HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-03/21/2012 James F. King, President
Bob Ghosio, Jr., Vice-President
Dave Bergen
John Bredemeyer
Michael J. Domino
Town Hail Annex
54375 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-6641
BOARD OFTOWNTRUSTEES
TOWN OFSOUTHOLD
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
RECEIVED
Southotd Town Cterl;
Wednesday, March 21,2012
6:00 PM
Present Were:
Jim King, President
Bob Ghosio, Vice-President
Dave Bergen, Trustee
John Bredemeyer, Trustee
Michael J. Domino, Trustee
Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant
Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, Apdl 18, 2012, at 6:00 PM
WORKSESSiON: 5:30 PM
TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone, welcome to our March meeting. Just a little
bit of housekeeping. We have Wayne Galante is here, he takes the Minutes for us, so
during the public hearings if you have any comments please come to the microphone
and identify yourself so he can get your name on the record, and try to keep your
comments limited to five minutes or less. We also have a couple of members of the
Conservation Advisory Council here; Audrey Horton, way in the back, hiding back there,
and a new member, John Stein. Welcome, John.
We have some cancellations -- we have quite a few cancellations. Page four
number five, Docko, Inc. on behalf of LEONARD ORR an Amendment to Wetland
Permit #7315 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7315C to remove 255 If. of concrete seawall
and construct 255 If. of new reinforced, cast-in-place concrete seawall with new
reinforced, cast-in-place concrete footing, 275 cy. over 2,750 sf. and establish a 10 ft. wide
non-turf buffer landward of the new seawall all at and landward of the high tide line;
place 35 cy., 80 tons of stone shoreline protection along the face of the new wall water
of the apparent high tide line and landward of mean high water. Located: Private Rd. Off
Board of Trustees
March 21, 2012
Equestrian Ave., Fishers Island, is postponed.
Page four, number six, Docko, Inc. on behalf of PETER SCHWAB requests an
Amendment to Wetland Permit #7629 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7629C to place new
scour protection stone, 25+/- cy. over 250+/- sf. along the waterward face of the
concrete seawall. Located: Hedge St., Fishers Island., is postponed.
Under Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permits, page four, number two, J.M.O.
Environmental Consulting on behalf of WILLIAM L. HANLEY, JR. requests a
Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to restore a damaged shoreline in various
on site locations; install 85 ft. of boulder barrier along the eroded shoreline consisting of 1-
2 ton stones placed on top of a 1ft. deep layer of stone chips on filter fabric, and with a
slope of 1:2-1:3; extend the existin9 concrete seawall 38' and armor the extension with a
boulder barrier consisting of 1-2 ton stones placed on top of a 1' deep layer of stone
chips on filter fabric, and with a slope of 1:2-1:3. In the eastern portion of the site, install
50' of boulder barrier consisting of 1-2 ton stones placed on top of a 1' deep layer of
stone chips on filter fabric, and with a slope of 1:2-1:3; and randomly place boulders and
stones seaward of the proposed barrier. In the northwestern portion of the site install 35'
of boulder barrier consisting of 1-2 ton stones placed on top of a 1' deep layer of stone
chips on filter fabric, and with a slope of 1:2-1:3. Along the northern portion
armodre-armor the existing concrete seawall by randomly placin9 1-2 boulders and
stones in the voids of the existing armorin9. Located: East End Rd., Fishers Island, is
postponed.
Number three on page five, Fairweather Design Associates on behalf of DAVID MOORE
requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to cut back the non-permitted
bluff side deck 16', lessen the amount of decking that approaches the bluff and redirect
the roof and deck run-off to the landward drywell. Located: 21075 Soundview Ave.,
Southold, is postponed.
Number 11, J.MO. Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND
DEVELOPMENT CORP., requests a Wetland Permit to construct a paved recreational
path approx. 4,250' Ion9 and 8' wide; approx. 1,533' of the proposed path would be
located within 100' of a regulated freshwater wetlands; construct approx. 570' of 8' wide
elevated boardwalk secured by helical anchors within 100' of wetlands, which is a
portion of the 4,250' total length of the proposed path; construct approx. 617' of retaining
walls within 100' of wetlands; and to construct a 16'X 24' viewin9 deck that would be
elevated approx. 9' above grade. Located: East End Rd., Fishers Island, is postponed.
And numbers 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 are all postponed. They are listed as follows:
Number 17, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of PORT OF EGYPT
requests a Wetland Permit to install new pavement within the central portion of the
property: repaiflreconstruct sidewalks and decking within the southeastern section of the
property; install native perennial grass plantings within an area on the southeastern
section of the property; and add Eastern Red Cedars within a planted 9arden area along
the southerly section of the property. Located: 62300 Main Rd., Southold.
Number 18, Cramer Consultin9 Group on behalf of NICHOLAS ALIANO requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwellin9 25'X 40' with associated sanitary
system, driveway and retainin9 walls. Located: 3705 Duck Pond Rd., Cutchogue.
Number 19, Mark K. Schwartz, Architect on behalf of DOUG & KATHLENE FOLTS
requests a Wetland Permit to re-frame the existing first-floor with attached garage, wrap
around porch and new second-floor; existing septic system to be removed and new one
to be installed further from the water; and install drywells to control water run-off from
dwelling. Located: 90 Oak St., Cutchogue.
Number 20, KPC Planning Sen/ice, Inc., on behalf of FHV LLC requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a 4'X 39' dock with a 3'X 12' ramp, 6'X 20' floating dock, three (3)
two-pile (125 dia.) float securing dolphins and two (2) two-pile (128 dia.) Boat securing
dolphins. Located: 1500 Mason Dr., Cutchogue.
Board of Trustees
3
March 21, 2012
Number 21, Docko, Inc., on behalf of HIRAM MOODY, JR., requests a Wetland Permit
to construct a 4' wide pile and timber pier and install an 8'X 20' floating dock with hinged
ramp and associated float restraint piles, boat bedhing tie-off piles, utilities and ladder.
The overall length of the pier from the shore waterward of the high tide line and tidal
wetlands vegetation is 120'. Located: 33 Reservoir Rd., Fishers Island, is postponed.
We won't be addressing these tonight. Most of them are on Fishers Island. We have
been trying to set up a trip over there with the DEC. We have not been able to
coordinate those yet.
I would like to set the next field inspection for Wednesday, April 11 at 8:00 AM.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Next Trustee meeting, Wednesday, April 18, at six
o'clock, with a worksession at 5:30.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for February, 2012. A check for
$6,856.38 was forwarded to the Supervisor's office for the
General Fund.
u. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin board for
review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold
hereby finds that the following applications more fully
described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee
agenda dated Wednesday, March 21,2012 are classified as Type
II Actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations and are not
subject to further review under SEQRA.
They are listed here on pages one and two.
Barbara Klein - SCTM#104-10-6
Beixedon Estates Assoc., Inc. - SCTM#66-2-47
Joseph & Elizabeth Brittman - SCTM#78-2-11.3
Robert Swing - SCTM#53-6-24
William L. Hanley, Jr. - SCTM#1-2-4
Henry H. Traendly & Barbara A. Cadwallader - SCTM#31-14-11
Leonard Ridini - SCTM#110-7-4
US Dept. Of Homeland Security, Plum Island Animal Disease Center - SCTM#132-1-30
Hiram Moody, Jr. - SCTM#9-8-3.2
Peter Schwab - SCTM#10-7-27.10
1050 West Cove Rd., LLC - SCTM#111-5-1
Board of Trustees
4
Tom & Mae Mauri - SCTM#63-7-33
Port of Egypt - SCTM#56-6-3.4
Murray Gaylord - SCTM#116-4-20.1
Robert Horvath - SCTM#81-3-5
Emila & Ilya Kabakov - SCTM#123-8-5
William Edwards & Amei Wallach - SCTM#123-8-4
Lazarus Alexandrou, Contract Vendee - SCTM#33-1-11
David Moore - SCTM#51-4-17
Mary DeSetta - SCTM#35-4-10
Walter Blum - SCTM#34-5-12
March 21, 2012
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: What we try and do on some of these easier
applications such as the Resolutions and Administrative Permits,
if they are simple, we are familiar with them and we reviewed
them and there is no problem with anything, we try and lump them
together, so we'll move along a little faster, so we don't bore
you people to death.
Under Resolutions and Administrative Permits, numbers one,
two and three, are listed as follows:
Number one, LEO & VIRGINIA ALESSI request an Administrative
Permit to construct a 30' Ion9 pergola attached to the entrance
of the existing dwelling. Located: 1700 Cedar Point Dr.
East, Southold.
Number two, GreenLogic LLC on behalf of ELYSE JAMES requests an
Administrative Permit to install a roof mounted solar electric
system onto the existing dwellin9. Located: 5000 Paradise
Point Rd., Southold.
Number three, ROBERT LEHNERT requests an Administrative Permit
to add a new leachin9 pool landward of the existing. Located:
905 Fleetwood Rd., Cutchogue.
I would make a motion to approve those.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE KING: On the Applications for Extensions, Transfers and
Administrative Amendments, number four, Natural Images
Landscaping on behalf of PETER & JOAN FRITZ requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7633 to re-vegetate
the area landward of the bulkhead and install a stone patio.
Located: 755 North Parish Dr., Southold.
Is Peter and Joan Fritz here?
(No response).
Board of Trustees
March 21,2012
Because we need to see that staked. So I think we'll just postpone that. Can we do
that?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm okay with postponing it.
TRUSTEE KING: All right, we'll postpone that. Because that needs
to be restaked, or staked. There were some questions we had. But
on the rest of them, one through three, and five through ten,
are all very straightforward and simple.
They are listed as follows:
Number one, CAROL DENSON requests a One-Year Extension to
Wetland Permit #7275, as issued on April 21,2010. Located: 750
Old Main Rd., Southold.
Number two, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of GRACE BURR
HAWKINS requests the last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit
#7089, as issued on April 22, 2009 and Amended on July 22, 2009.
Located: Private Rd, Fishers Island.
Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of HENRY MAZZONI requests
a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7277, as issued on April
21,2010. Located: Stoney Beach Rd., East Marion.
Number five, Islandia Pools, Ltd on behalf of RONALD FURMAN
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7498 to
reposition and design of the proposed pool and move the pool
equipment landward under the existing deck. Located: 1455 Meadow
Beach Lane, Mattituck.
Number six, Frederick R. Weber, R.A. on behalf of FOUR-S PROPERTIES,
LLC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit #7668 to scale back on the project and construct a
one-stow dwelling, terrace and screened gazebo porch. Located:
3490 Vanston Rd., Cutchogue.
Number seven, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf
of WALTER GAIPA requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit #7473 to relocate the proposed retaining wall more
distant from the shoreline. Located: 360 Lake View Terrace, East Marion.
Number eight, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf
of DONNA SALMINEN requests an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit #7469 to relocate the proposed retaining
wall more distant from the shoreline. Located: 320 Lake View
Terrace, East Marion.
Number nine, Eh-Consultants on behalf of JEANNE MARKEL & JOHN
CHRISTIAN WEDGE requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit #7608 to authorize the installation of solar panels on
the proposed dwelling; remove the previously proposed pathway
within 100' of wetlands; reduce total site clearing from 4,082
square feet to 741 sf; and relocate the proposed drinking water
well farther seaward than the existing well. Located: 100 Harbor
Rd., Orient.
Number ten, En-Consultants on behalf of GORDON & JUNE SEAMAN,
JR. requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7483
to authorize a 4'X 10' addition to an existing second-story deck
to be removed and replaced and to remove and replace existing
first-stow deck. Located: 1570 Cie Jule Lane, Mattituck.
TRUSTEE KING: I would make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
6
Board of Trustees March 21,2012
(ALL AYES).
VI. RESOLUTIONS-OTHER:
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Under Resolutions, EDWARD JURZENIA requests a
Wetland Permit to install a storm water run-off drainage area;
excavate shaft until well draining soils are encountered; fill
excavated area with sand and gravel; remove trees as needed for
site access; and removal of all dead trees. Located: 50 Shore
Rd., Greenport.
Now therefore be it revolved the Board of Trustees approves
the application of Edward Jurzenia to install a stormwater
runoff drain area; excavate the shaft until well-draining soils
are encountered; fill excavated area with sand and gravel; to
remove trees as needed for site access; and removal of all dead
trees. This approval is conditioned upon the following:
Number one, the applicant shall submit a plan stamped by a
licensed professional engineer.
Two, the site shall be dewatered in accordance with the
recommendation of the town engineering office, dated March 5,
2012.
Number three, hay bales as drawn on the submitted plan
shall be utilized during construction.
And four, the applicant may remove only the trees required
for site access and along Silvermere Road prior to construction
on site. The remaining trees on site may be removed two months
after the completion of the permitted activities, if there are
no indicators of growth or life on the remaining trees as per
Trustee site inspection. With that, I move this resolution.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
What are we doing with the Shellfish Advisory Committee?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's requested we move a member and an
alternate to be on the Shellfish Advisory Committee, so someone -- I
understood Jim and myself would be --
TRUSTEE KING: So you'll move on and I'll be the alternate to
you?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Jay would be on the Shellfish Advisory Committee
and I'll be the alternate.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, I'll make a motion that Jay be the liaison
for the Trustees to the Shellfish Advisory Committee with Jim
King as the alternate.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second it.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off our regular meeting
and on to the public hearing section.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
ALL AYES).
7
Board of Trustees March 21,2012
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE KING: We'll hold off on number one because Mr. Costello
is not here, and we have some questions for him.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number two, Melrose Marine Service, Inc., on
behalf of WALTER BLUM requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#2097 from Robert E. Copas to Walter Blum, as issued on November
27, 1985, and an Amendment to Wetland Permit #2097 for the
existing 4'X 15' ramp and 8'X 70' floating dock and to replace
the storm-damaged pilings to secure the float.
Located: 260 Robinson Rd., Greenport.
This has been found by the LWRP coordinator to be exempt
from LWRP. They considered it a minor action. And resolved by
the Conservation Advisory Council to support the application,
however they recommend a plan to address the stormwater runoff,
the installation of a non-turf buffer between the bulkhead and
deck, and non-disturbance buffer on the undeveloped area north
of the end of the bulkhead. And we were out there and we all
took a look at it. I'll post some pictures in a minute.
As I recall, we had some conversation about the length. Is
there anybody here who would like to address this application?
MR. BLUM: I'm Walter Blum, I live at 260 Robinson Road, Greenport. We have a piling
that was at the south end of the dock and broke off, we thought it was from something
during the storm. As it turned out, it was worms that ate away at the piling. And I
showed that to the gentleman who came over that day. And we just don't know about the
rest of the pilings, to be perfectly honest with you. It's, we are just not sure. What other
questions do you have?
TRUSTEE KING: I think the biggest questions is on the length of
the float itself. We looked at what was permitted there and I
believe it was a 40-foot float. Did you ever get any amendments
or anything like that?
MR. BLUM: I have something here to show you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The application is for an 8X40 section of dock.
In 1985 we have the original permit here says the approval was
for an 8x40 dock.
MR. BLUM: Extension.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Not by this permit. Application approved to
secure permit for an 8x40' section of dock and three pilings in
Sterling Creek.
MR. BLUM: This is what I have. I have other things for you.
TRUSTEE KING: This is the DEC permit, looks like.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: To replace a broken float pile --
MR. BLUM: (Handing). See, I have more.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's from 2012 and 2011.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This isn't a permit --
TRUSTEE KING: This is replace the broken float pile inkind
inplace.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I can tell you that in 1985 when he made, when
they made application in 1985, the application and the diagram
for this permit indicates that this was an extension of an existing dock.
MR. BLUM: There was a section there that was 4x40' but it was
narrower. And what they did was they, I bought the house from
Bob Copas (sic), and what he --
8
Board of Trustees
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll have to ask you to go back to the microphone.
MR. BLUM: Sorry. But that's the original papers I have from Bob
Copas. This was -- I don't want to leave those. If I can get
those back. This is all the original papers.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The application for permit in November of '85
says to install additional floating dock and three pilings
adjacent to the existing dock.
MR. BLUM: Well, there was 35 feet there, that was original, and
there was a four-foot section wide by 40 foot long that they
replaced with an eight foot wide section.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: And there is a diagram showing it from 1985.
TRUSTEE KING: The permit we were looking at didn't indicate that
was an addition, it indicated a permit for a 40-foot float.
MR. BLUM: I could see where the confusion would be there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So we just wanted to make sure of all of that.
MR. BLUM: Sure.
TRUSTEE KING: That clears things up for us.
MR. BLUM: Okay, great.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So then based upon the description that we have
today, that would, that actually is the verbal description of
what is really there. I have a copy of that. With that being
said, is there any other comments or concerns?
TRUSTEE KING: What were the Conservation Advisory Council
comments about a buffer?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You know, you could see it in here, but it is, I
guess it's grass, isn't it. But there is a pool right there, too.
MR. BLUM: The pool is to the right.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: The CAC is recommending addressing the storm
water runoff with the installation of a non-turf buffer between
the bulkhead and the deck and a non-disturbance buffer in the
undeveloped area north of the north end of the bulkhead.
MR. BLUM: You are talking about the north end of the bulkhead.
Where we live in Sterling Harbor there is a lot of boat traffic
because there is a marina at the end, and then across the way
from us is a marina as well. Then just people come up and down
the creek just to look and everything else. And then on the
other side, we are at the corner there, the point of land facing
the other part of Sterling Harbor, we have traffic coming from
Brewer's Marina as well. And the wave action there is
tremendous because there is no harbor master to really prevent
anybody from going slower, and we do have a problem with that.
As you could see, if you went there, you could see the problem.
And we are asking Melrose when he comes to also evaluate whether
we should extend that bulkhead down further. Because our house,
part of our house, is vulnerable to that as well. Because from
our kitchen window on back there is the chance of having more of
a problem with the house.
TRUSTEE KING: You mean extending that southerly end there now
MR. BLUM: Yes, extending the southerly back further because we
have another about 65 feet of property.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Its undercutting right now.
MR. BLUM: It's undercut right now, correct. And with the wave
action that comes off, you can see, it has taken away the soil,
March 21, 2012
9
Board of Trustees
completely. I tried to just do something to prevent it a little
bit, but it's impossible. So we are going to be talking --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's a different matter.
TRUSTEE KING: That would be a separate application.
MR. BLUM: That's a separate application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How do you feel about taking this area between
the bulkhead and the decking and make that into more of a
planted, non-turf buffer?
MR. BLUM: Absolutely. You mean put stone in there?
TRUSTEE GHQSIO: Either stone, some natural plantings, not turf.
MR. BLUM: Actually, my wife and I were talking about putting
stone closer to the bulkhead there and eventually, well, we
would like to go into the bulkhead at the same time. Because if
we star[ doing the application with the bulkhead, it would just
make more sense.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If we made that a condition of this, that would
be all right with you?
MR. BLUM: I think we would need the piling.
TRUSTEE GHQSIO: Yes.
MR. BLUM: The piling is all right, as far as replacing the
piling, because right now we were worried the whole winter if
there would be a bad storm we would have more of a problem
because the whole south end of that dock is just tied to the --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We could address that with the buffer when they
come in for the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KING: That would be the time to do it because then you
disturb everything.
MR. BLUM: Right. And we didn't want to link the two right now
only because with the DEC, the problem when you are talking
about extending the bulkhead, it takes many months to get this
thing approved whereas this is something more of an emergency at
this point.
TRUSTEE KING: Right now you are taking care of the transfer of
the permit, you are taking care of the new piling put in place --
MR. BLUM: Right, and whatever other pilings because we were
concerned they were all put in place at the same time.
TRUSTEE KING: The existing piles there now, if you want to take
a pile out now and put a new one in its place, you don't need a
permit for that. Because it's there. It's a permitted structure.
You are just replacing what is there inplace.
MR. BLUM: Exactly. I didn't know.
TRUSTEE KING: Because the chances are if one is worm eaten, the
others get worm eaten. They get worm eaten right at the mud
line. I have the same problem with some of mine, ten-inch piles
down to four inches.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would like to, I was on a Board that
actually approved the prior permits. I was brought back on the
Trustees. I'm a Trustee retread, if you will. And times and
current thinking has changed over what it was when I was on the
Board originally and I regularly hear why did you approve such a
big float or why did you approve such a big dock because of the
concerns about marine productivity in trying to keep structures
a little smaller, and the current standard for floats for, you
March 21, 2012
Board of Trustees
10
March 21, 2012
know, for private mooring, residential docking, is a 6x20
standard. And the Board typically allows flexibility to make it
narrower, not longer, so you keep the same 120 square feet. So I
just wanted to raise for possible discussion that future
replacement of the floats could be downsized to meet with
maintaining marine productivity and maintaining stable access. I
know with issues with the boat there is real. I'm familiar with
the creek. It would be a consideration. I just want to throw
that out there.
MR. BLUM: Well, we'll consider it. We are not replacing the
actual dock itself right now.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Understood. I wanted to put that notion out
there because times have changed and things have changed. I
think the Board tends to transfer permits in tact as they exist,
but I wanted to mention that as a thought going forward.
TRUSTEE KING: Not many people want to give up something they've
got.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's for sure.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, any other discussion?
TRUSTEE KING: I think we straightened it all out.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to close the
public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to approve the
application as submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. BLUM: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Frank Notaro on behalf of ROBERT
SWlN6 requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #6978 to include
the existing on grade patio and to remove the portion within the
5' wide non-disturbance buffer. Located: 4295 Bayshore Rd., Greenport.
MR. SWING: I'm Robert Swing.
TRUSTEE KING: I believe this was found inconsistent with the
LWRP.
MR. SWING: I'll show you what it looks like now. A landscaper
put it in, didn't adhere to the project. So the difference is
we put it in sand and I removed them. And this gives you an idea
what the house looks like.
TRUSTEE KING: He finds it inconsistent because you didn't get a
permit for it, I guess. That's why he found it inconsistent.
And he recommends a non-disturbance buffer should increase from
five feet to ten feet in width, as a landscape buffer.
MR. SWING: It's not too much land, the backyard, I mean --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I know you have a tape out here.
MR. SWING: That's the five feet. And actually it's bigger than
that, because I think they took it from the front of the
bulkhead back. So. But if you look at the backyard, you have it.
But you have that in front of you.
TRUSTEE KING: You can have this back. We have a copy of this.
11
Board of Trustees
March 21, 2012
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application. They have questions whether the French drain is
properly located and constructed. I know there was something
about a French drain there on that.
MR. SWING: We put drywells in.
TRUSTEE KING: That was my concern. We went out there, I saw you
have all the downspouts going into drywells. Why do you need a
French drain?
MR. NOTARO: Frank Notaro, the architect for the Swing's. That
was on the original Suffolk Environmental application from about
five years ago. You can't put French drains there because there
is no property there. So you can't drain it into anything. We
made sure that all of the roof runoff went into two catch
basins. And they were inspected by the town. There is all sand
there. You can't do it. It's impossible.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it's a non-issue. Because they have roof
drains to drywells. In lieu of the French drain, which you can't
put there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So do we need to amend the permit?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You would have to remove that from the permit,
because the permit requires a French drain.
TRUSTEE KING: We should do like an administrative amendment to
this permit to have drywells, gutters and leaders to drywells
rather than a French drain.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Why don't we make that part of this?
TRUSTEE KING: We can do that. That simplifies it.
TRUSTEE GHGSIO: Then you'll have an amendment for the patio, the
five-foot non-disturbance buffer and the new drainage instead.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: As long as it meets with 236, it's good.
TRUSTEE KING: I think that's what we'll do. And the only other
people noticed the big green pipe, we found out that's a vent.
What kind of drain pipe is that.
MR. NOTARO: If I didn't put that in, the Building inspector wouldn't approve the plan.
You know, everything. That's because of the raised sanitary in the front.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was a mystery to us when we went out there.
MR. NOTARO: If there is a 200-year flood, which will take out the entire street, then it
will become an issue as a drain.
TRUSTEE KING: But I think you have it all straightened out. Ill
make a motion to close the hearing on this.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the amendment to
include the existing on-grade patio with the removal of a
portion within the five-foot non-disturbance buffer. And there
is now gutters and leaders to drywells, so that the French drain
is no longer needed nor is it a required part of this permit any
longer. So I would amend it for that to include the proper
drainage that is there is now. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you request plans to update the file?
TRUSTEE KING: Where are the drywells? Can you draw them on
here?
MR. NOTARO: They are diagonal on each back corner.
12
Board of Trustees
March 21, 2012
TRUSTEE KING: Just draw them in and we'll have a set of plans
that show the drywells.
MR. NOTARO: Thank you (Complying).
TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a second on that?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: You have them down at the bulkhead.
MR. NOTARO: Excuse me? No, they are adjacent to the house, Jim.
TRUSTEE KING: Are you tryin9 to confuse me?
MR. NOTARO: I didn't bring my 91asses (redrawing).
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, now they're in the ri9ht spot.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number four, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf
of TOM & MAE MAURI requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7645
to reposition the approved floating dock from a "T" to an "L"
configuration and install water and electric. Located: 1135
Calves Neck Rd., Southold.
This is just an amendment of the original wetland permit
7645 that shows from a "T" to an "L". The CAC resolved to
support the application. We did go out and looked at this. We
had no problem with it. We thought it was fine. So are there any
other comments anybody has on the matter?
MS. MOORE: I'm here, but best to keep quiet, if it all looks 9ood.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Ill make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Pat Moore on behalf of the of Maud's as described at 1135
Calves Neck Road, Southold.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND AND COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application is Docko, Inc., on
behalf of US DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY, PLUM ISLAND
ANIMAL DISEASE CENTER requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal
Erosion Permit to repair and restore the ferry landing bulkhead
facilities. Restore the face of the wharf by installing sheet
piling and crushed stone backfill waterward of the existing
bulkhead for scour protection lines; scour wall to be approx.
20' long each and installed immediately in front of two ramps.
Located: 40550 Route 25, Orient.
This is a project for the repair of the mainland facility
of Plumb Island Research Laboratory inside their boat basin.
The prop wash from their ferries has eroded a steel bulkhead.
The primary concerns of the Trustees for this basin would be any
work that would involve some existing drains that go into the
basin but in this case it's merely to repair to two 20-foot
sections of steel sheet pile that will be driven Jn in front of
the existing bulkhead and small gravel material and stone about
an inch-and-a-half in size will be put in behind it.
13
Board of Trustees
March 21, 2012
Is there anyone here who is here to speak on behalf of the
application?
MR. NICKOLA: My name is Dan Nickola, I live adjacent to the
property at 120 Lands End Road. I think Mr. Keith Nielson from
Docko Co., solved all my problems the other day. My concerns
were like two years ago they dredged that ferry slip and the
dredging took place 24-hours a day, when, you know, you hear the
backup beepers on the dump truck all night. So my concern was
how long was this project going to take and was it going to take
all summer long, basically when the project was going to start
and when it would finish. I have no problem and I also know that
the feds can basically do whatever they want.
TRUSTEE KING: They wouldn't even let us on the place. When we
went out there on field inspection, you should see the pictures
of Homeland Security.
MR. NICKOLA: So Mr. Nielson assured me this would be a very
short project and it is, as you said, the repair of two 20-foot
sections. And I just wanted to make sure that's what it was and
we are not going to do any dredging or pile driving, dump truck
beepers 24-hours a day, seven days a week for the entire summer.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Truth be told, three times the charm. The
first time the Board tried to access the site we couldn't get
security clearance. Then the second time when we opened up the
channels of communication, it just so happened I ended up there
on the lunch hour when the guard staff is off. So the third
time I got in. I can sure you the application is exactly what
has been corresponded to you, just those two 20-foot sections.
MR. NICKOLA: Do you have any idea how long this project will
take? Because there will be some pile driving, and when they
would start this work?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I do not know.
MR. NICKOLA: Okay, thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KING: I couldn't imagine much more than a week or two.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I couldn't imagine that long. Any other
comments or questions?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve the
application of Docko, Inc., on behalf of Homeland Security for
the Plumb Island facility.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Wetland Permits, number one, HENRY H. TRAENDLY &
BARBARA A. CADWALLADER request a Wetland Permit to demolish an existing
beach cabana and garage and construct a single-family dwelling, garage, install gutters,
leaders and drywells, sanitary system and driveway. Located: 13000 Route 25, East
14
Board of Trustees
March 21, 2012
Marion.
The LWRP coordinator found that this application is inconsistent. The
Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mike, what's the date of the LWRP inconsistency?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: 2007. May 10
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's the original application, it was
inconsistent. We addressed those inconsistencies at that time.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right, thank you. No one is here to speak to this application.
Are there any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I believe this was an application that came in once before and it's,
the project is primarily non-jurisdictional. It was just the since it was so close to our
jurisdiction work might take it into the jurisdiction for trucks and material removal and
things like that.
TRUSTEE KING: I think the beach cabana was in, I think that was
in our jurisdiction. And the single-family home was all outside our
jurisdiction. And it evidently expired.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: If there is no further comments I would like to make a motion to
close this application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to make a motion to approve this application with the
comments made by Mr. Bergen.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number two, under Wetland Permits, JOSEPH &
ELIZABETH BRITTMAN request a Wetland Permit to construct a 24'X
36' detached barn/garage. Located: 80 Glenn Rd., Southold.
The LWRP coordinator has found this to be consistent with
LWRP with no further recommendations. I do see a DEC permit in
the file for this. Part of the DEC permit is they have to
establish a planted berm and a 15-foot wide vegetated buffer.
The CAC supports the application with the condition of the
15-foot, non-turf buffer. And that's pretty much it. It was
pretty straightforward. I think the Trustees have no problem
with a 15-foot, non-turf buffer either. So is there anybody
here who would like to address this application?
(No response).
Anybody on the Board have any questions or concerns?
(No response).
Then with those comments noted, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted and for consistency's sake also include a 15-foot,
non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
15
Board of Trustees
March 21, 2012
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of WILLIAM
EDWARDS & AMEI WALLACH requests a Wetland Permit to resheath the
landward side of approx. 94 linear feet of existing timber
bulkhead with vinyl sheet pilings and backfill with approx. 40
cy. clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source; and
construct an 8'X 20' deck with steps in place of existing 8.5'X
20' deck with steps. Located: 1600 Park Ave., Mattituck.
This is for a bulkhead replacement. And it was found
consistent and inconsistent. Replacing the bulkhead was not a
problem, that was found consistent. The construction of the
proposed 160-square foot deck was found inconsistent. Decks and
platforms -- no decks or platforms shall be permitted on or near
bluffs. Platforms associated with stairs may not be larger than
32-square feet I really don't think this fits that part of the
code. And the CAC resolved to support the application with the
condition of a ten-foot, non-turf buffer, installation 9utters,
leaders and drywells to contain roof runoff. Normally we don't
address 9utters and leaders and drywells on bulkhead
applications on the homes. So it's a little different issue. I
looked at this. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf or
against this application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicants.
Jim, just to clarify, it's not actually a replacement of
the wall but just a landward re-sheathing. The LWRP, I mean, I
can respond to that in two ways. Number one, it's a replacement of
an existing structure. The same structure appeared on the prior
Trustees permit that was issued for other work on the bulkhead
in 1999, which was permit 5061. It's just an inkind/inplace
replacement of that, which is exempt from waterfront consistency
review, so he should not even be reviewing that aspect of the
project for this application. And it's certainly not a bluff.
TRUSTEE KING: In my mind this is a typical deck-on-the-bay type
thin9. We see them the whole lengths length of the bay.
MR. HERMAN: Right. So we are just looking to maintain what is
there. Nice and simple, for a change.
TRUSTEE KING: My comments on the field visit was to maintain the
existin9 buffer and maybe 9° up another four or five feet on the
top of the bluff, because they are mowing right to the crest. If
they just left a little more area at the top of the crest.
MR. HERMAN: This is one of those situations, the existing buffer
basically runs to the top, so if they could just leave a couple
of feet to tie in, it would help with the erosion. I don't think
they would have a problem with that.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, other than that, I didn't have any issues
with it. Any other comments from anybody?
(No response).
Board comments? No? I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with
the addition of another four or five feet of buffer at the top,
crest of the bluff.
Board of Trustees
16
March 21, 2012
MR. HERMAN: Do you want to call it four?
TRUSTEE KING: Four feet is fine, sure. And as far as the deck
goes, it is not attached to the stairs, I really don't think it
applies in this instance. It doesn't meet that criteria. So we
would deem this to be consistent with LWRP
MS. HULSE: Can I ask how much of a buffer is out there now, Jim?
TRUSTEE KING: The whole bank is, I would say it's probably 15 or
20 feet going up the bank. There is a bulkhead and then there is
a retaining wall behind the bulkhead, and then from the
retaining wall to their lawn is a rise, so it's maybe 15, 20
feet, I would say.
MR. HERMAN: Jim, it's actually, from the primary bulkhead to the
top of the bank, it's actually almost 35 feet.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MS. HULSE: For the C&R's we are going to need a number.
MR. HERMAN: If I go to the west side, 35 feet gets you to the
top of the bank. If I go to the other side, 35 feet gets you
about three or four feet above the top of the bank. So do you
want to just show it as 35 feet the whole way across?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. Because it's more than sufficient.
MR. HERMAN: I would say 35 feet, but no closer to the bulkhead
than the existing top of bank, so at least it gives a round
number on it.
TRUSTEE KING: All right, so the non-turF buffer will be
literally 35 feet. Does that clarify?
MS. HULSE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a second on that?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERMAN{ 3im, both of the next two are mine but Kabakov is
next door to this one. Do you want to --
TRUSTEE KING: We can do that. We'll skip over four and go to
five, because this is the adjoining property. It would be to the
east. It's number five, En-Consultants on behalf of EMILA & ILYA
KABAKOV requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
(inkind/inplace) approx. 160 linear feet of timber retaining
wall; construct 16' easterly return; remove and replace
(inkind/inplace) 3 'wide stairs and 4'X 6' platform;
backfill with approx. 25 cubic yard sandy fill; and replant with
native vegetation approx. 20' wide embankment to be maintained
as a non-turF buffer. Located: 1700 Park Ave., Mattituck.
I look add this also. This was found to be consistent with
the LWRP. The CAC resolved to support the application with the
condition of a ten-foot, non-turF buffer from the top of the
bank landward.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicants. This is an inplace replacement of the existing
retaining wall that is actually landward of the bulkhead. Plus
the addition of a 16-foot return on the east side where there is
a bit of a mess from the neighboring property.
17
Board of Trustees
Just one piece of shopkeeping on this one, Jim, I don't
know how you want to handle it. Um, there is also a deck here,
that actually is a permitted deck. It was 1 lx26 between the
retaining wall and the bulkhead. That was permitted by permit
5902 in 2004 for removal and replacement at that time, inkind
and inplace, which it was, and then it got destroyed during
Tropical Storm Irene. So it just sort of collapsed. We didn't
include it in the application because the deck is just kind of
lying there and there is already a permit in place to rebuild
it, but I wonder if just to keep things current and clean we may
want to repeat the same request as part of this permit to remove
and replace the same deck previously permitted under 5902, just
so we don't run into a problem of something missing. But it was
actually, that language also specifically related to that deck
in the prior permit. So for a change we actually have a
Wetlands Permit for the structure we are looking to replace.
TRUSTEE KING: The only question I had, Rob, why couldn't they
put a new retaining wall right up tight against the existing
retaining wall in front of it? Wouldn't that cause a lot less
disturbance?
MR. HERMAN: It's pretty deteriorated. I talked to Steve Pollack.
TRUSTEE KING: I mean just put a new one right in front of it.
MR. HERMAN: The old wood is really falling apart. Um, the bank
actually drops down kind of below the height of the existing
wall and, you know, Steven indicated it really shouldn't be a
problem to re-do it. And I think the sense is just to get that
material out of there. Because what we found in some of these
situations, is just leading the leaving the old material there
as it starts to rot causes some shifting, and it's just a
cleaner job to do a full remove and replace. I mean I can relay
the suggestion. It would probably be cheaper.
TRUSTEE KING: In my mind, that's what I would do in that
instance, in my mind, then you are not doing anything behind
that to disturb anything. I don't have a problem doing what you
want to do, but --
MR. HERMAN: I don't know, I'm just trying to think of a way to
maybe cover it to approve the inplace replacement with an
allowance to go right in front if they opted to, but we would
have to give you revised plans. It's out of DEC jurisdiction,
and the Army Corps, so you are the the only agency involved in
this project.
TRUSTEE KING: Unless we want to approve what they applied for
and if they change their minds just do administrative.
MR. HERMAN: Why don't we do that, without Steve here, I don't
want to, I know that they are very, very anxious because of the
property next door, so I'm reluctant to muck it up tonight.
TRUSTEE KING: It would give them an option, I think.
MR. HERMAN: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? Any comments?
(No response).
I'm make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
March 21,2012
18
Board of Trustees
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted and -- there is quite a bit of buffer there now. This
is the same thing, I mean.
MR. HERMAN: And I'm measuring it again to the top of the bank.
It's really a continuation of the Edwards site. The bank is
pressed a little bit lower to the bulkhead, It's about 30 feet,
but if you come back 30 feet it might leave you a little short
from the top.
TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we make it the same as the next door
neighbor. Make it 35 feet.
MR. HERMAN: Yes. Because that will really bring you up to the
top of the bank or a few feet behind it.
TRUSTEE KING: And keep the whole stretch pretty consistent
looking.
MR. HERMAN: No, it makes sense. But there is not any specific
request to plant that out, just sort of --
TRUSTEE KING: It's pretty much in its natural state. Let it just
remain in its natural state.
MR. HERMAN: Okay. And we noted in the plans that any of the
embankment vegetation that would be disturbed would be
replanted.
Actually, Jim, you know, what's a little bit different with
this one is we, see on Edwards, we are running from the bulkhead
itself back. Whereas here we are coming back from the retaining
wall. So do you want to have the non-turf buffer addressed out
to the bulkhead, just to be consistent with the other? We are
not doing anything there, but --
TRUSTEE KING: To me it's just common sense they are going to
leave it alone but we have to put everything in.
MR. HERMAN: I just want it to be clear in the permit it's not 35
feet behind the retaining wall but 35 feet from the primary bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. HERMAN: Okay. Did you want to include the language to
replace the same 1 lx26 deck that was in the old permit or is
that not necessary since we already have a permit for it? I
guess Lori would have to answer that question.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we'll add that in now, that the existing
deck that would destroyed can be replaced inplace.
MR. HERMAN: Okay. And the old surveys and plans from your old
file would, it would look exactly the same. If you want me to
give you a revised plan that shows that or, do you want to just
add the deck to the plan?
TRUSTEE KING: Why don't you just do that. So we get it all
together.
MR. HERMAN: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Ill make a motion to approve the application as
submitted. It's a 35-foot, non-turf buffer from the bulkhead
landward and to replace the deck that was existing there can be
March 21,2012
Board of Trustees
19
replaced inplace as it was. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of LAZARUS
ALEXANDROU, CONTRACT VENDEE requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 4'X 92' timber stairway with associated wood
landings and platforms to provide pedestrian access down bluff
to beach. Located: 2700 Sound Dr., Greenport.
This is a request for a set of stairs from the bluff down
to the beach. This was not staked when we out on the field
inspections. It was staked recently. Mike Domino and I went out
and looked at it this morning. It's pretty straightforward,
stairs down to the bluff.
It was found inconsistent with the CAC. And it was found
inconsistent because evidently there was a map lot was created.
Just to shorten this up, that there is an access path to the
beach or stairways to the beach for the association. And in the
code it says if it's within a reasonable distance, you are not
allowed to have a stairway.
MR. HERMAN: It's pretty far from this properly.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: He estimated it at 650 feet in the LWRP review.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't see anything from the CAC in here. There
was a letter from neighboring property owner I believe to the
west. And it was stairway close to my property line, but I have
no objection to the stairway. We all want to preserve our
precious and beautiful area. Signed Eleanor Kopek.
MR. HERMAN: I assume you saw today, the way the stairway is
placed --
TRUSTEE KING: Hold on a second, Rob. Let me just get through
this Conservation Advisory Council. They resolve to support the
application. The project was not staked and notice of hearing
was not posted. However the Conservation Advisory Council
supports the application and recommends erosion control devices
at the base of the supports and a ten-foot, non-disturbance
buffer landward of the crest of the bluff. Those are the CAC
comments.
MR. HERMAN: It was posted by the date it was supposed to be
posted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is the house right here, according to
Google. This is the association down here.
TRUSTEE KING: I went down there myself this morning.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's six houses away.
TRUSTEE KING: And I looked, almost every house has a set of
stairs going down to the beach. This is not an area where there
is no stairways, there is only the community one. Each and every
house has a stairway.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The fact of the matter is, I live down here, so
I know. This is a private access. And this is part of a
homeowners association. And its access is deeded. And not
everybody has that on their deed. I actually have it but I live
two neighborhoods over. How I got it, I have no idea. So.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And it's now on the record.
March 21, 2012
Board of Trustees
2O
March 21, 2012
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That was before you became Town Trustee.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Absolutely. But the funny thing is there is a
fee associated with it, and I'm too cheap because I don't make
enough as a Trustee, so.
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't find it to prohibit this because of what
was in the code. I think it would just be the right thing to do.
Because they all have stairs.
MR. HERMAN: And further, the replacement, and you guys probably
saw this this morning, and you can you see it at aerial if you
look right by the "A." There is a good patch of vegetation that
separates the two properties, and then is there sort of an open
lawn area. So the stairway has been located so as not to
require the clearing of any vegetation. It's being located in
the open area. And if we went really any further east with it,
the top of the bluff starts to berm up there, so then you would
almost be building up over the top. I mean, you would have a
lot more structure, and it would not make any sense at all. So
you really can only put it where it's -- you can see the
vegetation line there. So if you look in an almost northerly
extent of the westerly side of the house, that's where the
clearing begins, that's where the stairway would go, and
hopefully that's what you saw in the stake out.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think Mike or I, either one, had any
reservations or problems with it.
MR. DOMINO: We noted that you had made an attempt to position it
in such a way that we do the least disturbance.
MR. HERMAN: That was the idea, right.
TRUSTEE KING: And the erosion control devices on the stairs, I
know this is an ongoing request from the CAC. I think when they
are looking for is pieces across the uprights, and I don't think
DEC has been approving them. They have refused. We tried talking
to them about it. And they have refused. They seem to think it
makes matters worse because it directs everything off to the
sides and then it runs down.
MR. HERMAN: Right. They typically only want to see that kind of
terracing of the bluff face if there is an erosion problem. I
said before, I understand where the CAC is coming from on it.
But it doesn't behoove us to try to do that. Because we are not
going to get anywhere with it.
TRUSTEE KING: Right. Any other comments?
MR. HERMAN: Jeff Butler does have the plans, just worth noting
for the record, the area disturbed by the stairway construction
would be revegetated And he has it covered. I mean we tried to
make a transition from doing this sort of old school little
hand-sketched drawings of stairs to actually having these
drawings designed with these engineering practices and
revegetation practices in place to try to address the kinds of
concerns from Conservation Advisory Council as much as we can.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it's helpful. Anybody else?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Board of Trustees
21
March 21, 2012
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Frank Uellendahl, Architect on behalf of ALICE
MIGNEREY requests a Wetland Permit to repair the existin9 steps
and landings down to beach, replace handrails and piles.
Located: 1480 Paradise Point Rd., Southold.
The LWRP coordinator found this application to be exempt. The
Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. My name is Frank Uellendahl on behalf of
the applicant. We are back. We had the application at last
month's hearing and we discussed the details. It's basically a
stair repair. There is some structural things that need to be
taken care of. The top landing is not level, so it needs, it's
really unsteady and unsafe in certain areas. We need to replace
some of the handrails, which are missin9 or loose. And a couple
of posts need to be stabilized. So we discussed all this in
detail last month but then the neighbor durin9 the public
hearing produced a more recent survey, and the survey showed
that part of the ~ntermediate landing actually encroached by
nine-and-a-half inches on her property. And so we discussed
this, but then the decision was made to table it and have maybe
a counter-survey made. And after the meeting we decided that we
are not 9oing to contest the neighbor's survey. Because we want
to 9o forward with the repair because now it almost feels like
summer, but it's, you know, we would like to not lose anymore
time on new surveys and then possibly finding a difference
between the two surveys. So we just decided to cut the
intermediate landin9 back by a foot to be on the safe side.
Which means we actually are eliminatin9 a couple of the posts,
existing posts, we are just cuttin9 them off, and we can
structurally support and cantilever the deck. And this is what
-- I submitted a letter which describes basically the change of
the plans.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application?
(No response).
Any further comments from the Board?
(No response).
If not, I would entertain a motion to close this application.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to make a motion to approve this application with the
changes shown on the new survey. That the deck will be cut back by 12 inches due to
the encroachment on the neighbor's property.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mr. Chair, can we take a five-minute break?
TRUSTEE KING: We'll take a five-minute break, folks.
Board of Trustees
22
March 21, 2012
(After a brief recess these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next item, number seven, Patdcia C. Moore, Esq., on
behalf of JOSEPH & FIEIDI BATTAGLIA request a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X
68' fixed dock elevated a minimum of 4' above grade; install a 3'X 15' seasonal ramp;
and a 6'X 20' seasonal floating dock. Located: 2100 Hobart Rd., Southold.
Before I open up the hearing to comments, I just want to review the items that we
have in the file concerning this application. The LWRP raises questions concerning the
project complying with Town Code; concerns surrounding the depth of the vessel to be
used at the dock and the depth of water; natural resource concerns concerning loss of
public access and loss of access through dock coverage of natural resources such as
shellfish.
The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this project with a specific
request that the application is within the bounds of Town Code. There is a letter in the
file from Karen Hoeg, who is an attorney with the firm of Twomey, Latham, Shea,
Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo, concerning violations that exist and remain on the
dock to the north.
The Trustees performed a field inspection twice; the second time to revisit the site
because it had not been staked. The first, the questions the Trustees have in relation to
the site are that the staking of the proposed 6x20 float appear to be, the end staking, if
you will, seem to be approximately twice what we would normally encounter with the
staking of a 6x20 float, and have questions concerning the staking.
The Trustees also have concerns and questions concerning the rock revetment
on the property which was previously permitted for 70 feet of stone revetment which
taped out to be 90 feet. And the Trustees have concerns considering the pending
violations of the subdivided property of the owner immediately to the north of the dock
that was supposed to be reduced in width.
That summary being presented, I would open this hearing to comments for those
on behalf of this application.
MS. MOORE: Good evening. Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. Battaglia.
He's here tonight, so if I have to defer to him on some questions.
With respect to, for the record, I have provided in your
file a copy of the DEC permit for this same structure. Army
Corps and Department of State Permits have all been issued for
this structure. And as you know, the DEC will look at the water
depth. The water depth is at more than two-and-a-half feet, so
that is the standard the DEC, minimum standard the DEC requires.
And the water depth of this dock is between 2.9 and three. So
it would be compliant with their requirements and your
requirements, that you don't really have requirements on water
depth, but you do accept the DEC water depth.
Also -- I'm trying to remember all the things you
mentioned. The property has been subdivided. The parcel to the
nor[h is a separate parcel. It has its own tax lot number. Um,
it is the issue of reducing the existing dock is a subject of
litigation and it's on appeal. So, um, that's still to be
determined as far as whether or not the court is going to allow
that decision to stand. So that is a separate issue, we'll see
whatever the court ultimately does, you know, Mr. Battaglia will
address it at that time.
The staking was done by Nate Con,yin and he, as a licensed
surveyor, would have put the staking in accordance with the
plans, so I don't really know what your, what you think --
TRUSTEE KING: The distance between those two outer stakes is a
Board of Trustees
23
March 21,2012
lot more than 20 feet. It's probably nearer to 40. We couldn't
get out to measure it, but just looking at it visually.
MS. MOORE: I could confirm with Nate Corwin what he staked. I
could ask him to put X's on what he staked, but I think the
concern was we had the length into the water staked, because the
20 foot is really kind of irrelevant. It's the length into the
water that is the relevant point so, the width of it, I don't know.
TRUSTEE KING: We normally ask to see the float itself staked.
Usually the seaward side of the float on either end is what we
have staked.
MS. MOORE: I would have to confer with Nate. It looks like it
was pretty close to shore, I mean when I went by there, it
didn't seem it intruded into the water very far, due to the
location of the Iow waterline, so.
The proposed dock has also has been located between the
marsh areas, an area that is most, that will result in the least
amount of disturbance, which was something that the DEC was
concerned with and recommended. So that was the ultimate
location that was approved.
Aside from that it's a very standard, run-of-the-mill dock.
I think if some times you guys ask for stairs on either side,
which is certainly acceptable. Urn, but aside from that, it is
relatively straightforward. I don't know anything about the
issues of the rock revetment that was, the construction that
took place. If you want, we can talk about it.
TRUSTEE KING: Looks like it grew about 25 feet.
MR. BATTAGLIA: I'm Joseph Battaglia, owner of the property and
construction manager of the project. The rock wall is under
construction and it will meet the permit requirements. Right now
we are trying to feel out the lock in the boulders as best we
can to get the most out of the purpose of the construction. And
it will meet the requirements. We are trying not to file for an
amendment.
TRUSTEE KING: Does that mean you'll shorten it?
MR. BATTAGLIA: Absolutely. So that permit is still active and
ongoing. It will be finished up by the Fall and it will meet the
requirements of the DEC, Army Engineers and the Trustees.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Can you speak to the issue of the staking?
Were you present when the land surveyor was there?
MR. BATTAGLIA: I was there with Nate, I asked him about it. He
was out there with his raft. I said what are these two. He said
that's basically a parameter of what it's going to be. I don't
know the exact measurements. We'll follow the plans 100%. We
won't build a 40-foot float.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't know how the Board feels about it
but it's most unusual to have the meets and bounds of the wall
exceed under the permit during the course of the construction
period to hear it will be reduced. I know this --
TRUSTEE KING: It's a little unusual.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The staking is rather unusual for the Board.
Of the hundreds of docks we've seen staked, we've never seen a
staking job that has staked so far beyond the 20 feet. So we
are left with some questions concerning the application and
24
Board of Trustees
March 21,2012
activities on the property.
MS. MOORE: We can assure you you'll end up with a 20-foot float.
So, I think Nate maybe doesn't realize that giving you the
parameters of the area was, you wanted more precise. I think
he's probably looking at what the encroachment into the
waterway, being the relevant point, rather than the width of the
structure, because the width of the structure can't exceed 20
feet, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I, for one, agree with you. I think obviously the
applicant's intention is 6x20. That's what is described. It was
confusing because it was staked, the distance apart to the
stakes has to be much more than 20. But I think we are both on
the same wavelength with this, so I don't see this as a major
issue. We just need to make sure, you know, everything is
covered, technically, because we don't want to have a situation
where we approve something and then based on these stakes
something else is built, then we end up in an adversarial role
over it.
MS. MOORE: No, that's, I think this one can move pretty
smoothly.
MS. HULSE: Well, the pending violation of the rock revetment,
although there has not been an actual summons written, there
will be a problem at this juncture.
MS. MOORE: There is no violation.
MS. HULSE: There is if it doesn't meet the terms of the permit.
MS. MOORE: It has to meet by the time that you get the closeout
of the permit. What they are doing is --
MS. HULSE: It's during construction, and it's larger than what
was anticipated by the permit.
MR. BATTAGLIA: It's under construction.
MS. HULSE: I know what you are saying, Pat, you certainly have a
two-year term, but if it's already been constructed and it's
already too large, that's already a violation of the terms of
the permit.
TRUSTEE KING: In my mind this is kind of a like we issue a
permit for a 40-foot dock and you build 60-foot dock, and then
you say I'll shorten it back to 40. It doesn't make sense.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, Trustee Bergen doesn't seem to have a
problem with the staking, but if we already have a revetment
growing and we have stakes for a dock that's grown, I'm not so
sure, what are we looking at here?
MR. BATTAGLIA: Can I say one thing, with the hurricane that we
had, I don't know if you've seen the way the rock wall was beat
up and everything was jostled and actually undermined. And so
everything was dislodged. It certainly, I have to reconstruct
actually part of that. I don't know if you've seen from the top of
it. But it was damaged, so. You know, stuff was moved around.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's what we have emergency permits for in
the office. You can contact the office, and we are usually very
accommodating in responding to requests concerning after storms.
We do a lot. We have done a lot of storm work the last two years.
MR. BATTAGLIA: Weather permitting, we'll start back up in the spring.
We don't need an emergency permit, I don't think, because we have a regular
25
Board of Trustees
March 21, 2012
permit that is already in effect. It was only taken out about a year ago.
I don't think I'll be filing for an extension because it will be done probably
within the next couple weeks we'll start, weather permitting.
Nobody wants to work --
MS. HULSE: It has to be according to the terms of the permit.
MR. BATTAGLIA: Absolutely.
MS. MOORE: You are talking about rocks on the ground, so you
have to position them. When you have the guys doing the rip rap
and you have the equipment, all of that stuff going in there and
they have to then start positioning it in place. It's under construction.
So that's why I'm saying, you know, this is not a final construction.
MR. BATTAGLIA: Those trees would have been gone. I was there for
Hurricane Irene. Those waves were hitting above the tops of the
rocks. I mean ripped them apart. If those rocks were not there,
another ten, 15 feet, all those oak trees would have been laying
probably in the ground. In the bay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Does counsel have a suggestion that we might
allow to hold this current application possibly for a time to
reconstruct the revetment to the terms of the existing permit
before we rule on it?
MS. HULSE: Well, clearly there is also a staking issue. So I
don't see at this point how a decision will be made tonight
given the issues that you have here. And then just to touch
upon, Pat, what you discussed, the adjoining property, the
Trustees have given Mr. Battaglia notification that has to be
put in compliance or removed. And the time has since passed for
that to be done. I think they gave an additional time period
even after the Court decision was rendered. And --
MS. MOORE: It's on appeal. It's a notice of appeal.
MS. HULSE: I understand, but the permit stands as the permit
stands and the Court has upheld the decision of the Trustees.
And my point is the Trustees have given him additional time to
either put it into compliance or remove it, and he's done neither
of those two. So as that stands now, Pat, that's an existing
violation, so --
MS. MOORE: Let me, as a lawyer, we are not going to remove a
structure that could be upheld. This is a structure that had a
permit, and you had other hearings tonight where you recognize
that structure --
MS. HULSE: That structure there does not have a permit. There is
no permit that exists for the structure that is out there.
That's an incorrect statement.
MS. MOORE: The structure out there has a permit from, what was
the original, '84 or '72 --
MR. BATTAGLIA: It's a grandfather permit. It's in the file.
Grandfathered an 8x65, with an underwater land grant.
MS. MOORE: That's what we are at odds with and that's what we
have in litigation. So he's not going to remove a structure
that he's claiming that has been, that is grandfathered, had
actually grandfathered permits, so it meets the criteria of
being repaired with a permit. Um, and, you know, the contention
which is that the language, what was done by the Board was then
later changed in the document. And that's a new one for the courts.
Board of Trustees
26
March 21, 2012
TRUSTEE KING: What was changed?
MS. MOORE: The language on the resolution was changed from the
transcript.
MS. HULSE: We are not going to litigate here what was already
lost in court. He already lost on that. So the point here is,
is that the permit that you have from the Trustees is not what
complies with what is out there. There is no structure that
complies with the permit he has currently from the Board. So
at this juncture, he's in violation, and there could be another
summons issued on that structure. So he has a couple of issues
now that is going to impede this Board being able to move
forward on this and issue a permit.
MR. BATTAGLIA: Can I ask a question. The property right now is
legally subdivided. You have two lots. In the code it says one
dock per lot, I believe. So what does that issue of that lot
which is going to be in a totally separate name have to do with
my lot?
MS. HULSE: The code says you need to have a permit before you
build a structure, and since you are out there, that doesn't apply.
MR. BATTAGLIA: Right. But what does that have to do with my lot?
It's two separate, legal parcels.
MS. MOORE: That's why we applied now and that's why the DEC --
MS. HULSE: And now you are coming before this Board and you want
this Board to understand that the revetment, which is too long,
is a work in progress, and they are supposed to ignore the fact
that's also in violation of a permit, because, you know, of all
these other reasons. So, you have a violation that is current on
the property that is before them now and you have a violation on
the adjoining property which, at one time, was one lot. And when
you applied to the DEC was legally one lot. So your argument is
really specious. It really is.
MS. MOORE: Once the DEC subdivides the property they then will
address the separate --
MS. HULSE: Pat, it was one lot at the time.
MS. MOORE: But that's the town. Once the DEC gives you
subdivision approval, they will allow you to proceed with an
application for that particular lot. So that was -- we have DEC
Army Corps and Department of State. They work by their own set
of rules.
MS. HULSE: So does Mr. Battaglia, right?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Can I ask a question?
MR. BATTAGLIA: Sure.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Everybody lived through Hurricane Irene. I
went upstate to help communities up there as a first responder.
It was rough stuff. I didn't have power for six days. And I
watched a lot of structures in Marine Harbor just sort of wash
past me as I was down on the waterfront. That's it.
Understandably, maybe you had a severe problem and you didn't
quite do what you were supposed to, which was call us for an
emergency permit. How long is it going to take you to get the
revetment in shape according with the current permit and show
good faith? Because I think there is a question of good faith
and what we are seeing and what we are hearing are two different
Board of Trustees
27
March 21, 2012
things. And as a Trustee I have to be able to reconcile in my
mind that we are going in a positive direction.
MR. BATTAGLIA: I understand that. I never actually sent in my
paperwork to the DEC or the Trustees saying the project was
completed. It's under construction. And, you know --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You didn't answer my question, though.
MR. BATTAGLIA: Like I said, the weather now is getting a lot
nicer, and we'll get it done. I mean, my intention is to get it
done by the end of April. As soon as the weather breaks now, we
have plants we have to move, got washed out, all the barberry
got washed out during the storm. So, it's still under
construction. There are boulders on the 20 or 30 feet back that
need to be put back in. But it will be done. I don't want to
leave it like that. It's a giant hole in between the rocks and
the earth. Which is an erosion problem. But the storm hit in
January, and, you know, it's very cold. We have a very hard wind
that corner to work, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess I would like to wrap up comments and
if anyone else wishes to speak to this application, anyone here
or Attorney Moore, or anybody from the Board?
MS. HOEG: For the record, my name is Karen Hoeg, I'm with the
law firm of Twomey, Latham, Shea. As noted by Board we sent in
a letter setting forth our opposition to the application. We
represent Andrew Semons who the owner of the house, 1580 Hobart
Road, which is immediately to the north next to the adjacent
vacant lot. I support the Trustees' position in this matter and
I want to state for the record we oppose the application that
the existing legal dock on the Battaglia's adjacent vacant lot
is allowed to remain. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion.
MS. MOORE: Sorry, yes.
MR. BATTAGLIA: If you would like, I could put up a $2,000
performance bond up for the rock revetment wall that if it's not
completed by the end of May, you know, I forfeit the bond, on
good faith.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't believe that's part of negotiation
we can entertain as part of a public hearing. I don't know what
our attorney says.
MS. HULSE: I don't think that's the issue here.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to close the hearing in
this matter. To table the hearing. Motion to table, then it will
be re-opened. Motion to table this hearing.
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second the motion to table.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. MOORE: Do you want me to have Nate stake the ends again?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If he could please look at it and re-stake it.
MS. MOORE: Okay, if you want we can do that. All right.
MR. BATTAGLIA: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number eight, Bulkhead Permit by Gary, Inc., on
Board of Trustees
28
March 21, 2012
behalf of LEONARD RIDINI requests a Wetland Permit to construct
a 68' retaining wall. Located: 805 West Rd., Cutchogue.
The LWRP coordinator found this application to be
consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council voted unanimously
not to support this application based upon the following: That
the work has already been started; the building stairs and deck
noted on the site plan as existing do not exist; and the site
plan lacks specificity.
I would like to summarize, when we did a field inspection
we noticed a good deal of machine work along, we questioned why
the application is for 68 feet retaining wall when in fact it
appears now the wall should go entirely across the property,
which would require an additional, 60 additional feet to
stabilize what is already a very steep cut there.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. RIDINh Yes, my name is Leonard Ridini, I'm one of the
owners of the property at 805 West Road, Cutchogue. Where do I
begin. The wall that we are requesting to extend is in the far
corner. And we are looking to extend it 68 feet from the
westerly property line of our neighbor. The reason why really --
it's from that cutback, 68 feet this way. And the reason why we
want to do that is to stop the erosion. Now in terms of
extending it an additional 60 feet --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could speak into the microphone so we can
get it into the record. Thank you.
MR. RIDINh As I said, the application is to extend 68 feet from
the return of our neighbor's property. And the purpose of that
is to stop erosion. To extend it an additional 60 feet, I mean,
that's just a lot of money. You know, this project was
unexpected, because of the hurricane. We have already put in 150
feet of bulkhead. We are going to have to rebuild the stairs and
the cabana as per the permit we have in place, and frankly we
can't afford to put another 60 feet of bulkhead in. That's
almost four-hundred dollars a foot. I mean, we don't even want
to put in the 68 feet that we are requesting. But that part of
the property is even more eroded than you see it there. So we
are looking to extend it and then on this side here do sea grass
or plantings to hold it back.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I guess the challenge we have is that the old
wall has been removed as you can see by the picture. The picture
speaks for itself in that we have now a cut --
MR. RIDINh There was no old wall there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There has been a manmade cut into this bank, you
can see in this picture. There is now a cut there.
MR. RIDINh When they put the bulkhead in that those gentlemen
are standing on, I guess the tractor came down and that was the
width of it, and they put bulkhead in.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So as a result of construction, this cut has
been made, and now we are concerned from an environmental
perspective that without that wall, that entire length, there is
nothing to hold that. It's going to collapse. So I understand
what you are saying with the cost. I really do.
29
Board of Trustees
MR. RIDINh We just don't have the money. The project's cost us
about $150,000 already.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Before you go any further, I might suggest, once
we get into the beach house, the cost may not be a problem
anymore. Because the beach house may not happen at this point,
right?
MR. RIDINh Well, the permit says remove and replace.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But the beach house was demolished. There it is.
MR. RIDINh The hurricane demolished it. We had to remove it
because it came apart when they tried to lift it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No.
MR. RIDINh I'm sorry. Absolutely. We had to take it apart
because you couldn't lift the beach house up. It's an 80-year
old beach house that was totally destroyed by the hurricane.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We were down there for your original permit for
the bulkhead. That this original permit you are talking about,
and this bulkhead was built and that beach house was there at
the time.
MR. RIDINh Absolutely not. Absolutely not. We had to remove the
beach house to build the bulkhead. That's an absolute fact. We
had to remove that beach house and disassemble it, what was left
of it, so we could put the bulkhead in. The old beach house and
deck were resting on the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have the pictures from way back when.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we want to see is if we had the pictures
with us from the field inspection that was done.
MR. RIDINI: I wish you did.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what we are trying to find.
MR. RIDINh Because the bulkhead was totally destroyed by the
hurricane. Totally compromised. And in order to build the
bulkhead, our plan was to lift the structure up. The guy said no
way, that's an 80-year old structure. We couldn't just lift it
up. We disassembled it. The reason we are saving it is to
rebuild it. We are using a lot of the same material.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Our challenge is, we faced a similar but
different situation from a neighbor not far from you, who had a
beach house that was a non-conforming structure and
unfortunately it burned down, and he wanted to replace it, and
we ran into a problem again where it's a non-conforming
structure. We couldn't approve it to be replaced once it was
destroyed. And in this case, I mean we got to wait to see, if we
could find the pictures. Because my memory is obviously
different from yours. I remember the field inspection and I
remember seeing the beach house there. Yes, it was damaged.
MR. RIDINh The beach house with the new bulkhead?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, no. The original field inspection for your
application for the new bulkhead. That the beach house, wha(
saying, as I recall, if we could find the pictures, the beach
house was there.
MR. RIDINI: The beach house was there and we had to remove it to
build the new bulkhead. I agree.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And our thought was, it was going to be picked up,
moved and put back. What happened was, and we run into this, the
March 21, 2012
Board of Trustees
3O
March 21, 2012
Trustees run into this quite often, for whatever reason, it was
destroyed. There is no beach house anymore. It's a pile of
lumber. So now what Trustee Ghosio was saying is that I would
recommend you not just assume you can just rebuild a beach house
there in that place. I would just not make that assumption.
MR. RIDINh We did assume that because the permit we had said to
remove. I'm reading the permit right now.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 2011, October. Remove and replace the existing
bath house.
MR. RIDINh Remove and replace, right.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The existing bathhouse and roof to allow for
bulkhead. Repair and replace as needed.
MR. RIDINh And we did remove it and we are going to replace it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just one Trustee.
MR. RIDINh I understand. I respect your opinion. But what I'm
trying to get at is there was no way, that cabana was so
compromised by the storm, we have pictures of it. It's at a
45-degree angle. And we asked the people if they could literally
lift it up. And they couldn't. It was no way to do it. It was an
impossibility.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have pictures from 2011, September, which is
after the hurricane, that shows an intact beach house.
MR. RIDINh It's deceiving. Which angle is it from? If you look
from a side angle you would see the cement to the block wall, in
the back is in about 15 degrees, and the deck on the bottom is
pushed up from the wave action about another 15 or 20 degrees.
And appears if you look at it -- when we first went out there,
we thought it was not too bad. But if you look from the side
angle you'll see there was no way that beach house could be
repaired or even removed intact. And we do have pictures of
that.
I'm just trying to see if I have a picture of it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You probably have to go into the Minutes to
find out the specifics of what was meant.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a huge, huge issue.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I think in general the Board is familiar with my
stance on this. I don't believe that we should take away
something that has been destroyed by a storm, something that was
acknowledged to exist in the past. I mean, I have had it happen
myself, so. You know, with that being said, not everybody agrees
on this issue, so. I don't really have a big problem with
replacing it with what was there inkind and inplace.
MR. RIDINI: And again, with all due with respect to everyone's
opinion. I do respect everyone's opinion. That's what we
thought we had the right to do and that's what we are in the
process of doing. Believe me, I'm not saving that junk for any
other reason but to try to reconstruct as best we can. And there
are items we can use to rebuild that bathhouse. All of it we
can't use, that's true. The structure was 70-years old. It was
destroyed significantly by that storm and the integrity of the
structure was totally undermined. And our intention was put back
what was there as best we could. Now, we have pictures, we were
asking the contractor to build it the same way, as best he
31
Board of Trustees
could. We even saved the metal railings, up top, you saw, we
want to put them back on top as a kind of nautical, and they
were part of the original structure.
In terms of that retaining wall, again, believe me, we
don't want to do it. We just think the erosion on that side is
very bad and it really needs it. On this side, I was talking to
my landscaper, we were thinking of trying to bring in some fill
and do some plants there in front, some sea grass, whatever we
could do to shore that up. But, you know, in terms of the cost,
that's 150 feet of bulkhead and then, it was a beach house, the
stairs, another 130 feet of bulkhead. I mean, you know, that's
almost 300 feet of bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I'm thinking is maybe we can add to this,
depending how this discussion goes, maybe we can add to your
description your ability to bring in a set amount of fill to
regrade that section and replant it and --
MR. RIDINh That's fine. I was talking to our landscaper about
doing that because I see it, too, and I understand that will be
a problem in the near future. So we don't want to have to deal
with another problem. And we were trying to think of
alternatives that would not cost us $400 a foot.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Maybe we can look at that opportunity.
TRUSTEE KING: I think you need to take a second look at it,
myself. The problem is this is a vertical wall. That's going to
go, so --
MR. RIDINh It was pretty vertical even before, but there was a
little bit of slope and there was a root system which is now
gone. Which makes it a bigger problem. That's why we were
trying to talk to a landscaper about is to bring in fill to give
it a little more of a grade, to put sea grass so we could
develop a root system there.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just looking further down in the picture where
you have more of a slope.
MR. RIDINh That, we want to put the wall in. That may be
beyond. That's actually worse today than it was a couple weeks
ago.
TRUSTEE KING: What if that whole area was graded down so it's
just a slope and the whole area planted with beach grass? It
might not even need a retaining wall. I don't know.
MR. RIDINh The reason we don't want to grade that down is
because if we have the cabana there, you'll have some wall, 25
feet of erosion, then the cabana. It's just not going to stand
up over time. Believe me, I don't want to pay for that wall.
It's the only right way to do it.
I want to show you the erosion as of this weekend. It's
even worse on that side there. I took pictures of it. That
picture is a bit dated.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would you like to take the opportunity to talk
to your landscape architect about exactly what Jim just
suggested or what I suggested, to look at the opportunity to
just regrade that entire length and plant with beach grass --
MR. RIDINI: We talked to him about doing that. Again, if you,
but, you know, we expect and we want to build the cabana and he
March 21, 2012
Board of Trustees
32
March 21, 2012
said there would be a problem with 12 feet of wall, 25 feet of
grade that is kind of eroding because the property elevation,
particularly of our neighbor runs off toward us. So you have 12
feet of wall, 25 feet of non-wall and then another 20 feet of
wall. He said he didn't think it would work.
Here is the picture today. If I could show this to you.
That is that first 20 feet as of today. It's already eroded
significantly from that picture.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You see the gully here.
MR. RIDINI: We have been talking to our landscaper about the
most cost effective way to do this. Um, and that was what he
came up with. And we thought about it long and hard, and we
think it is, Iongterm, the most cost effective way, because
there is no way that first 68 feet can over time be, have
integrity, if there is not a wall there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It all slopes down, and this was built into the
slope.
MR. RIDINh Mr. Bergen, just to let you know, our original plan
in 2007, we made an application before this Board, which was
granted, to build a retaining wall the whole way.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I recall that.
MR. RIDINh Since that time, my brother's had financial issues
and we can't afford to do that now. It's not that we don't want to.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I remember when Mr. Costello came in on your
behalf on that retaining wall and his comments.
MR. RIDINh If things didn't happen we would have had it built
three months later.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: One of the things I keep pointing out and taking
a look at is the photos from before the storm showing basically
the little cabana built in to what was essentially nothing more
than a sloped bank the whole length here. So you had a
vegetated bank all the way to the top of the bulkhead and then
the cabana set into that bank.
MR. RIDINh No.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm looking right at it.
MR. RIDINI: It was about eight feet setback. You could walk on.
If you look on this side here, we actually had a 10x12 foot
hammock that was set right there. This was grass. The wall, the
ledge actually goes about four feet into the cabana. There is
about eight feet from the bulkhead to the length. You could see
it. It's right there. We actually have a hammock there. And if
you run down here, that's very deceiving. You can actually get
another seven or eight feet. This was vegetation that had just
grown. I can show you. This went to like there. And right about
there. And it was all vegetation. It was a pretty steep
inline. But this was just all overgrown grass for about six,
seven feet. A picture is deceiving. But if you see what I mean,
I mean, this, that was all just scruff that had grown over 70
years. It was just thick vegetation.
TRUSTEE KING: Why couldn't that be recreated, then you don't
have the expense of the bulkhead.
MR. RIDINh That's what we talked to our landscape architect
Board of Trustees
33
March 21, 2012
about.
TRUSTEE KING: I would do that almost the entire length.
MR. RIDINh Again, if we put the cabana up, there will be 20
feet or so without a wall or without something to hold back that
embankment. And our landscape architect told us that over time
that will just runoff; just gravity and erosion and rain,
because of the elevation of my property and my neighbor's
property, will just cause that all to run off and it will be a
continuous problem.
But what is objectionable about the 68 feet in terms of the
erosion. If we keep of the rest of it, the other 60 feet
natural, and fill in vegetation, so that part of it is wild and
sea grass and flowers and everything, and the other part will be
like my neighbor to the west. Because he has the same thing, he
has a bulkhead and he has a retaining wall and he has little
pebbles between the bulkhead and the retaining wall. We want to
continue that look for 60 feet to the cabana, and the rest of it
we want to plant and make vegetation. And by the way, this is
the first time I have been before the Board, and when that cut
was made by the tractor, that's happened since the last time we
were here. You know, I didn't know it was going to look like
that either. I just think that's when the tractor went down to
put in the pilings, they cut it.
TRUSTEE KING: I think they had to machine it out for the
deadmen.
MR. RIDINI: I wasn't there whether it happened. But that's,
believe me, that's not something we want to have to deal with.
We'll have to deal with it, though, because of the obvious
issues with erosion. I mean we want the westerly 60 feet to
look almost identical to the neighbors to our west. A bulkhead,
gravel, and then a retaining wall that matches him. If you saw,
we have the same contractor put in the bulkhead. It's going to
look very uniform. Then we would have the cabana, and then we
have 60 or 70 feet of vegetation.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll have to go out and take another look. I
don't care.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Would anyone else like to speak to this issue?
(No response).
Are there any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't have any problem with what is proposed here. I really don't.
I just, you know, I think you'll wind up with a pretty serious problem, you know, from the
end of the proposed structure to the, I'll call it to the north.
MR. RIDINI: We will, unless we address it. And we plan to address it. I actually would be
very comfortable if you granted our application and added a paragraph that from the
cabana to the easterly-most portion of the property we had to bring in some fill and have
sea grass planting so the grade would be more appropriate.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think maybe a better way to do it, and again, I'm just speaking for
myself here, it might be four different opinions, but I would say, I would consider granting
this and then talking to your landscape architect, drawing something up, and then
coming back to apply for an amendment to the permit. That does not hold this up. It will
allow you to proceed, and then it would allow you the time to carefully plan what you
want to do with some plantings and jute matting, whatever he or she proposes, and then
come back and for an amendment.
Board of Trustees
34
March 21, 2012
MR. RIDINh That's fine. I would -- that would be fine with us.
Because we want it to look good and we want it to have integrity
too. Believe me, we do.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: If there are no other comments, I11 make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to make a motion to approve the application with the
stipulations as stated by Trustee Bergen.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, I'm not proposing any stipulations. I'm just saying, I know
you have a motion on the floor right now and I would, myself, just as applied for. I'm not
recommending any stipulations.
MR. RIDINh I would willing to stipulate that I would come back
before the Board and have a discussion as to how we could
address the erosion issues from the cabana to the eastern
property line. If that's acceptable.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would be submitting an amendment.
MS. HULSE: Mike, if you could reiterate the motion on the table
is for the resolution as it appears on the agenda.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that motion.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. RIDINh Thank you, for your time and I appreciate your
listening. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Good luck with it.
MR. RIDINh One question. Who do I come back to speak to about
that erosion? Do I come back and speak to --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You can come into the office and talk to either
Lauren or Liz in the office.
MR. RIDINh Okay. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number nine, Michael Warlan on behalf of
BEIXEDON ESTATES ASSOC., INC., requests a Wetla_nd Permit to
remove and replace 37' of damaged bulkhead using vinyl sheathing
and 2' higher than existing; construct a 30' return on the east
side; install rip-rap to one-ton stone armor in front of
bulkhead; replenish beach with approx. 400 cy. of sand; and
construct 4'X 12' beach stairs. ROW end of Arshamomaque Ave.,
Southold.
The LWRP coordinator finds this to be consistent with LWRP.
Though he does recommend the installation of a silt boom to
retain the suspended sediments in the immediate project area.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolves to not support the
application because the proposed coastal structures do not
mitigate the current problem. The CAC recommends an appropriate
sloped rock revetment with native vegetation. The CAC questions
the proposed fence noted on the survey but not included in this
application.
The Trustees, we were all out there on our inspection to
take a look. And we thought it was pretty straightforward, to be
honest. So with that, is there anyone here who would like to
address this application?
MR. WARLAN: I'm Michael Warlan, representing Beixedon Estates.
Board of Trustees
35
March 21, 2012
This, obviously, is a result of the storm. As you can see, did
a pretty good job on that structure, which provides beach acess
to the members of the community. It's deeded access. Without
that structure there is a drop off which, for most residents,
would be unnavigable.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The Conservation Advisory Council is
recommending a sloped rock revetment with native vegetation. I'm
not quite sure how that helps the folks who live there get down
to the beach. If you would like to give me some insight.
MS. HORTON: I don't know. I didn't do the inspection of this and
so I don't know what it looks like as far as the walk down. Um,
so I'm not sure. Sorry.
TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was straightforward, myself. All the
properties are bulkheaded to the west.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You need the stairs for the association people
to get down.
All right, well, what are the plans for silt booms and
things of that nature during the project?
MR. WARLAN: I think that's something we can definitely do.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's no problem, okay.
TRUSTEE KING: It's above apparent high water. I don't see the
necessity of a silt boom.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. I was going to say the same thing. It
would not be necessary.
TRUSTEE KING: It would not be necessary.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'm just reading the report. I guess he's
figuring if there is any work down here, you might need it. But,
all right. Any other comments or questions?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number ten, JMO Environmental Consulting behalf of
ROBERT HORVATH requests a Wetland Permit to construct an
irregularly shaped stone patio 57'X 21', enlarge an existing
brick patio 109 square foot, construct a 3'X 9' stone walk,
construct a stone wall, and install drywells and plantings.
Located: 4550 Paradise Point Rd., Southold.
This is found to be consistent with the LWRP. And the
Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the Wetland
application with the condition of a ten-foot, non-turf buffer
from the crest of the bluff landward, and all runoff from the
patio is contained.
Is there anyone here to speak for or against this
application?
MR. JUST: Good evening, I'm Glenn Just, JMO Consulting on behalf
of Mr. Horvath.
36
Board of Trustees
March 21, 2012
TRUSTEE KING: We all went out and looked at it. I don't think
anybody had any real issues with it. I think the notes, leave
everything seaward of the stone wall, leave it all natural.
That's in the field notes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The stones are here, I don't think we have a
picture of that back here.
TRUSTEE KING: There is a stone wall here.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's in front of the patio. That's in front
here.
TRUSTEE KING: I can't find them on this.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's down here at the bottom.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think so. Jay, help me out here. I think
you took the notes here. For some reason I can't visualize it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I remember we were saying the Japanese black
pine was just a fancy name for --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the stone wall was in here. It was
part of the -- oh, here. I'm sorry. Here was the stone wall,
right in front of the patio.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You are doing a lot with a little over there.
That's for sure.
MR. JUST: Squeezing it all in, that's for sure.
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't have any real issues.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we were concerned about the
stability of the stone wall and how the finished landscaping
might match up with it so the wall would have integrity and
would not fail, to go down, it would go down the slope that was
down below. Because the slope starts right after that, if I
recall correctly. I don't think it was a major problem. It was
just a concern about the integrity when the structure gets going
and when it's finished.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else to speak on behalf of or against
this?
(No response).
I'll 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. And, um, I don't think in the description it was, the
bar and the barbecue, it's all there, it's going to remain.
MR. JUST: If you'd like --
TRUSTEE KING: Just include the bar and the barbecue and the flag
pole so it's all on that.
MR. JUST: That would be fine.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else have anything?
(No response).
I'll make that motion to approve with those additions.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. Have a good evening.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Number 12, 1050 WEST COVE RD., LLC
requests a Wetland Permit for the existing wood bulkhead
Board of Trustees
37
March 21, 2012
with vinyl sheathing landward of existing wood bulkhead; wood
retaining wall; 3'X 14' stairs; 12'X 21' wood deck with vinyl
knee wall landward of wood deck; and 5'X 4' stair landing with
two 4'X 7' stairs to beach. Located: 1050 West Cove Rd., Cutchogue.
This was a holdover from last month. It was reviewed by CAC
and the CAC resolved to support the application with the
condition of a 40-foot, non-turf buffer between the top of the
bulkhead and crest of the bluff. It was reviewed under the LWRP
and found inconsistent. It was inconsistent because it was
constructed without the benefit of a Board of Trustees permit,
and no decks or platforms shall be permitted on or near bluffs.
And platforms associated with stairs must be no greater than
32-square feet.
As I alluded to, this was an application that was before us
previously.
TRUSTEE KING: No, it wasn't. The dock was a previous
application. This is separate, to legitimize all the existing
changes that were made.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. What we discovered on a previous
field inspection was that a new bulkhead had been constructed in
front of an existing old wooden bulkhead. So this would now
legitimize that structure.
To address the inconsistency, we just had one earlier
tonight where this was really a deck that is on the top of a
bulkhead and it's not really a bluff that is there. It's similar
to decks that we have seen on top of bulkheads throughout the
town. And with that, Ill ask if there is anybody to speak on
behalf of this application.
MR. BURGER: Yes, I'm Eugene Burger, I'm the property owner.
Dave, I believe the application is for sheathing landward of the
existing bulkhead. I think you said it opposite.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. It's described as sheathing landward of
existing bulkhead, you are correct.
EUGENE BURGER: You said the deck is not on the bluff, it's
actually on top of the bulkhead. At the bottom. Basically I just
bought the place, and it was all as-is here. And I think I got
you that certified letter you wanted, Jim. I also have old
surveys, I think you guys have copies of them, but prior to '72,
showing all this stuff.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I'm scaling out is to the top of the bank
is just over 40 foot. And I'm just, the reason I'm scaling this
out is to take into consideration the request of the CAC for a
non-turf buffer between the top of the bulkhead, 40 foot between
the top of the bulkhead and crest of the bluff and measuring
that out it's right about to the top, what is listed as top of
bank here. Do you have any problem with that remaining a
non-turf buffer?
EUGENE BURGER: Not at ali. It will just stay the way it is. I
think it's actually one of the better beach grass plantings I
have seen to date.
MS. HORTON: Non-disturbance buffer, is there a little difference
between non-disturbance and non-turf?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is, yes. There is a difference between the
Board of Trustees
38
March 21, 2012
two.
MS. HORTON: We asked for non-disturbance.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, and we asked if he had any problem with a
non-turf buffer in that same area. What I heard the applicant
say is, yes, he's okay with that.
MS. HORTON: Okay, thank you.
MR. BURGER: As it is now, it's very healthy and I'm planning on
leaving it just like that. There is no reason to touch it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from any members of the
audience?
MR. NIELSEN: I'm CarI-Jull Nielson, 1125 West Cove Road, next
door neighbor. My wife and I, my wife Patty and I, bought the
property about five years ago. We were looking out here for a
weekend home and we live in Muttontown in Nassau County. I
happen to be on the other side of the dais because I'm on the
Board of Trustees in Muttontown and deputy mayor, so it's a
little bit different to be on this side for a night. But the
criteria, when we bought our property, was twofold; one, find a
nice, tranquil spot, and Nassau Point certainly is that. And the
other is the proximity to the water with a deeded right-of-way.
And so this was a deeded right-of-way, which you can see on the
first page. The amended schedule, suggests that there is a
ten-foot roadway extending westerly from the northwest loop to
the bay as shown on the map as the right-of-way to the beach.
Now, when we purchased the property from the Boyd's, who had the
property since 1978, they said they had used that right-of-way
for approximately 30 years, and go down the road and launch
their boat. They had a small boat. Patty and I are kayakers and
we are, in the last five years, used that to launch our kayak in
Horseshoe Cove. It's a beautiful, tranquil cove there. So when
I got the certified letter in preparation of this, I went to
Kevin Webster, the assessor here, was really the only contact I
had because we actually razed the house that was on the property
and built a house from scratch there. So I had some dealings
with Kevin over the years with the tax assessment. And he had
looked up the actual right-of-way, and Io and behold the road
that we have been using is not the right-of-way that is actually
on the deed. On our deed. So the right-of-way is on the
northerly side of Mr. Burger's property, which no longer exists.
So I guess what I'm, I have no problems with Mr. Burger's
proposal or dock or anything like that. But what I'm coming here
tonight for is for the Board to, to seek remedy for a
right-of-way to the beach so for some access. Because this is
primarily why we bought the property. It certainly was not for
the house, because we took the house down. It was for the
right-of-way to the beach. And I wanted to know if there is
anything that could be done with that.
Does everyone have an idea of what we are talking about?
If you look at the map, and I guess you all did the site review.
You can actually drive down, that's the Gluckman's on the
opposite side, the large property that everyone knows about, I'm
sure. And then Mr. Burger's property. And there is a road,
actually a ten-foot road, we measured it that traverses from
39
Board of Trustees
West Cove Road right down to the water. And it's directly
across from our property, which would be a natural right-of-way
when you think about where that -- ours is, my wife highlighted
it. 14. That's our lot on that. So you actually walk down the
pathway right to the beach. Now, if you look, when I spoke to
Mr. Webster, he said you actually have to go to that fork in the
road there and then follow that other little white line down.
There is no ten-foot roadway there. There is no access road. So
I was, you know, imploring upon the Board to consider us using
that right of way. It's still on the same property, just in a
different place.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Here is our, we have several challenges here.
First, the survey that the applicant has submitted to us does
not show that right-of-way going down to the water. It shows it
stopping landward quite a ways up. Almost up where the gravel
road goes over on the Gluckman's property.
MR. SNEIDER: How do you construe the deed that says right-of-way
to the beach? Doesn't that infer you are at the beach?
MR. BURGER: I'm very familiar with this whole scenario. I'm on
the Board of the Nassau Point Property Owners Board. So I'm
very familiar with the right-of-ways. There is a right-of-way
between my piece of property and the neighboring property there.
That right-of-way is not on my property. So technically, this
right-of-way you are referring to has nothing do with, this is
not on my property. There is, I have an easement shared with
Gluckman on the other side of my property that is a private
easement between Gluckman and myself. But I think, what I would
suggest to you is bring this up with the Nassau Point Property
Owners Association. They deal with the right-of-ways. It's just
they are the owner of the right-of-way.
TRUSTEE KING: I think this is a separate issue than what we are
addressing tonight. This is a separate issue.
MR. BURGER: In other words, they own the right-of-way. I don't
own that right-of-way. I'm not claiming to own it. My
application has nothing to do with that.
MR. NIELSEN: I guess what I'm saying is that I've walked along
West Cove Road and there is no ten-foot roadway to access the
beach. I mean, we walk it every week we walk that road.
TRUSTEE KING: This is not for us to make a determination.
This is not something for us to be addressing. This really has
nothing to do with what we are entertaining here.
MR. NIELSEN: I know it's tangential to this application. I
thought it would be an appropriate time maybe to bring this up
because, you know, everyone is privy to the information here and
it would be an appropriate time. I didn't know I have to go to a
different board. You are saying this board has no purview over
that?
TRUSTEE KING: No, not at all. Not in that.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: The Board of Trustees here is different than say
the Board of Trustees in Muttontown and a lot of other places.
Our purview is strictly Trustee lands, bottom lands and wetland
issues, for the most part. What you might be talking about would
go to maybe the Town Board.
March 21, 2012
Board of Trustees
4O
March 21, 2012
MR. BURGER: The property owners association is who he needs talk
to.
MR. NIELSEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak
pertaining to this application?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KING: No, this was just cleaning up what was there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
West Cove Road LLC, with the stipulation that the area between
the bulkhead and the top of the bank is to remain a non-turf
buffer and that we deem it consistent under LWRP.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 13, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc. on behalf of EUGENE BURGER (WEST COVE, LLC) requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 123' fixed elevated catwalk,
3'X 15' hinged ramp and a 6'X 20' floating dock attached to the
existing bulkhead; and legalize -- the foregoing, which we just
legalized and supplant the verbal description here. We may want
to modify that -- the existing 12'X 21' platform; legalize and
reconstruct the existing landing 4'X 5' and stairs 4'X 6' all located along
the seaward side of the bulkhead. Located: 1050 West Cove Rd., Cutchogue.
Before I open it up to comments in the public hearing I
would like to just review the file items. The LWRP made a
recommendation, this is inconsistent and felt that the
consideration should be given to look at an alternative, sorry,
excuse me, I misstated that. LWRP coordinator feels it's
inconsistent because the dock at 158 feet extends into an
existing mooring field that is used by the public. And that the
158 foot dock does go out over public bottom, so it's a question
of limiting public access to the bottom lands of Peconic Bay.
There is a question of public access along the beach as when the
tide comes up by the four-foot deck, there is no vessel
dimensions in the application and there is some concern that the
project is within a critical environmental area and concerns
about habitat fragmentation could lead the Board to apply more
stringent requirements concerning the dock construction.
The CAC has requested that an alternative be considered in
the form of mooring as opposed to the dock. They are concerned
that the dock does extend from the shore such that it might
impede lateral navigation along the shore, and particularly for
smaller craft in wet conditions, and they wish it be considered
in light of what they call the functional obsolescence of the
neighboring dock structures.
The Trustees had visited the site and then we had, I think
we also had a subsequent meeting, we had two dates on here.
February 15, maybe February 18. The concerns of the Trustees
Board of Trustees
41
March 21, 2012
were that it matched the pier line and that to address concerns
of the critical environmental area, that possibly flow-thru
decking should be considered. And that there was a concern about
public access. And that may go to access concerning the bottom
coverage as well as along the beach.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicant, 1050 West Cove Road LLC.
By way of exhibits, I want to pass up some aerial
photographs, and these aerial photographs were created by my
office and they depict the proposed dock in relationship to the
existing dock structures that surround it. The aerial photograph
also depicts the mooring field and provides you with a sense of
what the navigational circulation in the area is. I also want to
put up for the record is a copy of the DEC permit which has been
granted for the project as proposed. We did repair the LWRP
forms and we respectively disagree with the LWRP coordinator.
The first part that we disagree is that the aerial photographs
which show us, show you that proposed docks, and these are
accurately scaled, clearly demonstrate that they do not extend
into a mooring field. So that conclusion reached is incorrect.
TRUSTEE KING: Bruce, excuse me. Is that a designated mooring
field? How did you come up with the dimension? That's the
question I have.
MR. ANDERSON: We took the mooring field and we provided a circle
that enclosed, because you can see the moorings that are out
there, and we plotted a very generous area. There is no -- and
I'm sure you would have seen that from your inspection because
we also staked the seaward end of the floating dock, and you
could see the mooring buoy is well out beyond that mooring dock.
So we respectively suggest we are not extending into the
existing mooring field, however that is defined today during the
inspections or in the aerial photographs that we provided to
you. The dock simply does not extend into the mooring field.
The distance between the buoys that you can see out there
and the end of this dock in the area of several hundred feet it
seems to us, and I think your inspection would have concluded
the same. So the conclusion that the construction of this dock
would limit public access to Peconic Bay is unfounded in this
application.
The review, I'm sure as you saw on this, on your
inspection, you would have noticed there is a beach, you would
have noticed that the beach mean high water is approximately
four feet seaward of the seaward face of the existing bulkhead.
And you'll note that in our application that we provide walk
over stairs in both directions. And based upon that, the
conclusion that this dock structure limits access to the beach
is not supported in the application that is before you.
Finally, the issue of a critical environmental area is
likewise not supported from the standpoint of habitat
fragmentation. You will note in the aerials that I have handed
out to you, and the broader aerials, that there are all, several
Board of Trustees
42
March 21, 2012
docks on, in the area, this is within an existing pier field,
and although it is slightly longer than some of the docks
adjacent to it, it was designed that way so that it would
achieve the minimum water depths that are required by the New
York State DEC.
So our position is that the conclusion that this dock
causes some undue habitat fragmentation of the critical
environmental area of Peconic Bay is not supported in the
application that is before you.
Moving on to the citizens advisory committee, the
alternative for a mooring in lieu of a dock, you know, I believe
that alternative always exists. This is a dock that is found and
located within a cove area. It extends directly toward the west,
specifically southwest. And it is protected by a spit directly
across on the other side of the mooring field, and it is
oriented, coincidentally, almost perfectly, against the
prevailing tide. So it's really an ideal situation for the
keeping of a vessel. So while a mooring field, one could always
tie a boat up to a mooring field, this dock provides for far
more suitable, convenient access to the waters and we think is
appropriate for the site.
As I before, it is not extended so far out that it will
actually impede the lateral navigation. It is of a certain
length because it's shallow. And that is the length that is
required to reach waters that are considered suitably navigable.
So the notion that it's blocking navigation along the shore is
not founded for two reasons: Number one, the water is shallow.
Number two, there are docks on either side of the proposed
docking facility.
The notion that the docks out there are functionally --
what was the term they used?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Conservation Advisory Council?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Obsolete. Is not founded, as you can see in
the photograph, you see boats tied up to these docks. So the
docks are obviously being used.
I do understand it is a critical environmental area. I do
understand there is a larger view of the waters and the habitat
of the Peconic Bay and the overall, more broader, almost
regional significance of eastern Long Island, but I hand up a
copy of the DEC permit to make the point that we have an agency
who is looking at that, he's charged with this sort of broader
view, particularly as it concerns critical environmental areas,
and note that the issue of the permit is done with the
understanding that this is not in conflict with Peconic Bay as
it is designated with a critical environmental area. As to the
flow through, the owners here, I don't know that I would
necessarily be opposed to it, but I would point out this. That
when we do flow-thru systems, we are usually doing them because
we are crossing areas of vegetation here. And here what we have
is a beach, and there is no vegetated wetlands associated in
this area. I can tell you that when we were looking around, and
to my knowledge, I don't know of any significant submerged
aquatic vegetation that exists under this dock or in close
Board of Trustees
43
March 21, 2012
proximity to this dock, so I don't know that the flow-thru
decking would necessarily accomplish really anything.
And as to the bottom cover, the bottom cover, I guess,
would be limited to the piles that are selected for this
project, and what we have here is we have piles that are spaced
eight feet apart, which is sort of the standard, industry
standard for the spacing of piles so you are not covering too
much bottom. So our feeling is that this dock is appropriately
designed for the specific location in which it has been sited.
Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Bruce, the length of this fixed dock is 123 feet?
MR. ANDERSON: Correct.
TRUSTEE KING: So it's a little misprint there where it says
proposed elevated catwalk is 1287
MR. ANDERSON: It's 123.
TRUSTEE KING: So that's a misprint.
MR. ANDERSON: I'm looking at the plans.
TRUSTEE KING: Is it says proposed elevated catwalk 128 feet.
MR. ANDERSON: Oh, I'm looking at the plan -- oh, I see what you
are saying. That's a misprint. Sorry. It says 123 right above
it. If that helps
TRUSTEE KING: On the dock.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. You are correct. It's a misprint.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to
this application?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have a question. Is there somebody more
familiar with the area? Is there any shellfishing done in this
spot? Because any time I have been out there, I have not seen
anything that really wreaks of havoc out there. When I walked
out, the times I have been there, I walked out and it's just
like an extension of the beach.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think it's a pretty active beach with
respect to fish and wind getting roiled up. I'm not familiar
with the shellfish resource.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm not either.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm very familiar with the area. As a matter of
fact I myself had a boat in that mooring cove. But I don't ever
recall seeing any shellfishing going on in there. But I'm not an
expert in that. I couldn't testify to whether there are
shellfish in there or not. I just have never seen anybody in
there actively shellfishing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I hadn't either. I ask because it's part and
parcel of the whole critical habitat designated area, but this
particular cove --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I know the Peconic Estuary Program did the
clam survey, and I'm not telling you where all the clams are, but
typically clam set is a function of our creeks and in many cases
the open bay areas, the largest number of clams are on the
shoals immediately outside of the creeks because of the
defective turbulence and counter-current flow and
counter-current eddies probably letting the spat settle there
and usually the open stretches, although they might end up
picking up scallops from a wind fetch, if there has been a
Board of Trustees
44
March 21, 2012
really heavy wind and the scallop resource is offshore, usually
the clam resource would not be located along that kind of beach.
MR. ANDERSON: I would just add, I may be wrong, but in our
inspection of this, it appeared to me this was a hard, sandy
bottom. And I think some of your most productive areas are mixed
with sand and mud and sometimes sand, mud and muck, which
doesn't appear to be present.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Looking at the aerial, there does appear
there might be some areas where Spartina has established itself
along the beaches there and I'm wondering if open-grate decking
would be an option to consider in the immediate intertidal area
that could grow some Spartina possibly in the future.
MR. BURGER: Eugene Burger, I'm the owner of the property. John,
you are saying for a portion of it?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
MR. BURGER: I wouldn't have a problem with that at all.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because it doesn't seem, there is no report
of submerged aquatic vegetation. The beach shows it's getting
quite a bit of wave energy, so you have that large banding
there. There is no eel grass there for the first portion but
there is some neighboring properties that shows some Spartina.
MR. BURGER: Correct, to the south a little bit there.
If I may, you are asking about, I'm very familiar with that
area. I kind of grew up here. My wife's family owns the
immediate house next door on the other side of the right-of-way
he was referring to. So I'm very familiar with this cove. I
think, Bruce, first of all, the channel that is in the cove is
on the other side up against the spit of land there that is over
there. And the mooring field, to answer Jim's question, is it a
regulated mooring field. No, it's not regulated. And over the
years I had moorings in there and had them taken. So it's
definitely not regulated. It's a very protected spot and
therefore a lot of people want to moor over by that spit of land
way out there. But, um, you know, it's a unique spot for a bay
front in the fact that it's very well protected. It's not a
normal bay front. If it was a normal bay front I would not be
going for a dock. But this is very unique, very protected from
the predominant winds, so, you know, I'm agreeable to some
flow-thru decking for a portion of the catwalk.
TRUSTEE KING: I just question the need of 19 -- this will be all
three-pile fence then?
MR. ANDERSON: It's presently designed that way but it's most
critical that you would be placed toward the seaward terminus.
That's where it counts the most.
MR. BURGER: Jim, if I might, the winter ice is pretty
substantial, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would the applicant be willing to make that a
seasonal float, removed during the winter time?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Absolutely, yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments?
TRUSTEE KING: I'm afraid I'm not a big fan of docks in the bay.
I think you'll take a shellacking there in a westerly and you'll
have to move the boat. That's all I can comment.
Board of Trustees
45
March 21, 2012
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any other additional comments?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: My only comment is that just to note that there
are four other functional docks in that area and there is, as a
matter of fact, one dock all the way, I'll call it the south,
that I believe this Board just gave a permit to. I believe it
was either a year or two years ago. Because Costello came in to
redesign and rebuild it.
TRUSTEE KING: That was a re-build. And it was an existing dock.
It's really a lot more protected than the other one will be. You
can say what you want.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just making the point.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, Trustee Bergen. I actually have a
brief comment myself. The issue about coverage over the bottom
is a real issue for Trustees to grapple with. But this is not
Trustee land. Not to say our standards should not go to that,
but it was mentioned this in fact has gotten a DEC permit. But
the concern I have, and it's not really entirely something that
can be launched during a permit process but there has never been
a systematic study to look at the effect of mooring and road on
the bottom versus the dock where the small amount of bottom is
does placed over a fairly short period of time. And the fact is
the town zoning ordinance does allow two boats other than the
owner's. So when we are talking about overall access to the
waters of Peconic Bay and use, versus negative environmental
impacts, if the owner had a boat at a moorin9 field and two
other persons who could not have a boat and dock who might
otherwise be afforded access in the town, all put moorin9s out
in a mooring field, an unregulated mooring field, because at
this time they are unre9ulated, you could effectively have three
persons where with a fairly large road out there on the bottom
which is swingin9 360 degrees of the wind and actually churning
up bottom, they place their hook without any control about there
bein9 submerged and beneficial aquatic vegetation. I'm saying
this is not the place to launch a study but, you know, as far as
the balancin9 of those equities, and I heard Trustee King
explain his reluctance for additional docks on the bay but I
think it's something to think about for the future so that we
come up with some, you know, a little harder information. You
know, I've always been a pro-dock person but I have to
acknowledge that I'm not sure that I got it right and I'm not
sure that Jim's got it right because I don't really know how
that trade off 9oes. I just thought I would throw that in there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments, concerns?
(No response).
I'll make a motion close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
hearing with conditions that will address the inconsistency of
the LWRP. I would move to approve it subject to open-grate mesh
docking over the intertidal zone, and this should help address
46
Board of Trustees
concerns concerning protection of marine habitat and allow
marine habitat to flourish, since there has not been evidence
given that there is submerged aquatic vegetation, more extensive
open-grate deck I would not put in this motion to approve. And
other than that, urn, and that it be a seasonal float, removed
seasonally, according to current requirements for seasonal floats.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Do they need the steps to go up and over?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the steps to go up and over have been
noted on the plans already so access along the shore is
provided. So that I would move to approve with the plans I submitted with
those requirements to bring it into consistency with LWRP.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer,
aye. Trustee Domino, aye).(Trustee King, nay).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll have to vote nay on this. I can't support it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do we need revised plans on that?
TRUSTEE KING: Maybe showing open-grate.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Showing open-grate decking.
MR. ANDERSON: We'll provide those, revise those plans.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 14, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc., on behalf of BARBARA KLEIN requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 4'X 106' elevated catwalk secured with twenty-eight
(28) posts @ 6", a 3'X 15' hinged ramp and a 6'X 20' floating
dock secured by four (4) pilings @ 8". Located: 320 Broadwaters
Rd., Cutchogue.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
comment is that the property enjoys access to, an opportunity
for mooring. The CAC does not support this application based
upon the following reasons: The seaward end of the dock was not
staked as of March 12; the dock extends beyond the pier line and
should be brought in landward to be inline with neighboring
docks; a five-foot, non-turf buffer inside the chainlink fence;
and they question the legality of the chainlink fence.
The Trustees did a field inspection on March 14 and noted
that, the comment is that we would like to move, the dock moved
landward as much as possible, and noting the depth of the water.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicant Barbara Klein. Again I'm going to show you
some aerials. You can see how this dock lines up with the other
docks in the area. This is a different type of application than
the last one you just heard, in several respects. First, it is
well within sort of a creeked area. And it is a relatively
shallow area. This dock is designed to extend out to a water
depth of 32 inches. The DEC suggests two-and-a-half feet is the
requirement. It, very gradually, as you can see from the plans,
which were done by a licensed surveyor, deepens as up go out.
And so at the center of the dock we are showing 32 inches. At
the point where the ramp is, you can see it's at 28 inches.
There is a possibility, I suppose, of taking that dock and
turning it as it reduces length. Meaning the float. But
generally what we are finding now is they are trying to find 30
March 21, 2012
Board of Trustees
47
March 21, 2012
inches of water surrounding the dock. And so we are not 100%
against it, but we prefer not to. If you look at the existing
docks in the area, you'll see they are all oriented in the same
direction. My guess is that some of these docks may be in water
more shallow than ours. Now, a lot of this work that was done ia
the past were done by consultants such as myself who would go
out and take actual depth measurements. And water depth at Iow
tide can vary in relationship to seasons, it can vary in
relationship to prolonged winds, it can vary with respect to the
lunar cycle. Here what we have done is we started our planning
effort by simply having it mapped by the surveyor, and that is
why this came to be in the size, orientation, location for this
property. I'm not opposed to hearing alternatives, but I don't
know of many. I will say that the inconsistencies cited in the
LWRP opportunity for mooring, I would think that would be, given
what we just discussed in the prior application, would be a less
preferable suggestion because of the road and because of the,
you are more likely to have a disturbance of the shallow water
system.
We did stake out the seaward end of the dock, so I don't
understand that, unless someone pulled it out. And we were very
careful to maintain that.
TRUSTEE KING: It's in the picture. It's right there.
MS. HORTON: It was here when I saw it. But when Peter was there,
he didn't see it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It might have been high tide.
MR. ANDERSON: It does seem to extend slightly beyond the others.
The only thing I can guess is they may be in shallower water. I
don't think there are big water depths up and down that
waterway. Just given the lay of the land, when the land is Iow,
the depths are usually shallow and when the land is high, the
depth is usually deep. And that land is uniform there. So we
didn't map everyone's bottomland, but I would be surprised if
there was any significant water depths up along that shoreline.
I don't think anyone has a problem with sort of
establishing some sort of non-turf buffer, if it's helpful. And
I do not have any comment on the chainlink fence. I simply don't
have any information on that as I come before you today. So that
would sort of conclude my comments on this application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is anyone else here who would like to speak to
this application?
(No response).
Are there any further comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: I would suggest open-grate over the wetland area.
MR. ANDERSON: I would support that, because it definitely goes
over vegetated wetlands. So I think that's completely reasonable.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With open-grate can it be Iow enough at the
beginning, either with stairs or without a set of stairs going
over, I think that's a hard bottom, probably people can be
walking along the shore there.
MR. ANDERSON: If you look at the aerial, you'll see there is a
lot of beach area. And if stairs were required, we would simply
put them there. And I don't think there would be any objection
48
Board of Trustees
to doing that. In other words, you can see right where the beach is.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So we don't have people traipsing on the
wetland, so they can come up and over on that open sandy area.
MR. ANDERSON: That's correct.
MS. HORTON: Our concern about the fence, because no one is
talking about it at all, was that was it interrupts the
migration for where the animals, the wildlife is going and has
access to the water there. So that was the concern of ours. A
real big concern of ours. And I just wanted people to know why.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bruce, I think I'm not sure that that is a
permitted fence. So I would advise the client to check to see if
it's permitted. If not, it's a violation of the code, so I would
have a fence down there --
MR. ANDERSON: Ill explore that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Right to the wetland area.
Is there an oppodunity here, Bruce -- this is another area
I'm very familiar with -- is there an opportunity, I think you
alluded to this, to make this an %" shaped float at the end; in
other words to rotate the float so it's L-shaped. That way it's
still in the depth required but it does not extend farther than
the other two docks on either side. Because when we went out
there and I walked out and eyeballed it, and it was clearly out
farther than the other docks.
MR. ANDERSON: It shows that -- and the aerial will show that as
well. My response to that is that I laid it out that way for a
reason. It is consistent with the other docks in the area. As I
said to you, you know, we actually wound up in quite a kind of
back and forth in an application known as Giniger that
came before you where we put the L-shaped dock, and we did
finally overcome it. But we heard for the first time this idea
that you have to have two-and-a-half feet surrounding this. So
what I would suggest is this. If the Board was so inclined, I
would be happy to change the plans accordingly, with the
understanding that if I cannot obtain a DEC permit, and I'm
forced to put it back to the way it was designed, that the Board
be receptive to that. Because I mean, I do agree with you that
if it's, you know, if it's short -- I understand it's this
notion of trying to shorten it. But I don't want to shorten it
to the extent I lose the right for a dock.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I understand that. I agree with you. But
again, I'm just trying to pull it back some. I would also want
to suggest this be a seasonal float.
MR. ANDERSON: That would be acceptable.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And instead of four pilings, two pilings to
secure that seasonal float. One at either end. I can tell you,
again, I'm very familiar with this area, the ice in there is
brutal to those docks that are in there. There are two docks that
are to the east of this location. Every winter when we have ice
-- and of course we didn't have ice this winter -- but every
winter where we've had ice, the pilings get lifted. So I want to
let you know that ahead of time. But I would like to see it
reduced to two pilings and then the seasonal dock.
And just one other comment I have. With regard to the
March 21, 2012
49
Board of Trustees
March 21, 2012
recommendation of a mooring as an alternative, that mooring area
out in front of this particular area of Broadwaters Cove was one
the Trustees handles through permits. And Ill bet you there is
a waiting list at least, I would stay, I'm sure I'm
underestimating five to seven years long. It's probably longer
than that.
MS. STANDISH: Not anymore.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is not a waiting list for that area?
Sorry, I apologize. I thought there was a long waiting list for
moorings in that area. Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: We have given property owners even when there is a
waiting list. We have done that in the past.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I just have a comment. We have a pretty big
shopping list of items that can be addressed and tidied up. I
don't know if this is one that maybe we should table.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we can work through this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I was thinking along with the fence issue,
if DEC says no on a rotation.
MR. ANDERSON: What I was going to suggest, since we are on the
record, and when I say we will make an effort, I'm not
understating that. And we'll follow through on our end and see
if we can amend our DEC. We have not received a DEC permit yet.
So a decision has not been made. All I'm saying for the record
is in the event that becomes a bone of contention, I would
appreciate the ability, which I think I already have, to come
back and amend the permit for good reason. The reason being that
it's in the interest of inter-agency concurrence. And as to the
fence, it has to be permitted if it is not, and --
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I don't think it's permitted by our code, so I
mean we can just say remove it, right? Technically it's a
violation. Just we'll make it easier.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If it's not, it's a violation.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: When you say remove it, to what point?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: To comply with Town Code.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That is a stipulation.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is all being done because the house is being sold, right?
MR. ANDERSON: It is being sold.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: No further comments, I would like to make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to make a motion to approve this
application with the stipulation that there be an open-grate over
the wetland area, non-turf buffer landward of the dock, seasonal
float with only two pilings, and a stipulation that the
chainlink fence will be removed to comply with Town Code. And
that there be stairs to provide access.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just propose one modification; that the
open-grating over the, not just the wetland, but the intertidal
area as well.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right. Modification would be open-grate over
Board of Trustees
5O
March 21, 2012
the wetland area and intertidal zone.
MR. ANDERSON: Question. Before you go to motion. You did not
tell me how much non-turf buffer. I would put it on a plan so
that it would be known.
TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we just make it the first 50 feet
open-grate. That takes it out to the Iow tide mark. So you have
a measurement.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay.
MS. HULSE: This is not part of the public hearing because there
a motion on the table.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It has not been seconded, so.
MS. HULSE: So you can go back to public hearing if you would like.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: All right. Go back to public hearing so we can
make, go over the different stipulations.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So withdraw the motion and reopen the public
hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right, I withdraw that motion and would like
to reopen the public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Are we going to make this an "L" shaped
application or stick with the straight in and out.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I thought it was an "L".
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Myself, I wanted it to be an "L".
MR. ANDERSON: Or "T".
MS. HULSE: At this juncture there is such significant changes I
would have to request that what Trustee Bredemeyer suggested is
there needs to be something submitted by the applicant
requesting all of these changes before you vote on this as is. I
mean it's significantly different than the application before
you, or the resolution before you. I mean it's not that it can't
get done tonight but I think it has to come from the applicant.
MR. ANDERSON: I would stipulate to those changes. I've listed
them and I can assure you the plans will be consistent with what
we have discussed. I'm happy with those as conditions.
MS. HULSE: Actually, that's exactly my point. I don't think they
should be conditions. There are essentially going to deny your
application as it is, unless you are requesting an amendment
from the dais right now, or excuse me, from the podium, and
request that these changes be part of your application.
Can you make that request that you are consenting to these
changes as opposed to making them alterations?
MR. ANDERSON: I consent that our application be processed in
accordance with those changes; those changes being: An
open-grate over vegetated wetlands and intertidal extending 50
feet from its landward terminus toward the water; steps across
the dock within the beach area; the rotating of a float for an
"L" shaped configuration; that the float be seasonal and be
secured by two piles; that a fence be removed; that a non-tuff
buffer of some dimension be created. And, for the record, I
requested those changes.
TRUSTEE KING: Myself, personally, I would rather table this,
Board of Trustees
51
March 21, 2012
come in with a new set of plans showing that configuration and
all the details and let us get at this fence issue.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And by then we could get proof positive
whether the DEC will approve or not approve the depths being
sought. I just have a question since we are back in the public
hearing. Is this an eel grass area, that the open-grating should
go out a little fudher?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't believe so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't believe it's any eel grass. I'm very
familiar with this area.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Not an issue, okay.
TRUSTEE KING: There is so many changes we've talked about. Give
us a set of plans for those to make the 50-foot open-grate, the
%" configuration and the non-turf buffer. Put that all together.
MR. ANDERSON: How much of a non-turf buffer do you want?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is a lot of lawn there. I'm comfortable
with 20 feet seaward of the wetland line.
TRUSTEE KING: Landward of the wetland boundary.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MS. HORTON: If it's going to get tabled and we go out next
month, we would really love it if the fence, which we think is
not permitted anyway, is gone by the time we come, so that any,
you know, so that big leeway they get to complete the plans,
that this whole thing is not stopped for the animals. So it
would be really nice. Because it doesn't take a lot of work to
remove a fence.
TRUSTEE KING: Bruce, can you talk to the applicant? You'll have
a problem because this fence is technically in violation.
MR. ANDERSON: I don't know anything about the fence.
TRUSTEE KING: Apply, have them make it part of the application
to apply for that pool fence. We'll want to see that fence moved
landward. Not where it is now.
MR. ANDERSON: That's fine.
TRUSTEE KING: But make that part of this, part of this application.
MR. ANDERSON: The obviously place would be to put it at the
landward edge of the buffer.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That fence could be moved far enough and still
be a pool fence and be non-jurisdictional for us. It's just a
suggestion. Here one inch is 30.
MR. ANDERSON: Could I ask a couple of questions about the fence?
I admit I have not been focused about a fence. I can't think of
everything. But, as I look at this, what I'm going to suggest is
we have an encroachment issue as well, and may use this to
remedy that. So I'll put it some reasonable distance around,
what I'll try to get the applicant to do is put it some
reasonable distance around the pool and leave it at that, and
whatever works. There are trees there so I can't tell you today
exactly where. I don't want to cut down trees to put up a fence.
The fence enob)sure is required, there is no question about
that. Do you understand what I'm saying? Do you see it?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup.
MR. ANDERSON: It's a title problem. Nothing else.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to make a motion to table this
52
Board of Trustees
application.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Number 15, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc., on behalf of MARY DESETTA requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a second-stow addition and separate lantern addition
atop the existing single-family dwelling; reconstruct the
existing outdoor shower; abandon the existing septic system;
install a new updated sanitary system; reconstruct and raise the
existing bulkhead, stairway, hinged ramp and floating dock.
Located: 1325 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport.
The LWRP report on this finds the second-stow addition and
updated sanitary system, septic system, bulkhead stairway,
hinged ramp exempt from LWRP. However, the proposed
reconstruction of the existing floating dock to be inconsistent
with LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: Because of the length?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Because it does not protect and restore tidal
freshwater wetlands, um, regulations for the placement and
configuration of docking facilities, residential docks -- he
just cites a couple of construction and operation standards. If
any part of a residential dock structure includes a float or
floating dock, the float or floating dock portion shall be
designed so that with exception of the pilings it is no larger
than 6x20.
The CAC resolved to support the application with the
following conditions: The dock and bulkhead should conform to
existing town code with regard to the square footage;
installation of a ten-foot, non-turf buffer; revegetation of the
bank with native plants; retain the permeable driveway; install
hay bales and silt fence and maintain it throughout
construction; and retain all storm water runoff on the property.
The Trustees were out and took a look at this. We were all
there. The only notes I have are that we thought that maybe
making it the same height to match the neighbor to the south
would be a good idea, removing all debris that is below the mean
high water, seaward of the new bulkhead and put a five-foot
non-turf buffer at the top of the bank seaward.
Is there anybody here who would like to make comments on
this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
for the applicant. When we looked at, I'll start with the upland
improvement. There appears to be no issues with respect to the
upland improvements as they involve the septic system, that will
be upgraded, and will comply in all respects to current Health
Department regulations. I'll tell you, a lot of this house will
undergo remediation, is in good condition, as is the foundation.
And you should know that. I don't believe there is any problem
with the establishing a buffer and it's our intention to do that
landward of the bulkhead.
This is one of these applications that we are likely to
March 21, 2012
53
Board of Trustees
table given our discussions of a moment ago on the last
application because I received a call from my clients on this
yesterday and we have been rushing around quite a bit looking to
amend our own applications. I brought with me plans showing
those amendments. But before I get into them, I want to talk
about the dock, the floating portion of the dock, for the
moment. And what I noticed, and what you would have noticed when
you were down there, that the floats in the area, the vast
majority of them, almost all of them, exceed 6x20.
In this case, there is a permit that was granted by the
Trustees, grandfathered application for a bulkhead dock issued
to Frank Bisk, a prior owner, which I have a copy of, that
permitted a 6x30 foot float, and I understand under those
circumstances we are allowed to maintain a float of that
dimension. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But we do have that
grandfathering permit.
Now, we will be going to the DEC, so in my mind it is still,
and ours, the DEC is still up in the air somewhat. But I do
want to share that with you. And I have a copy of that. It was
granted in 1987.
TRUSTEE KING: You said you had a permit for 6x307
MR. ANDERSON: Right.
TRUSTEE KING: What is here is a lot bigger than that.
MR. ANDERSON: It's different. But when you look at these permits
in 1987, they are so unsophisticated, I can't testify as to what --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is the name Bredemeyer on that permit?
want to know before I vote on this.
MR. ANDERSON: No, Henry Smith.
TRUSTEE KING: You are proposing reconstructing it as --
MR. ANDERSON: We want to put in a new float. That float is
dangerous.
TRUSTEE KING: At 6x30 then.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. If it's permissible to do so. Given the
grandfathering permit that was granted by this Board.
MS. HULSE: It's not.
TRUSTEE KING: But one of the things we noticed, too, there has
been some clearing of vegetation on that one side.
MR. ANDERSON: I'll get to that in a second.
TRUSTEE KING: Just to let you know, we noticed it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Before we move on --
MR. ANDERSON: The next part is there is a boardwalk that runs
along the whole edge of that, and that boardwalk would be
removed. I'm not sure you are aware of that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Before we move on to that, you were just
mentioning an old permit. Do you have a copy of that? Because I
don't have a copy in here.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. It's my only copy. Let me show itto you.
Here is the permit. And as you can see from the permit, it's
just the way they did things back then.
MS. HULSE: Even if a permit was grandfathered, if what is out
there doesn't match it, it essentially has nothing and it has to
go back to the code of 6x20.
If what he had out there matched the permit, you could make
March 21, 2012
54
Board of Trustees
repairs to it but you can't rebuild it.
MR. ANDERSON: It has to be replaced, no question about it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 4x30 is 120-square feet. Give us 30 feet.
It's protected water.
MR. ANDERSON: I don't know if four is very stable. I just wanted
to bring that to your attention.
TRUSTEE KING: It seems to me we have gone over this before.
This may have been under another name.
MR. ANDERSON: That's why we laid out a 6x30 foot float, because
we thought that was permitted on this properly by vidue of a
grandfathered permit issued by this Board. I don't know if DEC
would accept it but that's why it was drawn the way it was
drawn. And I still say that, and I'm quite certain that very few
floats out there are 6x20.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Some of the preformed polypropylene, the
jet-black polypropylene cubes, I know I have been on some of
those, I think they are dimensionally two feet, give or take
within inches, two feet square. I have been on those two wide
and they are pretty stable. I don't think in this day and age
it's beyond the realm of possibility.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Maybe we can go go the assumption it's pretty
much the Board, you know, it's pretty much going toward the
direction of 6x20.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Or 4x30. It's 120 square feet.
MS. HULSE: The code says 6x20.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I know. We've talked about that, too.
MS. HULSE: I know.
TRUSTEE KING: We should put it into square feet, then.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's one of the differences we should make.
MR. ANDERSON: Now comes the curve ball. When you were out there,
and you can see, if you look at your own photo across, you'll
see these areas they'll built considering a Iow sill bulkhead
with sand or a Iow bulkhead with sand, in our case sand and
beach grass, and the clients last night -- I'm a little tired --
there is actually two, one across and one further down. And
I'll provide you with photos of them. But they asked us to
consider a complete re-do of the bulkhead, which may cause you
to do another inspection. But this is what we decided to do.
And these are conceptual. I have more work to do on them, but
this is about what I could get done in the last 18 hours.
TRUSTEE KING: Have they got the building permit from the
Building Department yet for the house?
MR. ANDERSON: No, we need a zoning variance because it's within
75 feet of the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So essentially the fun has just begun.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, we have plans developed. I mean I don't
think the house is at issue, will be at issue with anyone
because it lines up with all the other houses and it's in very
good shape. But the consideration here was to shift the float
further to the north. The reason for that is when you were down
there you would have seen a enormous boat just to the south,
which extends almost to the property lines creating a possible
March 21, 2012
Board of Trustees
55
March 21, 2012
navigational -- for[unately that doesn't face the other way. If
that photo faced toward the south, you would have seen it. It's
encapsulated in sort of a gigantic canvass covering. There it
is. Right there. There it is.
And so the afterthought was to shift everything away from
that because this is kind of a crowded, little boating channel.
So the plans that are drawn entail taking out the stairs and
shifting everything to the north. That's the first thing.
The second thing is, if you go to page two, there was a
thought of creating a Iow bulkhead right along the north side,
which is similar to what we find across the creek and then down
some, which are permitted by this Board. Except we would
vegetate it with beach grass. And the thought on that was it
might create a nice amenity, a nice little natural area and an
ability to easily launch kayaks. And I wanted the Board's
reaction to that. I'm not really seeing them in your pictures.
But you'll see them when you go out there.
TRUSTEE KING: You are talking like a Iow sill bulkhead?
MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. We have drawn it at just slightly above high
tide. So a normal high tide, so it would flood in a regular
high tide, but the idea is to create an area Iow to the water
you could easily launch a kayak and the like. So we have
created this sort of almost Iow sill bulkhead along the north
side with the knowledge that it will flood from probably five or
six times a year and we would like you to consider that.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Is this what you are talking about here?
MR. ANDERSON: All of that, everything you see has to be removed.
TRUSTEE KING: So where would the Iow bulkhead be?
MR. ANDERSON: Right where he's pointing it. So if you look at
page two, you get kind of a schematic of what the elevations
would likely look like. And if you look at the survey that came
with the application, you'll see a ten-foot contour line and
you'll see how it, there is a gully in that area, so the
location of this design feature fits land, because the land is
lower right on the north side of the property.
TRUSTEE KING: Bruce, wouldn't that area be considered intertidal
right there?
MR. ANDERSON: Well -- no.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Right here, yes.
MR. ANDERSON: They'll lineup the bulkheads. That's almost
seaward. That's a nice Iow shot. But these bulkheads are going
to lineup with the existing. I'm not sure exactly where that
is. But we are going to replace the bulkhead in line with the
existing. We are not replacing it there.
TRUSTEE KING: Because we wanted all that stuff removed.
MR. ANDERSON: We'll remove that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So you'll line it up with this bulkhead here?
MR. ANDERSON: It will lineup with bulkheads on both sides, as
proposed.
TRUSTEE KING: It will be much lower that what's existing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MR. ANDERSON: So if you go to the survey and you look, this
survey here, actually, I shouldn't say line, it lines up with the face of
56
Board of Trustees
March 21, 2012
that bulkhead there. What you see in front of it is going to be removed.
That's not even reflected in the survey before you. But if you look at the
survey you'll see a ten-foot contour line and you will see how it runs, you'll
see the slope of the bluff is rather steep. And there is a gully on the north
side and that's why they wanted to put the lower sill bulkhead, to make the
lower elevation of that property a property amenity for the clients.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Bruce, question. This is the area to that
Iow lying area. The question is the neighboring bulkhead, it
seems to be back several feet from what you proposed.
MR. ANDERSON: We wanted to run it along the face of that. Not
like the front. It's all non-functional.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Bruce, I'm going suggest that we table this and
meet out there and look at this.
MR. ANDERSON: I'm sure you will.
TRUSTEE KING: Get everything staked out for this new plan so we
know what we are doing, maybe even meet you there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is a lot more involved.
TRUSTEE KING: It's a dramatic change from what we --
MR. ANDERSON: That's why I said that right in the beginning. But
since I was here I wanted an opportunity explain what we were
thinking about, and if you are going to throw a shoe at me or
something, I would rather you do it today. It would be easier for me.
TRUSTEE KING: It all sounds probably doable. It's just
dramatically different than what we --
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, it is. It came about last night. So we were
up very late drawing these things.
TRUSTEE KING: We should just table this.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to table the application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number 16, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc.,
on behalf of MUlti, AY GAYLOI~I:) requests a Wetland. Permit to elevate
the existing dwelling; construct a front entry; rear deck; screen porch;
addition; stoops (2); deck roof; install new sanitary system; deposit clean fill;
demolish the existing garage; and establish a natural buffer.
Located: 765 Beachwood Rd., Mattituck.
This is for a second-story addition, I believe. LWRP found
this to be consistent. Depth to ground water is extremely shallow,
2.4 feet. Please have the applicant confirm the location of the test well.
The four-foot contour is proposed to be removed, please verify the
intention of the note.
The CAC support the application with the condition of a
ten-foot, non-turf buffer planted with native vegetation, and
there is to be no further mowing.
We have some plans, by Joe Fischetti. Is there anyone here
to speak on behalf of or against this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting.
For the record, the Board, myself and Mr. Fischetti met out on
the site a week ago today. So I'm guessing everyone is familiar
with what is proposed here.
To summarize, for the record, we were before you about two
years ago, and at that time we had proposed that we take the
57
Board of Trustees
dwelling and add a second story. With a partial second story.
We were to, we were going to leave the existing garage in place,
and it was going to be serviced by the existing cesspool. The
application stalled for reasons having nothing to do with the
regulatory process or anything else. But in the interim it was found
that the septic system backed up and needed to be remedied. And
also during that time, we brought in an engineer because we were
concerned about the structural integrity of the house.
What was concluded was the house was built of many
structurally unrelated components and the idea or notion of
putting a second stow on it would be problematic from a
structural standpoint. However the housed could be lifted and
made to comply with applicable FEMA codes. And also a new septic
system could be constructed on the property that would meet
applicabl~ Health Department codes. And so the application
before you contains those features.
The garage, I don't know if I heard this, is to be
demolished, and that's part of our application. The question of
the ten-foot buffer to be planted is acceptable to us. We would
plant probably with beach grass. I'll provide with you a plan
showing that.
The test hole was taken in the vicinity of the existing
garage. I don't see it here on the property but it was visible
in the field. It was adjacent to the garage on the north side.
The lot is flat and the elevations of groundwater relative to
surface are fairly uniform throughout the site. I think the
remainder of the application sort of speaks to itself. But I'm
here to answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm showing on the plan here we have in pink
some walls that will be removed. Just for the record, this is
not going to be a demolition?
MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. We've tried with great pains to
demonstrate exactly what we are doing structurally to the house.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But if it turns into a demolition, you
understand you have to return back before this Board.
MR. ANDERSON: I expect that as a condition.
TRUSTEE KING: This is a ten-foot buffer all the way around here,
the perimeter of the property?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. And you'll also note we provided for a
buffer and a hay bale line along the landward edge of that. It's
shown on the surveys before you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
MS. HORTON: I think that was some misunderstanding with what
that was for. I was pulling in when you guys were pulling out
so the engineer was there and he was talking to me and he's
like, oh, yeah, we are not going to plant anything here, nothing
will grow anyway, so it doesn't matter. We'll leave it like
that. Well, they are obviously mowing it. So it doesn't matter
if it's grass or natural. If you are going to mow it, you are
treating it like grass, you know?
MR. ANDERSON: The answer to that is that what you are seeing
right there, what you are walking on in that photo is actually
mowed, native weeds. It's a surface, the Gaylord's are, have
March 21, 2012
Board of Trustees
58
March 21, 2012
grandchildren and want usable yard space. So the idea that you
would be mowing whatever occurs there naturally should not
provide any impact to any wetlands or water course because the
point we try to make in the field is you can't have a fertilized
turf area on this property in any event because it floods.
That's why we are raising the whole area. But the notion we
can't have a mowed surface of indigenous species of whatever
grows there, which is plainly obvious when you see it, I think
is not something that should be prohibited in this application.
Because the purpose of these provisions on lawns seems to me is
to limit, preclude applications of fertilizers and various
biocides. Which would not be applied here in any event because
that would do no good whatsoever.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have been on this particular property before
and that's been covered with white sand. So it comes and it
goes. It's not a fertilized area.
MR. ANDERSON: No, you can't fertilize, is the point I was
making. You could but it would not do anything.
TRUSTEE KING: This ten-foot buffer would be just left in its
natural state?
MR. ANDERSON: No, I want to come back with a actual beach
planting plan because we have been so successful with them. And
the ones we have done, I mean I have gone back and it's just
unbelievable how well they work, adjacent to bulkheads and
elsewhere. And there is growing acceptance among property
owners, they don't seem to mind them.
TRUSTEE KING: So you'll provide us with that?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Planted up ten-foot buffer?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, it's a very simple plan.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else have any comments?
(No response).
I think we established the fact this is not going to be a demo.
Or if something happens, it all falls apart when you go to pick it up,
you have to come back to us to amend the permit.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I expect that as a condition.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else have any questions?
(No response).
No more questions, FII make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application, and
we'll receive a planting plan for the ten-foot, non-turf buffer
that goes around the perimeter of the property. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, we need to go back to number one, under
public hearings. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of
ROBERT & LAUREN EICHER requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#5467 from Monique Morris to Robert & Lauren Eicher, as
issued on December 21,2001 and an Amendment to Wetland Permit
59
Board of Trustees
#5467 to install five (5) new bulkhead face pilings adjacent to
the existing face pilings. Located: 1555 Shore Road, Greenport.
I'll make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
Jame .~King, President-'~
Board of Trustees
March 21, 2012
RECEIVED
terk