HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-10/17/2012 James F. King, President
Bob Ghosio, Jr., Vice-President
Dave Bergen
John Bredemeyer
Michael J. Domino
Town Hall Annex
54375 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
6:00 PM
RECEIVED
° 13
Present Were:
Jim King, President
Robert Ghosio, Vice-President
Dave Bergen, Trustee
Michael Domino, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Clerk Typist
Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PROCLAMATION - Lauren Standish
PROCLAMATION - Marion Lake
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wed., November 7, 2012 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wed., November 14, 2012 at 6:00 PM
WORKSESSlON: 5:30 PM
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of July 18, 2012.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. Before we get going, Trustee Bob Ghosio has a couple of items
he wants to go through here.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: It's not too often that the Town Trustees get to do this. Certainly not as
much as the Town Board does. Issuing proclamations is a rarity. I think with the Town Trustees,
we have a couple of items in recent times where we felt as a group that we wanted to present a
couple of people with proclamations of appreciation for some of the important things that they
have done for the town.
Board of Trustees 2 October 17, 2012
The first one, and I'm going to read, this on behalf of the Trustees. This is, for those who
don't know, this is Lori Luscher. Lori lives over in the neighborhood where Marion Lake is
situated. And if you know anything about Marion Lake, you know that it had been inundated
with phragmites, which of course is an invasive species, and it really choked out the lake. You
couldn't see much water anymore at one point. It was mostly phragmites. And it was really
killing the lake. Lori and a group of people, you know, basically took up their arms and with a lot
of help from various people and agencies and corporations, they were able to save the lake.
And if you take a ride out there today, you'll see that it is completely different. It's beautiful
again. So it's just amazing. So the Trustees want to acknowledge that. And in doing so, I'll read
a proclamation. This is kind of long because it does explain the story, so you'll kind of get the
story as I read it.
Marion Lake is a freshwater body of water located to the east and west of Bay Ave, north
of Rabbit Lane and west of Truman's Path in the Hamlet of East Marion, Town of Southold. It's
considered to be a valuable natural resource in the Town of Southold that is home to many
species of wildlife and is known to be part of the east coast flyway for migratory birds and
water-Jowl.
And whereas according to local reports, Marion Lake experienced a period of salt water
intrusion from Peconic Bay that killed a great deal of native vegetation and created suitable
conditions for the invasive species Phragmites Australis, which can grow up to six meters high
in dense stands, is long-lived and capable of reproduction by seeds, but primarily reproduces
asexually by means of rye zones that spread up to 20 feet per year.
And whereas over several years the phragmites took over the lake to the extent that the
lake was no longer visible from many areas around the lake, virtually displaced all native
wetland vegetation, altered the lake's hydrology, inhibited water movement and blocked sunlight
from reaching the water, essentially destroying the health of the lake.
And whereas after local volunteers Lori Luscher and Sue Moyse began to research
whether any government agency could or would be responsible for restoring the lake's health by
removal of the invasive plants, found that while state, county and town officials knew of the
lake's deterioration, there was no funding or resources available for the restoration project.
And whereas because the residents and wildlife living around the lake were being
directly impacted by the rapidly deteriorating health of the lake, local volunteers decided to
initiate a restoration project themselves and began to organize the Marion Lake Project, with
Lori Luscher taking time off from her job to research and write a grant that awarded a hundred
thousand dollars in matching funds from the New York State DEC.
And whereas the Marion Lake Project volunteers organized many fundraisers over
seven years to raise the matching one-hundred thousand dollars to ensure the New York State
DEC grant would be issued, and thus raised a total of two-hundred thousand dollars for the
restoration project.
And whereas donations of money and services by local citizens and groups such as but
not limited to artist Elizabeth O'Reilly and Joni and David Corchin, the Peconic Bay Chapter of
Ducks Unlimited, East Marion Fire Department, the Group for the East End, accountant Frances
Rudegair, attorney Dan Looney, local horticulturist Walter Gaipa, Cornell Institute's Chris
Pickerall, residents Lori Luscher, Jack Lucia, Sue Moyse, Susanne Moyse, John O'Reilly, V.
McOnlgues, Marilyn Pasierb, Paul and Loretta Dombrowski, John Massaro and Pat Letiger,
were essential to raising and administrating the funds used for the restoration.
And whereas volunteer Lori Luscher additionally worked with local officials and
departments such as the New York State DEC and the Southold Town Trustees for permits,
Southold's Highway Department who removed the material under the Bay Avenue bridge to
allow for renewed water flow between the east and west branches of the lake and oversaw the
Board of Trustees 3 October 17, 2012
hiring of Tim Miller Associates to conduct the actually removal and chemical wicking of the
phragmites.
And whereas after the three-year cut and remove project began, New York State ran out
of money, and reimbursement of the grant money was being held up indefinitely, so some
neighbors of the lake lent the group a substantial amount of money to keep the project going
until the state reimbursement became available from the governor's office. And because of such
rescue attempts, after the cutting and chemical wicking was done, dead phragmites was
removed, rye zones killed and new native vegetation has been planted by the residents around
the lake, Marion Lake has seen a renaissance and is once again a beautiful, healthy wetland
resource for our wonderful town.
Now, therefore be it resolved that the Southold Town Trustees recognize and commend
and extend our sincerest gratitude to all the people and organizations that worked so hard to
create the Marion Lake Project overcome an overwhelming variety of obstacles and hardships
to restore Marion Lake to a healthy wetland for all the residents to enjoy and all wildlife to utilize
once again.
And with this proclamation presented to Lori Luscher, with my congratulations and thank
you for a wonderful job.
MS. LUSCHER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: That was a lot of work, folks, as you can see, and we wanted to make sure it
captured exactly how involved it was, and it really was, and they've done a great job, if you get a
chance to take a ride out there and see what they did. It's a great example of what a community
can do without the help of government and still get the job done. And it was a great job.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The second proclamation is kind of important to us as well. And Lauren
Standish, please come up. For those of you who have been here before, you know Lauren
Standish used to sit right up here next to me on the dais. Lauren has moved up, essentially,
from the Trustees' office to the Supervisor's office, and she is now Supervisor Russell's
confidential secretary. So having worked so long with the Trustees, and I worked with Lauren
not only as a Trustee but also as a member and chair of the Conservation Advisory Council for
several years, we just wanted to recognize, even though she is not retiring, but the work she did
with the Trustees.
Whereas Lauren Standish has served as secretarial assistant to the Southold Town
Board of Trustees from September 3, 1998, until August 10, 2012;
And whereas Lauren has served as secretary to the Southold Town Conservation
Advisory Council during that same time;
And whereas Lauren's time and talents were decidedly admired by the board she
served, the applicant expediters she assisted, her fellow co-workers and the citizens that she
interfaced with everyday;
And whereas Lauren has been called to serve in the Town Supervisor's office, a positive
reflection of Lauren's talents, dedication and loyalty to serve the Town of Southold;
And whereas the Southold Board of Trustees is proud of Lauren's accomplishments and
will miss her knowledge and devotion to our office, now therefore be it resolved that the
Southold Town Board of Trustees hereby expresses our most sincere appreciation for Lauren
Standish's years of service to the Board; and be it further resolved that this resolution will be
made part of the permanent records of the Town of Southold, and a copy be presented to
Lauren Standish. Dated October 17, 2012. Thank you, very much, Lauren.
TRUSTEE KING: With that we'll move on. We'll set the date for next field inspection. November
7, at eight o'clock in the morning.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 4 October 17, 2012
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: The next Trustee meeting is Wednesday, November 14, at six o'clock, with a
worksession at 5:30.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve the Minutes of July 187
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of July 18, 2012.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for September 2012. A check for
$4,867.39 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for
review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the
following applications more fully described in Section VIII Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, October 17, 2012, are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and ara not subject to further raview under
SEQRA:
They are listed here.
Robert & Margaret Bombara - SCTM#54-4-19
Judith Hockemeyer - SCTM#52-5-27
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC - SCTM#15-9-8.1
Brenner Ellen 2007 Trust - SCTM#37-6-4
West Lake Association, Inc. - SCTM#90-1-11
Murray Gaylord - SCTM#116-4-20.1
TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a motion on that?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the State Environmental Quality Reviews as
stated.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 5 October 17, 2012
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Section four, Resolutions and Administrative Permits, number one,
DKS LTD. PARTNERSHIP requests an Administrative Permit to cut down one tree; four
(4) tree stumps to be cut to ground; all area from house to berm to be covered with
mulch/wood chips; install a post and rail fence on seaward side of berm, and area
beyond the berm is to remain naturally vegetated. Located: 315 Albacore Drive, Southold.
This is for an Administrative Permit on Albacore Drive, Southold. By the way, these are
not public hearings so we will not be taking comments on these. This was a case where some
trees were cut down beyond the limit of clearing area. I believe it was a violation. Was there a
fine imposed on that, Lori?
MS. HULSE: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: And the fine was paid. We all went out there. And we resolved it. There is
going to be a fence planted along the wetland side of the berm, on the side of the house, and
that will be covered with woodchips, and there will be no further disturbance in that limit of
clearing area. And they'll be cutting down one more tree. It is very close to the house. It needs
to be taken down.
So I would make a motion to approve just number one. It was found inconsistent. I'm
getting ahead of myself. And it was found inconsistent because the trees were taken down
without a Trustee permit. We have a letter in here that is rather lengthy. It was from a neighbor,
and it goes back to when the house was originally built by Mr. John Hertado. I was on the Board
at that time. There were some items in here that I'm not sure if they were ever given a permit
process or not, as far as doing any plantings or that type of thing. I'll make sure this letter is put
in the record. It's rather lengthy. But it is complaining about the trees being cut, some things that
went on in the backyard. So that will be entered into the record.
It doesn't have to be part of the record? I didn't know that. With that being said, I'll make
a motion to approve this application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second it.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: The second one, KATHLEEN MILNE requests an Administrative Permit to fill
in an area of land to prevent further erosion using clean fill and topsoil and re-establishing the
lawn area. Located: 3875 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck.
This is to fill in a small depression in their yard that keeps flooding and filling in with
water. We went out and looked at that. I don't think any of us had a problem with it. It was found
consistent with LWRP. The only thing I wanted to make sure, on the creek side of this
depression, that it is a fill zone that is higher than the elevation on that west side. We have
pictures in here where the large tree is, so we can check it out. It's a rather simple application.
So I would make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Diane Herold, Architect on behalf of MARIA SANTIGATE
requests an Administrative Permit to construct an addition to the existing one-story residence; a
deck addition with steps; an 8'x8' spa on deck; and install pavers at grade. Located: 2305 Park
Avenue, Mattituck.
This is for a deck addition. It was found consistent with LWRP. It was recommended a
20-foot wide landscape buffer be along the wetland line. It was quite a bit of -- I looked at this
myself. It's quite a bit of vegetation down there. It already has basically a buffer. I would just
recommend that where the vegetation down there now be left as is and not be disturbed. To the
Board of Trustees 6 October 17, 2012
edge of the deck was 88 feet to the edge of the wetlands. So it's quite a distance away. It will
have absolutely no affect on the creek. So I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number four, THEODORE & DARLENE STEPNOWStOf request an
Administrative Permit for the removal of one Black Locust tree to be cut off 2" below grade and
removal of 5 overgrown shrubs; complete removal of one Honey Locust located about 5 feet off
of the deck; reseed area near deck disturbed by removal of Locust tree; reseed approx. 22'x24'
area south of house where Black Locust tree was removed; relocate approx. 1 cubic yard of top
soil to fill in area where tree was removed and reseed area; reseed area topsoil was removed
from. Located: 3300 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue.
This is for some landscaping work, drain removal. They want to add some topsoil. That
type of thing. We all went out and looked at it. What we need to see, really, on this, is an
accurate survey. Because out in the field it appeared that there has been some grass clippings
and some other debris placed on the neighbor's property. That one corner marker we found, if
it's material that has been placed over on somebody else's property, they should really clean it
up and get it out of there.
I would make a motion to approve this but we want to make sure these people know the
material that has been placed over the property line should be removed and the area be
cleaned up.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And no other landscape waste will be --
MS. HULSE: I can call them, if you want to. I'm still in contact with them after the violation. It's
not a problem.
TRUSTEE KING: We can go out on next field inspection and see that it's been done. So let
them know that. We'll be out to take a look, because there is, a couple of days they can clean it
up.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to finish my statement, that no other landscape waste will be placed
in the wetlands or off their property, as a condition.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. All right, I think that will take care of that. Ill make a motion to approve
with those conditions.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE KING: I think we can lump the next ones all together. Under Section Five,
Applications for Extensions, Transfers, Administrative Amendments, what we try and do if they
are simple and we all looked at them and there is no controversy with them or any problems, we
can just group the four of them all together in one shot and approve those. They are listed as
follows:
Number one, Mark Boeckman on behalf of FREDERICK de la VEGA & LAWRENCE HIGGINS
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7715 to add additional fencing
along the east and south property lines; and to fell a dead cherry tree located on
the bank adjacent to Dam Pond. Located: 15437 Route 25, East Marion.
Number two, Environment East on behalf of JANET CARRUS requests an Administrative
Amendment to Administrative Permit #7868 to remove the existing stairs adjacent to the deck
Board of Trustees 7 October 17, 2012
extension and replace with new deck section. Located: 7055 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic.
Number three, APT Planning & Permitting Services on behalf of FHV LLC requests an
Administrative Amendment Wetland Permit #7885 to construct a ramp on the existing walkway
in order to provide access to the new proposed dock. Located: 1500 Mason Drive, Cutchogue.
Number four, J. & J. BREDEMEYER FAMILY TRUST requests an Administrative Amendment
to Wetland Permit #285 to install one 12" piling on the beach and one 12" pile in the Bay for
a proposed post and pulley cable system for the family boat(s). Located: 2660 Village Lane,
Orient.
TRUSTEE KING: I would make that motion.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Motion to approve?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. DUCK BLINDS:
TRUSTEE KING: We have two duck blind applications. Number one is for JOHN A.
CUSHMAN III requests a Duck Blind Permit in Downs Creek. Access.
The other is -- we have been in contact with the applicant. There are some problems
with another duck blind there. I think they have been resolved. This gentleman that is applying
now has agreed to take out the remnants of an old duck blind that was abandoned there, and
we are just going to keep an eye on it and make sure we don't have any continued problems
there. If we do, the permit will be revoked. I'll make a motion to approve this.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: And the second one is RICHARD B. SMITH requests a Duck Blind Permit in
West Creek. Access: Public.
Richard Smith was originally on a duck blind with another gentleman. He's not on that
duck blind now. He has been removed from that one. He was number one on the waiting list for
West Creek, so he has applied for a duck blind of his own in West Creek. And I'll make a
motion to approve that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. RESOLUTIONS - OTHER:
TRUSTEE KING: We have a resolution to set the 2012/2013 Scallop Season.
Resolved that the Southold Town Board of Trustees will open the following dates to
scallop harvesting pursuant to Chapter 219 of the Shellfish Code: From Monday, November 5,
2012, from sunrise to sunset, through Saturday, March 31, 2013, inclusive, in all town waters as
per Town Code.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 8 October 17, 2012
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off regular hearings and on to our public hearings
section.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE KING: When we get into the public hearings, I tried to express some of the Board's
concerns last month about people coming up to the microphone and just going on and on and
on. Try and limit your comments to five minutes or less. If you have extensive comments about
a project, we'll accept writing. You can write a letter. Last month I thought we did pretty good
until we got up to an application where there were three attorneys involved, and it went downhill
from there. So let's try and keep it a little shorter.
We have Wayne Galante here, he takes the record and sometimes it's very difficult for
him, especially when there starts to be some interaction between the opposing forces, rather
than addressing the Board. And it just gets confusing and very difficult for him. And we would
appreciate doing this in a timely fashion.
I forgot to mention, we have Peter Young here from the Conservation Advisory Council.
They go out and do many of the same inspections we do and they give us their
recommendations. Sorry I missed you before, Pete.
MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Jim.
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE KING: The first one is an amendment. Number one, Land Use, Stuart Narofsky, AIA,
on behalf of ADRIENNE LANDAU requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7123 to bring
the grade level around the deck to 18" below the deck level and plant shrubbery and bushes on
its perimeter; eliminate two staircases at the back of the house and perimeter deck railing; install
stepping stones at rear deck; and a protection fence at the east and west sides of the rear deck
as well as at the south side. Located: 855 Soundview Ave., Mattituck.
We were out there numerous times. There were some difficulties, some problems with it.
I think we have everything straightened out now. I think we are good to go. I believe there was a
fine imposed on it because there was a violation. It's all straightened out now. Thankfully, it was
found consistent with LWRP. (Perusing). Give me a moment here. This file is about three inches
thick and weighs about ten pounds. It was supported by the Conservation Advisory Council,
originally. There were some problems on the seaward side of the deck. It's up on Long Island
Sound in Mattituck. I would like to say we have it straightened out, so I would make a motion to
approve that amendment.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 9 October 17, 2012
WETLAND PERMITS
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Under Wetland Permits, number one, Peter S. Danowski, Jr., Esq., on
behalf of ROBERT & MARGARET BOMBARA requests a Wetland Permit to construct one
single-family residence, pool, and associated water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
Located: 1725 North Sea Drive, Southold.
This has been an application, and a somewhat controversial one, over the years, and
this is what we have before us tonight is basically the culmination of a lot of work; five years
worth of work, back and forth between us, the owners, the Town Board, Coastal Erosion Code
and the courtrooms. So what we have before us tonight and pretty much where we have gotten
with this, there is not a whole lot left to say about it. What we have today is essentially what we
have to approve. And if I'm not mistaken in being able to say, we are pretty much at a point
where we don't have a whole lot of choice, based upon the court's decision and decisions by the
Town Board, which acted as the appeals board in this particular case. I think what we have
today is pretty much as good a compromise as we are going to find.
I will note that as I sit here tonight, there is a new letter that has arrived, it's now in the
file, from a neighbor by the name of Irene Viti (sic) who lives over on North Sea Drive near this
property. I'll just summarize in that it was a letter that is not in support of the application.
The one thing I do want to address, and maybe Mr. Danowski can come up, is the
survey. The survey we have, or the newer survey that we have, doesn't show some of the notes
that we wanted to see that were on a different survey. So I just want to clarify that. So just for
the record, I want to be clear, the survey we are going to be approving as part of this is a survey
dated, let me make sure --
MR. DANOWSKI: August 23.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: August 23, 2012. That's agreeable as well?
MR. DANOWSKI: It is.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, when is that stamped by our office received?
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Received September 18, 2012.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'll ask if there is any further discussion on this application at this point?
(No response).
Seeing there is none, is there anything from the Board?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted, noting the date
of the survey that we are approving. And on here it does say there will be no structures past the
project limiting line, how they are shown on the survey.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I apologize. I did have an additional comment for a condition, and that
being since it is a non-disturbance area, that we allow a four-foot path through the
non-disturbance area so the applicant has access to The Sound.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'm all right with that.
MR. DANOWSKI: I would like to say thank you. That was one of my public comments in the
years past that we understood we were not building that area nor disturbing it, but we needed
access to the beach. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: So that motion includes a four-foot wide path to allow access to the water.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 10 October 17, 2012
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of WEST LAKE
ASSOCIATION, INC., requests a Wetland Permit to hydraulically maintenance dredge the
entrance channel and a portion of the adjoining West Lake to a depth of -3' mean Iow water;
pump the resultant approximately 640 cubic yards of material to the bermed upland site.
Located: West Lake Channel, Southold.
This is an application that was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent.
This is an application that was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council and in a review
dated October 12, 2012, the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support the
application, recommending an engineering survey with depth and the condition of the bulkheads
and pilings. There is also a question as to the disposition of Town-owned property. Now, this
was an application that came before the Board of Trustees last month and was denied, and so
the applicant is back before us. And we want to make sure, we want to note that we are going to
enter into the record the testimony that was given last month, at that extensive hearing, into this
hearing tonight. That way there is no need for the parties to repeat any of the information that
was given to us last month. We have had the opportunity to review that transcript.
Now, I do have a question before we open this up for comment, because last month
when it was denied without prejudice, the Conservation Advisory Council in the resolution
resolved to support the application. So I have a question for the representative from the
Conservation Advisory Council. What changed this month, where last month you resolved to
support it and this month you resolved not to support it?
MR. YOUNG: My name is Peter Young, Chair of the Conservation Advisory Council. I think the
Conservation Advisory Council wanted to make a more definitive statement as to the impacts of
the dredging on the location and wanted further study made so that both parties, both those
folks with the bulkheads and the folks wanting greater access to the lake, would have better
information at hand, and you folks would have better information at hand to make a definitive
decision.
So that was the change, basically, in approach. And, you know, I understand there were
some issues, I was not at the last Trustee meeting, but I understand there were some issues as
to cross-indemnification or other issues related to potential damage from dredging on existing
bulkheads, and the discussion at the Conservation Advisory Council came full circle, and the
question was raised whether the bulkheads themselves possibly impact on the conditions of the
lake. So both sides of this issue have, I think information to present so that you can make an
informed decision.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. And again, before I open it up to comments, we have entered
in the record all the comments from last month, so I'm hoping all we'll hear tonight are new
comments that were not presented last month.
With that, is there anybody who wishes to speak for or against this application?
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Excuse me, you are making the comments from the last one part of that
one, correct?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, correct. That's what I stated.
MS. MOORE: That's how I understand it. What I do have though is, anticipating, rather than not
knowing you guys were going to incorporate, I did provide a memorandum with respect to our
position and that we satisfy all the standards and conditions. So I'll put, I have a copy for each
of the Board members, one for the record, and there is no need for me to read from it. If you
would like, I can cedainly point out items, otherwise I can wait and see what comments you may
receive from others, so.
Just to understand what I have submitted. I do have attached as exhibits the DEC permit
with the fact that the DEC does review this application under Tidal Wetlands Article 25, the
excavation and fill in navigable waters under Article 15 title 5, and under Water Quality
Board of Trustees 11 October 17, 2012
Certifications under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. So it is not, the DEC permits are very
thorough. They are reviewed by all departments in the DEC and they did issue a permit. So that
is incorporated into this memo, and I believe I had given it to the Board before, but just in case.
Secondly, I have an as Exhibit B, the Greenfield 1986 bulkhead replacement permit and
the details of the construction of that permit as well as the dredging that was incorporated as
part of that application. The dredging did occur up to the bulkhead and was down to, the
dredging went down to five feet mean Iow water. So the bulkhead as it was constructed, it was
constructed to support upland for dredging that went down to five feet mean Iow water. In
addition, from the history of this file and photographs in your file you know that the siltation and
the sand had accumulated on the side of the Greenfield bulkhead. The last storm moved all of
that sand over to the Moy side of the bulkhead, and the only portion that is, I won't call it
navigable, but the water depth has remained only on the Greenfield side. So as a matter of fact
the Greenfield bulkhead will not be impacted by this dredging. In fact the DEC permit requires
us to maintain a ten-foot distance to maintain the slope of the sand along the Greenfield side,
the Greenfield bulkhead.
Similarly, care has to be taken with the Moy bulkhead as well. So I have given you the
whole outline and our position with respect to all the standards on maintenance dredging and
we hope that you will approve this application. This application being for two years, with
extensions. We thought that would be a compromise, giving the Board the opportunity, we'll be
ready to dredge the one time under our permit, financially, they just can't afford to dredge that
often anyway. The DEC permit only allows one dredging per year. And your Trustees permit is
good for two years with subsequent extensions, one-year extensions, which gives the Board an
opportunity to look at the conditions at the time for each extension. And that, I believe, will give
you that comfort to know that the condition of the bulkhead is not deteriorating any more than
normal wear and tear that is expected on bulkheads. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Pat, the DEC permit is a ten-year permit, correct?
MS. MOORE: That is a ten-year maintenance permit, yes. We'll obviously go with the Board, if
we are fortunate and both sides replace their bulkhead, then we can come back in and ask for
the ten-year maintenance permit, but it will follow along with the DEC. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else who would like to comment on this application?
MR. SAPORITA: My name is Mark Saporita. I'm a Southold citizen.
MR. SAPORITA: I want to thank you all for giving me the opportunity. I have to say a few things
because I promised my 13-year old son I would. I'm the second to last dock in the lake. So
obviously I want this to proceed. We discussed it because at the last meeting, it didn't go our
way, so at the dinner table we were talking about it and my son wanted me to say something.
Basically what I want to say is that, you know, the joy is in the lake, him and his buddy bought a
little tin boat to go clamming as sort of a thing to do. And so we obviously want to see this
happen. The question or point I wanted to make was that the channel was navigable until Irene
and the storm that came shortly after Irene. And so the way we see it is that this is just a
restoration of the channel to being navigable for the boats we all have in the lake and the docks
we use and enjoy. When we get the boats out, you know, one-and-one-half to two hours on
either side of Iow tide, we do run over the bottom. There are issues associated with that. Trying
to navigate that channel, there are incidents when the boats bump up against the bulkheads.
So as it stands now, it's not a great situation for the bulkheads in that regard. And the second
point is that all the bulkheads that got washed out in the storm and all the material that got
washed out in the storm, as you guys all know, from west to east from our Angel Shores
beaches is all in our inlet now. That is all replaced and it's all been restored. And I was just
wondering if we could do the same thing in our inlet. So, thank you for your time.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Anybody else?
Board of Trustees 12 October 17, 2012
MR. BRESSLER: On behalf of the Greenfield owners, on one side of the channel. For the
record, I am Eric Bressler, Wickham, Bressler, Gordon & Geasa. And a point of order. You had
said that the Minutes of the last meeting were going to be incorporated. It's my understanding
that there was more than one meeting on this particular application. Is that not correct? More
than one prior meeting?
MS. HULSE: I think he said the testimony from the record of the prior hearings. So that would
include all of the hearings. Is that correct?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I had mentioned specifically last month's meeting but I'll be happy to
amend that to include testimony that has been obtained related to this application both last
month and prior to last month, that's fine.
MR. BRESSLER: Well, I just want to know, I'm not requesting one way or the other. I just want
to know for the record what's in and what's out.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We'll do it. I'm just trying to make things move along.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think there was a lot of testimony because we tabled this to go back out
and take another look.
MR. BRESSLER: That raises a very interesting point. Moving things along is really what is at
issue here. And sometimes it's appropriate that moving things along should be the focus of a
meeting, and there are other times when moving things along should not be the focus of a
meeting. And I think with respect to this particular application, that moving things along is not
what we should be doing. There are several reasons why that is the case. The first reason is
that which has been discerned by the Conservation Advisory Council. And I think that their
points are well taken. And I think the statement from the Conservation Advisory Council
representative was dead on point. They went back, they looked at it, they thought about it, and
they came to the same conclusion that we came to and that we urge the Board to adopt at the
last hearing, which is you need science. If you look at the photograph that is up there, and I trust
that's in the record somewhere, that it's obvious from that photograph that the bulkheads are
hard on this inlet. It is not very wide going into that lake. And what we said last time obtains this
time, which is you need the science. You need to know from an expert what the impact is going
to be of doing this dredging. Sand moves around. We know that sand moves around. We know
you can't say we'll dredge over here so that two feet away there won't be an impact. We know
that you can't say that. We know that you can't say you'll dredge in the middle and maintain a
slope and then after you dredge, that is what is going to remain. I'm not an engineer and I can't
tell you in detail what the results would be as a result of this, but I know from experience and
handling these cases, and I can tell you there will be affects. And you can't say two or three or
five feet away won't be affected by what you do over here. So I think with respect to where you
are going to dredge, you certainly need scientific support.
Secondly, I think you need scientific support as to what the affects are going to be on my
client's bulkhead. I'm not going to speak for Moy on the other side, but I'm sure he feels the
same way, what the effect of this dredging is going to have on both sides and on the bulkhead.
Our parts of the bulkhead that have been heretofore covered with sand, are they going to be
uncovered? What is down there is? What's the result going to be from uncovering it? Is it
structurally not sound down there? Somebody has to tell you folks that, and in order to tell you
folks that, they have to do the work. And that's what has to be done.
Now, as to the second point of the CAC, I couldn't agree with them more. This is public
sand. This is Trustee sand. There has to be an accounting for where that is going, is this going
to be paid for? Is it going to be paid for at market rates? Are we putting it on the public beach
so we don't have to pay for it? Are we putting it on private property where someone will get the
benefit of it and not pay for it? I don't think that's right. I don't think it was addressed when I was
raised it last time, I was told it was a done deal. I asked you to reconsider. Since that didn't
pass, now we are back here today, and I don't think it's appropriate to grant the relief that is
Board of Trustees 13 October 17, 2012
sought without considering what is happening to the spoil and whether or not the citizens of the
Town of Southold are going to get some measure of value for it.
Now, as to the DEC permit, I know it was in the record last time but I'll say it again.
There was not a full blown staff review of this. That is just not so. It got handled quickly,
administratively, and nobody looked at it. Mr. Solomon who represents Mr. Moy contacted the
DEC and was told that was how it was done. So you cannot rely on all the knowledge and
expertise, assuming you concede their knowledge and expertise, that DEC has.
Now, with respect to what happened ten years ago, I don't think this Board can rely on
what happened ten years ago. Conditions have changed. The situation with regard to the
bulkhead has changed. You need somebody to tell you what that situation is. In particular, I
note, for example, that in 2009, the parameters for datum that are used with respect to mean
Iow water, mean high water, and other measurements, changed. This Board has not been
advised as to what that change means. So you are comparing apples with oranges when you
were talking about water depth. No one has brought that up heretofore. No one has talked about
the 2009 datum change. And I'm sure the Board is familiar with it. At least I'm hoping they are.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mr. Bressler, you have been speaking now for seven minutes and we ask
for five minutes or less. So I would ask if you please wrap it up.
MR. BRESSLER: Well, I can certainly appreciate that, but I'll do my best to do that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you can wrap it up in a minute or less, please.
MR. BRESSLER: As I stated to this Board many times, some cases are not susceptible to a
five-minute debate format. Now, as far as the extensions and renewals go, we oppose that. We
think that given the current state of the situation and the fact that the bulkheads on both sides
are aging, that this Board has to take a fresh look every time. And in fact you have to take a
fresh look this time and you need engineering expertise to help you. Otherwise you are granting
a permit blind.
The long and short of this thing is that this Board has not been presented with enough
information with respect to the dredging, the bulkhead, the datum, how deep they are going to
go and what the impacts are going to be. We agree with the CAC, and we ask this board again
to do that which we requested at the last hearing, which is to commission a report so that a
decision is made based upon full knowledge and information and not just supposition and
innuendo. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, very much.
MR. SOLOMON: Michael Solomon, I represent the Moy's.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mr. Solomon, since you just arrived, I'll just tell you we have already
stipulated that we are entering into the record tonight all testimony that has already been given
regarding this application from previous hearings. So we are asking everybody to not repeat
what they have already repeated previously. If you have new information you would like to give,
we would be more than happy to receive that. And we are asking everybody to stick to five
minutes or less.
MR. SOLOMON: The new information, I believe a copy of the letter has been provided or if not,
I'll make sure it is provided. That we have requested a DEC to reexamine their review of this file
because we believe that they didn't do the technical review they were supposed to do. That's
something I know they are in the investigating stage in doing that now. So I'm not going to
indicate whether they will do it, won't do it, but I know that's new information.
But the salient point I want to make on behalf of my client the Moy's, and quite honestly
also as a resident of the town. The town has now been on notice that if that wall goes down by
granting of this permit, the town is going to have liability. There is no way the town can claim
that they didn't know. They didn't know there was a problem. So I'm begging, and I agree with
Mr. Bressler, you have to bring in the consultant. If the consultant advises this Board it's
satisfactory to do it, then so be it. As a taxpayer, as a resident and owner in this town you have
Board of Trustees 14 October 17, 2012
done what you have to do not only to protect Moy, but to protect me and everybody else who
lives here to make sure that wall doesn't come down. Because if it does come down, there will
be a lawsuit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's your opinion, sir.
MR. SOLOMON: It's not my opinion. There will be a lawsuit. The fact is I can tell you as a matter
of fact we'll bring a lawsuit. There will be a lawsuit. So you can't just haphazardly -- nor the other
thing, what is actually being requested is what I want to know. Because last time there was a
presentation there was going to be an application for a ten-year maintenance permit. That's
what was turned down by the Board. Now I'm looking at an application, from what I see, doesn't
tell you what is being requested. Is this a one-time dredge? Is this a maintenance permit they
are asking? If they are asking, what period of time is being requested? The notice provided to
my client doesn't indicate at all what is being requested. So can I actually inquire what this
Board is even considering at this point? Is this a one-time dredge or is this going to be a
multi-time dredge?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is an application before us for a Trustee permit. A Trustee permit is
good for two years, then there opportunities for two one-year extensions on receipt of an
application for those.
MR. SOLOMON: Is that what the application says? Because that's not what the notice says.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just explained to you, it's an application for a wetland permit. And
according to the Town Code, a wetland permit is good for two years, and there is opportunity for
the applicant to then apply for two one-year extensions.
MR. SOLOMON: Okay, and the other issue, I just want to renew, if it's going to be granted,
adequate insurance and adequate undertaking. If the town doesn't want to protect itself as is
being suggested by the two adjoining property owners, by virtue of having a consultant come
in -- and I really don't know why, it just protects the town, but if not, then forget the liability
insurance. Because I don't know whether that will cover the damage that may occur. There
should be an undertaking, a guarantee of performance to protect the town. In the event there is
a problem, the money will be sitting there to guarantee the job is done properly. Because we still
don't know, as Mr. Bressler has indicated, and we indicated in prior hearings, what the real
depth of this dredge will be. I don't care that they say three feet. We don't know if it's going to be
three feet. I don't want to go over my five minutes, I heard you. I'll actually defer two minutes
back to Mr. Bressler. I thank you, so much.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, sir. Yes, sir?
MR. PROKOP: Tom Prokop, West Lake resident. I agree with Mr. Bressler that nobody can
predict anything. I think you can bring engineers, consultants in here, do all kinds of looking at
that channel, and not be able to predict. I don't know this gentleman but he obviously went out
there and he made some judgments. But I would like to refer to something we know for sure.
That is that we did this same dredge five years ago. We did it the same way, exactly like the
drawings go today. We did it to a mean Iow water of three feet. And for five years we've had no
problems. Until Irene came in and pushed all of that sand in and virtually blocked the left-hand
side of the channel. In fact Greenfield's bulkhead is probably more at risk right now than it was
right after you did the dredge five years ago. That's because, again, there was sand up against
their bulkhead and the three feet was in the middle of the channel. Right now, all of the water is
on the Greenfield side of the bulkhead and they are, they have no protection from the sand.
So in essence what we are really asking the Board is do something that we have done in
the past. We did it five years ago, we know that it works, and nothing has changed, other than
the fact that Irene filled up the channel. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Anybody else have any comments?
MS. MOORE: Just a very quick response. I want the Board to go back to the first hearing where
Mrs. Greenfield, and I'm sorry for your loss, that Mrs. Greenfield personally testified at the
Board of Trustees 15 October 17, 2012
hearing, that she was proud of the way she maintained her property. She was proud of the
condition of her bulkhead. So that was her testimony at that hearing.
With respect to the costs, this really is irrelevant as far as an argument by the opposition,
but you should know based on your own files that, one, the channel is privately owned. And
secondly, the last time there was dredging, that the town charged West Lake for the materials.
So the benefit to the town is that they do get fees for the dredge spoils. So that's something
that I'm not sure --
MS. HULSE: The spoils are not an issue. That has been resolved. That's not a subject of this
hearing.
MS. MOORE: I'm responding to the comments by Mr. Bressler.
MS. HULSE: It doesn't matter. That is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with this
public hearing.
MS. MOORE: Well, I'm responding to comments.
MS. HULSE: I heard you say that. I'm just clarifying, that's already been resolved. There was a
permit that has been already issued or approved. That is not a subject of this hearing. It
shouldn't even be addressed.
MS. MOORE: The next point is that the DEC started, we started the application with the DEC
more than a year ago. We started by proposing to the DEC alternative dredge spoil sites, and
we did spend that time, and from our understanding the departments at the DEC did review it.
The extent of their review, we certainly have no direct --
MS. HULSE: The dredge spoils are not the subject of this public hearing. That's not, this is
totally not relevant to this public hearing, Pat. That's already been something that was
approved.
MS. MOORE: Sorry, you are misunderstanding my point then.
MS. HULSE: The dredge spoil --
MS. MOORE: No, I'm talking about a different point now.
TRUSTEE KING: I think she's bringing up the fact that we charge for dredge spoil that was
taken off public land.
MS. HULSE: Again, I know Mr. Bressler brought it up but --
MS. MOORE: Well, in your opinion it's irrelevant but I don't know what the Board feels is
relevant.
MS. HULSE: This is your application, Pat.
MS. MOORE: Okay, I went past that point. My next response to the comments being made is
whether the DEC has adequately reviewed the file. To our knowledge, they had adequately
reviewed the file, and we started the application with DEC more than a year ago. So to our
knowledge it's a thorough review.
Beyond that, we leave it to you to make a good decision. We think that we have
compromised as much as we can and we are trying to just be reasonable on both sides. You
know, their claim maybe civil. It has nothing to do with the town. So we hope that you will give
the homeowners association the opportunity to maintain their channel. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, sir?
MR. DEFEIS: Doug Defeis, resident of West Lake. I just want to point out in a prior hearing Mr.
Moy's attorney pointed out that indeed in their opinion his bulkhead was in fine shape and was
constantly being maintained and, that Mr. Costello would be on hand at that point in time and be
at the ready in the event there is any piping as a result of any seepage or anything at all that
would have to do with his bulkhead. And they would, they said for the record, that they had no
problem with it. So I'm just pointing it out that there are inconsistencies with what they want and
what they are hoping to achieve. Yet they have been on the record stating they are at the ready
and they don't stand in objection of that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Does anybody else have any comment?
Board of Trustees 16 October 17, 2012
MR. CASE: My name is Jerry Case. I live on West Lake. I know around the Suffolk County a lot
of dredging goes on in inlets and the like. And I'm not aware of any having ever caved in, any
bulkheads having caved in. Now, if I had a bulkhead and I was concerned it might cave in, I
think I would be more worried about my bulkhead itself then what went on around it. If
something is wrong with my bulkhead, I'll raise my hand and yell. This bulkhead has not been
maintained well on Mr. Moy's side and I'm sure he is concerned about it, because I don't think
it's in very good shape. And should it cave in it's just not clear to me who should sue who.
Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Any other comment from anybody in the audience?
(No response).
I just want to also note for the record that in 275-7(0 it states: Dredging fee: Every application
for permit for dredging within town-owned underwater land shall include a fee set by the Town
Board based on the amount of cubic yards from the dredge spoil to be removed. So that
obviously affects any dredging permit that we award or give a permit for.
Any other comments? If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of West Lake Association for
the wetland permit to hydraulically maintenance dredge the entrance channel and a portion of
the adjoining West Lake to depth of three feet mean Iow water, pump the resultant
approximately 640 cubic yards of material to a bermed upland site in the West Lake channel of
Southold, and note that this has been found consistent under the LWRP. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number three, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of THOMAS & MAE
MAURI requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing single-family dwelling; construct new
dwelling with new sanitary system in front yard; install in-ground swimming pool and patio; and
install drywells as required. Located: 1135 Calves Neck Rd., Southold.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent, noting that the survey contained the
stakes in the proposed lot coverage and that all reference setbacks from the natural protective
feature were incorrect. The setbacks should be measured from the top of the bank or bluff. The
CAC on July 11th resolved to support this application with conditions that installation of a silt
fence, storm water management plan, relocate the swimming pool no closer than 50 feet from
the wetland boundary, installation of drywells to contain pool backwash, and a permeable patio.
The Trustees did a field inspection and during the field inspection noted that more information is
needed concerning the elevation for the pool and patio, that any fill to be brought in and trees to
be removed should be marked. It was also questions concerning the lot coverage in the
calculations. The Trustees noted that should the patio not be built on grade, that it would also
impact lot coverage and would cause this application to go back to the ZBA before Trustees
permitting.
Is there anyone here to speak this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Good evening. Patricia Moore on behalf of Dr. and Mrs. Mauri. Mrs. Maud
and her daughter are here today, so if there are any issues or questions.
The procedures that you have asked us to follow were to submit to the building inspector
our revised plan. We did have a revised plan, you should be looking at that, which is last dated
August 20, 2012, where we revised the pool. That should be the map that is in front of you. Do
you have it? Good.
Board of Trustees 17 October 17, 2012
That proposal, that map was given to the building inspector together with a cross-section
of the patio and pool. And the building inspector, in reviewing it, he determined that, yes, we
were fine. The application that we had submitted was appropriate, that the patio will be on-grade
and does not require Zoning Board action. It doesn't result in any lot coverage or structures with
the ZBA.
We did do a revision, as you can see, the house is pretty much where the house has
always been proposed. The pool was relocated away from the wetlands. It was also turned
parallel to the shoreline, and the patio, as I said, was clarified that it is intended to be on-grade.
My clients are aware that is the intention and that was really the proposal at all times.
So the properties here are on Calves Neck Road, which are setbacks to the wetlands.
The wetland edge, the flagged wetlands. We have properties on either side that are lawns all
the way down to the wetlands. The property to the west has bulkheading and a lawn that goes
all the way down to beyond what is our wetland line. And the property on the east similarly has
grass. This particular property was kept more natural. There are trees, and that's the way my
client likes it. That's why she bought the property, to keep it in a very natural looking property.
And the area where the trees are, I think in the field we had the surveyor stake the location of
the pool and the patio. The prior owners have, as you can see, on the west side, there is kind of
a bump out. That is actually where the prior owners used to have their compost. So it's a flat
area where the compost had accumulated over the years. I think we have addressed
everything. We modified the plan, I hope to the Trustees satisfaction.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application?
(No response).
Are there any further comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: What were the Conservation Advisory Council comments?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The CAC comments were to locate the swimming pool so it was no closer
than 50 feet from the wetland. And they are concerned about the flushing drywell. And that the
patio be permeable.
MS. MOORE: I think they may have looked at an earlier version, because in that time we did
relocate the pool. We did provide a drywell for the pool backwash on the west side of the pool.
So there may be just some, and that may also be the case with the LWRP. I don't know which
plan he looked at, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Peter, I don't know if you want to look at this, but you can see what was
originally proposed and what was reviewed over what has been proposed now. You'll notice that
the pool is now a minimum of 50 feet and it also does have the drywell for pool backwash.
MR. YOUNG: Yup.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: Other than I think putting ten pounds in a five pound bag.
MS. MOORE: Well, everything meets the code, so it just looks big on paper.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it's going to look big in real life, too.
MS. MOORE: Calves Neck is a beautiful street and homes are all different sizes, and most of
them are very high-end homes, so this is Mrs. Mauri's dream house and she is --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think the concerns that we discussed out in the field had to do mostly
with the pool. The pool is, that really is, that's a small bluff. And that pool is awfully close to the
top of that bluff.
MS. MOORE: I'll clarify, there is no bluff on the town creek. We have natural slopes there, and
that's why I point out that both sides have landscape and have lawns. They have eliminated
those natural slopes. This property has maintained it, and we are trying to maintain the natural
slopes, but you don't have bluffs on town creek. The wetland line is the, you know, we have
identified the wetland line.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You can call it a bank. It's a pretty steep bank.
Board of Trustees 18 October 17, 2012
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a precipitous bank.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to point out, according to Chapter 275 that it does meet the
definition of a bluff as defined in our code, which is a steep or precipitous slope face adjoining a
beach or any body of water. Be that as it may.
MS. MOORE: Be that as it may. We pushed everything as far away as possible. You know, it's
not -- we are actually, our house is landward of the house on the west side. Our pool is going to
be, it's actually further back than the house on the west as well. So.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: The house is going to be moved back you are saying?
MS. MOORE: So -- no, the house is as far back, it's 40 feet from the front yard. That's on the
survey. Are you looking at the survey?
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'm looking at the aerial.
MS. MOORE: No. Oh, no. If you look at the survey. I'll come up and show you what I'm
referring to. Here is the road. Here is the water. Here is our neighbor to the west. This is where
they are located from the water. Our house is away from the water more in line with the property
owner to the east. And the pool is actually, here is where the closest point of the pool is. This is
where the neighbor's house is. So they are actually closer to the water than our pool.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: But their topography is completely different.
MS. MOORE: But their topography used to be like ours.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: That may be, but you are not applying for a bulkhead.
MS. MOORE: I understand that. But you don't penalize property owners that have maintained
the property in a more natural state. You are actually penalizing people for not bulldozing and
creating lawns.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't know that I agree it's penalty that an applicant meets setback code.
That's not a penalty.
MS. MOORE: We reviewed the code with the Building Department. You asked us to review with
the Building Department. We did. And that's, we are here for a wetland permit. So we are not,
we are getting the permits that we need, we are just, we are trying to incorporate, this is the flat
area of the property. It's actually where the house is presently. You can see inside the pool,
building envelope, is the old house that is being demolished. So it's right inside that pool area.
It's already a disturbed area, and the patio is right behind the house.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Let me try and understand. You are going to be building a wall to prop up
the patio, correct?
MS. MOORE: No, there is no wall needed. Because the pool is right where the house is now.
That's how we were able to relocate everything. Here. There is a cross-section that we
provided. This is what the Building Depadment has. Do you want to see in here is the flat area.
TRUSTEE KING: We have it right here.
MS. MOORE: Okay, good. The original proposal would have required us to have some of the
stone walls, because if you remember, you see that curve where it says proposed pool fence,
that was going to require us to bring the grade up and have a retaining wall so we would have
the pool at the same level as the house. Because the house, the property, it's highest point is
where the old house is now. That's where the pool is. So the pool and the patio are all on-grade.
I mean you can see the outline of the old house inside, by a hatched line. Do you see it on the
survey? See where it says proposed inground pool, there is a hatched line right in there. That's
the old house. We worked very hard to get this to work.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are there any further comments?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this application.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just want to make sure Bob is through with his comments.
Board of Trustees 19 October 17, 2012
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm just concerned about the elevation and the steep slope and having that
pool so close to this spot right here where we are standing. Right where the that post is. That
post is going to be, I don't know, ten feet from the pool. And you see how that starts to slope
down, and it goes down in a hurry.
MS. MOORE: No, if you are looking at the topos, it doesn't make sense what you are saying. I
think you were standing here at the time. (Indicating). It doesn't make sense. Here is the fiat
area where the post area is. And look how far we are from there. You must be 30, 40 feet. 30
feet at least.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm only one Trustee. I'm just telling you I'm concerned about it.
TRUSTEE KING: That was the first submittal. That was the old one.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And that's what was staked in the field.
MS. MOORE: Then I re-staked it again.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As I recall, that post is right about here. Because you see how this topo
starts to go down at this point here. So if you use that as where the post is, so maybe it's not ten
feet anymore.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's closer to 20.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: There is a motion on the floor to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application noting the modifications on
the plan received September 20, 2012, addressed the inconsistencies in the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Ghosio, nay).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm voting no.
TRUSTEE KING: For the record, Trustee Ghosio voted nay.
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number four, Carl Governale on behalf of ROCCO RESCINITI requests a
Wetland Permit to remove remains of existing bulkhead and construct a new 90 linear foot
bulkhead with one (1) 8' return and one (1) 18' return; backfill with up to 100 cubic yards of
clean fill; re-vegetate and subsequently maintain a 6' wide area landward of proposed structure
using DEC approved plantings. Located: 1220 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue.
This application has been found to be inconsistent with LWRP for the following reason.
The proposed 90-foot bulkhead is not designed as a Iow sill bulkhead, and a Iow sill bulkhead is
required in creeks and bays. The CAC does not support the application because there doesn't
appear to be a need for bulkhead in a sheltered location. The CAC recommends the area is
cleaned up and the bank is revegetated to control runoff from the upland.
The Trustees have all been out to the site. We have seen the site, and while we would
agree in most cases that we would absolutely require a Iow sill bulkhead. But because of the
nature of this particular site, it's an impracticality to put in a Iow sill bulkhead and could possibly
make the situation worse. And the erosion that we found there really needs to be addressed.
Mainly because the house is so close to the edge of the water there. And you can see the
erosion that we have here, a lot of the vegetation is failing in, has really starting to cause a
navigation issue in this part of the creek.
So the idea of using a Iow sill bulkhead just isn't working here. There are eight letters
supporting this application from the neighbors in this area. They all acknowledge this needs to
be done.
Board of Trustees 20 October 17, 2012
With that, I'll open this up to comment. Is there anybody who would like to speak on this
application?
(No response).
Anybody on the Board want to speak to this application?
TRUSTEE KING: I know they do have a DEC permit. And I had some discussions with the DEC
about it, because of the wetlands, and their main concern was the corner of the house being so
close that they felt the bulkhead would be suitable for this location.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Just to be clear, the survey of the property shows the corner of the house
to be ten-feet from the bank. That's pretty close. And it's getting worse. So if there is no other
comment, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted, noting that we
find it to be consistent with LWRP, because you can't put a Iow sill bulkhead here and
accomplish anything.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number five, En-Consultants on behalf of MARILYN PASlERB requests a
Wetland Permit to repair and/or replace the existing pool and surrounding deck. Located: 680
Truman's Path, East Marion.
I guess it was found exempt from the LWRP. Repair involving no substantial changes in
existing structure. The CAC resolved not to support the wetland application. That's all it says.
They just don't support it.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of or against this application?
MR. HERMAN: Good evening. Rob Herman of Eh-Consultants. I'm here on behalf of the
applicant. We were here a couple of months ago. I had just been retained by Mrs. Pasierb
immediately preceding the last hearing, and since it has been a couple of months, I would like to
summarize where we are and try to put in some context Mrs. Pasierb's position this evening.
As the Board is aware, Mrs. Pasierb, without a Wetlands Permit, replaced an existing
semi-inground swimming pool and surrounding walkway and deck, all of which had originally
been constructed about 30 years ago, in the early 1980s. By the time the work got to the stage
you see on the screen there, the pool was installed, the work was stopped and Mrs. Pasierb
immediately filed an application for a Wetlands Permit to complete the work that had been
started.
As I described at the public hearing two months ago, the new work actually occupies a
smaller footprint than the prior structures and establishes a greater wetland setback for the pool.
Specifically as evidenced by the under-construction survey I submitted during the last hearing,
the recently-constructed pool and walk-around decking now occupy the same footprint that was
previously occupied by the pool alone. Also whereas the prior pool was located approximately
46 feet from the fresh water wetlands boundary associated with Marion Lake, which was a
boundary that was established by the New York State DEC, the current pool is now located 50
feet from the wetland boundary and is thus now in conformance with the wetland setback
required for swimming pools as set forth by Chapter 275-3(d)(1 )(a)(5).
Therefore with respect to what previously and legally existed, what is there now under
construction, if allowed to be finished by the Board, is basically an inplace replacement with
reduced coverage and increased wetland setback. All of which is what I presented to the Board
a couple of months ago.
Board of Trustees 21 October 17, 2012
Nevertheless at that hearing the Board was talking about further reducing the length of
the replacement deck, what seemed to be about roughly half what have had been
reconstructed. And as I did not totally understand the points of reference that some of the Board
members were using, I had asked if we could meet at the site, which the Board did, and we
appreciated your time. At the site we had explained that Mrs. Pasierb could not agree to cut the
deck back to anything less than ten feet seaward of the pool without effectively giving up her
ability to use and enjoy what she had been enjoying for more than 25 years, and a feature that
had been a significant consideration when she and her husband had purchased the property.
Although we were hopeful that the Board would agree and that we could reach some sort of
agreement at that meeting, we really did not reach any consensus by the time the Board had
left. I spoke to Mrs. Pasierb afterwards. She had been left with a very uneasy feeling about
which direction the Board would be going in and as a result she asked me if I would further
research the town records relating to these structures, since she continued to believe that
perhaps the Trustees were seeking such a significant reduction in the size of the deck based on
the belief the deck as existed was not in fact a legally permitted structure.
So I did go back to the Building Department. I'm going to hand up a packet of some
documents just so the Board has them. The packet of documents that I just handed up to you
contain, I should say the package I just handed up to you contains four documents relating to
the pool and the deck. The first is an application for building permit dated April 20, 1981. The
second sheet is an accompanying sketch which although not very sophisticated by today's
standards, does in fact clearly depict the pool and seaward deck appendage on that drawing.
There is a building permit dated May 7, 1981, and a certificate of occupancy dated
March 19, 1986. It was the Building Department's position based on these documents and the
accompanying sketch that what existed did in fact exist legally. It was in fact applied for, it was
in fact permitted and it was in fact C of O'd.
It was also my understanding as Jim mentioned in the beginning of the hearing that it
was the LWRP coordinator's determination that this recently completed work, the work that is
being proposed here, is exempt from waterfront consistency review. And I'm reasonably certain
that this determination could only have been reached by the LWRP coordinator if it was also his
belief that the work constituted only the inplace replacement of legally existing structures.
Because in the past when we had submitted applications to replace what you would consider a
pre-existing structure or structure that had been constructed illegally, it was not deemed to be
exempt. And that is a deduction that I'm drawing, but that is why I'm drawing it.
So after finding these documents and further considering the situation with her husband,
I think they were feeling even less certain about the prospect of having to, what they would feel
almost to have to arbitrarily, have taken away from them a significant portion of what was legally
permitted when they bought the property on record as a structure that had a C of O. And I
think there was reasonable expectation, along with due diligence that goes along with
purchasing a property, that one of the things people do is they check to see if these structures
are permitted, do they have certificates of occupancy et cetera. So she would very much like the
Board to reconsider, despite the prior discussions about cutting it back, to in fact allow her and
her husband to keep what has been constructed, understanding that any areas that have been
disturbed by the construction activities would have to be re-vegetated. It is something that we
discussed at the site, and as I recall, the only real environmental concern that I heard from the
Board had to do with potential erosion that might be somehow associated with this deck. And
Mrs. Pasierb would like to speak. And before I ask her to do so, the one thing I would like to
comment in that regard is a think what we have here is the benefit that is a little different from a
lot of applications where we are wondering what will the impact of the structure be. Here the
structure has been here literally for 30 years. And there is no measurable slope or bank erosion
associated with this structure. There are denuded areas and trampled areas and semi-eroded
Board of Trustees 22 October 17, 2012
areas immediately around the whole work site, which are clearly a result of the construction and
the trampling by people doing it. And those areas would have to be re-vegetated. But honestly,
my perspective is that deck is so high relative to grade that it's not causing any sort of shading
or disturbance or some of the things we typically associate with a deck that would be elevated
just a couple of feet above grade and could cause erosion. In this case it has not, so there is no
reason to believe that continued use of it will.
Mrs. Pasierb, do you want to speak?
MS. PASIERB: I have a brief statement. Marilyn Pasierb. Thank you for the opportunity to
speak to you. I'll keep it brief. My husband and I have had a home in East Marion for the last 20
years. When we bought the house, the pool and the deck overhanging the lake were already
there. That was one of the main things that struck us about the house. We always loved sitting
there just watching the herrings and the osprey and the swans and the ducks and the geese.
Recently our pool sprung a leak and started to disintegrate and needed to be repaired.
The pool is an aboveground pool so the fenced enclosure described in the certificate of
occupancy includes the decking. And it's all one integrated system. And that needed to be
repaired also after 30 years. All we ever wanted to do is to keep things as they were. We
elected to make both structures smaller so as to reduce overall footprint. We never thought this
would involve a significant dispute or controversy. After talking to two people familiar with this
work who both work in Southold, both said we would be okay since we are replacing exactly
what was there, having a certificate of occupancy which the town issued 30 years ago, and
making it smaller. In hindsight I should have asked them more questions and been more diligent
and come to the Trustees before beginning the work. That was an error in judgment on my part.
For that I'm sorry. We have done our best to be good neighbors and members of the
community. For the past five years we have had an agricultural business in Southold, the North
Fork Egg Farm. We helped Lori Lucia with the phragmites and cutting down on that.
I can honestly say the spirit of our intention was good in replacing only what was there.
Even making it smaller and mainly to make it safer. So all we really want to do is keep what we
have enjoyed for the past 20 years. Thank you.
And then there was some question, I know, I think when you all came out the last time,
and at of the last meeting, about the certificate of occupancy and that holding, so I have
retained Ms. Moore to talk about that.
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore. Thank you. Yes, I did take a look at everything and I was actually,
I went piecing through the wetland ordinance and finding some interesting language that I want
to raise with the Board. First, the first point is that it is a permitted structure. I think we have
clarified now and certainly it was something that really made me speak out with respect to the
proposed changes to the code that have not yet been adopted. But that houses and decks and
fences that have COs have to have a certain measure of expectation of honoring that permit.
And, when people buy, as Rob pointed out, you are very careful to make sure everything has a
C of O. You don't expect to have structures that you have enjoyed essentially suddenly be
deemed not permitted. So with respect to this, all of these structures, they are all permitted
structures. As you can see now from the issuance of the building permit and the C of O.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can I just clarify. When you are saying permitted, the building permit that
you submitted from May 11, 1981, that's the permit. There is no Trustee permit. You have a
Building permit.
MS. MOORE: Actually it predates, of course.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
MS. MOORE: With respect to your code, that had she asked, let's say she had called me, I
would have told her, well, you really do need to come in to the Trustees for what is an
Administrative Permit because it meets all the conditions of an Administrative Permit. The pool
is 50 feet from the flagged wetland and the deck is listed for administrative permits, and the
Board of Trustees 23 October 17, 2012
fence is part of the deck as well. 275-5(b)(m) listed decks as far as being able to go through
administrative permits. So everything that was there, while it had a permit from the town, was
legally, legal structures, yes, she should have come in for Administrative Permit and that she
certainly has apologized for and won't listen to anybody else other than Rob and her lawyer in
the future.
The issue of deck enclosure, the fence and the pool being replaced inkind/inplace,
where it is a functional structure, I want to point out that in your code there are issues with
respect to shoreline structures, that pre-existing nonconforming structures that are shoreline
structures, are supposed to be brought into conformity or attempted to bring into conformity.
That language does not appear anywhere else. It is, what we have here is not a shoreline
structure. Therefore it even has greater right to remain and to be honored as to be replaced. So
really a point that you have heard me harp on over and over, and I know you are probably tired
of hearing it, it just seems unfair to people that have structures that are certainly legal
structures, even pre-existing nonconforming structures, they have a certain expectation that
they can keep them. And as she pointed out, as Marilyn pointed out in her presentation, this is
really where they enjoy the property. The pool is not big. The decking around the pool is
minimal. The little perch is really the only place, and it's closer to what you have approved as
duck blinds than you have anything else. It's really a perch and it's like an observation platform.
And that means more to them than anything else. And really when I guess she was concerned
about the fact that the Board may consider taking it away from her, that is when they brought
me in, and my job is to point these things out and point out as Rob has pointed out and I asked
him to put on the record, that it is not causing any environmental impact whatsoever. In fact the
proof of it is the fact that it's been there for 30 years. And the vegetation underneath this deck is
very lush, very stable, and the wetlands are down at the freshwater wetlands that are down by
the lake. So I would hope that you will honor what she has and preserve what she has. Thank
you. Let me give you this memo just so that, I didn't read it word for word, I just paraphrased it.
Just for the record, for your file. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Mrs. Pasierb, would you consider using flow-through decking rather than
the lx67
MS. PASIERB: I don't know either of what you are talking about.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Rob will explain.
MR. HERMAN: What Bob is asking, talking about, is reasonably new product over the last
however many years that instead of having solid wood deck boards, they make an alternative
material that is made out of a composite. Basically recycled composite plastic material that has
little holes in it that would allow rain water to go straight through it. You can see it on many
catwalks and floats.
MS. PASIERB: You can stand on it, right?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sure. Docks, walkways, things like that. I think that would go a long way
to maybe mitigating this, I think.
MS. PASIERB: Okay, but you'll have to tell me the word again.
MR. HERMAN: I don't know where Bob is generally going with this but we can certainly show
you the product so you understand what it is.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think if they use flow-through here it will mitigate, at least in my mind.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, let me make some comments. This was, because it's no longer
there, a pre-existing nonconforming structure. It was not permitted by the Trustees. And it was
removed in total and replacement started without a Trustee permit. We have had legal counsel
tell us many times that -- I know there is disagreement with others -- but that when a
nonconforming structure is removed, when they go to replace it, it has to conform with Town
Code. This is a structure that cantilevers out or is constructed out over what meets the definition
of the bluff.
Board of Trustees 24 October 17, 2012
As my fellow Trustees just mentioned in the Mauri application, this is a precipitous slope
immediately adjacent to the wetlands. So in essence there is not -- the setback here is at the top
of the bluff. Immediately or within, the pool is probably within ten feet of the top of the bluff. So if
this was coming in as a new structure that had not been there, if, this is a structure that
probably, if this Board went with the current Town Code would not approve at all.
Now, given the fact that it is a previous structure, I do agree that when people have
something there should be some opportunity to get something back. So what I have proposed
already was that we allow the pool and just the deck around the pool, extending the deck
slightly so that in this picture it's depicted extending the deck to what is the pool fence right now,
which would give the applicant sufficient space to sit, to enjoy, as she's talked about the beauty
of Marion Lake. So for myself, I don't see how the Board could approve this deck that is
cantilevered or built out over a bluff when it's non-conforming. And the fact that it started to be
replaced without a permit, that is, should not impact the decision to allow this deck to remain.
So for myself, I would remain with my recommendation from last time that we allow the
pool, but the decking to extend only to the limit of the pool fence and not be allowed. Not allow
the deck that is out and is cantilevered and built over the bluff.
TRUSTEE KING: When I went out, we all went out and looked at it. Mike and I looked at it and
measured it. I felt much more comfortable if we reduced the size of that by six feet, cut it back. It
still leaves you a nice size deck to sit on and helps bring it more into conformity with today's
standards. That is my feeling on it. It's a tough call.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I have to support Trustee King's comments. It is a tough call. I would allow
it to go forward if the deck were approximately ten feet from the pool. It is still a
significantly-sized deck, and might cut back a little on their enjoyment but still allows them the
opportunity to do all the things they claim they enjoy so much.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
MR. HERMAN: I have -- does the Board have any other comments?
TRUSTEE KING: No
MR. HERMAN: I don't want to spend a lot of time on this again because we spent it last month
and at the site. Mike suggested he thought it was not that constructive. But Dave is raising the
issue again so I'll respond to it again.
Your code sets forth specific setbacks to specific features. I'm sure the Board will agree
there is a wetlands here. And that it is the freshwater wetlands associated with Marion Lake. So
the section of code that I referenced in my opening comments references specifically, and
whether Dave believes there is a bluff here or not, there is a wetland here. And there is a
required setback from the wetland. Which is 50 feet. So the fact that Dave believes this is a bluff
does not somehow negate the fact that we are meeting the wetlands setback.
Now, if we are going to call this a bluff, then what the Trustees are also saying is that
your jurisdiction does not extend 100 feet from the wetland setback but it extends 100 feet back
from the top of the bluff. That's a big difference. And I realize this is going to speak to a larger
issue that goes beyond this hearing. But a bluff is a bluff is a bluff. A bluff under any geologic
definition refers to a true shoreline. An eroding shoreline. A shoreline that is exposed to an open
body of water like Long Island Sound or Fishers Island Sound.
The zoning code does a very good job when it states the hundred foot bluff setback
because it actually points out what bodies of water it's referring to. Marion Lake is not on list.
Marion Lake is a freshwater lake that is completely enclosed by land. I hear what you are
saying, Dave, about meeting the definition, but I think to a certain extent as Trustees, it is your
responsibility to understand and interpret the terms that are in the code and not just read them
completely blindly. And I don't mean that in a denigrating way, but just to say, well, we can
define this as a bluff because it has a slope to it. Because if you do that, you are now going to
introduce exponentially increased number of properties in town that you are saying you want
Board of Trustees 25 October 17, 2012
another hundred feet of jurisdiction from. And as I recall, this Board didn't even want the
jurisdiction when it was given to you years ago. But you understood that for places like on Long
Island Sound that if people came in and clearcut the bluff, it would collapse down the slope,
down on to the beach, down on to Long Island Sound and create huge problems. That's not
what is going on here. There is a slope to the water. So what. You don't want that to be eroded,
but this structure has been here for three decades and it hasn't eroded it. So all we are doing is
asking you to do is be open to looking at what the actual environment is and what the actual
impacts of this structure are. And I feel like if this was just a pre-existing nonconforming
structure that had no permits at all, I would have a little less umph behind my argument. Or if
this was just illegally constructed and Mrs. Pasierb really was saying it's already built, just leave
it that way. But that's not really what we are saying.
At the time that these permits were issued, a wetland permit was not required by this
Board. It's not like they didn't get. It didn't exist. So you are right, it's legally pre-existing but not
in the same nature that a lot of things are. That's really what we are asking here. I just want to
respond to that point. Because I fear if we keep harping on this notion, I don't feel you can just
kind of expand your jurisdiction by a hundred feet every single time there happens to be a slope
on someone's lawn. Because what is the limit? Your problem is, and I understand it, is your
code doesn't give you any direction. It doesn't say if it's this angle or this number of feet or this
elevation. Which it should. So please let this record encourage the Town Board to help you
along in that regard. But until that happens I'm just trying to put in proper context. This is not a
highly eroding, highly erosive type of situation.
With respect to the suggestion that Bob had raised I can tell you if you allow her to
replace what is there with flow-through decking, sold, we are done. If you going to go with the
recommendation that we cut it back to ten feet then I have to ask Mrs. Pasierb what she wants
to do.
TRUSTEE KING: Rob, I'm looking at this survey pretty closely. We got it on August 22. And
looking at the plans, did you make this new deck smaller than the old one?
MS. PASIERB: Yes. It's absolutely smaller than the old one already.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what I'm looking at on the survey.
It shows 32.1 feet to the deck from the flagged wetlands. And the new deck is 35.3. So you cut
it back about three feet from what it was. That makes a difference in my mind.
MS. PASlERB: Both the width and length are smaller.
MR. HERMAN: We had a little bit of trouble reconciling this in the field, if you remember,
because the surveyor surveyed the framing. And right now, because work was stopped, all of
the deck boards are kind of hanging over the sides and all, so the deck that you are looking at in
that photograph and what we would have been standing on is actually bigger than what is
shown on the survey. And the reason for that is the surveyor has basically surveyed what would
be the finished framing once all the deck boards were cut back to that. And that's what we had
testified to at the last hearing was the fact that the footprint of the deck has already been shrunk
relative to what was there.
TRUSTEE KING: I could see that here. Anybody else?
MS. MOORE: I just want to correct some things with respect to what the Town Attorney has
advised you in the past. And I pointed it out in my memo. Shoreline structures, the language in
the, under, because you separate shoreline structures, jetties and so on, as you know, in your
code. Under shoreline structures is a provision that if it's pre-existing nonconforming or it has a
grandfathered permit or whatever, then goal is to try to make it as conforming as possible. And I
know that you have, in the past, honored people's grendfathered structures. That does not
appear universally in your code. It's just under shoreline structures. And what I was trying to
point out, what Rob has pointed out, this meets your code. Just as it is, meets your code. And in
fact the prior project met this code. So, you know, you are kind of mixing apples and oranges
Board of Trustees 26 October 17, 2012
when you are talking about the advice of counsel. I think you are, the advice is with respect to
shoreline structures, not as a general rule. And for the record, I would disagree with the fact that
when you do repairs to a structure that has a CO, even replacing inkind/inplace what has a CO,
if you have a deck in the back of your house or windows and you are replacing window for a
window, those are CO'd structures. You are allowed to keep them. That's why they are legal
and they were approved, you know, with the town's blessing. So that's just for the record. I
hope that you'll approve it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I appreciate that and I respectively disagree. Because again, I'll revert
back to advice we have been given by Lori Hulse, our attorney, and, again, I just want to point
out with the testimony that has been given here, I'm not, myself, I'm not recommending taking
this whole thing, this whole structure away. I'm just trying to balance property rights against what
the Town Code states. That's all I'm trying to do. So I don't want to be depicted here as
somebody trying to take everything away from the applicant. Not at all. I'm just trying to balance
the two. That's what we always try to do here.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the stipulation flow-through
grating is used on the deck.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(Trustee King, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Bergen, nay).
TRUSTEE KING: Motion carries. For the record, Trustee Bergen voted nay.
MR. HERMAN: Thank you, for all your time.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number six, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of PHYLLIS
SOUSA requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing 5'x16' seasonal floating dock,
3'4"x16'4' wooden ramp and existing 4'x16' fixed catwalk; construct new 4'x16' fixed catwalk
in-place; replace existing decking on wooden ramp win untreated decking; install handrails on
ramp and reinstall
onto a new 6'x20' seasonal floating dock secured by two 8" diameter anchor pilings. Located:
1695 Mill Creek Drive, Southold.
This is an application that's come before us last month and had been tabled because it
had not been staked. It's now staked. And we did have an opportunity to go out and review it. It
was reviewed under LWRP and found to be inconsistent. This is a recommendation of the
LWRP coordinator that the natural vegetated buffer incorporating existing vegetation landward
of the top of the bluff or bank be required.
It was reviewed by the CAC and the CAC moved to table the application. This is back in
September, it was reviewed by the CAC to table the application. And they based it upon the
following observations: Did not appear notice of hearing sign was posted; the dock was not
staked; the construction of the dock was started; there is a steep erosion problem; the area is
sensitive grasses and phragmites located along the right side of the dock; and downspouts
should lead to drywell. And I'll just assume you are talking about the house when you are talking
about downspouts leading to drywells here.
MR. YOUNG: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now just for the record, we did note that this dock, there were nail holes in
the top of the dock where decking had apparently been there and had been removed. And we
found decking along the side of the house. So, and that was treated lumber. So obviously that
Board of Trustees 27 October 17, 2012
material could not be used with the reconstruction, shall I say, of this dock. As I said, we did go
out and looked at it. It was staked. And in looking at it and seeing it was staked we saw it did
not project, the proposed dock does not project farther than the neighboring dock, which is what
our primary concern was.
So with that, is there anybody here to speak on behalf of the application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine, on behalf of the applicant. I would just like to
point out, i didn't do it. And I don't know who did it. And I'm just here to clean up the mess. And
I'll keep any comments under 15 seconds. It's replacing a structure that was there. It's been
there for 50 years. And Mr. Mullen that lives next door remembers it being there forever. It was
there, the floating dock is still there, the ramp is still there. Whatever. The landscaper came in,
they got a little bit overzealous. And that's where we stand. She just asked me to come in and
fix the problem. She was not doing anything, you know, menacing. Beside replacing her dock.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Question for the applicant. Would the applicant be willing to address the
LWRP inconsistency to maintain the vegetation that is noted from the top of the bank seaward
to the edge of the wetland?
MR. COSTELLO: Absolutely. That would not be a problem. I mean, they don't want to the bank
to erode any more than anybody else. They would not object to that at all.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I noticed on your plan 4x4 posts and open style grating proposed for the
catwalk. We thank you for that. Beside that, everything here looks like it's in order.
Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to comment on this application?
(No response).
Any comment from the Board?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Costello Marine on behalf
of Phyllis Sousa as described at 1695 Mill Creek Drive with the condition that the vegetation
between what is depicted on the plans as top of bank seaward to the edge of the wetlands is to
be maintained as a non-disturbance area. And in doing so will bring it into consistency with the
LWRP.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number seven, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of ERIN &
MATTHEW CUNNINGHAM requests a Wetland Permit to remove 30' of existing bulkhead and
retaining wall and construct 30' of new bulkhead in-place; top of bulkhead to be level with
existing adjacent bulkhead; construct 25' of core stone rock retainer; construct a 4'x8' wood
deck; provide a 10' wide non-turf buffer landward of the new bulkhead and core stone rock
retainer; construct a 4'x12' fixed catwalk; provide water and electric service to offshore end;
install 1,850 pound boat davit; install a 32"x16' seasonal ramp onto a 6'x20' seasonal float
secured by two 8" diameter anchor pilings. Located: 2980 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent and inconsistent. The inconsistencies
found related to concerns about possible obstruction to navigation, noting that the size of the
boat was not indicated on the plan, and that a sandbar might narrow the channel, making
navigation difficult.
The CAC voted to support this application with a note of concern about the ten foot
non-turf buffer.
Board of Trustees 28 October 17, 2012
The Trustees made a field inspection on the 10th and found everything to be okay, with
the suggestion that it might be expedient to move the catwalk approximately four to five feet
north to the end of, the notes say "deck" but I think that means bulkhead.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine, on behalf of applicant. ~ know it sounds like a
lot but it's a pretty small project. It's a lot of little things, it's a big description, and I'll here to
answer any questions you guys might have.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Can you address the issue of the size of the boat?
MR. COSTELLO: The size of the boat will be restricted by the water depth in there. I mean, in
and out of there, there is not a lot of depth. I mean, we have the hydrographic in the file. I mean
the size of the boat can't be much because you can't really get a big boat in there. I mean, 17,
19-foot boat tops. Just because of the nature of the area. And this is really kind of like almost
like a dead end to this area. Everybody else goes out the other way down toward Sun'side
because it's more water to go out the other way.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If we can go back to the picture. We had noted, Jack, when we were out
there, and you can't tell from that picture -- there you go. There is the picture. That if you look
just to the north of where the proposed catwalk is seems to be a break in the vegetation there.
It would seem like a more logical place to put the catwalk. So what we wanted to know is if the
applicant would be willing to relocate the dock to where I'll say is approximately to the north by,
as you can see, about four feet, three feet, maybe, so that it's centered over that area rather
than -- so it has a less impact to the vegetation that is there.
MR. COSTELLO: That's not an issue, that's no big deal.
TRUSTEE KING: It's already a disturbed area.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, that's fine. That's fair enough.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any further comment from the Board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just one. I do have a further comment. I understand the concern for
navigability, but that's not the main channel. It's tough to follow the bouncing picture here, but
the main channel, the navigable channel is over to the, I would say to the west of that sandbar,
SO--
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: It looks like they dug two channels. It's weird.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think one was natural and other was probably dug at some point in time.
So I think as far as addressing the inconsistency, since this isn't what I would term as the
navigable channel here, I think by approving this dock in this other tributary channel would not
interfere with navigation in the creek. And that would address the inconsistency under the
LWRP.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Based on aerials, there are a couple of other aerials where there are
docks in that same --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We noted that in the field. Hearing no further comments I would make a
motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application with the comment noted that
this was not a significant channel and it was not a threat to navigation, addressing the concerns
of the LWRP. And the relocation of the catwalk, approximately four feet to the north to address
the Trustees' concerns. And we need a new set of plans to depict that. I'll second that motion
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 29 October 17, 2012
TRUSTEE KING: We'll just take a five-minute break.
(After a five-minute recess, these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Number eight, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of JUDITH HOCKEMEYER
requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing timber bulkhead and replace with 49 linear feet of
new vinyl bulkhead and raise it 1' above existing with a 25' return and a 15' return; and provide
30 cubic yards of clean fill. Located: 245 Bayview Avenue, Southold.
The LWRP coordinator has found this to be consistent with LWRP but is recommending
that the proposed 15-foot wide landscape buffer landward of the bulkhead, excluding returns, be
established to reduce turf area and improve water quality of Hashamomuck Pond. The
Conservation Advisory Council determined that they cannot support raising the bulkhead by a
foot and questions how high and how far out to sea can a bulkhead project. The application is
absent of compelling evidence to show the need to raise the bulkhead. Furthermore the
bulkhead has eliminated the marsh grass and there should be a non-turf buffer.
When we were out in the field, our notes were basically that we needed to clarify the
length of the returns, especially the southern return, which measured to our measurements 33
feet to the newer section. And we also wanted to see at least ten foot non-turf buffer all the way
around.
We have at times, and I think in general, we have supported raising the bulkheads
where we can to help eliminate water or anything rushing over and dumping over the side. A lot
of times raising the bulkhead will mitigate that. To keep the fertilizer on the property.
MR. YOUNG: Peter Young, from the CAC. The question, Bob, that we had, and it is more of a
macro question that was raised in our meeting, was what are the guidelines for the raising the
elevation of these bulkheads and the projection of a bulkhead further out? Some of the
members of the CAC, you know, we had lengthy discussion on what are the guidelines for the
Trustees and the town to make a determination. If the applicant, the question came up what if
the applicant had asked for a two-foot rise in the level of the elevation of the bulkhead, how
would you address that?
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: It's been my experience, correct me if I'm wrong, but in general when we
do allow for the raising, it's anywhere from six inches to a foot, depending upon what we see. A
lot of times we try to match the bulkhead to the left or right. If that's where it's been raised, then
we bring this up.
MR. YOUNG: That was the question that came up.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As far as projecting out, we always try not to project out any further. There
are instances where we'll allow one more in front. But after that when it comes in again, then we
have to go back.
Are there any other comments or would anyone like to speak for this application.
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. The bulkhead as designed and
shown on the plans is going to be installed face-to-face, remove and replace in the same
location. It won't be projected out seaward.
TRUSTEE KING: You are replacing the old bulkhead inplace.
MR. PATANJO: Exactly, inkind/inplace. As you can see from the photos, my observations is that
the water does, during storms, splash over the bulkhead and cause the erosion behind the
bulkhead, partially due to that. So that's, due to the location of the boat ramp right adjacent to it.
So that was one of the reasons for the raising of it one foot. And we do have a DEC permit on
the project already and should be in your files.
With the regard to the buffer, there was two distances, ten foot and 15 feet. We are okay
with either, whatever you request. And were there any other comments?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All the way around.
MR. PATANJO: All the way around, yes, we can definitely.
TRUSTEE KING: Was there ten or 157
Board of Trustees 30 October 17, 2012
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have in my notes we do ten foot along the return and 15 feet along the
frontage of the bulkhead. Yes.
MR. PATANJO: One other clarification was the distance of the southern return portion. As you
noticed in the field, we do want to replace the old section of bulkhead, and I'm looking at it right
now, by eye, 33-feet sounds more accurate than 25 feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we measured it.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: So we'll make that change in here, then. We'll also be requesting a revised
plan indicating the buffer that we discussed. And the change in the distance.
MR. PATANJO: Sure.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Are there any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the following change:
That you note that the existing return is actually 33 feet rather than 25. And that will be, as a
condition of the permit, putting in a 15-foot non-turf buffer along the landward of the seaward
bulkhead, and a ten-foot non-turf buffer along the returns.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: And a revised set of plans are to be provided before the permit is issued.
MR. PATANJO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number nine, R~, Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin, LLP on behalf of NEW
CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to erect a 70' stealth monopole,
install public utility wireless telecommunications antennas therein, and install related equipment
and landscaping on the ground. Located: Orient By The Sea Marina, 40200 Main Road, Orient.
This was found consistent with LWRP. Good sign. The CAC resolved to support the
application. There are no other comments.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application?
MR. RE: Yes. Re, Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin. I'm Lawrence Re for the applicant. I'll make it
short. This Board back in 2009 had voted to approve a Wetlands Permit but then the application
was revised a number of times. We have appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals and
obtained all necessary variances. We have appeared before the Planning Board and obtained
the special exception permit for special use permit and site plan approval. And we have
obtained the DEC permit. And so you are the last stop before we get to the Building
Department. I would be happy to answer any questions you have.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, I know, I went out and looked at this with the DEC, probably six or
seven years ago now. We just received a letter on October 17, from New York State Office of
Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. I won't read the whole thing. We can have it
entered into the record. But -- there are a few letters, as a matter of fact. One, they feel it should
be a Type I action. Quite frankly, this last minute stuff coming in, I don't understand. We have
not heard anything about this in six years. Now it's coming to our attention. I guess maybe they
don't like it being next to a park.
MR. RE: If I could address that.
TRUSTEE KING: They think it will reduce the natural beauty of the park entrance.
MR. RE: Number one, as far as the Type I action, the Planning Board and Zoning Board both
issued negative declarations. As far as the SHIPO, we received a recommendation or letter
indicating that there would be no problem with historic and cultural resources from the State
Board of Trustees 31 October 17, 2012
Historic Preservation Commission. And as far as environmental impacts, as I said, we have the
DEC permit. We have a negative declaration.
TRUSTEE KING: Unless the Board feels, I don't have any issue with this whatsoever. We
looked at it and looked at it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As far as I'm concerned, it's also a public safety issue. As far as I'm
concerned. I mean the way it is today, the need for cellphones, I mean, you can't get service
sometimes out there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The fact that we have a negative declaration from two other agencies of
the town also persuades me. I recognize their concerns. I don't think that, I don't think we have
to worry about that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: My reading of this letter is, they are concerned about esthetics, and I
would agree with Trustee Ghosio, I put safety above esthetics, even though I don't find it in any
way to be objectionable.
TRUSTEE KING: My concern is why didn't they come with this four or five years ago. Not at the
eleventh hour. Is there anybody else here to speak on this application.
MR. YOUNG: I have not seen the plan, but is it a monopole they are proposing?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, I think it's 70-foot monopole.
MR. YOUNG: Some of the community, I guess what the parks are concerned about is the
esthetic issue, and I'm wondering if they could dress it up. I seen some of these poles made to
look as if they are a tree. And admittedly an ugly tree. But they can.
MR. RE: I can address that because in going before the Zoning Board and Planning Board, the
esthetics issue has come up at some length. And we, AT&T, have used tree monopoles in
locations in different parts of the country, and it's an appropriate design in forested areas. We
found that when it's out in the open, it just draws your attention to it and it looks out of place. But
what we did do is design it so that the antennas are contained inside so that you don't have the
arms out with the antennas sticking up. So it's, in the industry they call it a stealth pole. So all
the antennas are in. So all you see is the single pole.
MR. YOUNG: Like the one at Orient Fire Department.
MR. RE: Yes. But much smaller than that. This is only a 70-foot pole.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number ten, Mark K. Schwartz, Architect on behalf of BRENNER ELLEN
2007 TRUST requests a Wetland Permit for the south wall of kitchen and foundation to be
removed and set within setback; kitchen to be extended 7'7"x16' on south side; an 11 'xl 2'
expansion on northwest corner for bath; existing Bilco entry to be replaced; replace openings,
interior alterations to house and porch; replace septic system and install drywells, and new
driveway. Located: 40 South Lane, East Marion.
The Board did go out and looked at this. It was found consistent under the LWRP. The
Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. As I stated, we went out and
looked at this. And we had no issues with the project.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
Board of Trustees 32 October 17, 2012
MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz, architect for the project. Just here to answer any questions
you might have.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: As I said, we looked at it and we didn't have any problem with the project
as submitted. We didn't have any recommendations for any changes.
Are there any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing no other comments from the audience, 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 Brenner Ellen 2007 Trust
at 40 South Lane, East Marion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number eleven, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of
MURRAY GAYLORD requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dwelling and
construct a new dwelling 3.9' higher than previous structure to an elevation of 10'; construct new
front entry; construct new decks on the west and south sides of dwelling; convert the western
addition into a proposed screened pomh; construct an addition off the southwestern section of
the proposed dwelling; construct two proposed stoops; construct a roof over the existing rear
deck; upgrade the existing sanitary system; deposit and grade approximately +450 cubic yards
of clean fill within the central and northern sections of the property; remove the existing garage;
install and subsequently maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of the bulkhead. Located: 765 Beachwood Road, Mattituck.
The LWRP found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council voted, on
October 12, voted to support this application, unanimously, with no comments.
MR. YOUNG: Ten-foot buffer, on the last two lines of the second paragraph, there.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's in the proposal for ten foot. But at any rate, the Trustees field
inspection noted no significant issues.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, for the applicant. This is
actually the third time we have been here. The first time was for a two-story building with various
decks and additions. We found, ran into a septic problem and had to put in a new septic
system. So the second time we came through -- I'm here with Joe Fischetti, by the way, who
helped design most of this. So we had to upgrade the septic system and we came in in March of
this year and obtained a permit for that. The terms of the permit said that, in the event that there
would be -- it said: Resolved, that existing structure is not to be demolished and if there is a
reason for the structure to be demolished, new permits must be applied for prior to demolition.
So we've complied with that. And the reason we have is because shortly after this permit was
issued the town came up with a definition of demolition. We found ourselves in the world of the
demolition and we went to the Zoning Board and we said we reasonably think we should
consider this a demolition. And without much fear, because even if the property were vacant, we
would wind up with a house essentially where it is anyway. And to the extent that there is issues
regarding setbacks, I think the important thing is we'll be removing a garage which already
encroaches upon the wetlands, which you saw on your way in. So that is really the point of this,
and if have you any questions, I'm here to answer them.
(No response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are there any further comments from the Board?
Board of Trustees 33 October 17, 2012
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's nice when things work out.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: If not, rll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted·
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
· King, t
Board of Trustees
Town Clerk