer's. This was the application that we looked at during the
Board's field inspections. This is a site where a number of
years ago the Board had approved the revetment that is on the
Board of Trustees 49 November 17, 2010
east side of the property. I know the Board is -- I'm not going
to go into a long history here -- I know the Board is familiar
with the fact that this shoreline along Jockey Creek has been
eroding for quite some period of time now. What used to be that
retained barrier spit out in the creek has eroded. The erosion
seems to have progressed from east to west. We have been in
here for the Selig's, for the Licalzi's in the past. Licalzi is
the is the next application on your agenda and also for Kramer.
What we are proposing here, and as I mentioned during the field
inspections, we had also met and discussed this design with Rob
Marsh and Alexa Fournier the DEC and in fact the positioning of
both structures was ultimately derived in large part from Mr.
Marsch. The idea is to use smaller stone through the existing
area of beach grass to create some elevation in that area and
replant that beach grass so there is a little bit of the higher
platform of vegetation there to try to hold on to that shoreline
as much as possible. The retaining wall as proposed is really
entirely in the adjacent area. It's a wall that will be exposed
a maximum of two feet in the center and really exposed almost
not at all at the ends. It's basically really an insurance
policy as much as anything else for what hopefully will never be
necessary. But it will at least retain if there was a real
severe storm event that the Kramer's would have some protection
on the west side of the property that would be similar to what
was afforded them on the east side by this Board and the DEC.
John Kramer shared with me really a diary of loss of this
property since the time he purchased it. Again, I know the
Board is familiar with it and he has seen just a tremendous
amount of shoreline disappear even just from the couple of
nor'easter events eadier this year. So I think his sensation
of what might occur during a severe hurricane or some other
storm of that kind of magnitude is that it could actually
threaten to really take away a large chunk of that property.
I was a little bit puzzled on the LWRP recommendation. I
understood that the stones that we proposed with the fill-in
plantings was considered consistent.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you have a copy of it?
MR. HERMAN: I do. But the retaining wall, again, is really
being set in the landscape and lawn area was somehow
inconsistent. And I was not really certain that I understood
that. Again, that is in an area that has basically been
landscaped by the Kramer's now. There is vegetation in that
area that is not native, and our proposal here is when that area
is backfilled, and it's a very small amount of backfill, again,
it's only a maximum of two feet from the center of the wall
where there is a bit of a dip. But for most of the rest of it
there is really not much going on in the way of backfill and the
plantings that would be set in that area with all new native
plants as opposed to what is out there now, which is some of the
ornamental grasses and so forth.
So we would think that section would actually be consistent
Board of Trustees 50 November 17, 2010
with the LWRP, given the fact that, again, the wall is really
being placed in the adjacent area. And the plan is it would
never be interactive with Jockey Creek. And that's really it as
far as Kramer's side of it goes. As you know there is also work
proposed on the Licalzi side that ties into Kramer's structure
but I'll withhold the discussion of that for the Licalzi
hearing. Obviously John is here if the Board has any questions.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are there any other comments or questions?
It's really straightforward.
(No response).
MR. IVANS: Suffolk Environmental, Matt Ivans. We are not here to
object to the project. We basically have one suggestion. I'm
here on Bruce Anderson's behalf. He could not make it tonight.
We represent Bruce's mother who lives next door. Their concern
is that where the retaining wall is proposed as of the project
currently, we are hoping possibly to have the retaining wall
pushed back to the escarpment just in case if there is a
significant storm event it won't create any more loss to her
beach to the west. It's just a suggestion. I would like to
hand in some documentation to that point to the Board.
So again, we don't have any objection to the rip-rap, the
plantings, the fill, just we are hoping that possibly the Board
would consider, if they are going to approve this application,
to have the retaining wall pushed back to the escarpment. You
can see the last page where Bruce penned in.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Have you had the opportunity to possibly
discuss this with the Kramer's?
MR. IVANS: Briefly in the hallway with Rob.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Since we have not seen this before I'm
wondering if Mr. Kramer or Rob has any, wants to address this at
this time? Only because obviously there may be a bit to digest
here.
MR. KRAMER: John Kramer. I appreciate the input but from my
point of view I don't really see how that is going to do
anything beneficial to me. The reality is it's more retaining
wall than what I'm having proposed. And the thing is sunk in
the ground and landscaped so I really don't see any mason to
re-do surveys and put anymore retaining wall than what I was
originally planning. This is a last ditch insurance policy,
from my point of view. Everybody assures me that the rock on
the beach is probably enough, but having seen what happened on
the other side, I really don't want to lose anymore property.
And so if we get a 19-foot tsunami hitting my lawn at least I
have the retaining wall that says where my property was supposed
to be. If I move that retaining wall back, you are not going to
say, well, you can go back out six feet beyond it, right? So
that's, you know.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, thank you. So the suggestion is made
and I hear the applicant is not inclined to go with it. What
does the Board feel? I don't feel it really makes a difference
in what we are reviewing. So I believe it would be just up to
Board of Trustees 51 November 17, 2010
the applicant.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm inclined to agree with the applicant with
regard to this proposed change.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are there any additional concerns or
comments from the Board as we are reviewing this material?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I guess the only thing that I would want to
discuss is how we address the inconsistency in the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right. It would seem that the inconsistency
may be placed on the notion the planned work was actually in an
area that has existing erosion and tidal wetland vegetation when
it's actually in a lawn area. And to make it consistent, that
provided that is the case which we all saw in the plans when we
did the field inspection that native plantings are going in
behind it, it would address all concerns of we are not damaging
native wetland vegetation and we are providing for a buffer of
natural vegetation behind the bulkhead. So I would address the
inconsistency by making certain all construction is not in the
wetland and that it has wetlands indicated, and natural native
plantings behind the retaining wall.
MR. HERMAN: That's as proposed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I 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 as submitted so that it addresses the LVVRP plan
consideration for protecting native vegetation and having a
natural planting behind the retaining wall.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number six, En-Consultants on behalf of LUKE &
RITA LICALZl requests a Wetland Permit to construct
approximately 177 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of (and
18" higher than) existing timber bulkhead and backfill
embankment landward of bulkhead with approximately 140 cubic
yards clean sand to be replanted with native vegetation and
restored and maintained as natural vegetated buffer; and install
approximately 127 linear feet of 1.5' to 2.5' diameter
approximately 300-1,000 pound fieldstone on filter cloth and
backfill with approximately 45 cubic yards sand to be planted
with beach grass to restore and vegetated upland area lost to
erosion. Located: 2105 Calves Neck Road, Southold.
As was noted in the last hearing, this is right next to the
Kramer property and somewhat of an extension of that project.
The LWRP, as they did on the last application, comes in
consistent and inconsistent. It's inconsistency is on the
proposal to back fill the embankment landward of the bulkhead
with 140 cubic yards of clean sand to be replanted with native
vegetation. They find this to be inconsistent with the policy
Board of Trustees 52 November 17, 2010
number four, minimizing loss of human life and structures from
flooding and erosion hazards and therefore is inconsistent. And
it's recommending use of vegetated non-structural measures to
manage flooding and erosion hazard. I'm not quite sure why.
Conservation Advisory Council has resolved to support the
application with the condition that the rip-rap is used across
the top of the landward bulkhead with no increase in elevation,
the height of the bulkhead not be raised and the site of the
non-turf vegetated buffer is increased ten foot; and runoff from
the driveway is captured into drywells. With that, anybody here
who would like to speak on this application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the
Licalzi's. This again, as Bob mentioned, to a certain extent is
part and parcel with the Kramer project. The south side of the
project is going to use stone that is similar in size to
Kramer's revetment stone but as it tapers back to what is a
lower elevated yard area it won't be a stacked engineered
revetment, as Kramer's was. It will be a row of stone that will
be backfilled. You can see since this Board issued the last
permit for the smaller rip-rap farther seaward, the Licalzi's
have lost over 40 feet of shore front on that south side. So we
are hoping that the stone and the backfill and the use of this
larger stone will kind of tie off that corner where the two
projects connect. And then will run over to the existing
retaining wall behind the beach house which again was the area
that the Board had addressed during its last Wetland Permit on
the this project.
With respect to the north side of the project, and again it
sounds like this is the part of the project that was deemed
inconsistent. And, again, I'm completely puzzled on this one
but I think I'll try to get it maybe where this comes from. The
entire bulkhead is proposed to be removed and replaced inplace
place with a vinyl wall. Part of this bulkhead is the section
that the Board issued the emergency permit on for batter
pilings, because the bank was collapsing. And part of the
reason that that bank is collapsing is because half of the area
between the top of the bank and the bulkhead really is so steep.
In fact it's become so steep that much of the vegetation in
there, as the DEC observed when we were there, is now invasive
species. So I think, and perhaps I don't know if Mark was to
the property or not, I think maybe what is behind the LWRP
recommendation is the belief that this is a very natural, well
vegetated embankment that we are proposing to fill and turn into
lawn or something, which is not the purpose. The idea is to
maintain that area as a naturally vegetated embankment as it
exists now, but to soften the slope and replant it with all
native vegetation as opposed to having this very steeply eroded
slope that is now perhaps 50% invasive vegetation. And we would
accomplish that by raising the wall 18 inches, which is what we
talked about out there. And again, this would be reasonably
consistent with the Board's usual policy of trying to take some
Board of Trustees 53 November 17, 2010
of these slopes away from the surface waters where there is an
already bulkheaded property. In other words, the Board does not
have the process of trying to get rid of natural slopes, but
this is a slope already behind a bulkhead. So with respect to
the recommendation that we somehow shift to a non-structural
means, I don't know that is accomplished. I mean the entire
bank would be lost. So we replace the bulkhead and raise it and
then what we would really try to do is restore and maintain that
area as a decent vegetated buffer. And again, not a non-turf
buffer. This is not an idea where we are trying to turn this
into a playpen. The idea is this would remain a natural
vegetated buffer, and I use those terms purposely in the
application so as to make sure that our intent was clear. And
that's really it.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Okay, when we were out there that's what we
pretty much thought it was a project that needed to be done. It
was evident that begat the erosion and we did issue the
emergency permit for the batter piles. I think you are correct
in your assessment that a lot of what we saw out there,
vegetation-wise, was invasive. It was Rosa Rugosa and things
out there, too, but.
MR. HERMAN: We would seek to maintain that.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: So I for one don't have an issue with this. I'm
kind of surprised myself of the LWRP inconsistency on that. I
don't know. Anybody else on the Board have any comment?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think just a suggestion to mitigate the
inconsistency is with the native plantings as Rob described in
that area.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: That's already in the description, too. So if
there is no other comments, I'll entertain a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll move to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted, finding that with the planting of native vegetation
it would bring it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven, En-Oonsuitants on behalf of SELIM
& JUDITH SAMAAN requests a Wetland Permit for the existing
+/-200' timber bulkhead and install (2) 6"x6" timber walers in
place of existing damaged waters. Located: 4875 Nassau Point
Road, Cutchogue.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application with the condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer and
a current and accurate site plan. And this was determined to be
exempt under the LWRP. The question for our representative from
the Conservation Advisory Council here tonight, Audrey, thank
you for coming tonight. The condition of a 15-foot non-turf
Board of Trustees 54 November 17, 2010
buffer, there is currently a non-turf buffer between the
retaining wall and this bulkhead. So I was just wonderin9 if
where they were, where the Conservation Advisory Council was
wishing to see a buffer to be, since there is already one there
between the retaining wall and the --
MS. HORTON: Let me 10ok at my notes. I have didn't go to this one.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. And landward of that retaining wall is a
naturally vegetated bluff.
MS. HORTON: I don't think I made notes on this. Okay, here is what
my notes say. Is that they said the site plan was not accurete
but they saw no, one of the notices, so I think it's a
possibility they might have gotten into the wrong property,
even. Was it signed? You guys would know.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, it was posted.
MS. HORTON: Because my notes say here the site plan they felt was
not accurate and there was no sign. So they night have felt it
was inaccurate because they were at the wrong preperty.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. Is there anybody here to speak
for or against this application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. Let me try to respond as I can. I had discussed with
Lauren, this is one of these applications that tests the finer
points of the Board's code and policies. There was a previous
permit issued for this site for the retaining wall that is
behind the bulkhead and the stone flashback, which I think is
what Dave was talking about is basically the non-turf buffer
that is down there. Never minding the fact the whole bluff is
naturally vegetated. And the bulkhead was on those approved
plans. But interestingly at the time, the permit didn't speak
to the bulkhead itself. So even though all we are doing here is
repairing the walers, technically, and of couree Lori is gone,
it's our underetanding you can't perform ordinary and reutine
maintenance on an unpermitted structure. So we had to come to
get a permit for the bulkhead that was part of a prior permit
but not the subject of that permit.
Now, with respect to the site plan, I can tell you that the
site plan is a slightly revised rendering of what was a 1989 and
2003 survey by Peconic Surveyors. At the time that I did the
plan, I was basing it on that. I then submitted to Lauren an
updated survey from Peconic Surveyors to show the retaining wall
that is there. I'm not sure what about the site plan would be
inaccurate because we have not really designed anything. All we
are saying is here is the bulkhead that is on the survey. The
bulkhead has a couple of breken walers, and we'll replace the
walers as well. If there is a question about the accuracy of
the survey with respect to the upland structures or something,
that I can't speak to.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I was going to say, since the survey done
in '89, there was structures, there was a pool put in up near
the house well outside the Trustees' jurisdiction. So it could
very well be that, and I don't want to speak for the
Board of Trustees 55 November 17, 2010
Conservation Advisory Council, they saw a site plan here that
didn't include a pool and it might have been some amendments,
well, actually the garage was also changed, again, outside our
jurisdiction, that could be what confused them. But that's all
outside our jurisdiction.
MR. HERMAN: The only thing that I could suggest is as part of
this permit you may just want to be very specific you are
legalizing this bulkhead as depicted on the survey. That I can
tell you is correct. And that there is, whatever is on the
upland, you know, this plan was not intended to make any
representations about that. I mean, frankly, we were trying to
keep the cost to the homeowner of replacing two walers as
minimal as we possibly could while trying to adhere strictly to
what the Board's policies are with respect to the maintenance of
an unpermitted structure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: A question that I had, Rob, based on my
observations there, it looked like it was possibly more than
just these two walers that needed to be replaced, and rather
than saying replace two walers, replace damaged walers as
required. That would give you the option of replacing as many
of the walers as you would like, rather than just limiting it to
just two.
MR. HERMAN: Right. And again, as Lauren pointed out to me, once
we legalize the wall, we then have the right to make any of
these ordinary repairs. So we don't, you don't even have to
specify in your permit you are repairing the walers, at least as
Lauren explained it to me. I don't want to speak for Lauren
since she is sitting there. Also Dave, it was intended to be
the two walers the whole length of the wall, not just those two
sections.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I figured. That's why I was
confused. Any other comments from anybody in the audience?
(No response).
Not seeing anybody running to the microphones, any comments
from the Board members?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
the Samaan's as described at 4875 Nassau Point Road, and
this is limiting this of course to the bulkhead, the lower
bulkhead as per the plans submitted, dated 10/21/10.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, 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
Board of Trustees 56 November 17, 2010
open grate decking. Located: 243 Maiden Lane, Mattituck.
This was found inconsistent with LWRP. One of the reasons for
the inconsistency is navigation. No dock should be erected or
extended in the opinion of the Trustees such structure should
adversely effect navigation, fisheries, shellfisheries, scenic
quality, habitats or wetland areas; within creeks and other
narrow waterways no dock line shall exceed one third the total
length of width of the water body. This includes the dimensions
of the vessel. I'm surprised this was found inconsistent, to be
honest.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was not the first time.
TRUSTEE KING: Mattituck Creek almost everything is found
consistent.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's his reasoning?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: He reviewed it again? Oh, it's a new permit,
yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. We'll just see what the Conservation
Advisory Council said. (Perusing). Conservation Advisory
Council resolved not to support the application. Conservation
Advisory Council does not support the application because the
location of the dock represents a hazard to navigation. Is
there anyone here to speak on behalf or against this
application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello on behalf of the applicant. This
dock is basically a fixed pier. It's the same exact dock you
guys approved, I have a permit dated August 19, 2009. The DEC
would not go for the floating dock, so we basically took out the
ramp, the float and made them fix part of the structure. The
overall length has been maintained, the spot, everything is
exactly the same. 94 feet of overall length. It's the same
exact permit. I mean the same design. All we did is change it
to fix.
TRUSTEE KING: There is a lot of history here.
MR. COSTELLO: I know. I'm surprised you said the name properly.
TRUSTEE KING: I believe the original permit that we issued was
for a 55-foot catwalk, then we amended that in August of 2009,
because of a request from the DEC, we amended that and increase
the length of the fixed dock to four feet by 70 feet. It went
back to DEC and they would not go for that because of the float.
MR. COSTELLO: But the overall length was 94 feet.
TRUSTEE KING: The overall length was 94 feet.
MR. COSTELLO: Exactly.
TRUSTEE KING: And that's what you are coming to us for today.
The overall length is 94 feet to the seaward edge of that
platform, So this is the same length as what we approved with
the float. The overall length is the same. It's the same
distance from the house, the deck?
MR. COSTELLO: It's in the same exact spot.
TRUSTEE KING: It's 110 feet from the house.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's the same.
TRUSTEE KING: It's 94 feet overall including the "T." We had
Board of Trustees 57 November 17, 2010
approved the catwalk, ramp and float with an overall length of
94 feet. If I could find it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The description here makes it sound like it's
100 feet total length.
MR. COSTELLO: No, it's 94. I have the pictures here of what you
approved and the new picture, if you would like to see it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Instead of saying 6x20, say including 6x20 "T."
That's all.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I see what you are saying.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The fixed dock portion really should be 88 feet,
4x88 with a 6x20 "T" section.
TRUSTEE KING: Right, that clarifies it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's why we thought you were increasing the
size.
TRUSTEE KING: So make it 88 foot catwalk with a 6x20 "T" at the
end. Fixed tee
MR. COSTELLO: Exactly.
TRUSTEE KING: That comes out to the same length that we had
approved. Is there anyone else here to comment on this
application?
MS. MOORE: My comments are to a certain extent describing what I
had from my client, which shows a 90 foot, 94-foot length fixed dock.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Your client being?
MS. MOORE: Sorry, I apologize. I represent Mat-A-Mar Marina,
the Raynor family. And their concern was that this application
is directly adjacent to their docks and the boats that are --
it's a full service marina. We have a marina that not only has
the boat slips but it also has a gas dock so that the community
uses, there is a restaurant and repairs. So it's a significant
marina. The navigation of that channel for boats to go around
into the boat basin is significantly impacted by the docks that
are across the creek. This being one of the proposals. In my
reseamh I found the Martin property, next door to this piece
and to the north, had gotten a permit to put in a dock several
years ago. The dock is there. But that hampers, significantly
also hampers the navigation of that channel. So this dock with
the Martin dock really interferes with the navigation. I would
agree with the Conservation Advisory Council comments that have
been made throughout regarding the proposed dock and navigation.
I don't, not having seen Mr. Costello, I don't want to the
misstate what he has done, but in the application that was
submitted previously, Proper-T Permits had prepared it and they
did not show what the distance is to other docks across the
creek. The Martin application, when it was submitted, and
Proper-T Permits, Mr. Fitzgerald, had applied for that as well,
had a notation, 200 feet to shore. That may in fact be the case
but the relevant point is actually where the channel is there,
and where there are other structures, in particular, a
commercial marina. It's really imperative that this dock be
looked at with the navigation of that channel and also with the
other structures that are surrounding. You can look at a Google
Board of Trustees 58 November 17, 2010
map and see right off the bat there are structures that will be
in the way. And this dock will just exacerbate what is already
a difficult situation there. So we certainly would oppose this
application. I was not aware they had actually even gotten
approval previously because, again, my research from before, I
had Mr. Fitzgerald's original application but not that it had
ultimately been approved by this Board. In any case it's
expired. So it does give you the opportunity to investigate
further, because the length of this dock is extremely important.
When I went through the research of this property, it had
what I was bringing up was the original permit that was for a
dock that is no longer there. And that permit originally was
issued in the 1970s. That showed a dock that was 50 feet in
length at the time. So that is what historically has been on
that property. And I understand the problems with getting a
permit with DEC but they could certainly get a fixed dock at 50
feet. It's their desire to push out into the channel, and
pushing out into the channel is the problem. It is a channel
that is being used by that whole area including a significantly
sized marina. So I would ask the Board to really evaluate that
very carefully. And I don't know that is actually part of the
drawing that has been submitted, so.
MR. COSTELLO: If the Trustees notice there is only 1.6 feet of
water at the end of the dock, not necessarily navigable water
for boats going in and out of that water. There are boats going
in and out of that marina. If they are navigating at 1.6 feet of
water, they'll have problems anyway. There is no water there.
It's out of the channel. That's really the argument. That's
why it was approved. And it's still a good permit. It is not
expired. On August 21, 2009. Basically the dock is in the same
exact spot, same exact water that the Board approved.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
MS. MOORE: I would just, again, the application that I have from
'09, 2008, 2010, which is dated on this, 2010, May, 2010, shows
the channel being seven, eight feet in depth. The 1.6, at least
with this drawing, is where the dock had been, the end of the "T."
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can't really go by that drawing. That's
not what we are reviewing.
MS. MOORE: It's dated May 10, 2010, so that's why--
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well there were amendments back then.
MS. MOORE: It's possible. Again, my client brought this to me.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are reviewing something totally different.
MS. MOORE: Okay. Does anybody have an extra copy?.
TRUSTEE KING: We spent a lot of time reviewing this from the get
go.
MS. STANDISH: Those are Costello's plans there.
MS. MOORE: These are Costello's plans. I apologize. It is the
drawing that has been submitted. I'm sorry. So I am looking at
the right drawing and it's still 94 feet in length. I mean that's --
TRUSTEE KING: That's what we approved on August 20, 2009.
August 21, that was approved.
Board of Trustees 59 November 17, 2010
MS. MOORE: I understand that but I don't know at that time,
certainly as not as part of this application, but is the Board
looking at the surrounding structures? That's the key.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Of course, we do. We have gone, in the history
of this, we have gone out there, I would say, at least ten times.
TRUSTEE KING: We had a lot of testimony in the past also from
the other side saying the marina is infringing into the water
much farther than they should. And there is an aerial photo,
quite frankly, that indicates that. Because it was a question
of whether those two outside floats were ever permitted or not.
So there has been an awful lot -~ we have letters from the
assemblymen in here, you know.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The history, we went through that. They have
asked to go out further. They got approval from DEC, they went
out further, came back to us, asked us to go further, we denied
that request, because of that very issue you are bringing up.
And we felt that the length that we have here was something that
everybody could live with. After much review and back and
forth.
MS. MOORE: Okay, I have a letter that I'll just put on the
record. I was trying 1o paraphrase rather than read it on the
record. So who takes it. (Handing).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: So what is your pleasure?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: My concern and the review we did last week or
whenever it was, we went out there, it was staked and clearly it
went beyond the pier line, that last stake. And I think it's
pretty clear in our code that a dock cannot, new dock cannot be
approved if it goes past the existing pier line. So regardless
of the length that is proposed, I feel this dock still has to be
pulled back so it is within the pier line so it meets our
current code. As proposed, it extends beyond the pier line.
MR. COSTELLO: Just a comment on that. We visited this time and
time and time again. The dock you are referring to is not
proper. It should not have been permitted the way it was. The
dock to the east. That floating dock sits on the bottom. At
Iow tide. I mean, so, how do you set a pier line, if you are
going to base it on that, but we discussed that before, on the
same night you approved the floating dock.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'm content with approving what we have done in
the past. Like you said, we have been there quite a number of
times back and forth.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, I'm fine with approving this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would defer to the Board's experience in
this. It sounds like it was people going out there repeatedly.
From what I saw on my field visit it didn't look like a problem.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, I would reiterate for the Board what you
are doing is approving the length of a dock beyond the pier
line, which is not allowed in the code.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a policy.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sorry. It's a policy stated in the code.
Board of Trustees 60 November 17, 2010
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Policy stated in the code.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Well, it was found inconsistent. And we are
looking at a structure that is 94 feet overall length. The
first application it was found consistent at a length of 4x90
catwalk, 4x16 ramp and 6x20 float, so it was found consistent at
a much longer length. That doesn't make sense to me. Now it's
inconsistent.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think the reason it was consistent is it was
a federal -- I'm only assuming maybe Mark forgot what that area
was? I don't know. But if we shorten it then it will be
sitting on the bottom. The boat would be sitting on the bottom
if we shorten that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And right above that it says no part of the
floating dock will contact the bottom land during Iow tide,
which if we pull it in, that's what we'll do.
MR. COSTELLO: There is no more floating dock at this point.
It's all fixed. It's the same as what you guys approved in
August.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But if we shorten it we know the boat will sit
at the bottom at Iow tide.
TRUSTEE KING: We have a dilemma here with the DEC, still.
MR. COSTELLO: The DEC approved this one.
TRUSTEE KING: They approved it at 94 feet?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Because I have a letter from February, they wanted
108 feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And then what happened was I talked to Dawn
Reynolds and she said if they angle the float a different way
she would agree to have this shortened and that's why the plans
show the float angle. Correct, Jack?
MR. COSTELLO: And now there is no float.
TRUSTEE KING: So the application is strictly a fixed dock.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you notice that's angled a little and that's
what Dawn's recommendation was.
MR. COSTELLO: We moved it a couple of times now.
TRUSTEE KING: Now I lost the currant set of plans. Lauren's
going to kill me if I mess this all up. Anybody else have any
other comments?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I appreciate Dave's comment on the pier
line. But it also seems if you have an opposing shoreline with
structures coming out, that that would be part of it. It seems
it's an issue the marina itself has structures that are out into
the waterway. The pier line would involve not just an adjacent
laterally but on the opposing shore, particularly where the
typical one-third navigation rule is one that everybody tries to
go with.
TRUSTEE KING: This is an aerial of the area, just to give you an
idea. This is where the dock is going. As you can see, this is
where, it's pushing the envelope, you know.
Anybody else have any comments?
Board of Trustees 61 November 17, 2010
(No response).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just change that. The survey is correct but the
description --
TRUSTEE KING: The overall length is 94 feel So that's an
88-foot fixed catwalk with a 6x20 "T" at the end. It makes the
overall length 94 feet. It's the same overall length that was
approved August 21, 2009, that was for a shorter catwalk but had
a ramp and float. And this set of plans is May 10, 2010,
revised -- May 10, 2010. We received it September 29. It
shows 94 feet overall length.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee King, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye.
Trustee Bredemeyer, aye). (Trustee Bergen, nay).
TRUSTEE KING: As far as the inconsistency with the LWRP, it was
found consistent at a longer length so I don't understand why it
was found inconsistent today.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number nine. Costello Marine Contracting on
behalf of JULIE ANDERSON & ANNE ADRIANCE requests a Wetland
Permit to remove 51' of existing bulkhead and construct 151 feet
of new bulkhead inplace and provide 10' non-turf buffer landward
of new bulkhead. Remove existing 10x30 wooden deck and construct
new 10x30 deck inplace. Remove existing ramp and install new
32"x12' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6x20 seasonal floating
dock secured by two eight-inch diameter anchor pilings. Remove
accumulated debris and overgrowth of vegetation from existing
marine railway. Recondition track-trolley and track bed as
required. Recondition or replace existing winch and cable
assembly as required. Located: 4302 Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue.
The project is both consistent and exempt. The Conservation
Advisory Council had trouble locating the location. The Board
was here, generally, impressed with a great site with a lot of
potential. I'll open the hearing up to any comments of anyone
who wishes to speak in favor or against, accordingly.
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello on behalf of the applicant. This is
just a simple revamp taking out what is there and putting in
new. That's it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustees were enamored with the site but we
also, our field notes contain some concerns that any questions
we had. The town policy, as currently handled on the water that
you are only allowed one dock, and this term "deck" was really a
dock structure. It was out over the water, was not exactly open
construction underneath. And other concern we had, that the
rebuilding and rejuvenation, if you will, of the railway, I
Board of Trustees 62 November 17, 2010
think we all thought was an interesting proposal and really a
nice structure to bring back into use, was going to be probably,
would probably entail the removal of at least one large cedar
tree and a bit of Spartina and the Board thought, and put in the
field notes a question of whether or not a Iow sill bulkhead
along that side where the existing 10x30 deck/dock if you will,
and a Iow sill bulkhead there and elsewhere place the new
catwalk and dock assembly. Seeing that probably the DEC may
have issues with the loss of some vegetation in front of and in
the bed at the old railway we felt that that area being approved
and then with a Iow sill bulkhead where that is a very
protective site would be conducive to a good healthy marsh
behind the Iow sill.
MR. COSTELLO: Are you are talking on kind of like the west side.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Let me get my bearings here. Conservation
Advisory Council couldn't find it. The railway almost goes due
north and south. So it would be the south, it would be the
bulkhead on the south, the one that currently has what you are
calling a deck on it. The question was whether part of that
construction, would be on the north side of the property -- the
south side of Wunneweta Pond.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The property is on the north side of VVunneweta
Pond but we were talking about the possibility of a Iow sill
bulkhead in the area which currently has a deck. It runs from,
let's just say from the house side of the property to the
railroad track part of the property.
MR. COSTELLO: I didn't really consider that. I thought there
was more vegetation on the other side of it. That was going to
be more of a problem. You know, like I said, we didn't want to
add any more structure than what was already there. It obviously
worked for a great many years, so to add more structure with a
Iow sill bulkhead or whatever, seems to go against what the
Trustees are trying to do.
TRUSTEE KING: I thought we were to replace that bulkhead in
place.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It says replace inplace.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we were suggesting is instead of replacing
it inkind is to replace it as a Iow sill.
MR. COSTELLO: Fair enough. I thought you meant to add Iow sill
further out.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Strictly that. And then a decision made as
to whether they would want to keep the existing wood dock or
move it, but not have two docks on the site.
MR. COSTELLO: I would really have to talk to the client about
that. I can't give something away they obviously had.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The problem we saw, you have a whole growth of
that grows right across that railway now that has to be removed
to make it usable. We thought the Iow sill would mitigate that
factor by recreating another wetland area. That was our
thoughts.
Board of Trustees 63 November 17, 2010
MR. COSTELLO: I wouldn't be against that. I'm sure they want to
do that. But as far as removing the deck or dock area, whatever
you want to call it, with the fixed dock portion of it, that's
not within my rights to forgive that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: See, what is challenging for us is the client is
asking to completely rebuild what is there and what is there,
well, it was one dock here, that deck, the other was just a ramp
going down into the water. Obviously that's where there had
been, at some point a floating dock. So you are asking for the
Trustees now to approve two docks on the same piece of property;
which we are not allowed to do, according to code.
MR. COSTELLO: Is there any chance to move the dock, I mean it
would be a bigger deck than allowable, take the fixed portion
and move it to the landward side of the bulkhead. If you took
that deck, that fixed portion and moved it landward, it would be
over the allowable square footage. But I'm trying to meet
halfway. Is that an acceptable alternative?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It seems that would be reasonable. If the
Iow sill bulkhead is also a possibility or talk with the client
about that, that would provide a tremendous amount of
environmental mitigation that would justify keeping and just
moving, rebuilding a current size structure would seem a
reasonable approach.
MR. COSTELLO: Or if we could even cut down the size of the deck
from ten feet to five feet. It doesn't necessarily have to be
ten feet. They want to access a boat.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure.
MR. COSTELLO: But having it ten feet wide is not necessary.
When I measured this job I took measurements of what was there.
That's it. I'm sure there is a little bit of reom there for, you
know, to give a little back.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Consideration would also be what the client
wants with respect to navigation. If you were just going to
have one structure, that's issues, too. I don't know if that's
something to table this and talk to them.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I was going to suggest.
MR. COSTELLO: As far as the fixed portion of the dock goes, what
would you be more apt to approve; moving it entirely behind the
bulkhead or could we cut that down in half. Because it would be
a certain amount of dredging if we remove that whole dock
structure, the bulkhead would have to become larger, as far as
the length of the pilings, the length of the sheathing, because
to have a boat lay up against that bulkhead. I'm sure that's
what -- that's why the dock was built, to get further out
toward the deeper water. You know what I'm saying.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll tell you. Some people will laugh. I do
remember this when it actually had a boat there and this was a
functioning railroad. In my very early age, and, yes, that's
where they kept the boat was at the deck. But if they would
give up the ramp and float then you have one dock
there on the property. That dock the only one on in that little boat basin.
Board of Trustees 64 November 17, 2010
MR. COSTELLO: Like I said, they could access other vessels from
off the bulkhead, you know what I'm saying, they could tie
directly to the bulkhead. I think they would rather have the
floating dock, just for ease of accessing a vessel. If there
was anything, I just have to talk to them about what they are
willing to give up on that fixed dock portion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we table this, you discuss it with
them. If you have further questions we can meet you out in the
field next month, with the applicant.
MR. COSTELLO: Okay, but as of right now, if I said we have to
move 10x30 foot deck behind the dock, at least they have a place
to put their tables and chairs and stuff like that. They are
getting -- they are getting a little and giving a little bit,
but at least it's not over the wetland.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, that's reasonable.
MR. COSTELLO: I'll bring that point to them. Or if you want to
approve it like that, that would be better, and we can make an
amendment at a later date. It would probably work better for me.
If you approved moving this 10x30 foot dock behind the bulkhead
in that same location.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That would negate having a Iow sill
bulkhead, presumably.
MR. COSTELLO: We could move it to the south ten feet.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll have to go back out in the field.
MR. COSTELLO: I could move it away from the Iow sill bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you know how much dredging you need to do?
You would have to look underneath that decking area.
MR. COSTELLO: I would have to get a couple feet of water under
there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we should table it and you can discuss
options with the applicant and we can discuss it.
MR. COSTELLO: We'll have to meet in the field. It's a pretty
big job.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Has DEC commented on it yet or worked with
it?
MR. COSTELLO: No, they have not. So it's not, it certainty not
time sensitive because they want to do it right away, but with
the DEC, nothing is 100% time sensitive. So I'm not objecting
it tabling it for a month.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think this is just different options we are
talking about. I think it's better if we think about them and
have your client think about them as well.
TRUSTEE KING: How far out does the railway go, Jay?
MR. COSTELLO: At this point we don't know. It's buried under
the mud. We'll have to get to a point where it seems usable.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It probably went out there pretty far. That was
probably a 40-foot Sport Fish in there, back in the '70s, '60s.
I won't go back farther than that.
MR. COSTELLO: We can table this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to table the
application and hold the hearing open.
Board of Trustees 65 November 17, 2010
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number ten, Costeilo Marine Contracting on
behalf of HARVEY & ROBERT SLADKUS requests a Wetland Permit to
remove existing 4'x5.6" cantilevered platform and aluminum
stairway to beach; remove 181 feet of existing seaward bulkhead
and construct new bulkhead inplace; re-install existing
cantilevered platform and stairway. Remove existing upper
stairway from top of bank, deck and lower stairway to allow
removal of 182' of existing retaining wall; construct new
retaining wall inplace; re-install and/or reconstruct upper
stairway, deck and lower stairway inplace; revegetate any
disturbed area of bank with native plantings. Located: 6300
Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
This is exempt from LWRP, and Conservation Advisory Council
supports the application with the condition of a 20-foot
non-turf native vegetative buffer landward of the replacement of
the new retaining wall. Is there anyone who would like to
comment on this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello on behalf of the applicant. This is
just another replacement. Straight up ripping out, replacing it
inplace.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: On here it shows sand between the two
bulkheads, then it shows a vegetative slope. Audrey, is your
comment did we do an additional 20-foot non-turf buffer?.
MS. HORTON: I think it was total. Let me check on that. You keep
asking me questions on the half I didn't have. That was the
short half.
MR. COSTELLO: There is 29 feet between the bulkhead and
retaining wall. That would seem to be a pretty fair size buffer.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, and with what we've done in this area, we
thought that was sufficient.
MS. HORTON: From ten foot to be 20. So an additional ten feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay.
MS. HORTON: Ten increased to 20.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. With the 29 feet between the two
bulkheads and the vegetated slope, I feel that's a sufficient
vegetated buffer. I don't know what the rest of the Board
feels. And we had comments maybe replacing the retaining wall
in front of the existing retaining wall?
MR. COSTELLO: Okay, I don't object though that. As long as it
can be done. You can see it's falling down.
TRUSTEE KING: We just felt to be less disturbance to that bank.
You don't have to take that retaining wall out, just go right in
front of it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is a lot of nice vegetation here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And possibly use helical screws there so, again,
you are not digging out --
MR. COSTELLO: That could be pretty expensive.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I realize that.
Board of Trustees 66 November 17, 2010
TRUSTEE KING: You have the cost of removing and getting rid of
that have retaining wall if you remove it.
MR. COSTELLO: We could certainly go out in front of it. There
would still be disturbance on that bank. It would be minimal if
we went out in front.
TRUSTEE KING: You have 29 feet there, so bumping that second
wall out, to me.
MR. COSTELLO: We can certainly do that. I can't say there would
be no disturbance.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We understand that. And the other thing is just
a technical thing. There is a flag pole that is in our
jurisdiction. So we just want to add that to the description of
the application.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's permitted in.
TRUSTEE KING: Can we approve it as it's been written, with the
option if they want to go in front of the retaining wall, they
can. That way you have your choice. Would that be a good way
to do it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That would be a good way to do it.
MR. COSTELLO: I guess.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as submitted and also with the option of replacing the retaining
wall in front of the existing retaining wall. And including the
flag pole on the property in the description. Do I have a
second.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. COSTELLO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of ANITA
BRUSH requests a Wetland Permit to remove a section of the
existing jetty landward of MLW 23' and construct new Iow-profile
jetty inplace. Offshore section of jetty to remain. Cut down top
of jetty section to match top elevation of new Iow-profile
jetty. Located: 4716 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
LWRP is found to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory
Council resolved to support the application as it is. The Board
was all out there and the only comments were something about 18
inches above beach grade.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I guess we have to stay on the down drift side
even though there is no down drift side there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It seems pretty straightforward. Is there
anybody here who would like to address this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. My name is John Costello. I'm the agent for
Anita Brush on this application. And when the Board visited
Board of Trustees 67 November 17, 2010
this site I'm sure that they saw several of the Iow profile
jetties to the west of that and how efficient they are. I mean
they are filled within two or three inches to the top. You can
almost walk over them. Unfortunately they are not all Iow sill.
So it's a little bit of an endeavor to talk her into lowering
this jetty to 18-inches above the beach. If she gets 18 inches
of sand back on her beach, she will be tickled to death. And if
they are consistently all Iow sill, I think that beach would be
in considerably better shape. What we would do is cut the
offshore end of that jetty down, and the inshore end, having it
at no more than 18 inches, you'll see the beach build up to some
degree, and it will be 12 inches and probably less in a short
period of time. Most of the sand in that beach area is onshore
offshore. So when you do have southwest winds, it goes from
east to west. When you have easterly weather, it builds up on
the other side. Some of the westem jetties ara filled both
sides to the top, which hopefully we can get that to work here, too.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Comments or questions from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: No, pretty straightforward.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted, since it's been declared consistent under LWRP and we
don't have any problems or issues with this application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. COSTELLO: I'll offer one piece of advice. I know the
question came up tonight; how big is a three-ton rock. 3x3x4.
It's a cubic feet measurement. But that's how big a three-ton
rock is.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jack, you made him stay all night for that?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
Jill .~l/{~Doh erty,hQ~
Bo~d of Trustees '
RECFllVED
DEC 27 2010