HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-01/23/2013 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, January 23, 2013
RECEIVED ,
MAY 3 2013
//~ ~
$oufl~ld T~w~ ~l~r~
4:00 PM
Present Were:
Jim King, President
Bob Ghosio, Vice-President
Dave Bergen, Trustee
John Bredemeyer, Trustee
Michael Domino, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Clerk Typist
Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 6:00 PM
WORKSESSION: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 5:30PM
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of October 17, 2012.
TRUSTEE KING: Hello everyone, welcome to our January meeting. We
are going to start a little earlier than we normally do because
we have a very long agenda. When we get into the public hearing
section, please keep the comments as minimal as you can so we
can get through these things.
Most of these wetland applications are for replacement of
bulkheads and returns and some retaining Walls that were
destroyed in the bad storm we had in the end of October, Sandy.
I know a lot of people were frustrated because they couldn't get
an emergency permit. We gave out a lot of emergency permits,
but it was only for bulkheads that already had a wetland permit
on them. So we are going through the process now to get these
Board of Trustees 2 January 23, 2013
permitted. So I appreciate your patience.
We have a number of postponements I would like to go
through now, before I forget. On page three, number two, DANA &
MICHAEL SAVINO request and Administrative Permit to repair and
replace the existing bulkhead, dock with a 4'x16' hinged ramp,
6'x50' float, and (2) 6'x31' floats; and deck damaged from
Hurricane Sandy. Located: 1945 Bayview Avenue, Mattituck,
has been postponed.
On page five, number 18, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting
Services on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP., requests
an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7804 to excavate
the proposed pond to a deeper depth than the approved pond; the
pond will be excavated to one foot below the water table; with this
there will be no reason to install a clay liner to hold water.
Located: East End Road, Fishers Island, has been postponed.
Page six, number four, DROUZAS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
CORP., requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7891 to relocate
the proposed dwelling; and to construct a smaller dwelling with
attached deck on seaward side. Located: 54120 County Road 48,
Southold, has been postponed.
And page six, number five, Mark Schwartz, Architect on
behalf of DOUGLAS & KATHLEEN FOLTS requests an Amendment to
Wetland Permit #7837 for the existing foundation to remain; new
first floor to be at elevation 12; the south screened porch and
its foundation walls will be removed and replaced with new deck
piers and decking; the north bedroom and its foundation walls
will be removed and the proposed foundation installed to support
proposed exterior walls; no first floor walls will remain; due
to the water table, the existing basement will be filled in with
approximately 2' of sand with a new concrete slab.
Located: 90 Oak Street, Cutchogue, has been postponed.
I know there are quite a few more. Page 16, number 39,
J.M.O. Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of GWENDOLINE
ANNE HARRIS requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing
single family dwelling, shed; and existing sanitary system to be
pumped and filled with sand; and to construct a new single
family dwelling, shed, deck, porch, retaining walls, gravel
drive, re-grade area, install drywells, utility and water lines,
and install a new sanitary system. Located: 1140 Old Well Drive,
Fishers Island, has been postponed.
On page 17, number 40, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc., on behalf of PAUL HOLOBIGIAN requests a Wetland Permit to
reconstruct the existing timber dock (4.0'VV x 31.0'L) and extend
an additional 38.0', to result in a new catwalk measuring 4.0'Wx 69.0'L,
supported by eight (8) timber pilings (4"x4") and fourteen (14) timber
pilings (6"x6"); construct a hinged ramp (3.0'W x 15.0'L) and a floating
dock (6.0'W x 20.0'L) off the seaward end of the new catwalk; the floating
dock is to be secured by four (4) timber pilings (6"x6"); all
materials to be non-treated; all catwalk top-decking to be of an
open-grate design (i.e., Thru-Flow or similar); all hardware to
be hot-dipped galvanized. Located: 3300 Minnehaha Boulevard,
Board of Trustees 3 January 23, 2013
Southold, has been postponed.
Number 41, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of
JONATHAN P. WENDELL requests a Wetland Permit to repair portions
of the exiting timber dock (4.0'Wx288.0'L) where necessary; and
to replace/reset existing timber pilings (10"-12".) Where
necessary; all decking materials to be non-treated; all hardware
to be galvanized. Located: 355 Terry Lane, Southold, has been postponed.
Number 42, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of DIANE
MACARI requests a Wetland Permit for a proposed 30'x15' pool
with decks and patios; retaining walls for all structures, 75 feet
from edge of wetlands for structures. Located: 465 Halls Creek
Drive, Mattituck, has been postponed.
Number 43, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of NSHE WlLLIAMSTOWN
LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 88 linear
feet of deteriorated bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead in
same location; stabilize bank with Cape American Beach Grass.
Located: 220 West Shore Drive, Southold, has been postponed.
And number 44, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of 430 WSD LLC,
c/o PETER COSOLA requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
100 linear feet of existing bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead;
install 20' long returns on both sides and an additional 100'
long X 4' tall vinyl retaining wall set back 10' landward on top
of proposed bulkhead to be replaced; remove and replace existing
walkway, +/-26'L x +/-18'W upper platform, +/-16'L x +/-10'W
lower platform and stairs as required to construct bulkhead.
Located: 430 West Shore Drive, Southold, has been postponed.
Number 45, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of MAUREEN
MASSA & ALAN SCHWEITZER requests a Wetland Permit to replace
existing window of garage to a sliding glass door and add a
skylight; construct a 4'x28' hardwood dock consisting of 60%
open deck a minimum 2' above grade; a new 3'x12' seasonal ramp
and a 5'x18' seasonal float; construct a 4'x36' set of stairs
from top of slope to fixed dock; a proposed 10'x4' slate
(stone) on sand or crushed stone as a non-turf buffer area; and
install irrigation landward of the top of the slope. Located:
460 Ruch Lane, Southold, has been postponed.
On page 18, number 46, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting
Services on behalf of GWENDOLINE ANNE HARRIS requests a Wetland
Permit to demolish existing single family dwelling, shed; and
existing sanitary system to be pumped and filled with sand; and
to construct a new single family dwelling, shed, deck, porch,
retaining walls, gravel drive, re-grade area, install drywells,
utility and water lines, and install a new sanitary system.
Located: 1140 Old Well Drive, Fishers Island, has been postponed.
Number 47, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting Services on
behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION requests a
Wetland Permit to remove the existing 9'x131' timber fixed dock
and 26 support piles; and to construct a 5'x76' timber fixed
dock supported by 12 piles, a 4'x20' ramp with railings, and an
8'x40' float secured by 4 piles. Located: Winthrop Drive,
Fishers Island, has postponed.
Board of Trustees 4 January 23, 2013
Number 48, En-Consultants on behalf of FREDERICK de la VEGA
& LAWRENCE NIGGINS request a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed
timber dock equipped with water and electricity and consisting
of a 4'x95' fixed, elevated walkway, a 3'x14' hinged ramp; and
a 6'x20' float secured by (2) 6" diameter pilings. Located:
'15437 Route 25, East Marion, has been postponed.
And number 49, En-Consultants on behalf of SUE K. ODELL
request a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-kind/in-place)
existing 3 f wide stairway and associated landings. Located:
6500 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, has been postponed.
And number 50, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of
GEORGE YATRAKIS requests a Wetland Permit to re-vegetate any
disturbed areas due to the construction of new rock revetment
and access area; removal of existing grass from top of bluff to
northern pool fence line, and re-vegetate with native plant
species; construct a 4' wide access path to stairs consisting of
bluestone flagging set on sand base. Located: 18805 Soundview
Avenue, Southold, has been postponed.
These have all been postponed. We won't be addressing these
tonight.
Tonight we have Bill McDermott is somewhere here from the
Conservation Advisory Council. They go out and do a lot of the
same inspections that we do and give us their recommendations.
We have Wayne Galante here keeping track of what everybody says.
Please, when you do have something to say, come up to the
microphone and identify yourself so he can get it on the record.
We have Lori Hulse here, is our attorney.
With that I guess we can get going. We'll set the next
field inspection for Wednesday, February 13th at eight o'clock
in the morning.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Our next Trustee meeting, Wednesday, February
20th, at six o'clock, with a work session at 5:30.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a motion to approve the Minutes of
October 17th, 20127
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve those Minutes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for December 2012. A check for
$12,014.80 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the
General Fund.
Board of Trustees 5 January 23, 2013
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
II1. 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 VI Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, January 23, 2013, are classified
as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and
are not subject to further review under SEQRA:
John Reardon - SCTM# 90-2-19
Richard McKinney & Cynthia Power - SCTM# 31-14-6
Drouzas Real Estate Development Corp. - SCTM# 52-2-20.1
Douglas & Kathleen Folts - SCTM# 136-1-54
Elyse James - SCTM# 81-3-1.4
Robert O'Brien - 31-13-2
Kathryn Gray Melhuish, Mary Payne, George & William Gray -
SCTM# 31-18-13
Joseph & Joanna Chernushka - SCTM# 31-18-20.1
Richard Frizzi - SCTM# 31-18-15
William Lehmann - SCTM# 31-18-16
Paul Dombrowski - SCTM# 31-18-2
Edward & Rachel Flannigan - SCTM# 38-6-14
Jonathan & Christine Meyer & Josephine Cipitelli - SCTM# 38-6-13
Peter & Marisa Patinella - SCTM# 38-6-12
Norman & Judy Taylor - SCTM# 38-2-35
Robert Karpas - SCTM# 80-5-3.1
Gwendoline Anne Harris - SCTM# 7-4-9&10
Robert Nelson - SCTM# 53-6-5
Jane C. Stark - SCTM# 128-6-10
Chris R. Showalter - SCTM# 90-4-15
Jack Biggane - SCTM# 83-1-34
Douglas & Benita Pearsall- SCTM# 80-1-49.1
Estate of Lawrence M. Tuthill - SCTM# 117-5-46.4
Marlene Lane Civic Association - SCTM# 126-6-10
RJJ Properties LLC - SCTM# 111-15-12
Philip Milot - SCTM# 123-5-26
Kevin Whitrock - SCTM# 123-6-20
Peter Kranes - SCTM# 126-11-12
Peter & Joan Fritz - SCTM# 71-1-8
Rob & Claire Riccio - SCTM# 98-6-1
Mary Drum - SCTM# 123-8-28.6
MMC Realty 2 Family Limited Partnership - SCTM# 118-4-4
Timothy & Michelle McManus - SCTM# 118-4-5
Patricia Congdon O'Brien - SCTM# 128-4-1
James Abbott - SCTM# 126-5-3.1
John Abbott - SCTM# 126-5-1
Joseph S. Connelly, John Congdon, Janet Soukup & Others -
SCTM# 128-4-6
Board of Trustees 6 January 23, 2013
High House Woods, Inc. Cio Wendy Prellwitz - SCTM# 86-7-7.1
Patrick & Diane Kelly - SCTM# 71-2-7
Robert Winchester - SCTM# 111-15-7
Jonathan P. Wendell - SCTM# 65-1-20
Brick Cove Marina, Inc. - SCTM# 57-1-38.3
Steve Sachman - SCTM# 111-9-9
Dean Blaikie - SCTM# 111-15-9
Elizabeth Speres - SCTM# 119-1-4
Christopher Stabile - SCTM# 119-1-10
Vincent Matassa - SCTM# 43-3-7
Paul Holobigian - SCTM# 87-3-38
Principi Properties, LLC, c/o Mill Creek Partners - SCTM# 56-7-4.1
Mill Creek Partners, LLC - SCTM# 56-7-2
Christian Baiz - SCTM# 56-5-1.3
Karen & Michael Catapano - 118-4-1
Jane G. Weiland - SCTM# 111-13-11
Bee-Hive Development Corp. - SCTM# 52-2-14
Ina Hasday- SCTM# 145-4-15
Diane Macari - SCTM# 116-7-3.2
David M. Daly & Others - SCTM# 66-1-34
NSHE Williamstown LLC - SCTM# 80-5-4.1
430 WSD LLC, c/o Peter Cosola - SCTM# 80-5-2.1
Gwendoline Anne Harris - SCTM# 7-4-9&10
IV. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Under resolutions and administrative permits,
number one, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of JOHN C. DILLER
requests an Administrative Permit for the existing bulkhead and
retaining wall structures previously approved by the Trustees in
2006; the previous approval of these structures was included as
part of a permit issued for these and for similar structures on
this and three additional properties.
Located: 60 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
This was a case where there were three properties all
together and they had one bulkhead permit covering the three
properties. And evidently one piece of property now is up for
sale, so we had to kind of separate that out from the other ones
and just have the one permit for that property. So rm familiar
with this and looked at it. I would make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE KING: Under applications for extensions, transfers and
administrative amendments, what we have tried to do with these,
and we'll do it again tonight, we have reviewed all of these,
and if they are simple and there is not a lot of problems with
Board of Trustees 7 January 23, 2013
them, we'll group them together and approve them all at once and
the ones, that they have a problem, but there may be some
discussion on it, we'll pull out. So I would make a motion to
approve numbers one through six on page three number eight
through 13 on page four, approve those all in one shot. And also
16 and 17 on page five. They are listed as follows:
Number one, LUDIVOICA ROMANELLI requests a One Year Extension to
Wetland Permit #7482 as issued on February 16, 2011, and Amended
on November 14, 2012. Located: 3204 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard,
Laurel.
Number two, Jason T. Poremba, RA on behalf of DAVID PAGE &
BARBARA SHINN request the last One-Year Extension to Wetland
Permit #7247, as issued on February 24, 2010, and Amended on
November 16, 2011, and Amended again on August 22, 2102.
Located: 1854 North Bayview Road, Southold.
Number three, ARTHUR CODY requests the last One Year Extension
to Wetland Permit #7252, as issued on February 24, 2010, and
Amended on March 23, 2011. Located: 630 Dean Drive, Cutchogue.
Number four, DAVID PAGE & BARBARA SHINN request a Transfer of
Wetland Permit # 3815 from Edward Fergus to David Page & Barbara
Shinn, as issued on September 28, 1989.
Located: 1854 North Bayview Road, Southold.
Number five, FREDA GIFT TRUST requests a Transfer of Wetland
Permit #4015 from Windsway Bldg. Corp., to Freda Gift Trust, as
issued on March 27, 1992. Located: 7715 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic.
Number six, MARILYN ANGELSON requests a Transfer of Wetland
Permit #5629 from Adriana & Dana Courtenay to Marilyn Angelson,
as issued on September 25, 2002. Located: 950 Park Avenue, Mattituck.
Number eight, JOHN V. RYAN requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#4731 from Gregory Antoian to John V. Ryan, as issued on May 2,
1997. Located: 330 Inlet Lane, Greenport.
Number nine, CATHERINE HUNT HEALY QPRT TRUST requests a Transfer
of Wetland Permit #492 from J.C. Heim to Catherine Hunt Healy
QPRT Trust, as issued on July 1, 1968. Located: 2400 Broadwaters
Road, Cutchogue.
Number ten, ROBERT OXNAM requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#5939 from John Hurtado, Sr. To Rober/Oxnam, as issued on June
24, 2004. Located: 19625 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
Number eleven, BETTY-JEAN HASSlLDINE & OTHERS requests a
Transfer of Wetland Permit #1683 from Robert W. Vanderbeck to
Betty-Jean Hassildine & Others, as issued on September 27, 1983.
Located: 2800 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue.
Number 12, DENIS ROUSSEAU & SYUN-RU YEH requests a Transfer of
Wetland Permit #2004 from Wilbur J. Buschmann to Denis Rousseau
& Syun-Ru Yeh, as issued on August 2, 1985; and for an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #2004 to replace the
floating dock lost after Hurricane Sandy. Located: 970 Smith
Drive South, Southold.
Number 13, PAUL PAWLOWSKI requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#1697 from William Markel to Paul Pawlowski, as issued on
October 21, 1983; and for an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Boa~ofTrustees 8 January 23,2013
Permit #1697 to replace the surface wood and platform wood on
dock, ramp and floating dock. Located: 950 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck.
Number 16, Charles R. Cuddy, Esq., on behalf of JOSEPH G. MANZl,
JR. requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7160
to reflect the proposed residence further from the wetlands; the
Non-Disturbance Buffer to be increased from 50' to 75' along the
side yard; and the proposed split rail fence and/or cedar trees
to be located along the landward edge of the Non-Disturbance
Buffer. Located: 355 Midway Road, Southold.
Number 17, Charles R. Cuddy, Esq., on behalf of MARY MANZl
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7161 to
reflect the proposed residence further from the wetlands; the
Non-Disturbance Buffer to be increased from 50' to 75'; and the
proposed split rail fence and/or cedar trees, and temporary placement
of hay bales and silt fencing to be located along the landward edge of
the 75' buffer. Located: 405 Cedar Point Ddve, Southold.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES)..
TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, PETER KRANES requests a Transfer of
Wetland Permit #3887 from John Gabusi to Peter Kranes, as issued
on January 18, 1991. Located: 7480 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
I would like to put this aside for later on in the meeting when
we get into our Wetland applications. We'll try and add this
into that permit rather than have a separate transfer of this
permit number 3887.
Number 14, ALAN & ROCHELLE GARMISE request a Transfer of Wetland
Permit #3937 from Vincent J. Petrozzo to Alan & Rochelle
Garmise, as issued on August 2, 1991; and for an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit #3937 to repair and permit the
existing beach house (shed) 16'xl 8', and also a wrap-around
deck, the front of which is 24'x10'4" and the side of which is
8'x8'6"; and for two (2) sets of staim each approximately 5'
wide, all to be repaired or reconstructed. Located: 9980 Nassau
Point Road Cutchogue.
This was found inconsistent with the LWRP. This is for a
transfer. This is that beach house on the beach with the large
deck. I think we all had some concerns about it because of the
size and its location. This was our last inspection on Nassau
Point last Wednesday, when it was just about dark.
There was an existing permit issued to a Mr. Petrozzo,
which was part of this as a transfer. It was a constructed deck
10.4' across and extending outward from the bathhouse and 30
feet across. By today's standards this certainly would not be
allowed. It's basically on the beach.
Are there any comments from the Board on this? I'm not
sure what we can do with this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't know how we can transfer a permit
for a structure that would not meet current standards without a
discussion concerning alternatives.
TRUSTEE KING: Evidently they have approval from DEC for it.
Board of Trustees 9 January 23, 2013
Evidently. The survey shows the high water mark as being quite
a bit seaward of the deck, but I didn't get that impression when
we were there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is that mark dated?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Survey dated July 8, 2004. I think the
challenge the Board had out there was the fact that since 2004
there has been significant beach erosion there so that this
structure is now at the high tide mark. And, you know, we have
to think about public trust doctrine as well as what is best for
the public.
TRUSTEE KING: The LWRP coordinator found that the structures
described were not constructed pursuant to Chapter 275 Wetland
to Shoreline Permit. Although the deck was permitted, the
proposed deck does not conform to the permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What was the deck that was approved?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't see.
MS. HULSE: It says to construct a deck 10'x4" across, extending
outward from the bathhouse and 30 feet across. That was from
August 2, 1991.
TRUSTEE KING: It looks like there is more deck than what was on
the original permit.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's about 30 feet across.
TRUSTEE KING: It's scaled 25 feet. 30, including the stairs.
What's your pleasure? I'm not sure what to do here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It could be there is an opportunity to work with
the property owner to possibly move this structure back a little
ways so that he still retains the structure, but at least move
it back. So maybe we should, just my suggestion, table it until
we work with the applicant to see if there is an opportunity
here to move the structure back.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it would be a smart thing to do. Because
we have a big agenda tonight. I don't want to spend an awful lot
of time on something simple.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We really have to address the inconsistencies.
MS. HULSE: You would have to have a public hearing on it as well.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: For the record, number 15, I'm going to abstain
from the vote on this because it's one of my neighbors.
MS. HULSE: Sorry, can we go back to the last one for a second.
Did you want to transfer the permit tonight or transfer part of
it or just table the whole matter?
TRUSTEE KING: I think we can table the whole matter.
MS. HULSE: I just want to be clear. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 15, JAMES B. KAMINSKY requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #5756 to replace any
damaged decking boards and recap the entire dock with new
untreated lumber, Located: 100 East Mill Road, Mattituck.
Really very simple, it's just to replace the damaged decking and
Boa~ofTrustees 10 January 23,2013
the boards and recap the entire dock with untreated lumber. We
all went out to see it. We pulled this out from the other group
just because it is Jim's neighbor and he needed to recuse
himself, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there an outstanding violation on it?
MS. HULSE: No, there is not.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The application is to replace it. That's what
we are approving. They'll have to remove the treated lumber that
is there now. We'll make it clear, we want to remove the treated
lumber and replace it with the non-treated lumber. I'll make a
motion to approve the application as amended.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a point of discussion, you are saying
your motion is to approve it but subject to the condition it
imputes that the material that will be used will be not treated
lumber.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The application is to replace any damaged
decking boards and recap the entire dock with new untreated
lumber. In my mind that means removing the treated lumber
and replacing it with untreated.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor?
(Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer,
aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee King, recused).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off our regular meeting
and go into the public hearing section.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Like I said at the beginning folks, try and keep
the testimony to a minimum if we can, because we have quite a
few here to go through.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE KING: Under amendments, number one, Proper-T-Permit
Services on behalf of JOHN REARDON requests an Amendment to
Wetland Permit #7723 to repair and maintain the wood jetty
structure damaged by Hurricane Irene from the seaward end of the
structure for approximately 60' +/-, cut top through-bolts to
re-orient piles and loosen wales on one side of the existing
structure as necessary to replace missing and/or storm damaged
wood sheathing with 2" vinyl sheathing and re-assemble the
structure in-place; and increase the size of the proposed
deck to be constructed between the bulkhead and the retaining
wall from 10'x20' to 10'x150'. Located: 920 Cedar Point Drive
East, Southold.
The LWRP coordinator found it consistent with the LWRP.
Board of Trustees 11 January 23, 2013
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection
therefore no recommendation was made by them.
MR. FITZGERALD: Jim, may I?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: This was pretty straightforward, I thought, except
I take it he wants to enlarge that deck the whole length of the
-- when he rebuilds that groin it will need to be rebuilt as a
Iow profile groin.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And only as far out as mean Iow water, also.
MR. FITZGERALD: Well, the way that the contractor described it
was to simply replace the sheathing in those areas where it is
missing, without dismantling the structure. The piles and the
wales would stay in place.
TRUSTEE KING: I understand that. I don't know, I'm a little
uncomfortable with doing that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I am, too. Because what they would then be doing
is reconstructing a groin that doesn't meet code standards. In
other words it would be higher and farther out into the bay than
we normally allow. So I would rather see this as an opportunity
to cut it back and lower it down to Iow profile. There is a
picture of it. Cut it back to mean Iow tide and make it Iow
profile as we have done consistently with other groins across
Southold. We have been very consistent with that.
TRUSTEE KING: Have you gone to the DEC with this yet?
MR. FITZGERALD: They have the application. We have not heard
from them yet.
TRUSTEE KING: Because I have not seen them approve anything but
Iow profile groins. As Dave said, we have been pretty consistent
on that. As far as the decking goes, I don't know, what's the
Board's feelings on that? It has to be decked over the whole
length of that property.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This would be part of the non-turf buffer
really, right?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I suppose if the decking continued in the same
direction as this and the spacing allowed for water to drain
underneath it, he would have to specify three-eighths to half
inch, three-eighths spacing between boards. But if they go tight
up on each other, in the summertime they'll tighten up and you
won't have any space and the water will just run off.
TRUSTEE KING: Actually it should be built a little bit so it's
not level, it kind of pitches back away from the bulkhead. Even if
it's one or two inches of pitch, you'll never see it, but it will work.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm not totally opposed to it. It's between the
bulkhead and the retaining wall and it's above the beach.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a huge, huge problem with it either.
And the return was not an issue at all, to replace the cement
retaining wall with vinyl. That was not an issue. Are there any
other comments on this application?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
Board of Trustees 12 January 23, 2013
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with
the stipulation that the new decking will have spaces sufficient
to allow water to drain through, and that there be a slight
pitch to the deck away from the bulkhead toward land so any
water that does accumulate will drain back on to the land and
not over the bulkhead. And the groin should be rebuilt as a Iow
profile groin, with the landward end not to exceed 12 inches to
18 inches above grade on the down drift side, and not to extend
beyond ordinary Iow water. That would be my motion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. FITZGERALD: We can just give you new drawings, I mean, as a
condition of the permit, right?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. Thank you.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, Costello Marine Contracting Corp.,
on behalf of RICHARD McKINNEY & CYNTHIA POWER request an
Amendment to Wetland Permit #7765 and Coastal Erosion Permit
#7765E to construct 390'+/- of new bulkhead; re-pile existing
rocks from revetment section as armoring at base of new bulkhead
for 120'+/- (exact distance to be determined by actual amount of
existing rock available); fill void area landward of new
bulkhead with clean trucked in sand approximately 175+/- cubic
yards; re-grade bank and re-vegetate with Cape American beach
grass; reconstruct existing 10'x20' wooden platform landward of
top of bank; reconstruct existing 3' wide access stairway to
beach in-place; reinstall fencing in-place as necessary;
reinstall flag pole. Located: 12340 Route 25, East Marion.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be
consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to
support the application. It recommends a more robust rock
revetment.
This is a property that had previously received a permit
and then Storm Sandy came along and caused extensive damage to
it. And the Board went out and looked at it and we didn't have
any issue with the project, except we did want to talk to the
applicant about the opportunity to move the deck that is
contained within the application landward so it's not at the top
of the bluff. Right now the deck, as everyone can see, well it
got lost. The land got lost under that deck. And obviously with
the construction of the new bulkhead there will be fill brought
in to regain that property that is lost, but we are trying to
avoid, for the future, future loss of that deck in the event of
another major storm. So we wanted to see if there is an
opportunity to move the deck back slightly.
So is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this
application?
Boa~ of Trustees 13 January 23,2013
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, my name is John Costello, I'm with Costello
Marine Contracting and we are the agents for this application
for Mr. McKinney. And that deck, when it is put back, will
certainly be put back up and above the deck, which the bulkhead
will be considerably further out than what shows in that
photograph. You can see the bulkhead to the east, and we are not
going out as far as that bulkhead is on the east corner. We'll
be joining inland on that bulkhead and continuing for the 390
feet to the McKinney, to the westerly neighbor, which is
Branston, which they have an approval for a return on an
existing bulkhead.
So basically this is going to be a little further back
inland than the previously approved rock revetment. The DEC
would not approve the total rock revetment for this project.
They would only allow armoring the west end that adjoins
McKinney's. So there are pre-existing rocks onsite and we'll
only use them on the westerly end to protect Branston's return
and that corner from eroding any more. That deck, I'm sure they
want to probably put back up to elevation, which is the top of
the bank. The bulkhead will be considerably lower. We do have a
DEC approval for the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I have noticed, I just scaled it out, it
looks like the deck will be approximately 20 feet landward, give
or take a few feet, of the new bulkhead.
MR. COSTELLO: That's also a condition of your previous permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments from anybody else
in the audience on this application?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
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
Costello Marine on behalf of Richard McKinney and Cynthia Power
as described and depicted in the plans dated November 9, 2012.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And Mr. Costello, I think I could speak on
behalf of the Board, we are very sorry for your loss. George was
a tremendous man in the marine industry out here and it was
tragic what happened. And I just wanted to, on behalf of the
Board, tell you how sorry we are. Our condolences to you and
your family.
TRUSTEE KING: He'll be missed.
MR. COSTELLO: Thank you. Well, if any of you guys need a job.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think I could fill those boots.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, En-Consultants on behalf of
Board of Trustees 14 January 23, 2013
ELYSE JAMES request an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7828 to
authorize an increase in the length of the approved 18' vinyl
bulkhead return along the northeasterly property line to 36'; to
construct approximately 34 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in
place of +/-9' and +/-25' sections of existing storm damaged
(Hurricane Sandy) timber bulkhead; to repair or replace existing
3.5' wide steps down embankment as needed; to reconstruct storm
destroyed 3.5' wide steps to beach; and to backfill/re-nourish
the storm eroded area landward of bulkhead with approximately
200 cubic yards of clean sandy fill to be planted with native
vegetation. Located: 5000 Paradise Point Road, Southold.
The LWRP coordinator deemed this project to be consistent
with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council does not
support the application. They don't support raising the height
of the bulkhead and they are recommending a consideration of a
rock revetment. The Board inspected the site, as you could see,
the pictures are self-evident, the level of storm damage. I
don't believe it was a consideration for any kind of revetment
since we had just granted a bulkhead approval, but we did feel
that the request to lengthen the return was justified to protect
the property from waters working, subsequent storms working
behind the structure.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. JAMES: I'm the owner.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't believe the Trustees had a problem
with anything we saw with respect to the application. It was standard.
MR. JAMES: Only if you have any questions, I'm here to answer
them.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any questions from the members of the Board?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It was pretty straightforward.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing no questions, I'll make a motion to
close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Where this is deemed to be consistent under
LWRP and whereas the Trustees are very familiar with the site,
having been there several times during 2012 and then
subsequently after Storm Sandy, I would make a motion to approve
this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits, number
one, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of NORMAN & JUDY
TAYLOR requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #38-2-35 and
requests a Coastal Erosion Permit to resheath 78' of timber
Board of Trustees 15 January 23, 2013
return and extend the return 10' landward, to reset 78' of armor
stone for the return and to extend the stone 10' landward and to
reconstruct existing 4'x10' beach access stairs. Located: 360
Cleaves Point Road, East Marion.
This was found to be consistent with the LWRP. The
Conservation Advisory Council supports the application however
recommends the house is raised and placed on pilings.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MR. JUST: Glenn Just, JMO Consulting. I'm the agent.
TRUSTEE KING: Glenn, it's my understanding some of these rocks
may be on town property.
MR. JUST: Might be now.
TRUSTEE KING: They won't be after?
MR. JUST: We filed a thing with Mr. Harris and he was supposed
to contact your office and he had no objections to what we
proposed.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, we'll probably want to see something in
writing from him there no objections.
MR. JUST: I sent it over to the Taylor's.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think anybody had any other questions or
issues with this, to resheath the return and extend it ten feet
landward.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It was clearly needed when we were there.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from anybody?
(No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with
the stipulation we do need a letter from the Highway Department
in case some of these stones do happen to be on town property,
giving you permission.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KING: You're welcome.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number two, ROBERT O'BRIEN requests a Wetland
Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct 143 linear feet
of new navy-style vinyl sheet piling bulkhead immediately in
front of the existing Hurricane Sandy storm damaged wood
sheathing bulkhead, 6"x6" horizontal walers and pilings; removal
of a section of the west jetty needed to accommodate the
installation of new vinyl sheathing; removal of existing 22
linear feet of wood bulkhead return at west property line;
installation of 22' of a new navy-style vinyl sheet piling
bulkhead return; the lower beach stair is to be removed and
reinstalled after the new bulkhead is constructed; the portion
of the upper wood plank terraced stair removed for installation
Board of Trustees 16 January 23, 2013
of the tiebacks and deadmen will be reconstructed in-kind; the
damaged lower rubble stone wall will be reconstructed to the
same height and length that existed prior to the storm;
re-vegetation of the disturbed slope areas will consist of
rosa Virginia, rosa rugosa or equal planted at four to five foot
on center; the level four-foot ground area between the top of
the bulkhead and base of the lower rubble stone wall will have
filter fabric installed, ballasted with a blend of 1" to 6"
beach stones. Located: 1955 Truman's Path, East Marion.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The
Conservation Advisory Council supports this application. In our
field notes the conditions noted to consider removing the
pilings and new vinyl fascia, new fill, and perhaps helical
screws as the neighbor to the east.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. O'BRIEN: I'm the owner, Bob O'Brien. I'm just doing what is
consistent with my neighbor to the east there. I want to save
the pilings that are there and the sheathing that is there. I
feel it would be a double bulkhead behind the new vinyl
sheathing, so it's a safety factor for me. And that's why I
proposed it the way I did propose it.
TRUSTEE KING: I think this is the one where your neighbor to the
east re-sheathed in front of his bulkhead with vinyl also.
MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, 2007.
TRUSTEE KING: So we would like to see this done the same way so
you don't jog out past him.
MR. O'BRIEN: I was trying to maintain my tiebacks that I have in
existence so I don't have to disturb the slope that much. I was
thinking of putting helical anchors for the second bulkhead. You
understand? I want to keep my deadmen, my existing tiebacks so
I don't have so disturb all that vegetation. I have mature trees
and retaining walls. I know it's an additional expense to go
with the helical anchors but I think that's the way to go.
TRUSTEE KING: You see what I'm talking about.
MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, the return will just be another eight inches.
I'll just put a return at that point.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just thinking what is in the code on
reconstruction with the bulkheads. This is not to stick out
further than the neighbor. That's all I can tell you.
MR. O'BRIEN: That's probably for erosion consideration and if I
put a short return there, there won't be any consideration,
especially with the groin that dovetails into it. That's a means
of protection, too. On the other side, as you know, I'm only
going down to a return, and I have an existing groin, so I'm not
affecting anybody to the west of me either. The high tide mark
normally doesn't come up within about 15 feet of the bottom of
that stair to begin with. it's only in storm periods we get any
water up to the bulkhead. But when we do, we get waves eight
foot coming in. Because we are out past Budd Lake and we're out
past Shelter Island. So we get waves coming in all the way from
East Hampton. It's an unusual situation. And we really get
Board of Trustees 17 January 23, 2013
impacted, the three or four houses there. You can see the other
bulkheads, they get totally wiped out. So any additional
protection I can have, I want. And I feel, like you saw, we did a lot
of reinforcement back in 1992 on the lower half of the bulkhead and
that basically saved the remaining bulkhead on the slope. If that was
not there, everything would have been gone. I don't see how it really
affects anything. It's just a jog in the line of the bulkhead to my neighbor.
It's a small jog, an eight-inch jog. It allows me to keep my tiebacks and
my existing pilings, which still have some structural value to them. Like I
said, for the new pilings what I would do is probably do helical anchors so
I would have double deadmen and double tiebacks.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just trying to figure out the construction
method. That's what I'm trying to figure out. Is the new
sheathing going to be outside of this existing older pile?
MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, it will be a regular "Z" sheathing.
TRUSTEE KING: You'll put new piles out in front of that?
MR. O'BRIEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Does the code allow that?
TRUSTEE KING: The code says you can't. When you rebuild a
bulkhead you are not to jog out past your neighbor. That's the
only reason I brought it up.
MR. O'BRIEN: There is that stipulation in your bylaws that says
it's allowed a one-time bump out. You can't bump out again, but
you can bump out once.
TRUSTEE KING: Lori, I need some help.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: One can't supersede the other.
MR. O'BRIEN: It's not setting a precedent because you don't have
a situation where you have two adjoining neighbors that will be
back from the new bulkhead. It's on one side. It's not like I
have water up to my bulkhead all the time. I mean what does it
affect?
TRUSTEE KING: I just want to know if we could waive that.
MR. O'BRIEN: The code should have latitude for common sense.
TRUSTEE KING: You have to understand, we keep getting in
trouble. Every time we veer away from what is in the code and
waive it, everybody starts screaming at us.
MR. O'BRIEN: It's not waiving it, it's taking a particular
situation and tailoring to it, which you should have the
latitude to do.
MS. HULSE: They don't have discretion on certain things, if they
are in the code and they are required --
MR. O'BRIEN: Well --
MS. HULSE: I'm not arguing, I'm just telling you they don't have
the discretion.
MR. O'BRIEN: But you have the stipulation that I cited in the code.
MS. HULSE: When there is a replacement -- I gave them the
section of the code. When there is a replacement, it's supposed
to be back in line.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are only talking about the pilings, that
would have to be removed to match the neighbor. So you would
still be required, ostensibly you would have to go with your
Board of Trustees 18 January 23, 2013
plan to use helical anchors, but the construction really only involves --
MR. O'BRIEN: My problem is if I pull out the pilings I would
probably lose the sheathing and the bulkhead because the
sheathing is tight up against those pilings. I have done a lot
of deep excavation as a contractor over the years. I'm very
familiar with excavating in areas going down sometimes 50
feet below sea level. So there is a good chance if I pull those
pilings, I'll disturb that whole bulkhead and it will become useless.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we are between a rock and a hard spot
here.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How did those long boards get in there?
MR. O'BRIEN: They were installed back in 1992 when the bulkhead
got damaged from the perfect storm. I don't see how its
inconsistent because in the onetime bump out it doesn't
stipulate the pilings have to be removed.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, but what it does stipulate the onetime bump
out cannot go any further than the next door neighbor.
MS. HULSE: And it's not the Board's discretion. It's the
discretion of the Board they may permit a bump out if it doesn't
project seaward of the other structures. And in any event, any
subsequent repair or replacement must be built on or landward of
the original structure.
MR. O'BRIEN: What if the neighbor doesn't object to the bump out.
MS. HULSE: The code doesn't allow for that kind of discretion,
unfortunately.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It sounds fairly cut and dry. I don't think
we have an option.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we have a lot of choice.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All right, so what we would approve then, based
upon the code, would be replacement of this inplace.
TRUSTEE KING: We have run into this before where they have
pulled the piles out and they put the sheathing right tight
against the existing sheathing like the neighbor did. We have
seen this before. I think Mr. Costello has done more than one of
them.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would imagine if they do one at a time; one
section at a time, you would not lose the bluff.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm not a marine contractor but I think what Mr.
Ghosio said makes absolute sense. And if you took it slowly,
you could reface that and have the pilings, using the new
helical screws, secure it, and not have a bump out.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The lumber that was there, it was in pretty good
shape.
MR. O'BRIEN: That's why I'm trying to save it. And it goes down
another four feet below sand level, too.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I could see that. That's why I'm pretty
confident if you did a section at a time, you pulled the post
out, you would be all right.
MR. O'BRIEN: What I was trying to do is maintain double tieback
system. The new tieback system with the existing. I'll lose the
tieback system existing if I do that.
Board of Trustees 19 January 23, 2013
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this
application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KING: I would like the professional opinion of Mr.
Costello, to be honest with you. I know you have done this
before, John. If you can just give me some guidance.
MR. COSTELLO: Well, the gentleman is right, you know, if you
have a double tieback system, I don't know the condition of the
tieback system he has on that bulkhead, but if he did it in
sections, he has to cut a hole in there to get the helicals in.
So if you did it in smaller sections and continue, you could
certainly do the helicals well back into those existing tie rods
and have the double back system. I mean I have done it on
several occasions. So you could remove a pile or two. You have
to excavate by hand behind the bulkhead in order to get the
helicals connected. So I mean there has to be some hand dug
excavation anyway, or you can't get the helicals in. It's
minimal. But the tieback system, having two is certainly better
than one. So it would be reinforce it that much more.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And it would be done in a method that would keep
it consistent with our code.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, it would.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
MR. O'BRIEN: Then all I'm do!ng is welding to the existing
tiebacks. So I'm back to a single tieback system.
MR. COSTELLO: If you bolted the existing, if you put a torque on
that helical -- that system is old. It is not the same. The
helical will be the main system. If that existing tieback system
has any credibility, you'll get it.
TRUSTEE KING: We don't need this conversation going on here. We
have to move this along.
MS. HULSE: The testimony has to be directed to the Board.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER. Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application with
the condition that the construction conforms to the code, the
new vinyl fascia, the removal of the existing pilings and the
use of the helical screws to secure the system in place.
MR. O'BRIEN: If I have to --
MS. HULSE: Sir, I'm sorry, you can't comment right now. He's
making a motion. If you could hold off one section.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would just make a friendly amendment to that
motion, that the new construction results in a bulkhead that
doesn't project seaward of the neighbor's bulkhead to the east.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would agree with that, but I mention that it
conform to the code, so I would willingly add that to the
motion, that it not bump out from the neighbor to the east.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second the motion.
Board ofTrustees 20 January 23,2013
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Moving on to number throe, Costello Marine
Contracting Corp., on behalf of KATHRYN GRAY MELHUISH, MARY
PAYNE, GEORGE 8, WILLIAM GRAY request a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit to remove remains of existing wood deck,
55' of bulkhead and 20' m turn; construct 55' of new bulkhead
and 20' return, in-place; fill eroded ama with clean trucked
in fill (approximately 50 cubic yards); m-grade area;
reconstruct (replace) existing wood deck, in-place; remove
remains of existing jetty and construct new 36' Iow pm file
jetty, in-place. Located: 600 Rabbit Lane, East Marion.
The Conservation Advisory Council has looked at this and
supports the application and recommends the upland structures
are placed on pilings. The Board was out there and we took a
look at this. And we are pretty much bound by code that we must
recommend on a deck that is no larger than 200-square feet. The
LWRP coordinator has found this to be consistent and
inconsistent. It is consistent in the section that discusses
removal and m placement of the bulkhead and returns and
re-grading and replacing the Iow profile jetty. But inconsistent
in the fact the existing wood deck is larger than would be
allowed by coastal erosion code.
So with that being said, I'll ask is there anybody who
would like to address this application, have anything negative
to say about it?
MR. COSTELLO: Sorry about that. I just wanted to give him some
free advice that I couldn't do the work.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Basically, John, what we am doing here,
everything was fine. It was inconsistent with LWRP and we also
noted in the field the deck can't be more than 200-square feet.
That was pretty much it. If we can do this and keep the deck to
200-square feet, we are good to go.
MR. COSTELLO: The only trouble is, if you saw the size of the
property, the properties are very narrow. Like 55 feet, 42 feet,
37 feet. I believe the last one is 26 feet. 29. Very narrow. You
know what; the deck serves two purposes. Keeping fill them. It
certainly helps keep the fill. You know, they put rock in there
to try to keep the fill. Rock disperses all over. One of the
things is, if they lose fill on these bulkheads, they don't
really have access. We'll try to use access through one spot and
bring in the fill. It's all minimum. I think there is 50 yards,
25 yards, six yards, and another six yards. But once we get
through one access way, and it's going to be nearly impossible
to get back in there if a pemon loses fill because of the
exposure to wave energy. Those decks serve the purpose. And most
of those decks existed in some sort since 1938. And they have
been m-built, undoubtedly, because they would not be in
existence. But the deck serves as a buffer to break wave energy
so they don't lose fill. Just as long as you understand that. If
you start cutting down, they'll try to vegetate and try to keep
Board of Trustees 21 January 23, 2013
the vegetation, you have to keep the fill behind those bulkheads.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: John, we researched extensively. The
Coastal Erosion Hazard Act binds us to decks less than
200-square feet, or as an unregulated activity, it still has to
secure building and zoning approvals, but we are bound to the
200-square feet. We are not the relief-granting agency for decks
more than 200-square feet, and we are obliged for an applicant
who applies for more than that, based on the code, we can't
approve it, and an applicant would have to take it not only to
Building and Zoning for Zoning approval but would also have to
appeal the decision of the Board of Trustees to the Town Board
who is the relief-granting body for this.
MR. COSTELLO: I understand all of that, except pre-existing
decks -- I mean if they were all new, it's one thing, but if
they pre-existed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm speaking for myself, but if any of us
could wave the magic wand, I think we understand. Of course, I
have been to Rabbit Lane many, many times since the storm and
have been out to Marion Lake and understand what has happened
there with all the wave energy focused from Gardiners Bay. But
we didn't get that wrong. It's not part of our code.
MR. COSTELLO: It's the Board's jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: John, there is the opportunity for your client
also to use filter cloth and put a splash pad back them.
MR. COSTELLO: I would not recommend a splash pad. They move with
wave energy. Planting and the deck, the deck does not move. But
the plantings you could replace without bringing in equipment,
which is the intention.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just so you know, a number of people here in the
audience are here for replacement bulkheads tonight. Again, we
have been, based on the storm, we learned some lessons and
definitely I would, I'm not an engineer but I would certainly
recommend the inclusion of filter cloth immediately landward of
the bulkhead, because it does help to retain any material once
you get a wash over in a storm. It might not hold in a storm of
the magnitude of Sandy but it will sure hold in the magnitude of
a lot of other storms and help everybody out.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions or comments?
MS. MOORE: Just one question. Is this the Gray property?
MR. COSTELLO: It's one of them.
MS. MOORE: Just a point of information, Gray is actually, the
family is a client of mine. They are in the process of selling
the property to an adjacent, to the neighbor and they am trying
to restore. This is a family that has owned this house for
generations, and this damage has caused such financial
difficulty for them that they are forced to sell. The reality is
that there is, you see the orange area, that is, there was a
covered porch them. So what they are asking to replace is what
was presently there. What happened is because it was a covered
porch, the roof was leaning down and everybody felt for
insurance purposes, because given the condition of the house,
Board of Trustees 22 January 23, 2013
the insurance was an issue, being able to retain that footprint,
they just couldn't keep the roof up. So as far as this proposal,
they are trying to return, put back what was there, the coastal
erosion law, you know, it's, as you said, it's unregulated
activity but it doesn't mean it's not a permissible activity.
It's just whether it's considered an unregulated or major
action. You have the authority to issue a permit. That's why we
come to you for a coastal erosion permit. And this particular
property had that structure there. It was temporarily removed,
as I said, because it was a dangerous condition. But it's there.
Secondly, at one of my hearings, I pulled up some
documentation regarding emergency, the declaration of emergency
conditions in the town, and it does give authority both to any,
the governor, he called for a state of emergency during this
storm, the county executive and the supervisor. All three heads
declared this area as a state of emergency, and it allows for
modifications or deviations from the local ordinances to address
individual circumstances that are caused by these storms. So you
have the authority, you have the wherewithal, you have the
ability to act on these, and I think everybody here is looking,
many of them are looking to replace what was already there. This
was not an intentional act of removing structures. This was a
catastrophic event of storm damage. So it's, you know, insult
to injury to have the Town and the Trustees look at their code
as if it's, you know, a normal day. This was really a unique
circumstance, and the declaration of an emergency gives you that
extra protection to act in deviation or in modification of the
local ordinances. So I urge you to please consider that. You
are going to be, I mean John is here on this particular, they
are clients of mine, they are owners of the property, but I have
been listening and pretty much everybody is kind of coming to
you with very similar requests. So please keep it in mind.
I have the paperwork and I'll give it to Lori so she could
see it. It was very good on Google, you know, looking up
emergency action and I was checking with the supervisor's office
today and sure enough they did declare a state of emergency.
The papers said it, but the supervisor's office had it, it just
had to be faxed to whomever, and they didn't have a copy of it.
So please consider it. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I guess I would ask for a legal opinion from
counsel, given the fact there was a state of emergency, as Pat
alluded to from all the individuals, does that allow this Board
to not follow the code when somebody wants to rebuild a
structure?
MS. HULSE: No, it does not. And I have actually not just relied
on our code and case law, I contacted the state and talked to
numerous people there to see if we could have any kind of waiver
about any of the requirements in terms of repair due to storm
damage. In fact we cannot. The definition of "beach" does not
allow for any new development, unfortunately, and the Trustees
are really bound by the regulations under 111 as per the
Board of Trustees 23 January 23, 2013
dictates of the state. It's not up to this Board to decide
whether or not they could follow part or some or all of them. We
have been directed that this is the code we have to follow. If
we choose not to follow this, if the Trustees choose to deviate
from that, the entire administration of the coastal erosion
hazard area can be taken way from the town.
So I basically provided legal opinion to the Board that in
fact when it pertains to a beach there is no new development
permitted unless it's an unregulated activity, which means less
than 200-square feet, and there is also some contingency where
if it's a temporary structure. Other than that, the Board is
bound to follow the code.
MR. COSTELLO: I appreciate your time. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or questions?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess the only question I have. Are you
able to speak on behalf of the applicant? Are they willing to
accept an approval based on the unregulated less than 200-square
feet?
MR. COSTELLO: I'm sure they would. Absolutely. They have to
protect the property. The main part of the property, the
bulkhead, has to be number one.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As long as I understand, it's still a
regulated activity with respect to the Wetlands ordinance and we
need a set of plans and they would also have to apply for a
building permit as well. This is not the same as our typical
bulkhead where it doesn't need a Building Department approval.
Decks need approval from the Building Department.
MR. COSTELLO: For the bulkheads?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, I'm talking about the deck. In other
words, that 200-square foot deck would be unregulated under
Coastal Erosion but it still has to get a permit under the Town
Wetland Ordinance and requires a building permit from the
Building Department.
MR. COSTELLO: If you put the condition the deck has to be under
200-square feet, so be it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And a set of plans showing where it's going
to be.
MR. COSTELLO: So be it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: With that, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted with the exception and requirement that the deck be no
more than 200-square feet, which will make it consistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of
JOSEPH & JOANNA CHERNUSHKA request a Wetland Permit and a
Board of Trustees 24 January 23, 2013
Coastal Erosion Permit to remove remains of existing
wood deck, stairway to beach and 42' of bulkhead; construct 42'
of new bulkhead inplace and new 50' west bulkhead return; fill
eroded area with clean trucked in fill (approximately 25 cubic
yards); re-grade area; reconstruct (replace) existing wood deck
and stairway to beach in-place. Located: 640 Rabbit Lane, East Marion.
This was reviewed under LWRP. And in our notes it says
consistent and inconsistent. In reading the recommendation from
the LWRP coordinator, it's my recommendation that to remove
remains of existing wood deck, stairway to beach and 42 feet of
bulkhead, construct 42 feet of new bulkhead inplace and new
50-foot west bulkhead, fill eroded area with clean, trucked in
fill, regrade area and stairway to beach is consistent.
He doesn't list what is inconsistent in the application but
I think by process of elimination, what is inconsistent is
again, as with the previous application, and I'm looking at the
survey here that was submitted with this application, the wood
deck far exceeds 200 square feet.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
and recommends the upland structures are placed on pilings. The
Board did go out and looked at this and again we had no problem
with the plans other than the deck, that it would have to be
limited to 200-square feet. Anybody here to comment on this
application?
MR. COSTELLO: I agree with the Board.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Does anybody else have any comments on this
application? Any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: I think we have the same problem all along Rabbit
Lane. It's almost universal.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: 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 Joseph and Joanna Chemushka with
the condition the deck not be more than 200-square feet when
reconstructed, that we receive a set of plans depicting that,
and in doing so that would bring it fully into consistency under
LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next headng number five, Costello
Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of RICHARD FRIZZl request a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove remains of
existing wood deck, stairway to beach and 37' of bulkhead;
construct 37' of new bulkhead in-place; fill eroded area
with clean trucked in fill (approximately 6 cubic yards);
re-grade area; reconstruct (replace) existing wood deck and
stairway to beach in-place. Located: 680 Rabbit Lane,
East Marion.
Board of Trustees 25 January 23, 2013
The issues surrounding this application are identical to
the two preceding. The project as proposed was deemed consistent
with LWRP but inconsistent with respect to the deck replacement
which is greater than 200-square feet. The Conservation Advisory
Council was recommending that upland structures be placed on
pilings where possible. And the Board viewed the site and has as
cited similar conditions as those previously addressed in the
preceding two applications. Is there anybody here who wishes to
speak to this application?
MR. COSTELLO: I agree to the same conditions as the other
applications. I'll agree to the same for the fourth one, too, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Having heard that, are there any comments,
concerns of the Board?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this
application with the stipulation that the application have a
deck not exceeding 200-square feet; that new plans showing the
location of the 200-square foot deck be submitted, thus bringing
the project into consistency with the town's LWRP.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number six, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on
behalf of WILLIAM LEHMANN request a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to remove the remains of the existing wood walk,
stairway to beach and 29' of bulkhead; construct 29' of new
bulkhead in-place; fill eroded area with clean trucked in fill
(approximately 6 cubic yards); re-grade area; reconstruct
(replace) existing wood walk and stairway to beach in-place.
Located: 730 Rabbit Lane, East Marion.
This was found consistent and inconsistent, again. And the
inconsistency was for the existing wood walk located in the
coastal erosion hazard area. John, weren't those walkways on
ground level?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: It was right on the ground.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe the measurements we took were less
than 200-square feet, for point of information.
TRUSTEE KING: And there was no application for any deck or
anything, was there? (Perusing). No. Just for the walkway.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support it
and recommends the dwelling is moved to the applicant's property
across the street or place it on pilings. The Conservation
Advisory Council also recommends removing or lowering the
existing groin. This is just another example of tremendous
Board of Trustees 26 January 23, 2013
damage. I feel so bad for these people. Any comments from
anybody? Because this does not have a large deck.
(No response).
Any comments from the audience?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
MS. MOORE: Sorry, one more. I don't like to be told I'm wrong,
sorry. For the record, I pulled out information from local chief
executives regarding declaring a state of emergency and issuing
emergency orders. There is a question and answer section and
what one of the questions is: Can a local state of emergency be
used to suspend existing local laws. And the answer is yes. And
the procedure to do that would be to ask the supervisor as the
designated head of the municipality to suspend certain local
laws, and with respect to, I mean this is coming from the, under
the Executive Law. The DEC, the Army Corps and Department of
State have all adopted suspensions to their laws in order to
allow most of the people here to build emergency bulkheads where
the permits, your procedures were if you had a permit you come
back, but if you don't have a permit you need a permit, the
grandfather thing or get permits for structures. What I'm
seeing, I find very upsetting to me because people are coming in
to legalize or to, I don't say legalize because they were legal
from the beginning, but to give permits for existing structures,
and you feel constrained by way the code is written. There is a
provision here, everybody that is on Rabbit Lane would have the
authority to put back, and what Mr. Costello pointed out is that
the decks provide more than just esthetic value here. They are
part of the structure to preserve the integrity of the bulkhead
and to protect the bulkhead. So of all places, Rabbit Lane
seems to me imperative that the supervisor consider allowing for
the suspension of certain procedures and local laws. And I
appreciate you calling, I'm sure for the coastal erosion, but
these are -- cite them to this, because if you are asking the
regulators under Coastal Erosion Program, of course they are
going to tell you, no, you can't do it. Follow whatever the code
says. That's not the case. This is where it is pointed out and
there is a method to do it so people are not delayed. Of course,
you can give them the permits for the 200 because it allows them
to move through the process and get started. But in the
meantime, please, I would urge you to look into this and see if
you can't do modification under the Coastal Erosion Program
because, as I said, the 200-square feet just appears to be
somewhat inadequate here as part of the structural integrity of
the bulkheads. Sorry, I'm trying not to be confrontational, but
I did the research, I looked at it and I thought there had to be
something to allow the Trustees suspend local ordinances when we
have had situations with emergencies. So I'll give it to Lori.
TRUSTEE KING: Pat, I think what you are talking about is beyond
this Board's authority.
MS. MOORE: I don't disagree.
Board of Trustees 27 January 23, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: It's for the Town Board and supervisor.
MS. HULSE: Her statement of the facts is not as I reviewed them.
I'm sorry. I would respectfully disagree with your legal opinion
on that. I understand what you are saying but I have also done
my due diligence in trying to inform this Board. I understand
what you are saying, Pat, but I think you are mis-applying it.
TRUSTEE KING: I think every applicant here also has the
opportunity to appeal our decision to the Town Board. And that's
if they want to go that route, that's the route to go.
MS. MOORE: I would urge everybody here to do a mass appeal.
TRUSTEE KING: We have to do what we are authorized to do. That
goes beyond our authority.
MS. MOORE: I know you all want to help people. I know that you
are all there to be helpful.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, we are not here trying to give people a hard
time, believe me.
MS. MOORE: I understand that, so please don't let my comments --
MS. HULSE: Pat, you are stating the exceptions that the DEC has
granted. I mean some of what you said was good advocacy but it
was not in terms of --
MS. MOORE: I'm saying that the DEC implemented --
MS. HULSE: I don't want to argue with you, I just disagree with
what you said, in part.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. I come from the yes we can do it
mentality and I would hope the town looks at it and says yes, we
can do it, let's see how. And I see from that paperwork that
it's the supervisor has that authority. You know, you could go
to the governor if you want and I'm sure he'll give you that
authority, too, so.
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to move along with this. We have a
lot ahead of us.
MR. COSTELLO: Can I make one comment to the Board. Last thing I
wish to be is a lawyer. I want to be a marine contractor and my
job is to try to protect these properties. And asking you to
okay the bulkheads first, if any one of these people want to
come back and enlarge the deck for any reason, they can make an
application to you and it can be waived by the other people.
TRUSTEE KING: They have the opportunity, yes. Thank you, John.
So I would make a motion to close the hearing on this application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
it's been submitted because there is no large deck to worry
about. The inconsistency, this is just a small wooden walkway
along the side of the house at ground level. I find it's well
within any of our regulations. To me, in my mind, it would not
even be considered, I find this application to be consistent.
MS. HULSE: I think the difficulty that the LWRP coordinator had
was in the measurements. I don't think he had the measurements,
so he had to write it inconsistent because of that.
Boa~ofTrustees 28 January23,2013
TRUSTEE KING: In the field we noted a little wooden walkway
right down on the ground. It's insignificant. I'll make a motion
to approve.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number seven, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of PAUL
DOMBROWSKI requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit
to replace 28 linear feet of storm damaged bulkhead in-place
with a proposed +/-12' return on the western end; replenish fill
behind bulkhead lost during storm; and remove and replace
existing storm damaged +/-26' x +/-26' decking on seaward side
of dwelling, +/-51'L x +/-6~/V decking along west side of
dwelling, and +/-19'L x +/-5.5~/V decking on landward side of
dwelling. Located: 50 Rabbit Lane, East Marion.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent and
inconsistent. The inconsistency involves the size of the deck
seaward on the western side and landward of the dwelling. The
Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this application
noting that the building should be put on pilings.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. I think
Mr. Costello said everything that needs to be said on this
application with respect to his previous ones. I have one
question regarding the 200-square foot deck, which my client
does agree to do. That is on the water side of the Coastal
Erosion Zone, correct?
TRUSTEE KING: No, I think it's within the Coastal Erosion Zone.
MR. PATANJO: So that doesn't apply to the walkway going
alongside the building, correct?
TRUSTEE KING: If it's in coastal erosion, it would.
MR. PATANJO: It's outside of.
TRUSTEE KING: It would not apply then.
MR. PATANJO: My client agrees to the 200-square feet then.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are there any further comments from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this
hearing
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the condition that the deck be less than 200-square feet
and that we receive a set of plans depicting that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number eight, En-Consultants on behalf of EDWARD
& RACHEL FLANNIGAN requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to construct approximately 68 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead
and +/-10' vinyl return in place of (and 12 inches higher than) existing storm
Board of Trustees 29 January 23, 2013
damaged (Hurricane Sandy) timber bulkhead and return to be removed;
remove and replace (as needed) +/-6'x9' wood deck and +/-3'x8' stairs;
reconstruct storm damaged +/-4'x6' deck; construct 4'x8' steps to beach;
and re-nourish storm eroded area landward of bulkhead with approximately
25 cubic yards of clean sandy fill to be re-vegetated with native vegetation.
Located: 330 South Lane, East Marion.
The Conservation Advisory Council went out and took a look
at this and they resolved to support the application to
reconstruct the bulkhead at the same height to match the
neighboring bulkheads. The LWRP coordinator found this
consistent and inconsistent; again, addressing the deck on the
application as inconsistent.
The Board went out and took a look at this, and frankly we
didn't find anything objectionable. It was replacing what was
there before. The deck was small. It's a 6x9 wood deck.
Is there anybody here who would like to speak for or
against this application? I imagine you are from En-Consultants?
MS. STEPHENS: Yes. Kim Stephens from Eh-Consultants. I have the
public notices, the return receipts to turn in on behalf of this
project. The contractor is here also should you have any questions.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you. I believe the LWRP coordinator may
have just addressed this because it was a deck that originally
didn't have a permit. Aside from that it, it fits within the
criteria of less than 200-square feet. So I don't see anything
that would stop us from approving this. Are there any comments
from the Board?
(No response).
Any other comments from the audience?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KING: These are all, eight, nine and ten, are all next
door neighbors to each other and basically all the same
application. We didn't have a problem with any of them.
MS. HULSE: You can do them all together if they agree to it.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Do the folks from Eh-Consultants have any
problem with if we group eight, nine and ten together? They are
neighbors of each other and basically all the same application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I just reviewed the file. It's identical
issues. The inconsistency was a matter just to make sure the
structure had a permit and it's consistent with less than
200-square feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have the file that is on the agenda number
nine for Meyer and Cippitelli and it's the same thing. It
appears as though the total decking is under 200-square feet and
the inconsistency was for the very same reason.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: So if there are no objections and no other
comments, I'll make a motion that we combine eight, nine and ten
as this one hearing. Nine and ten read as follows:
En-Consultants on behalf of JONATHAN & CHRISTINE MEYER &
JOSEPHINE ClPPITELLI request a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to construct approximately 69 linear feet of
vinyl bulkhead in place of (and +/-12 inches higher than)
Board of Trustees 30 January 23, 2013
existing storm damaged (Hurricane Sandy) timber bulkhead; remove
and replace (as needed) +/-8'x10' wood deck; reconstruct storm
damaged +/-3'x9' stairway and +/-3'x5' deck; construct 4'x8'
steps to beach; and re-nourish storm eroded area landward of
bulkhead with approximately 150 cubic yards of clean sandy fill
to be re-vegetated with native vegetation. Located: 370 South
Lane, East Marion.
And number ten, En-Consultants on behalf of PETER & MARISA
PATINELLA requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit
to construct approximately 74 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead
and +/-13' vinyl return in place of (and +/-12 inches higher
than) existing storm damaged (Hurricane Sandy) timber bulkhead
and return to be removed; reconstruct storm damaged +/-5'x9'
deck and +/-5'x9' stairs; construct +/-6'x6' deck in place of
storm destroyed 4.5' wide deck; construct 4'x8' steps to beach;
and re-nourish storm eroded area landward of bulkhead with
approximately 150 cubic yards of clean sandy fill to be
re-vegetated with native vegetation. Located: 440 South Lane,
East Marion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Should we first find out if anybody else in the
audience has any comments?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I did.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, I apologize.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't see anybody jumping up.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Nope. I just wanted to give everyone an
opportunity.
MS. HULSE: Ms. Stephens, have you provided notices on all
those?
MS. STEPHENS: Yes, I did.
TRUSTEE KING: Second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to close the
hearing on eight, nine and ten.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to approve eight,
nine and ten as submitted noting that the inconsistency
concerning the decks from the LWRP coordinator is being
addressed by this, by the permit that we'll issue and that these
decks are under 200-square feet.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Under Wetland Permits, number one, ROBERT KARPAS
requests a Wetland Permit to repair and/or replace approximately
Board of Trustees 31 January 23, 2013
90' of vinyl sheathing beach bulkhead which has been damaged as
a result of Hurricane Sandy; and backfill storm eroded area.
Located: 320 West Shore Drive, Southold.
This has been found exempt from the LWRP. The Conservation
Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of
a ten-foot non-turf buffer planted with native vegetation and
the slope is re-vegetated with native species.
This is an unusual situation where the bulkhead is actually
being built on association property from Reydon Shores, so there
is a letter in here authorizing that, that they allow putting
the bulkhead on their property.
We all went out and looked at this. It was a
straightforward application. And we do want to see the
vegetation re-vegetated - disturbed vegetation replanted. I
think I would like to see a little better drawing with a profile
of the bulkhead. This is not quite what we usually accept.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of the
application?
(No response).
Any Board comments?
(No response).
Seeing no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSiO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with
the stipulation we need a little better set of plans showing the
profile and the buffer from the top of the bluff down needs to
be left in its natural state. And any disturbed areas to be
replanted. I think that would be my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number two, ROBERT NELSON requests a Wetland
Permit to reconstruct +/-45' of existing bulkhead and existing
returns that were damaged during Hurricane Sandy; using
CCA-treated piling and stringers, and vinyl interlocking
sheathing (C-Loc 9900 or equivalent); reconstruct storm damaged
4'x8'8" stairs to beach. Located: 2955 Bayshore Road, Greenport.
The Conservation Advisory Council did visit this
application and resolved to support the application. This is to
reconstruct a bulkhead and stairway. The LWRP coordinator has
found this to be except from LWRP and noted the proposed
structures are not located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard
Area.
The Board was out and we took a look at it. We did note we
would like to see a ten-foot non-turf buffer. It is pretty much
set up for that at this point, so that will be easily done. So
we would like to add that to the application of Robert Nelson,
MR. NELSON: My name is Robert Nelson. I would like to point out
Board of Trustees 32 January 23, 2013
in August we implemented covenants and restrictions on this
property which included a ten-foot non-turf buffer as part of
our application to build a deck which exists on the property
now. So.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That would explain why it looks like there was a
ten-foot non-turf buffer. We just want to make sure we put it in
here anyway. But that's okay. Duly noted, Aside from that,
again, it's pretty straightforward. Is there anybody here who
would like to speak against the application?
(No response).
Any comments from the Board? Questions?
TRUSTEE KING: No, it was a simple one.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 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, just adding it will have a ten-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Judith Crabtree Duffy on behalf of
JANE C. STARK request a Wetland Permit to remove 68 feet of
lower bulkhead and 68 feet of upper retaining wall destroyed by
Hurricane Sandy; construct new vinyl bulkhead with 12' return
and new vinyl retaining wall with 12' return; top of lower
bulkhead to be 18 inches higher than previous bulkhead; top of
retaining wall to be 12 inches higher than previous retaining
wall to match neighbor's bulkheads; construct upper and lower
beach stairs and connecting walkway destroyed by Hurricane
Sandy; fill lawn area with approximately 250 cubic yards of
clean fill; restore 11 foot non-turf buffer between bulkhead and
retaining wall; replant with native sea grass. Located: 3080
Great Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel.
This was found to be consistent with the LWRP. The
Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support the
application because it was insufficient information, and
recommends a site plan.
I looked at this myself, think it was just a pretty
straightforward application. There is no picture. Like I said,
I didn't have any issues with this application. I don't know why
-- is there anybody here from the CAC?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KING: I was going to ask why they wanted to see the site
plan.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He's not here anymore. I thought he was here
Before.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): What is the CAC?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The Conservation Advisory Council. It's a Town
Board committee.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): I see. Yes.
Board of Trustees 33 January 23, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just looking at my field notes that I took and
I have nothing, no questions. So any other comments?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, number four, CHRIS R.
SHOWALTER requests a Wetland Permit to repair in-kind of
existing concrete seawall approximately 122' of new vinyl
bulkhead with new 9" diameter piles @ 6'0" O.C. attached to new
tie rods and backing system; with a +/-19'6" return and +/-14'0"
return. Located: 1015 Orchard Lane, Southold.
This is deemed consistent with the LWRP and the
Conservation Advisory Council did not support application
because the adjacent properties do not have any bulkheads or
seawalls. The CAC recommends exploring alternative ways to
protect the shoreline.
The Trustees went out on field inspection. It was noted
that a seawall, which probably had no prior permit, had been
poorly constructed back quite some time ago and, absent proper
footings and supports, had failed, and might even have been the
case of a more properly constructed seawall during Tropical
Storm Sandy. And I know our field notes indicated that the
Trustees felt that an alternative, possibly a consideration of
thousand pounds or thereabouts of stone wall with a filter cloth
backing would possibly be a better route to stabilize the
property and not encourage excessive structure. As the CAC
found, there is no neighboring bulkheads and the inundation of
this property was a bit unusual because it's within Cedar Beach,
that ordinarily the barrier beach there is not topped.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak?
MR. SHOWALTER: I'm Chris Showalter, the owner. As you said, it
doesn't normally get topped, but obviously in Hurricane Sandy it
was. It was also topped in Irene. And since this damage occurred
we have since had two nor'easters, and there has been
significant erosion down and amongst those clumps of beach grass
in there. I have a photograph from a company called AeroGraphics
who specialize in documenting conditions of properties, and that
seawall existed in April of 1976, as best I can tell. The
original CO on the property goes back to 1966, so ten years
prior. I have no idea who constructed it, how and when, but my
main intent is to protect my landward property from future
damage.
TRUSTEE KING: It looked to me like the water got behind it and
the weight of the water flopped it over.
Boar of Trustees 34 January 23,2013
MR. SHOWALTER: I think that's probably what happened. Because if
you look where it is, at either end it goes back about ten feet,
I think the water just pooled behind it and pulled it down as it
receded. So the permit as written requests a vinyl bulkhead, and
you guys felt that was inconsistent with the nature of the
neighboring properties?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The consistency is a different issue. The
project has been deemed consistent by the LWRP coordinator
because of the prior structure existing there, and it predates
the permitting. I think the Trustees and the Conservation
Advisory Council had concerns about putting hard, reflective
structure there that might exacerbate erosion in the future, so
the stone revetment or a few of stone material with filter cloth
seemingly, based on our experience, provides protection but does
not have those sharp angles that would be directing water along
the face of the bulkhead and along neighboring properties.
In the alternative, I know we'll see also a bulkhead
structure but then we might ask to have stone material placed in
front to absorb wave energy. That's a lot of what we see.
Typically we don't like to start hard-faced navy-type bulkheads
where neighbors don't have them, and they tend to grow more
bulkheads. And there is a general prohibition against new
bulkheads in the bay, so we don't like to, even though it's a
replacement, we don't want to set in motion a situation that
would put us in a difficult situation where the neighboring
property, particularly in these storms, might tend to see
erosion on the edge of the returns.
MR. SHOWALTER: I believe that's why the gentleman who drew up
the plans actually softened the corners on the returns too, so
it deflected a little bit instead of forcing it onto neighboring
properties. So your second suggestion is vinyl bulkhead with
stone in front of it.'?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's a determination of the whole Board.
We see that in some cases. I'm not making that suggestion.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we talked about a row of stone.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We talked about a row of stone instead of
bulkhead, maybe thousand pound stone material with filter cloth
backing.
TRUSTEE KING: Technically new bulkheads are not allowed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: By code, technically, new bulkheads are not
allowed. Correct. And this would be a new bulkhead because it's
what is there is defunct. Not functional.
TRUSTEE KING: I doubt there was ever a permit on that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It predates it, I believe.
MR. SHOWALTER: It was there in '76. I know that. Prior to that,
I have no idea. So I would be comfortable with thousand pound
stone as you suggested.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments or questions?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
Board of Trustees 35 January 23, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application with the stipulation that a new plan be returned
showing the location and a cross-section of the proposed stone
wall in the vicinity of the proposed location that has shown the
bulkhead on the plan. So it would be subject to new plans.
TRUSTEE KING: And all the concrete blocks to be removed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All existing stone, excuse me, all concrete
blocks and broken wall to be removed. So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five, JACK BIGGANE requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a timber stairway on the bluff; stair treads
to be an untreated lumber. Located: 8871 Oregon Road, Cutchogue.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be
consistent. The CAC supports the application with an engineered
erosion plan for the structure. Again, this was just a timber
stairway from the bluff.
TRUSTEE KING: It was previously permitted.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. It was previously permitted and it had
expired. Is there anybody here who would like to speak on behalf
of this application?
MR. BIGGANE: I'm Jack Biggane.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We really have no questions for you. Any
questions from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: No. It's something we already approved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any comments from anybody in the audience?
(No response).
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
Jack Biggane at 8871 Oregon Road, Cutchogue, as deemed
consistent under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number six, DOUGLAS & BENITA PEARSALL request a
Wetland Permit to reconstruct the storm damaged 62' long
bulkhead in-place using 12' vinyl sheathing, 6"x6" CCA top &
bottom stringers, 10"x16" fencer piles 6' on center, 4"x6" top
clamp, 2"x8" ACQ perpendicular cap, 1"x10" tie rods, backing
system of 8"x8" backing piles, all wood to be CCA, hardware to
be hot dipped galvanized; additional fill if needed to be
supplied from off site. Located: 520 West Shore Drive, Southold.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. I'll
quote. Structures described were not constructed pursuant to
Board of Trustees Wetland Permit. The Conservation Advisory
Boa~ of Trustees 36 Janua~ 23,2013
Council resolved to support the application. There is a note
that the Town attorney mailed official notification to Ms.
Pearsall that she needs authorization from Reydon Shores
Property Owners Association.
And lastly, on our field notes, when we inspected, I
personally inspected this and found it to be a straightforward
repair of a storm damaged bulkhead.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MS. PEARSALL: Benita Pearsall. We have a letter from Reydon
Shores Property Owners Association, and I think one was faxed by
the president.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you. Any comments from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing no comments, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
noting that the issuance of a permit will address the inconsistency.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number seven, ESTATE OF LAWRENCE M. TUTHILL
requests a Wetland Permit for the existing floating and fixed
docks and to repair all floating docks and fixed docks as a
result of Hurricane Sandy. Located: 945 Orchard Street, New Suffolk.
The Conservation Advisory Council did look at it and felt
it was insufficient documentation at this time to make a
recommendation. They are recommending an updated site plan. We
did go out to see it on Sunday and by the time we got there we
found there was sufficient documentation in the file to look at
it. The LWRP finds it to be inconsistent with the LWRP,
primarily because it did not have an existing permit.
We went out, we took a look, we met with everybody down
there that day. The folks that would know exactly the history of
this. And frankly, it's a marina. As I understand it, it's M-l,
private bottom. We didn't find anything out of the ordinary or
anything there that we would not think should be permitted. It's
pretty straightforward really. All the documentation is in the file.
If there is anybody here like to speak against this application?
(No response).
The existing marina today has been there for a long time. I
don't remember there being any comments or questions from the
Board.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just had one condition, that in the event that
any of these docks need to be replaced, that they not extend
seaward of any of the present docks. It's a very narrow waterway
and I know, I asked the question, I'm sure the applicant has no
problem with that. We just don't want it to impede navigation in
the channel.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): We don't want that either.
Board of Trustees 37 January 23, 2013
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions or comments?
(No response).
If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would make a motion to approve the application
as submitted noting that should anything ever need to be
replaced in the future, that it conform to the current
dimensions of any configuration of what is there. And by
permitting this we'll then find it consistent with LWRP. Do I
have a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in be favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, Richard Zahra, President on behalf
of MARLENE LANE CIVIC ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit to
remove +/-125 linear feet of storm damaged bulkhead and replace
with code compliant new bulkhead; replace lost fill; and replace
two 4'x4' platforms with two 4' wide sets of stairs to beach
that were washed out by the storm; stairs will comply
with existing code and construction standards. Located: 11012
Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Mattituck.
This was found consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation
Advisory Council resolved to not support the wetland
application. It does not support the application because there
is insufficient information, and recommends a site plan for the
project.
We all went out there and looked at it. There, again, it's
a storm damaged bulkhead that they want to replace and bring it
up to current standards. Is there anybody here to speak for or
against this application?
MR. GILLY: Mike Gilly, Marlene Lane Civic Association and
Richard Zahra.
TRUSTEE KING: It looked pretty straightforward to me. The only
thing in our field notes, the disturbed area behind the bulkhead
to be re-vegetated with natural vegetation. Other than that, I
didn't have any issues with it. Anybody else?
(No response).
Does anybody else have any comments?
(No response).
Board?
(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 as
submitted with re-vegetation of the disturbed areas of the bank.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 38 January 23, 2013
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number nine, John N. Blakely on behalf of RJJ
PROPERTIES LLC requests a Wetland Permit to replace lost sand,
and replace destroyed existing 14'x44' deck and 8'3"x12'2"
bathhouse from Hurricane Sandy; and to permit the existing
+/-100' long retaining wall and +/-3' x +/-30' stairs.
Located: 7225 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
This was found to be exempt and inconsistent; with the
replacing of the lost sand and the permit for the retaining wall
to be exempt. He does not state what the inconsistency is here.
The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the
application to replace lost sand and replace the deck and
bathhouse because the plan doesn't indicate the location of the
mean high water line. The Conservation Advisory Council
recommends moving the dwelling back away from the bluff and
installing a non-turf buffer planted with native vegetation
along the top of the bluff. The Board did go out and looked at this.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. BLAKELY: John Blakely.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: John, in our files we cannot find a permit for
either the bathhouse or the deck. Do you know, do you have any
permits for that, previous permits for that bathhouse or that deck?
MR. BLAKELY: There were no previous permits for the bathhouse,
the deck or the stairs. And that was on my application to get a
permit for the bathhouse, the deck and the stairs.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. The challenge we have is it was not an
approved structure and it disappeared. And, again, it goes back
to are we going to allow a structure that is not allowed in code
to be placed back. In other words this bathhouse. The deck is a
very large deck but it's between the bulkhead and the retaining
wall and so myself, personally, I don't know how the rest of the
Board feels, since that's a non-turf buffer area, as we had
described with a previous application, if the deck is sloped
slightly so that water drains landward rather than seaward by
maybe an inch to two inch elevation, and the boards, that there
is three-eighths to half-inch of space between the boards, I
don't have a problem then with that deck. I don't know how the
Board feels about the bathhouse since it was not permitted, it's
non-conforming and it's disappeared and now he wants us to give
him a permitted bathhouse back there.
Any comments from the Board related to that issue?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is that it?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I believe so. There was no remains of the bath
house there, Post Sandy.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: But I mean that is the one, isn't it.'?
MR. BLAKELY: No, that is someone else's.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is the Horsmann (sic) residence, correct?
MR. BLAKELY: Yes. The picture is not Horsmann.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking at the pictures submitted with the
application right now.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It was getting dark and we had 80 pictures, so.
Board of Trustees 39 January 23, 2013
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I see a picture that is circa 2001 showing
this bathhouse there. So the bathhouse was there, again, it says
circa 2001. What is the feeling of the Board with regard to this
bathhouse.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I could support the decking as you described,
the spacing and the slope. We have seen instances where that
was, that helped save or reduce erosion. But I'm, I cannot
support putting back the nonconforming bathhouse.
TRUSTEE KING: It's completely gone?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, the pictures show it's completely gone.
Correct? That bathhouse is completely gone?
MR. BLAKELY: Yes, all the decking and all the bathhouse,
completely gone.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would echo Trustee Domino's sentiments. I
think it would be a lot of heartache. We can't pre-judge but it
would have to go to Zoning approval as well, so it would just
start to make more difficulties than is probably -- I don't
think it's advisable to try and put it back.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is a picture of the application. This is
circa 2001, what was there.
MR. BLAKELY: If it would help in your decision, the wording in
the past survey was "bathhouse." It actually was a shed, without
running water.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would ask for counsel's opinion on this. With
the pre-existing nonconforming structure, if we have an
opportunity to downsize and put something there that is smaller,
or would it still be a violation of code?
MS. HULSE: Give me one second. It's not in Coastal Erosion. So
it's under 235.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All it really was a shed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a matter if the code will allow it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You call it a bathhouse?
MR. BLAKELY: That is because the original survey said bathhouse.
So I kept it to the letter, but it was just a storage shed.
MS. HULSE: Just to clarify what the code says: That no
structures on beaches, bluffs or dunes unless approved by the
Board's discretion based on site inspection. So it would be at
your discretion, however it would have on conform to Zoning
requirements, and so that, just to caution you, you would have
to meet the requirements under Chapter 280 of the code.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. What I would ask the applicant then if he
would consider an 8x12 shed with no plumbing or electricity down
there.
MR. BLAKELY: We would be very willing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The description would not read "bathhouse," it
would read "storage shed." And again, just to caution you, you
should consult with the Zoning Board of Appeals to see if in
doing so you need a variance from ZBA.
MR. BLAKELY: Will do.
MS. HULSE: That's without running water, correct?
Board of Trustees 40 January 23, 2013
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No running water, no electric.
TRUSTEE KING: No water, no electric. Strictly someplace to store
beach chairs, whatever.
MR. BLAKELY: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anybody else have any comments?
(No response).
Any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have a problem with that.
Environmentally it's not doing anything.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are not on a beach or dune, that's fine.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And I don't have a problem with the shed, so
defined.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, I'll make a motion to close the public
hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
RJJ Properties at 722 Nassau Point Road, with the condition of
bathhouse be changed to an 8x12 shed with no running water and
no electricity.
MS. HULSE: And to conform with Zoning requirements.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And it must conform with Zoning requirements.
And in doing so would bring it into consistency under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number ten, Mark Schwartz,
Architect on behalf of PHILIP MILOT requests a Wetland Permit to
raise the house to elevate height of foundation by 5 courses of
concrete block (40" +/-); deck posts to be replaced with new
concrete piers; replace stairs, adjusted for raised height;
repair/replace any structural members or damaged
interior/exterior materials as a result of raising house.
Located: 4185 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck.
The project has been determined to be exempt under the
LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
with the condition that a non-turf vegetated buffer be
installed. The Trustees looked at the site and reviewed the
application. It was straightforward, we had no problem with
raising the house, given the circumstances surrounding Tropical
Storm Sandy. The only concern we had was the issue that there
was no deck there to be raised, apparently destroyed and
removed. And that we realize that a deck would have to conform
to Building and Zoning requirements, of the Building and Zoning
code. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on this application?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz, architect for the project. Just
here to answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The file was reviewed in-house in addition to
the field survey, and the deck is the sticking point, if you
will, for this application, that it would need Zoning Board
Board of Trustees 41 January 23, 2013
approval, and that we probably are not in a position to make a
determination without a ZBA approval. So it might be most
proper and best processing if maybe we table the application so
you had an opportunity to talk to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. MILOT: That house was rebuilt back in 1988, and you should
have, I think I had permits for everything. Including that deck.
In addition to which we put a new bulkhead in last year, you may
remember, and there was no question about that deck at that
time. The deck is not there because it was completely torn off
and removed. Certainly it was no problem last year.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's because you applied for a bulkhead. You
were not applying for a deck last year. Correct?
MR. MILOT: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So that's why there was no problem last year.
You were applying for a bulkhead and we approved the bulkhead.
Now you are applying for a deck and what we have identified is
there is a potential ZBA issue here.
MR. MILOT: I'm applying to raise the house.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have a question about that, Mark. With FEMA
regulations, and the fact that this is concrete block and you
want to raise it with concrete blocks, I'm not an engineer, but
from an engineering perspective, I would think raising the house
would be better off on pilings rather than concrete block
because you'll have, in another major storm, the water bashing
against concrete, where if it's pilings, it flows underneath.
I'm not an engineer.
MR. MILOT: When the house was rebuilt in 1988, in order to
satisfy FEMA there are two 3'x3' holes in the foundation in the
front, on the water side and also on the other side to allow the
water to pass through.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right, thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Also, to the best of our knowledge, the deck that
was there was approved as a legal part of the structure. I'm not
sure why we would have to go back to the Zoning Board to rebuild
something that --
MS. HULSE: Did you get a disapproval from the Building
Department yet?
MR. SCHWARTZ: No.
MS. HULSE: That's probably your first course of action then.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think tabling it is prudent. Any
additional comments?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Unless the applicant would like to remove the
deck from the application, then we could move forward with the
rest of the application to allow him to start work on the house.
TRUSTEE KING: You mean the ZBA?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That, I don't know. I have no idea -- obviously
everything is subject to approval from other agencies.
MR. MILOT: Are you saying that deck was not approved in 19887
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, that's not what I'm saying. What we are
saying here tonight is there is a potential issue with the deck
Board of Trustees 42 January 23, 2013
with the ZBA. So what I was suggesting is if you just remove
the deck from this application, we could possibly proceed
forward with the rest of the application tonight. If not, if you
would like to keep the deck in there, that's fine. I think what
I'm hearing is the Board is leaning toward tabling the entire
application until discussions can be held with ZBA and/or
Building Department.
MR. MILOT: No, I need to lift the house and get things going. So
I would take it out of the application.
TRUSTEE KING: The house is within 75 feet of the bulkhead. He
may need approval to raise the house.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I didn't hear that before. If that's true, maybe
the best course of action is to table this until the ZBA can
review it. I was just trying to help the applicant out, that's all.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further discussion?
(No response).
We can't bandy this about. There is no further way to get
headway on this.
MR. MILOT: So this --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm in the process of closing the hearing,
unless you have any more additional comments, specifically, for
the record, I'm going to close the hearing.
MR. MILOT: One comment, I do believe the Building Department
will not send you to the Zoning Board if you are only raising an
existing structure in the existing location. The deck, maybe
it's a different issue because that's gone.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The deck is attached to the structure, and
we don't have a deck there. I believe counsel spoke on the issue
and she believes it is in our best interest if we table. So that
said, I think at this point I would like to close the hearing
with respect to counsel's recommendation.
MR. MILOT: So every house that is within 75 feet of a bulkhead
that people want to raise they have to go to Zoning Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm not saying that. As counsel spoke, there
is a deck there that is not there that you are proposing that is
within the 75 feet that is part of the structure. It's part of the home.
MS. HULSE: It's typically the policy of the Board not to segment
the application in that matter. If you need ZBA, it's more
prudent to go there first.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Either that or you end up coming back and forth
and back and forth, and they have the overriding say in this
particular matter. So it makes it a little easier on you. We
have the application, the hearing has been opened. So all you
have to do, once you get the approval from the other agencies,
you come back and we get, so that we are all coordinated and you
don't have to re-apply for a whole new application and a whole
new hearing. It's probably the prudent way to go.
MR. MILOT: Although the Zoning Board, it will probably take a
couple of months to through the Zoning Board.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You won't be able to start the work without that
anyway.
Board of Trustees 43 January 23, 2013
MR. MILOT: Even if we separate the deck from the house?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If it turns out that it has to go before the ZBA
then you get a stop work order and have to start from scratch
anyway.
MR. MILOT: Okay, so we'll leave the hearing open?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We'll table it, yes.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll table it. It will be automatically on for
next month.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further discussion?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 11, DKR Shores, Inc., on behalf of KEVlN
WHITROCK requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 40' navy style
vinyl bulkhead in-place of existing small stone revetment; to
construct (2) 10' vinyl returns along property line; to backfill
structure with approximately 35 cubic yards of clean sand
trucked in from an upland source; to establish a 10' stone
splash-pad on filter fabric immediately landward of new
bulkhead. Located: 580 Terry Path, Mattituck.
The LVVRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The
Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support this
application and recommends that the rock revetment be enhanced
and replanted with native vegetation pending clarification of
the legal status of new bulkheads.
The Trustees visited this site and found no problems with
the application. Is there anyone here to speak to this
application?
MS. RIGDON-HOFFMANN: Agena Rigdon-Hoffmann from DKR Shores, as
agent.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any comments from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing no further comments, I 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 as
submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES).
MS. RIGDON-HOFFMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number 12, Natural Images Landscaping on behalf of
PETER KRANES requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing
retaining wall; reinstall new vinyl wall approximately 163' long; and
existing deck 7' toward house.
Located: 7480 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
MS. MOORE: I'm here if you need anything, but this is pretty
Board of Trustees 44 January 23, 2013
straightforward, so.
TRUSTEE KING: This was found inconsistent with LWRP.
MS. MOORE: I don't know why.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't know why either. Let me just get through
this, Pat. The structures described were not constructed
pursuant to Board of Trustees Wetland Permit.
MS. MOORE: I think he's confused. This has, the bulkhead was
constructed and it's there. What he's proposing on doing is
moving the old retaining wall.
TRUSTEE KING: Have you got the right one?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Kranes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Natural Images is the agent.
MS. MOORE: Natural Images brought me in. You have my
authorization in the file.
TRUSTEE KING: Hold on, hold on. Are you trying to confuse me?
It doesn't take much, you know. I don't see anything in here,
Pat, as far as you weighing in on it.
MS. MOORE: Lucky me, I have been hired. I know we sent it over.
I don't know. Well, I'll get it to you tomorrow, Ill get you
another one. It might be by E-mail.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay.
MS. MOORE: Is Mr. or Mm. Kranes here?
(No response).
I guess they didn't make it.
Okay, when you went back out, the bulkhead was built
previously, which was still in place and still in good shape.
TRUSTEE KING: Hang on a second, Pat.
MS. MOORE: This is not the right picture.
TRUSTEE KING: We met the gentleman out there. We met the owner
there.
MS. MOORE: Yes, he told me he met you out there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is the property.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: He had a permit for the bulkhead. There was an
existing permit for the bulkhead. He wanted to transfer it.
MS. MOORE: Yes. That's what you had earlier.
TRUSTEE KING: Now that's what I put aside because I want to
include it in this application. I want to keep things simple.
MS. MOORE: Okay. I'm just trying to answer whoever gave you that
recommendation that didn't make sense.
TRUSTEE KING: I think there was some confusion on his part. He
previously came in, it was back under Transfers and Amendments.
He wanted to transfer the permit for the existing bulkhead to
his name from the previous owner.
MS. MOORE: Right. The bulkhead was built in 2003.
TRUSTEE KING: When we talked with Mr. Kranes, we said, look,
instead of transferring it to your name, why don't we put the
bulkhead and the new retaining wall on one Wetland Permit, which
to me makes a lot of sense. Now he has two structures on one
permit. And he was agreeable to that. He thought it was a good
idea.
Board of Trustees 45 January 23, 2013
MS. MOORE: No, no, no, I think he misunderstood how you were
doing it. I misunderstood how you were doing it. I thought that
you were going to put the transfer as part of this permit so --
TRUSTEE KING: No.
MS. MOORE: I'll get you new drawings that includes, a new
description that includes both, then.
TRUSTEE KING: The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support
the application with the condition of buffers increased seven
feet beyond the crest of the bluff. I don't think that's
necessary. When it gets the new retaining wall, it will be seven
feet landward from where the old one was, so it's quite an
increase in the size of the buffer.
And the inconsistency, I think he was confused about the
existing deck seven feet toward the house. I don't think there
was anything in here about a deck.
MS. MOORE: No, there is an existing deck that is landward of the
existing retaining wall. And that has --
TRUSTEE KING: So everything is moving landward seven feet.
MS. MOORE: Yes, that has to be connected to the new retaining
wall. So the seven feet is to connect the decking to the new
retaining wall.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it was just a little misunderstanding in
how it was worded.
MS. HULSE: I think the wording in the resolution is a little
confusing, personally. The "and existing deck seven feet toward
house" doesn't really make sense. If we could get a
clarification on that, because that's what he used.
TRUSTEE KING: So there was an existing deck, it would be
landward of the retaining wall.
MS. MOORE: Correct.
MS. HULSE: Maybe we can just amend the resolution to be a little
clearer.
MS. MOORE: Yes, could you amend it to include the transfer or
the bulkhead that was permitted in 2003 into this?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what the plan is.
TRUSTEE KING: That was the game plan. Anybody else?
MS. MOORE: All right. Good.
MS. HULSE: You are going to merge that permit into this permit?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: You know what I'm saying, it was an existing
permit under a different name.
MS. HULSE: Yes.
MS. MOORE: Just keep in mind there is also a little patio stone
on sand between the new retaining wall and the old retaining
wall, something like that. I don't think this drawing -- yes.
Bulkhead. Between the bulkhead and the new retaining wall. It's
on the drawings.
TRUSTEE KING: I see it. Little bluestone patio. We didn't have
any issues, we thought --
MS. MOORE: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion
Boa~ofTrustees 46 Janua~ 23,2013
to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application to
move -- the new retaining wall will be seven feet landward of
the old retaining wall and there is a deck on the landward side
of the new retaining wall that will be built. And this permit
also includes the existing bulkhead along the, on the seaward
side that was previously permitted under another name. That
will be included in this permit. So we'll be having a new
Wetland Permit for the bulkhead and a new retaining wall, and
the area between the bulkhead and retaining wall will be in a
naturally vegetated condition.
MS. HULSE: Are you removing the "and existing deck seven feet
toward house" language?
TRUSTEE KING: It's my understanding there will be a new deck on
the landward side of the new retaining wall. So everything has
been moved seven feet landward.
MS. MOORE: You have to connect the two. That part is new because
it's connecting.
Did you want the permit number?
MS. HULSE: 3887.
TRUSTEE KING: So why am I confused?
MS. HULSE: The reason for the inconsistency was the language in
the resolution that said "and existing deck seven feet torward
house." So if that's not part of this resolution I don't think
you would have a problem with the consistency under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Moving the deck seven feet toward the house --
TRUSTEE KING: I don't understand why it's --
MS. MOORE: No, it's not moving, it's leaving the existing deck
in place and connecting the back of the deck to the new located
retaining wall.
TRUSTEE KING: $o the deck will be seaward of the new retaining
wall.
MS. MOORE: Yes, the existing deck is there. The retaining wall
right now is here. It's got to move back. So you have separation
between the deck and the new retaining wall.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So you'll be extending the deck seven feet.
MS. MOORE: Extending landward toward the retaining wall.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Gotcha. So it's not moving the existing deck,
it's extending the existing deck to fill in the gap when they
move that seven feet.
TRUSTEE KING: Now I see it. Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think it materially changes our
decision, it just changes the wording.
MS. HULSE: And it definitely changes the existing findings,
because that was the issue.
TRUSTEE KING: That's not shown on the drawing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We'll need new drawings anyway.
TRUSTEE KING: Showing the new retaining wall. This will just be
Board of Trustees 47 Janua~ 23,2013
there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's correct. Don't show it on the plans. Did
you get that Wayne?
TRUSTEE KING: So this is one permit that includes the bulkhead.
Are we clear on this now, my motion?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: With revised plans. Pat, there will be revised
plans, right? We'll need revised plans.
MS. MOORE: To say what?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: To include the bulkhead and be a little more
clear about the extending of the deck. Unless it's all here.
MS. MOORE: You know what, I think the plans are okay, I think
the description is bad. Why don't I give you a new written page
of the description of the proposed project. Because the drawings
would not change.
TRUSTEE KING: Here is the bulkhead. Here is where the old
retaining wall was and here is the new retaining wall.
MS. MOORE: It seems to show everything there.
MS. HULSE: Is the patio in there?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. Okay, deck, connecting, old, new,
extending. This is the bulkhead. I guess everything is there.
This is extending back to this new retaining wall. There will
be a gap once they move it.
MS. MOORE: It's okay?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
MS. MOORE: Do you want me to come back with a description
change? I'll match it to what Liz gets from your resolution.
Does that make sense?
TRUSTEE KING: I think we should have the measurements on the
deck.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what we should have.
MS. MOORE: I could get that for you.
MS. HULSE: This is contingent upon measurements for the deck and
letter of authorization, Pat.
MS. MOORE: Yes, I'll get that for you, I know it was sent. I
don't know why it's not in the file.
MS. CANTRELL: We didn't get it.
MS. MOORE: I'm not questioning it.
TRUSTEE KING: So that and just the dimensions of the deck we
need.
MS. MOORE: Sure. So authorization, measurements of the deck. And
do you need the description changed or are you okay with what
you have?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We'll add the dimensions of the deck once you
give it to us.
MS. MOORE: Okay, that's fine.
TRUSTEE KING: That's the motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 13, Natural Images Landscaping on behalf
Boa~ofTrustees 48 January23,2013
of PETER AND JOAN FRITZ requests a Wetland Permit to remove the
existing rock revetment and extend existing bulkhead to
protect waterfront. Located: 755 North Parish Road, Southold.
This application was looked at by the Conservation Advisory
Council. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the
application and recommends leaving the rock revetment in place
and to enhance the rip rap with native plantings; remove all
irrigation, exterior lighting and non-native vegetation from the
buffer and to extend the buffer an additional five feet. The
LWRP coordinator has found this to be consistent with LWRP.
The Board was out there and took a look at this. The
comments that I have was suggesting that we, contour the
bulkhead behind the stone revetment; it was a question mark.
And questioning the slate patio and the use of the large slates
in that particular application. There is a letter here from the
neighbor, I'll just take a moment to read real quick. In regard
to the above reference permit request we would like you to know
our concern as adjacent property owners, Crowsdale (sic) at 695
North Parish Drive; Merrill, 700 North Parish Drive. We would
like to register our objection to the proposed 55 feet of new
bulkhead and 32 feet of new return, such a structure, in their
opinion, is against Town Code, and we believe it would cause
substantial erosion to their property. We would respectively
like to ask the Fritz' to explore a less harmful alternative.
With that I'll ask if there is anybody here who would like to
address this application?
MS. FRITZ: My name is Joan Fritz. My husband Peter and I have
owned the property at 755 North Parish Drive since 1998 when we
purchased it from my mother who along with my father owned it
since 1958. My family has been paying taxes on this property for
close to six decades. Members of my family have been residents
of Southold Town for almost nine decades. My father, maternal
grandmother, great aunt, great uncles, aunts and uncles, who are all
buried here; as well my mother, my husband and I and our
children.
We are before you tonight because of environmental and
climatological changes that began before members of my family
took up permanent residence in Southold. My husband is an
insurance broker who over the years has specialized in insuring
the worldwide offshore oil and gas exploration and production
operations of some of the world's largest and geographically
diverse integrated oil companies. They operate in some of the
world's most environmentally sensitive areas. Governments across
the globe, oil companies themselves and the insurance industry
realize that what 20 years ago was called a hundred-year storm
is now the norm. Katrina and Rita devastated the Gulf of Mexico
Coast as well as the offshore energy industry. Recent storms
across the North Sea in Europe have caused billions of dollars
of damage. As a result, governments, in order to protect the
environment and lives, are exercising stricter controls and
requiring more robust design of all newly constructed offshore
Board of Trustees 49 January 23, 2013
facilities. The insurance industry has responded by either only
insuring those facilities designed to today's standards or for
those underwriters willing to write older units in storm-prone
areas like the Gulf of Mexico, their premiums has risen up to
2,000%, making it unaffordable for smaller companies.
You may ask what this has to do with our request for full
bulkheading. We say it has everything to do with it. Storms like
Sandy have become the norm, and we agree that communities in
storm-prone areas need to be proactive, protecting the lives of
properties of their citizens while not damaging the environment.
My husband and I are not scientists, but it seems logical to us
that when property is eroded, the runoff into the bays not only
damages property but also harms the environment and causes
contamination.
If we look at our particular situation in 2011, while we
had originally applied for full bulkheading, the Trustees and
DEC approved the installation of approximately 50 feet of
bulkheading and 50 feet of rock revetment. As the Trustees saw,
Sandy did no structural damage to the bulkheading, but a large
portion of the rock revetment was destroyed, with substantial
erosion going directly into Southold Bay. We would liken the
difference in the effectiveness of the bulkheading versus a rock
revetment to the difference between the strength of an offshore
platform designed in 1980 and one designed today. While we are
relieved we didn't suffer more damage and loss of property from
Sandy, we also feel that had we been allowed a full bulkheading
in 2011 we would not be standing in front of the Trustees today,
again, asking them to do what is right for both us as taxpayers
as well as the environment.
As we said earlier, the community has an obligation to
protect the property of all its citizens. We understand our
neighbor has expressed concern that by allowing us to extend our
bulkheading it would increase the potential for erosion to her
property from future storms.
We take this concern seriously and have hired Mr. Joseph
Fischetti, physical engineer who is here with me tonight. He
assures us the extension of the bulkheading should not
exacerbate any erosion to our neighbor's property from future
storms.
We thank you for the opportunity to come before you tonight
and encourage you to take the bold steps of approving our plans
which will best protect both our property and the environment,
the entire Town of Southold and its bays. Thank you. I also have
Patricia Moore who is representing my husband and I.
MS. MOORE: This time I do have authorization. Rather than start
talking, it seems I would like to listen, and Joe and I would
like to listen to your comments. This, all of this work was
completed, there is a compliance certificate from July of 2012,
which is really sad that all of this expense and this work was
essentially destroyed with this storm. So, similar to the DEC,
where they try to get you to, try to work with non-hardening
Board of Trustees 50 January 23, 2013
structures as a start then you lose all your beach several
times, and then eventually you go back and they say, you know
what, okay, we understand, you have to fix this. That's where we
are today. And it is just much moro damaging to the environment
to have to replace these than it is to do it right the first
time. So I have Joe to provide some engineering but we would
like to listen to your comments first.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just hang on for a second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, we are just looking for something in the
file. Pat, you said you have a certificate of compliance?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Hero you go (handing).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sorry. It was sitting here off to the side.
Bear with us a moment, folks, please.
Just to go back a little bit. This was an application that
came beforo us last year. It should be noted just to kind of
refrosh everybody's memory. The characterization that we did
change the application last year and made some other suggestions
is correct. It should also be noted it was a split decision. It
was not a unanimous decision from the Board. The application was
approved on a throe to two decision. So there was some, a bit
of, I won't call it controversy, but we had disagreement about
how to approach it. I will say that by and large what ended up
happening was fairly close to what we had in mind. What we did
not have if mind and it was noted in the field when we went out
there was all that slate and the patios. The original permit, if
I'm not mistaken, allowed for a four-foot path filling the voids
with clean fill, constructing stairs to beach, installation of a
ten-foot wide non-turf buffer, vegetated non-turf using American
beach grass, rock revetment and, like I said, a four-foot wide
access stairway to the beach. And that was it. What we find
there when we got out there was tons of slate patio that had
been moved and disassembled in the storm. And certainly that may
or may not have played a part in the amount of destruction of
the project. But that is, I guess, up for debate. In any case,
that's basically where we are at now.
MS. MOORE: Our client says she had a permit for the slate patio,
too.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm looking at the permit. Wetland Permit to
construct 50 feet of new bulkhead, install 60 feet of one to
two-and-a-half ton, two-row rock Iow profile rovetment, fill the
area behind the new bulkhead and revetment with clean trucked in
fill, approximately 40 cubic yards; construct four-foot wide
access stairway to the beach with the condition of the
installation of a ten-foot wide non-turf vegetated buffer using
Cape American beach grass along the landward edge of the
bulkhead; and the rock revetment to be maintained. All as
depicted on the site plan provided by Costello Marine, September
29, 2011.
MS. FRITZ: Yes, then when Costello finished it we needed to do
the buffer and that's when we got involved with Natural Images
Board of Trustees 51 January 23, 2013
Landscaping and he applied for a permit, and gave you a design,
a drawing of what it would look like and you gave him the permit
to do the patio and the vegetation.
(Trustees perusing file).
TRUSTEE KING: This is the old permit.
(Perusing).
TRUSTEE KING: I don't see it now.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you have a copy of the amendment?
MS. MOORE: I don't either but I think it may be misidentified in
the computer, because I printed what was in the computer. So
sometimes human error maybe.
TRUSTEE KING: All right, there was an amendment to the Wetland
Permit #7633. That's to re-vegetate the area landward of the
bulkhead and install stone patio as depicted on the revised
project plan, approved May 1, 2012. It was received April 24,
2012. Now all we need to do is see a copy of that plan so we
know what we are talking about. It seems to me, I thought, the
back of my head, I thought the patios were more behind the
bulkhead than behind that revetment. I don't know why I'm
thinking that. Hold on, I think I see it right here.
MS. MOORE: What you see there now --
TRUSTEE KING: I see it. I have the plans now. Stone seating
area. Here is the bulkhead. Here is the revetment. Stepping
stones going down. Here is the previous stairway. It was ail
stone.
MS. CANTRELL: We have it separate because it was never scanned
in.
MS. MOORE: That's why I didn't see it.
TRUSTEE KING: In my mind, I think that patio caused a lot of
that damage. It undermined and then flopped down.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the wave action dumped all the water
behind the stone.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Now that we have ali the paperwork figured out,
is there anybody else who would like to address the application?
MS. MERRILL: Margaret Merrill, 700 North Parish Drive, and I'm
part owner of 695 North Parish Drive. My mom lives there. And
that property was just to the west of this property.
The patio that you see there that is all come up from
Sandy, that, it looks like stone revetment, but it's not. The
part that is closest to us. The actual rock revetment has not
moved. Those huge boulders are all still there. And they
actually, I think during Sandy, because I was out there
watching, I think they did a pretty decent job. You could see
there is a dune behind that rock revetment. It's still there.
And the thing about this property is where the rock revetment
is, there is a gradual slope that it slopes up from west to
east, going -- the eastern part being that four foot -- I think
it's four foot. The 50-foot long bulkhead. But it gradually
goes lower into a dune that goes in front of our property. That
dune, our fear is that if you put hard structure there with a
right angle, that is four feet high even with the other
Board of Trustees 52 January 23, 2013
bulkhead, it will, the wave action is just going to pull a whole
chunk of our beach out. I don't know if, I see you are standing
on what is left of the patio, but I don't know if you went down
on the beach side and looked. Just on the other side of that
rock revetment is a big strip of vegetation that was definitely
eaten away by Sandy, but my fear is with a hard structure it
will get eaten away even more. And that is our dune. That's all
we have. We don't have a bulkhead. I don't have an attorney and
an engineer, I just have me. And I just don't want our -- they
have every right to protect their property but I feel we have a
right to protect ours, too. And my family is very dear, too.
And the other thing was with the 2011 application, I felt
like that was a compromise, they got half the bulkhead and half
rock revetment instead of full 111 feet of bulkhead. But now
they are asking for an additional 82 feet of bulkhead; 50 of it
running in front and 32 up the side of our property. The 32 feet
up the side of our property is an awful lot.
MS. MOORE: I think she misunderstands the design.
MS. MERRILL: The return that goes along our property? That's
what the plan says. I'm not an engineer so maybe I'm reading it
wrong. But from what I see, it says 32-foot return.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, it's a 32-foot return on the plan.
MS. MOORE: I don't see a return as being a full bulkhead. It's --
MS. MERRILL: It's a hard structure, is it not?
MS. MOORE: I have Joe Fischetti. He could testify with respect
to the design.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Anything else?
MS. MERRILL: The other thing was the LWRP finding. I just want
to get out there on the record that in 2011 both the
Conservation Advisory Council and LWRP found that permit
inconsistent, as well as two out of three Trustees and two
neighbors. So it was close, as you said. And I felt that this
was a compromise. But because of the stone patio -- and there
is also lighting, electric lighting or some kind of lighting
that goes through all of that. And the buffer, it was, the
buffer was brand new. The vegetation was brand new. I don't
think it had taken root enough. I don't think it had enough of a
chance to be able to withstand something like Sandy. But that
rock revetment has not moved. It's still there. And we would
just like to see something a little less hard, same thing that
we said in 2011.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you.
MS. FRITZ: I'm the homeowner. The rock revetment, if you look
at the photograph, the rock revetment to the right of the
staircase, collapsed. The stones were the height equal to the
height of the top of the staircase. You can tell from that
picture right there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The stairwell depicted in the picture is over
the rock revetment. So that part of the rock revetment did not
fail, because if it had failed, the stairwell would have been
broken up, correct?
Board of Trustees 53 January23,2013
MR. FRITZ: But there were rocks on top of existing rocks to the
right of the stairs.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that. I'm just looking at the
picture, I'm looking at from the stairwell to the north, I guess
I'll say, that that did hold. I was one of the ones who voted
against this application originally because I felt a rock
revetment would work. I tend to agree with Jim that I think the
patio contributed to the failure of the rock revetment. Because
the rock revetment did hold from the stairwell, approximately
the stairwell to the north. It's the patio, where the water got
over the patio, and because it was nothing that, because the
patio was there blocking the water from entering down into the
earth, it destroyed the revetment. I think a rock revetment
would work here, I just think absent the patio it would work.
That's just my own feeling.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I have to second Trustee Bergen's comments.
MR. FISCHE'I-i'I: Good evening. Joe Fischetti. I did not design
the system that was given to you at the retaining wall, I mean
the bulkhead that you have there. Um, both the revetment and a
retaining wall in and of itself is to protect the soil and the
properties behind. So just saying that the revetment is there
and it's still there, I don't see that revetment protecting that
property. The revetment is in of itself I think was done as a
compromise and it didn't work. I think extending that bulkhead
properly, adding some hardening around the sides, softening the
wave action so that the adjacent property is not affected. When
you have two properties that have the same elevations and you
have one hardened and one not, there will be some differential
eroding. In this particular case, the neighbor to the, I'm not
sure if that's the north or west -- to the west, it is
drastically different than this property. It's very Iow, it goes
back, the dune that she has is back very far, and that's the
reason for the 35-foot return that I assume that the person who
did that design was to protect the property that was there.
Which was three feet higher. And so the design here is, while
the revetment is still there, it didn't do its job and it didn't
protect the property. As to whether the slate patio, I just
can't do that, it's not part of that. I didn't do the design and
I don't know the wave actions. But I don't think that revetment
did its job and you can see it just by standing there. And I
think a full retaining wall/bulkhead would be required.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would agree the revetment didn't protect the
property to the fullest extent that you might want it to, but
compared to a lot of things we have seen, it did, you know, it
did protect quite a bit of it. It's not like it washed out
everything behind it. It fell down, it collapsed, but it's not,
I don't think the destruction was as bad as it could have been.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think also as we have seen throughout
Southold, Sandy was a massive storm and we have storm surge much
higher than many other storms. And there were bulkheads and
revetments and structures all over the town that got destroyed.
Board of Trustees 54 January 23, 2013
And unfortunately you suffered the same damage as many other
people in Sandy, where your shoreline protection structure got
damaged.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And there is something to be said to the fact it
was so new. It was only a few months old.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The structure, I mean, hindsight is always
20/20. The storm was so huge and had so much wave energy
involved. I look at this also as the possibility that the
bulkhead is a hard structure that maybe I would have applied
some hindsight, I would not have approved the hybrid structure.
I think it's just a huge amount of water and huge amount of wave
energy moved the wall and over the bulkhead face, and of course
it had to tumble home because of less elevation as you go
westerly. Just bulkheading to the westerly now will just move
tumble home for the next storm and that will start to erode out
what is a very nicely vegetated combination of both Spartina and
American beach grass. So I think this is a reason why there is
supposed to be no new bulkheads on the bays and why it was
difficult for the Board to come to grips with that previously.
But not being able to look forward and see through a storm of
such tremendous energy, and those pieces of slate, I remember
now, in retrospect, going out and looking at the patio plans,
but those large patio slates, which are almost 4x4, they all
cantered down. So that means when the waves came moving
particularly from the east and northeast, they moved along the
bulkhead face, over the bulkhead face, then found this place
where all the wave energy is being focused down behind the rock
revetment from slates that had gotten undermined. Something that
nobody, I think, would have ever envisioned happening. ,And I
think that's what destroyed the revetment.
This is really a public hearing, we listen to what you all
have to say, but we all looked at it and I'm coming to the
conclusion there is some wisdom in the code saying no new
bulkheads. And I can't support bulkheading. I would rather
see the existing bulkheading come out and put in a substantial
revetment with larger stone to eat up the wave energy starting
more to the easterly so that storms out of the east where the
wave fetch is coming all the way from Greenport and Old Hog Neck
would eat up that energy.
So actually, I would feel we should actually go more toward
a code-compliant structure here, and if anything, consider an
amendment to put stone in.
MS. MOORE: Well, that's very nice but my client wants to protect
her property and she has permits, so we'll withdraw our
application in total so that they can put back what they had,
and this time the revetment is going to be monitored and
inspected by our engineer so that we make sure that it's
substantial and it complies with the code.
They've got permits for everything. I don't want to see
them lose what they have. I think you have a property owner to
the east who has a bulkhead. So where do you, at what point is
Board of Trustees 55 January 23, 2013
the in-between property owner going to sacrifice? I think
that's why you kind of extended the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a good question. Some of us drew that
line on a previous permit. And I'm telling you, I tried to split
the baby and it didn't work.
MS. MOORE: Well, it protected half the property. And half is
better than none. So we don't need a permit to restore what we
had, so we'll go back to what we --
MS. MERRILL: To put the patio back, will there be enough around
it to keep anything from eroding it again? Do you know what I
mean?
MS. MOORE: Well, the rock revetment will be designed by Joe.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They have a permit to do that.
MS. MERRILL: To do the patio.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. Exactly.
MS. MERRILL: There is another one a little over more, there is
like this rock, I don't know if you have a picture of it. But up
a little, uphill a little bit.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have a picture. I know what you are
talking about. It's on the plan.
MS. MERRILL: The plan is both patios? Because it's just lawn
and patio. Like I said, the vegetation was so new it really
didn't have a chance to really, I mean it's unfortunate all that
work was just done because those were all brand new plants put
in.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, there were people with hundreds of feet of
brand new bulkhead that got washed out. Same thing. Any new
project was really affected by the storm. So you are withdrawing
the application?
MS. MOORE: We'll withdraw the application and just put back what
we have and I'll have Joe take a look at it and make sure that
our patio is built better. Everything is built more, you know,
unified.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, I'm all right with that. Thank you.
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And the application has been withdrawn.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 14, Eugene Burger on behalf of ROB &
CLAIRE RlCClO requests a Wetland Permit for the reconstruction of the
storm damaged secondary retaining wall; and the addition of vinyl
sheathing to the existing bulkhead. Located: 6512 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be
consistent. The CAC supports the application with the condition
all non-native vegetation removed from the bluff and replanted
with native vegetation.
I went out and looked at this application and it appears as
though it's pretty straightforward with the applicant wanting to
put new vinyl behind the bulkhead and rebuild the upper
retaining wall.
Board of Trustees 56 January 23, 2013
One question I have for the applicant. There is a deck
there, I'm not sure if it's previously permitted but would you
like to get it included in this permit so that deck would then
become a permitted structure. The deck I'm referring to is the
deck between the primary bulkhead and retaining walls.
MR. BURGER: Eugene Burger, agent for the Riccio's. And, yes, I
would.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Like I said, this is a pretty straightforward
application. Are there any other comments from anybody in the
audience?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Rob and Claire Riccio as described with inclusion of the
290-square foot deck that is between the primary bulkhead and
retaining wall, asking that if that deck is to be rebuilt, it's
rebuilt with a slope so that water drains landward. That's my
motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: All right, folks we'll take a five-minute break.
(After a recess, these proceedings continue as follows).
(Trustee Bergen leaves for the evening).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next item, number 15, Eugene Burger on
behalf of MARY DRUM requests a Wetland Permit for the
reconstruction of damages caused by Hurricane Sandy; rebuild
floor and southern wall in-kind and as per original layout.
Located: 610 Park Avenue, Mattituck.
This application has been determined to be inconsistent
with the town's LWRP, specifically in dealing with minimizing
losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion
hazards, to minimize potential loss and damage by locating decks
and structures away from flood and erosion hazards. And to move
existing development of structures as far away from flooding and
erosion hazards as practical; maintaining existing development
and structures and hazard areas may be warranted for only
certain circumstances. And they are outlined here. One is for
structures which functionally require location on the coast or
in coastal waters. Secondly, water dependent uses that can not
avoid exposure to hazards; or thirdly, sites in areas with
extensive public investment, public infrastructure or major
public facilities. The LWRP coordinator also, additionally,
cites where relocation of an existing structure is not
practical, in the determination the LWRP coordinator, it was the
opinion of the coordinator it didn't meet any of those criteria,
Board of Trustees 57 January 23, 2013
and that the structure is located within a FEMA VE flood zone,
which is a coastal high-hazard area and is an area of special
flood hazard extending from off shore to the inland limit of
that zone.
The Conservation ^dvisory Council did not support the
application because of lack of specificity with the proposed
actions as well as the need for a sanitary system plan. There
was insufficient documentation to make the recommendation.
The Trustees made a field survey on the 16th of January and
additionally on that date we also received two communications,
one from Eugene Burger which indicated that someone by the name
of Will Parks did an analysis of the septic system and advised
that the system should be replaced inkind and inplace. And Mr.
Burger was requesting to formally ask for permission to add this
operation to the Trustee application, the one we have before us.
And there was also a report here from, excuse me, a letter here
from Condon Engineering addressed to Mike Verity of the Building
Department concerning the Drum residence, 610 Park Avenue. And
indicates that, in the letter to Mr. Verity, it says if this was
made to the above-referenced property December 21, to evaluate
the repair work performed at the site, which was damaged during
Hurricane Sandy, to the best of my knowledge, the wall and floor
replacement on the southern wing of the building is acceptable
and in accordance with the current building code of New York
State. Based on the information provided by the contractor the
cost of the repair work at the site is less than 50% of the cost
of the building as required by FEMA regulations. Please do not
hesitate to call me if you have any questions or require
additional information. That was from Mr. John J. Condon, PE.
TRUSTEE KING: Before we go any further, Trustee Dave Bergen had
to leave. He is not feeling well, so he won't attend the rest
of the meeting.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Those are the major file entries
that we have. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf
of this application?
MR. DRUM: Yes. My name is Michael Drum. I'm here with my mother
Mary Drum. I'd like to speak on behalf of my family.
This is a seasonal home that has been here, it was built in
1925. It's utilized for about five months out of the year. Two
months it's leased and our family uses it for the remaining
time. We have owned the property since the mid 1970's, about 37,
38 years. My father raised the property, lifted it up in 1985,
built the side deck. He raised it up to an elevation of
approximately nine. The flood elevation zone that you referenced
is elevation seven. So the first floor is about two feet proud
of the flood elevation. You also stated that the structure could be
moved or it should be moved. Well this, as you know, sits out on
a point. So we really don't have the flexibility to move it
away from the water, because there is water on both sides. It's a
small structure. And the proposal is just to replace what was
damaged. We are just replacing a wall, replacing a floor,
Board of Trustees 58 January 23, 2013
replacing an exterior deck underneath the reof, and upgrading
the septic. The current septic system is two cesspools. The
primary cesspool was not uncovered. There is a secondary,
overflow cesspool, if you go onsite you can see, was damaged.
Again, we are not going up, we don't want to go out. This is a
structure that has been in the family about 40 years.
My father, we moved here in 1972. In '74 he bought the
house. He bought the house for one reason. For his family, his
kids, their kids, subsequent generations, to enjoy the North
Fork, to come here, get to know each other. And that's what we
have done. We have been here for a long time. We have enjoyed
it. It's our home. We just want to pretect our home and replace
what we have. That would conclude my statement.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. Are you going to move that septic
landward at all?
MR. DRUM: The primary is underneath that one spot. I mean when
you look at the house from the other side, the primary is right
there. The overflow was toward the water.
TRUSTEE KING: There is one on the east side of the house.
MR. DRUM: They are both on the east side. The overflow is south
of the primary. I certainly would imagine we could take it and
put it on the other side. There is high ground on that point.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there a septic tank there or just two cesspools
MR. DRUM: Just two cesspools. The property is larger than half
acre. It's approximately 24,000-square feet. It's two lots. It's
one of the largest parcels on that point. The Penney Point, I
guess it's the Selic (sic) Point now, is larger. But it's one of
larger parcels on the spit of land.
TRUSTEE KING: That was my one concern was to get the septic
further landward. You know more about it than I do, Jay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The sanitary system really is a concern
because we now have open beach on the front of the house, with
no sea-keeping structure, no retaining wall, no bulkhead. And
it seems each successive storm, with all the energy that is
getting piled up there, is just doing more and more damage. And
that sanitary system upgrade for a facility such as that would
ordinarily require a 900 gallon or 1,000 gallon septic tank and
then a retaining structure so that the septic waste is being
discharged above the ground water elevation to provide a minimal
level of filtration. Then, of course, additional building up of
any structure, the question is, it's a real concern that, you
know, you are left disadvantaged because the next storm that
comes uncovers elements of the sanitary system or undermines the
retaining wall, because that's the first thing a wave train is
going to see is the structure that you would have there.
MR. DRUM: And I agree. Our children swim there. My children swim
in the bay, we swim in the bay. My nieces, nephews, grandkids.
So I agree 100%. And I think a closed septic tank may be
appropriate in that situation. It's something that we can clean
out. The system is not used. It's seasonal. It's used five
months out of the year. So it does get time to settle. But I
Board of Trustees 59 January 23, 2013
think something like a closed tank, I don't think we would be
adverse to something like that for the solids. It seems to make
sense.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ordinarily speaking, I can't speak for other
members of the Board, I had some experience in environmental
work with the Health Department I retired out of a couple years
ago, and I don't want to speak for them or the Board of Trustees
I sit on because everybody has to make their own determinations,
but ordinarily we would probably, I would recommend relying on
the expertise of the County Health Department, what they would
approve, because they typically take a very dim view on strict
holding tank facilities because it opens up a Pandora's Box for
potential environmental abuse, illegal discharge and also
maintenance headaches for the owners.
MR. DRUM: I'm a civil engineer. I'm a professional engineer.
And that's not what I was proposing. I was proposing something
would be a tank for the solids and the effluent would run out --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You are talking about aseptic tank primary
treatment.
MR. DRUM: Correct, instead of having two cesspools, you'd have
a solid tank.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I misunderstood you to mean going to a
holding tank in lieu of a septic tank cesspool system.
MR. DRUM: Correct. Something I would, if you were inclined to
approve our application, to condition it on, you know, a septic
system, an upgrade, would be acceptable.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any other concerns? Questions?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I feel that septic has to be addressed. And
this photograph was near Iow tide, and it just points out that
the system that is there is failed. So any approval I grant,
personally, would --
MR. DRUM: Do you have other photographs of the septic?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We did see where it was located. There was
an inlet "T" visible on what looked like --
MR. DRUM: There is some elevation where the septic is.
TRUSTEE KING: In fact it's full of sand now.
MR. DRUM: The backup is, yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's the end of my comments.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have no additional comments other than
concerns about sanitary, but also features that would protect it
from storm erosion. So if it was a system that was built to the
modern public health standard of the county it would have to be
some sort of sea-keeping feature as far as the retaining wall
might need armoring or special design features. If you are an
engineer or have access to an engineer, I think I would feel
comfortable requiring a plan from a licensed PE that would also
have at least some input from the County Health Department.
So my thoughts run right along the line of a professional
design from a professional engineer and some notion of County
Health approval. They don't ordinarily -- we have, as far as I
know, they don't have a specific Tropical Storm Sandy program
Board of Trustees 60 January 23, 2013
for sanitary but they will, on a recommendation from local
government, they will put these matters under review.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Has the DEC looked at this yet? Have you gotten
anything from DEC?
MR. BURGER: Eugene Burger. We have an emergency permit.
MR. DRUM: It's my understanding DEC doesn't approve for
structures, just bulkheads.
MR. BURGER: There is no additions or anything different than
what was thera.
MR. DRUM: There would be no touching the ground for the work in
the house. It's all, as you can see, elevated, sitting up on the
piles. There is no grading or disturbing ground at all. It's
just replace a wall and replace the floor, and the deck. And the
deck is under a roof. And the deck is under 200-square feet.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The house is served by public water?
MR. DRUM: Yes, it is.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's an unfortunate circumstance, you know.
TRUSTEE KING: It's been thero a long time. This storm was just
a beaut.
MR. BURGER: If I may comment. A little bit of why it failed, I
guess when they put the pilings and girders under the house,
they never even nailed the floor joists to the girders. No
strapping, no nails at all. As soon as any wave hit it, it
started moving. So what we did is we secured that stuff.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How much beach did you lose during the storm?
MR. DRUM: It's funny. It seems we lose it in these storms in
March and then some of it will come back. And it's been an
ongoing battle, as you know, with dredging the creek, my father
for years had fought the battle to get the dredge material
dumped in front of these structures. And that's something we
will need to address. Again, it's in the family for a long time.
I'm one of eight children. Thera is lots of us. This is our
home, we want to protect it and we are now in discussions on
what to do. You know, I'd love if there was a program to dredge
out in front, Peconic Bay, it's so shallow, and pump some of the
sand back on the beaches.
TRUSTEE KING: Like a borrow pit.
MR. DRUM: Yes. It seems to make sense. There is no grasses. But
that's for another day.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The reason I ask is because we were out there
last year and looking at the different groins and jetties and
things, and the inlet over on the Selic end, I recall it being
quite a bit more than this. And I also mentioned it out in the
field I would support some kind of beach nourishment here.
That's me. Not everybody agrees. But the idea of what you were
just saying with a borrow pit, would be nice if it could be
worked out. Because you are getting closer and closer to it
being totally in the water. So it needs to be addressed at some
point.
MR. DRUM: And you can only rebuild the groins to a certain
Board of Trustees 61 January 23, 2013
degree. Again, that's something we are discussing on an ongoing
basis.
MS. HULSE: Can I just ask for clarification in the resolution,
it says for "reconstruction of," and it should specify the
damages and what structure is involved.
TRUSTEE KING: The floor and southern wall and side deck
MR. DRUM: Side deck and stairs.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, any additional comments?
TRUSTEE KING: No, just the septic system, if it could be moved
landward and a more modern design of the septic tank, I think
would be a huge step forward.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I spoke to Wilbur and I think he told me he
would be able to move that into the front to get it out of the
way.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing no further comments, Ill/make a
motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this
application subject to the submission of a detailed plan by a
licensed design professional for an upgraded sanitary system and
with some notion of a review by the County Health Department for
compliance with the Suffolk County Sanitary Code.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
MS. HULSE: Could you clarify the language in the resolution,
please. We just need a more descriptive language after
"reconstruction of."
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. Reconstruction of the -- are you
talking about with respect to the wall?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: More specifically --
TRUSTEE KING: Rebuild the floor, the southern wall and the side
deck, the side covered deck.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, so include in the resolution, the
approval is designed to rebuild the floor and southern wall
inkind.
MS. HULSE: Of the house.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Of the house. Okay. According to the plan
which we have dated in the Trustee office November 19th, 2012,
by Burger Construction. Is that acceptable.
MS. HULSE: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It doesn't actually say what the structure is in
the resolution, that's the problem. Rebuild floor and wall of
what.
TRUSTEE KING: The existing structure.
MR. DRUM: Side deck and stairs, right.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 62 January 23, 2013
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 16, En-Consultants on behalf of MMC
REALTY 2 FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP requests a Wetland Permit to
construct approximately 100 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in-place of
(and +/-12" higher than) storm damaged timber bulkhead
with 12'-14' returns; construct +/-100' timber retaining wall
landward of bulkhead; reconstruct previously existing 10'x20'
deck; reconstruct 3' wide steps down embankment with 3' wide
landing at top and 4' wide landing and steps at bottom;
construct 3' steps to beach; and backfill/re-nourish storm eroded
area landward of bulkhead with approximately 250 cubic
yards clean fill to be planted with native vegetation. Located:
7625 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be exempt, consistent
and inconsistent. The reconstruction of steps and four-foot wide
landing is exempt. The rebuilding of the bulkhead, 100 linear
feet of vinyl bulkhead inplace, storm damage timber bulkhead 12
foot and 14 foot returns, backfill to re-nourish storm eroded
areas, approximately 250 cubic yards; and replanted native
vegetation is all consistent. But the reconstruction of
previously existing 10x20 foot deck is inconsistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this
application with the condition that there be a five-foot
non-turf vegetated buffer, the height of the bulkhead not to be
increased, and they recommend moving the house back from the top
of the bluff.
In our field inspection the Trustees' only comment was to
check for a permit on the deck. Is there anyone here to speak to
this application?
MR. CERRITO: Good evening, my name is Michael Cerrito, I'm general
partner of the owner.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is this the right picture?
MR. CERRITO: This is the right picture. What I understand you to
say is that so far you are good with the application with the
following exceptions: The deck, which, from what I heard is
only 10x20, which is 200-square feet, which is in conformity
with your code, that deck was there when we purchased the house
sometime in the early '90s. We've redone the top of it since.
We would like to continue to keep the deck. It would be between
the new vinyl bulkhead and the additional retaining wall that
we'll put ten feet behind it. That's all we'll do. We are not
going to expand that deck other than what you see there and
where it is there inplace. With respect to the five feet of
plantings, it's going to be difficult to do that to the south of
the where the stairs are now. Well, you don't have a good
picture of it. I can do the three or four feet of plantings from
the existing stairs going down to the beach toward the northerly
end of the property but when you get past those stairs to the
southerly end of the property, the house is only, approximately,
I would say six in some areas and some areas eight feet away
from the top, the crest of the slope. So to put five foot
plantings there you would not be able to walk behind the house.
Boa~ofTrustees 63 January 23,2013
There is an existing concrete pond that is back there that dates
back to when the house was built in the early '30s. And that
would make it impossible to put plantings in that area also. So
I don't think we can do that to the south side of those stairs.
The north side of the stairs, when we rebuild the patio, in
front of the patio we actually did have about three feet worth
of plantings and we have no problem with that.
The house is where the house is. We just redid that house
approximately seven or eight years ago and we built a second
story on the approval of the Board. There is no way to move the
house back from where it sits down, now. It's been there since
1928, I believe. The house used to be old bed and breakfast at
one time called the Briar Patch. It's one of the only bed and
breakfast's on Nassau Point at the time.
That's our application. We would like to get back what we
had and we would like to put a second retaining wall behind it
so we don't have this problem before for more strength. The only
other thing you mentioned was not to increase the height of the
bulkhead. I would like to increase the hate of the bulkhead by a
foot. My neighbor to the south, Mr. McManus, has the next
application on your docket and he would like to also increase
his by the same foot, so it would be contiguous. And the
neighbor to the south of that also has an existing bulkhead that
was not damaged in the storm, which is approximately a foot
higher than my existing bulkhead. So those three bulkheads
would be all existing in the same line. And we are actually
going to keep our bulkheads joined together where the houses are
to give it more strength and we are trying to form a system now
to also do that with the retaining walls. We may or may not be
able to do that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's typical of what we like to do, try to
bring them same size, straight line.
MR. CERRITO: That's what we are trying to do.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And we noted that, I just might add, the comment
about not raising was from the Conservation Advisory Council,
not from this Board
MR. CERRITO: I understand.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would also like to include something that
Trustee King pointed out to me is that we received yesterday the
request from you to include the replacement inkind of the brick
patio to landward of the top of the bank.
MR. CERRITO: Yes, we lost about 40 bricks in that area. We would
just replace them and put about two or three feet of plantings
behind that to where the slope begins.
TRUSTEE KING: We just want to see it included in this permit.
MR. CERRITO: I was in the slope trying to save the bricks the
other day.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was pretty straightforward. There is
a lot of damage.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to make a motion to close this
Board of Trustees 64 January 23, 2013
hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application
with the addition of, the inclusion of the changes reflected in
letter received January 22, 2013, requesting to include the
inkind replacement of the storm damaged brick patio. The
inconsistency was the deck size, which we determined is
consistent.
TRUSTEE KING: I think there is a little confusion there where by
code platforms associated with stairs should not be more than
32-square feet. In my mind, these are separate decks behind the
bulkhead and really not associated with the stairs. And I think
that's something we have to work out.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 17, En-Consultants on behalf of TIMOTHY &
MICHELLE McMANUS requests a Wetland Permit to construct
approximately 100 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead partially in the
same location as, partially landward of (to align with adjacent
bulkhead to north also being replaced), and approximately 12
inches higher than existing storm damaged (Hurricane Sandy)
timber bulkhead to be removed; construct 12'-14' northerly
return as needed; construct approximately 117 linear feet of
timber retaining wall landward of bulkhead; reconstruct
previously existing variable width deck, 4' wide landing and
stairway down embankment, and 3' wide steps to beach; and
backfill/re-nourish storm eroded area landward of bulkhead with
approximately 250 cubic yards of clean fill to be planted with
native vegetation. Located: 7725 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
This is an application to rebuild damage from the storm.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with
a condition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer along the top of the
bluff, and that the height of the bulkhead is not raised. The
LWRP coordinator has found it to be consistent and inconsistent.
The inconsistency is basically dealing with reconstructing the
previously existing variable-width deck, four-foot wide landing
and stairway down the embankment and three-foot wide steps to
the beach. I believe it's because they were, they were not
permitted structure and they were not in the original permits, I
suppose.
The Trustees were out there, we looked at it. I do believe
I do have a correct picture here. Though it's labeled
incorrectly, but this would be the picture showing the beach
house. This beach house is permitted, as I understand it, and
also had, as I understand it, it used to have a septic that
pumped up to normal septic, right? To the main house septic?
MR. SAMUELS: That was amendment recently made to the permit to
the house.
Board of Trustees 65 January 23, 2013
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what I thought.
TRUSTEE KING: As part of the demolition of the existing
structure.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Were you planning on rebuilding or repairing
this beach house?
MR. SAMUELS: That is our intention. We have an emergency permit
to do so from you guys and we need to go through the other steps.
And my name is Tom Samuels, on behalf of the owner, Tim McManus,
who is here.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Once we noted, I just wanted to get that on the
record because that was one of the questions we had. But after
that it seems fairly straightforward. Is this yours?
MR. SAMUELS: That's us. Yes, that's the old septic, to be
replaced.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And this is yours?
MR. SAMUELS: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what I thought. Sorry for the confusion.
Like I said, it was getting very dark and Nassau Point, one
thing looks like the other. All right, is there anybody here who
would like to stand opposed to this application? Any comments?
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have any issues with it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted noting the structures that are being repaired were
previously permitted. Aside from the deck and landing and
stairways, which we really have no problem with. And being
permitted that will make it consistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number 18, En-Consultants on behalf of PATRIClA
CONGDON O'BRIEN requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing
storm damaged timber bulkhead (including +6' section of
bulkhead and existing return located beyond westerly property
boundary) and construct in its place approximately 96 linear
feet of vinyl bulkhead, a +16' vinyl return along the
westerly property line, and a +36' return along the easterly
property line; reconstruct in prior location a 14'x20' storm
damaged wood deck and 4'xl 4' steps; reconstruct 4'x8'
steps to beach; and backfill with approximately 500 cubic yards
of clean sandy fill to be re-vegetated with native planting to
restore storm eroded area landward of bulkhead to pre-storm
conditions. Located: 5000 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
This was found consistent and inconsistent. I believe the
inconsistency is about the 4x20 storm damaged deck and the
steps. The bulkhead is consistent. The Conservation Advisory
Board of Trustees 66 January 23, 2013
Council supports the application within the condition the buffer
is extended an additional ten feet for a total of 35 feet, and
planted with native vegetation.
I went out and looked at this application. This is one,
again, I know the people were very upset because they couldn't
get an emergency permit because there was no existing Wetland
Permit on the bulkhead. So that's why we are here and we are
taking care of business. They have a tremendous amount of
damage, like many of the places along Peconic Bay Boulevard.
I thought it was pretty straightforward. Just a lot of
material was lost. When everything is replaced here, the slope
will be re-vegetated. There will probably be a four or five-foot
buffer along the top of the slope. And the inconsistency for the
platform now, we have changed the code so hopefully this will
not happen in the future, again. That this deck is 9x10. That
makes it 90-square feet. And the change we made to the code is
to allow a 100-square foot platform associated with stairs. So
that will relieve a lot of problems with these existing
platforms that have been there for years, they have really done
no environmental harm, and rather than downsize them, or trying
to downsize them, we increased the size in the code, in these
latest revisions. So hopefully things will get a little easier.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application or
against it?
MR. PAWLIK: My name is Steve Pawlik, I'm the contractor. Is it
my understanding you won't approve the existing deck but you
will approve a 10x107
MS. HULSE: They can't advise on what they'ii approve. This is
part of the public hearing. The motion will be made after the
public hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: I just tried to clarify some issues on decks
associated with stairs.
MR. PAWLIK: The other question I have, you mentioned a five-foot
non-turf on the top of the lawn?
TRUSTEE KING: When you get the slope up, we don't want people
mowing to the very top of the slope now. If you could leave four
or five feet of not sod at the very top of the slope I think it
would really help these people out as far as erosion. I know
it's hard to visualize with what is there now.
Is there anybody else?
(No response).
There being no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted. And that's it. The one inconsistency of the platform
or the deck, being the size of it, with what is coming down the
road as far as our code goes I would find this consistent. I
make a motion to find consistent with LWRP.
Board of Trustees 67 January 23, 2013
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next two items maybe we can open as one
hearing. They are very close to each other.
Eh-Consultants on behalf of JAMES ABBOTT requests a Wetland
Permit to construct approximately 96 linear feet of vinyl
bulkhead in place of (and +/-12" higher than) existing storm
damaged timber bulkhead; remove and replace (in-kind/in-place)
approximately 91 linear feet of timber retaining wall; remove
existing returns and construct (2) 24' vinyl returns along
property lines; remove and replace or repair existing
10'x18' deck/gazebo and masonry stairs as necessary; construct
4 fx8 f steps to beach; and backfill with approximately 100 cubic
yards of clean sandy fill. Located: 8810 Great Peconic Bay
Boulevard, Laurel.
And number 20, En-Consultants on behalf of JOHN ABBOTT requests
a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 98 linear feet of
vinyl bulkhead in place of (and +/-18" higher than)
existing storm damaged timber bulkhead; replace existing timber
returns with (2) 24' vinyl returns along property lines; remove
existing concrete foundation and construct a 10'x10' gazebo
(deck with roof above) in place of storm destroyed 10'xl 1'
storage building; construct 4' wide stairway and landings in
place of storm destroyed stairway; construct 4'x8' steps to
beach; and re-nourish storm eroded area landward of bulkhead
with approximately 750 cubic yards of clean sandy fill to
restore top of slope and naturally vegetated embankment to
pre-storm conditions. Located: 8630 Great Peconic
Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
The applications were very straightforward. It's a case of
bulkhead destruction. The inconsistency in the application comes
from the fact that there were some structures there that
predated permits that are not reflected. There is no permit
history on them.
It's a very standard bulkhead replacement the Board did not
have a concern with. The Conservation Advisory Council had
recommended approval on the condition of the height of the
bulkhead was not increased and consider the installation of a
splash pad. But I believe the issue of the height of the
bulkheads was reviewed in the field so they were going to match
the neighboring heights. So I don't believe that there was an
issue with that. As a matter of fact, number 19, we were
considering allowing to raise up to a potentially near 24 inches
so that it would match with the height of the neighbor. So that
was -- actually, it was the other property. Sorry, it was number
20. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of the
application or against the application?
(No response).
Any questions from the Board on this?
TRUSTEE KING: No, I think you covered it. I think it's pretty
Board of Trustees 68 January 23, 2013
straightforward.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have a question for Derek. Is there any reason
why on a bunch of these applications the Conservation Advisory
Council is requesting that we don't raise the bulkhead?
MR. BOSSEN: Derek Bossen, Conservation Advisory Council. As a
group we just see the increase of the bulkhead heights across
the board endangers properties that may not be bulkheaded or
under bulkheaded. But we also agree with what the Trustees
believe is that the uniformity of bulkhead along a front. But
if everybody keeps building up their bulkheads higher and
higher, the guy who doesn't have that bulkhead, in our belief,
will be the one who gets punished by the people who have
fortified their property.
TRUSTEE KING: This is more or less a one-shot deal because of
the severe storm. I know it was an emergency permit, the general
permits from the DEC, they allowed up to 18" increase in height.
So we wanted to stay consistent with the other agencies.
MR. BOSSEN: We agree with that but we feel as a group everybody
is raising their bulkheads we are really stemming the tide of
inconsistency of higher bulkheading across the board.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
MR. BOSSEN: You're welcome.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess I just have one question. There was
that one block structure that was going to get removed?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I just wanted to clarify that. That takes
care of the inconsistency on that application. And the other
one, the structures there are all compliant with the current
code requirements so I think granting of the permit will bring
it into consistency through Wetland Permit issue, so I could
move ahead. All right, any additional comments or questions?
(No response).
Hearing none I'll make a motion to close the hearings for
numbers 19 and 20.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a separate motion for each
approval. I move to approve the construction of number 19 James
Abbott noting that the inconsistency has been addressed through
the permitting process, and to approve as submitted. So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Can you clarify he's removing the concrete
structure.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, clarify, to remove the existing
concrete block structure.
MR. ABBOTT: That's on number 20.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm sorry. 19 we were going to allow them to
replace the masonry steps and the existing structure. Make sure
the structure is compliant. My motion stands.
MS. CANTRELL: As submitted?
Board of Trustees 69 January 23, 2013
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, as submitted.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to approve number 20. This
application is to remove the remains of the block structure and
to permit construction of the bulkhead up to 24 inches as
necessary to meet the height of the neighboring bulkhead which
is to the east. So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And we should have revised plans showing up
to 24 inches to match up with the neighbor, please. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 21, En-Consultants on behalf of JOSEPH S.
CONNELLY, JOHN CONGDON, JANET SOUKUP, AND OTHERS request a
Wetland Permit to construct approximately 225 linear feet of
vinyl bulkhead in place of existing storm damaged (Hurricane
Sandy) timber bulkhead to be removed, and construct +/-4'
easterly extension of bulkhead to connect to new return proposed
along easterly property line under separate application
by Patricia Congdon O'Brien (+/-6' section of bulkhead and
existing return located on subject property are proposed to be
removed); remove and replace +/-24' timber return at westerly
property boundary with vinyl return; remove and replace (as
necessary) existing 6'x9' deck at top of slope; construct
3'x+/-20' wide stairway and 9'x10' deck behind bulkhead in place
of storm damaged structures; construct 4'x8' steps to beach;
and backfill with approximately 1,000 cubic yards of clean sandy
fill to be re-vegetated with native plantings to restore storm
eroded area landward of bulkhead, including top of slope to
pre-storm conditions. Located: Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
For clarity that would be Suffolk County tax map
128-4-6, since there was no actual address.
The Conservation Advisory Council did look at this and
resolved to support the application suggesting a condition the
buffer is extended an additional ten feet for a total of 35 feet
and planted with native vegetation. The LWRP has found this to
be consistent and inconsistent. Again, the inconsistency deals
with the stairs and the deck which would not have been a
permitted structure and didn't have a permit at the time.
Trustee King did go out and looked at this. We reviewed the
file. The rest of the Trustees reviewed the file.
Again, it was storm damage to an existing structure. There
was nothing there that was really out of the ordinary or that we
would not have normally approved. No noted concerns.
Is there anybody here representing the application?
MS. STEPHENS: We have the contractor here and also one of the
owners John Congdon is here, if you have any questions.
Board of Trustees 70 January 23, 2013
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I guess the only question I would have, the CAC
suggested increasing the non-turf buffer another ten feet. Is
that something you folks would consider?
MS. STEPHENS: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You would consider it?
MS. STEPHENS: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other questions from the Board? Any comments?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Some of these questions, extending the
non-turf buffer where they have the area between the retaining
walls and bulkheads.
TRUSTEE KING: It's either the retaining wall or it's a nicely
vegetated slope. I could understand going beyond the slope five
feet. I don't think you need ten.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think so either
MR. PAVVLIK: We would be happier with five.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's necessary to have a bigger
buffer when you have that much vegetated slope down to the
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I agree.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So how about we make the suggestion and we let
them either run with it or not.
TRUSTEE KING: Make it a five to ten buffer.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what I mean.
TRUSTEE KING: If you want to do ten, do ten. But no less than
five.
Mr. PAVVLIK: But no less than five. Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: How is that?
MR. PAWLIK: Perfect.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions? Comments?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted with the addition of adding another five foot, between
five and ten foot for the non-turf buffer, to extend that
non-turf buffer up to 35 feet, and noting that with the permits
that will bring this into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. STEVENS: You would also like revised plans on this?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, to reflect the possible addition of the
non-turf buffer. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number 22, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on
behalf of HIGH HOUSE WOODS, INC. Cio WENDY PRELLWlTZ requests a
Wetland Permit to on the East End: Construct new 7' bulkhead
extension at east end of existing bulkhead in line with same;
fill void area landward of new section with clean sand
(approximately 2 cubic yards); re-grade area and re-vegetate
Board of Trustees 71 January 23,2013
with native plantings to match existing vegetated slope. On the
West End: Patch 4' section of existing bulkhead by installing
1/2" HDPE sheathing to back side of existing T&G sheathing; fill
void area landward with clean sand (approximately 4 cubic
yards); re-grade area and re-vegetate with native plantings to
match existing vegetation. Retaining Wall: Construct 254' of new
upper retaining wall; back fill void area landward of new wall
with clean trucked in fill (approximately 150 cubic yards);
re-grade area and re-vegetate with native plantings to match
existing vegetation. East Jetty: Repair offshore
end; replace 16' of existing stringers, 7' of existing
sheathing, one existing and one missing piling. West Jetty:
Repair offshore end; replace 8' of existing sheathing.
Located: 7134 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic.
Once again, found consistent and inconsistent. What is the
inconsistency? (Perusing).
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
with the request the Trustees review the need for the groin. Is
there anyone here to speak against this application or for it?
MR. COSTELLO: My name is John Costello and I'm the agent for
this application. And I would like to try to answer any
questions if the Board has any. It's actually quite simple and
the jetties do not extend to Iow water. It's filling in some
minor voids that are, could be potential damaging areas. There
is a seven-foot repair to part of the east end of the bulkhead.
There is a four-foot closure at the west end. And there is two
yards of fill at one location and four yards of fill at another
location. That would make the bulkhead considerably more secure.
And the last thing anybody wants is another collapsing bulkhead
in the town. And all of it will be re-vegetated. The only portion
of this that is large is there is a large footage of a small
upper retaining wall. There was considerable over-splash and the
retaining wall totals about 254 feet and it will require new
fill of 150 yards that will be re-vegetated. Both jetties need
minor repair. Neither one is below the Iow water mark. But that
is reasonably stable beach and I would not like to change it at
all. They are Iow and we'll try to keep that beach as is, if
possible.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Was there fill already brought in?
MR. COSTELLO: Just a few yards, I believe. Just to make sure the
hole didn't get, because after we had Sandy --
TRUSTEE KING: There was a shoot there. Somebody left a shoot
there.
MR. COSTELLO: After Sandy there was a forecast of another
northeast storm after a couple of days and we tried to secure it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I saw the groins as being functional and they
were holding the beach pretty good.
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't have an issue with them. Why would they
find it inconsistent?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That was just the Conservation Advisory
Council, I think.
Board of Trustees 72 January 23, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: No. (Perusing). I guess it's because there were
no permits on them, maybe? Not constructed pursuant to Chapter
275 permit. So they never had a permit originally. But they look
functional. It looks like minor repairs.
Is there anybody else with any comments on this
application?
MS. PRELLWITZ: I'm Wendy Prellwitz, the owner, if you have any
questions for me. Those groins were put in quite a few years
ago, like in the '30's, so.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think the LWRP coordinator is finding a lot of
these have been coming in, some of the structures out there were
not permitted, so he's required to find it inconsistent. We find
it consistent by giving you the permit that you didn't have
before. So it's just a technicality in some cases.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we should change the language because
people, when you say unpermitted, people tend to believe well
that's not allowed. It should be it was predated permitting.
But being no further comments, I'll make a motion to close
the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
it's been submitted.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: The groins are now on the permit so that makes it
consistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 23, Costello Marine Contracting
Corp., on behalf of PATRICK & DIANE KELLY requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a 4'x6' cantilevered platform off of
existing bulkhead; install a 32"x16' seasonal aluminum ramp onto
a 6'x20' seasonal floating dock secured by two 2-pile anchor
dolphins; reconstruct existing stairway to beach, in-place.
Located: 75 Harbor Lights Drive, Southold.
This application is fairly straightforward, for a seasonal
floating dock. It's consistent with the two neighbors. This
project was deemed consistent under the LWRP. The Conservation
Advisory Council supported the application but didn't support
the addition of a ten-foot return because it would enhance
erosion to the neighboring property. I'm just trying to see
(perusing). And the inspection, Trustee Mike Domino had done the
inspection. Mr. Costello, does this include a return?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't see any mention.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't see a mention in the description.
MR. COSTELLO: No. Are we on 23?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Patrick and Diane Kelly. I didn't see it on
the plan. And we are relying on Mike Domino's inspection.
MR. COSTELLO: This is, it's several of these little platforms,
cantilevered platforms with a ramp and float in this specific
Board of Trustees 73 January 23, 2013
area of the creek. What we want to do is be consistent so we
don't protrude out.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Somebody must have transposed the notion
that this involves a return. So clearly there is no return
involved. It's a straightforward application.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, for a cantilevered platform off the existing
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I had to ask the question. I was at a loss
to explain it. Okay, any additional questions? Comments?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this
application as submitted.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 24 Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on
behalf of ROBERT WINCHESTER requests a Wetland Permit to
legalize the following existing structures: A 6'x79' fixed dock;
180' of 5' high bulkhead; 10'x18' boathouse; 700 square foot
wood deck; 3'x30' bluff stairs; 16'x32' in-ground pool; and a
40'x10' retaining wall at pool; and for the construction of a
36 ' retainer to protect pool retaining wall from collapsing due
to wash out from recent storm; fill void area landward of
retainer with clean trucked-in fill approximately 6 cubic yards;
regrade area and re-vegetate with native plantings to match
existing vegetation. Located: 6675 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
The LWRP found this to be consistent and inconsistent. The
inconsistency, again, is the fact that some of the structures
were not permitted before. And we are addressing that with this
application. I would like to point out that the Conservation
Advisory Council voted to table this due to the complexity of
the project. They didn't have adequate time to inspect the
property.
I would like to mention that in the application I failed to
mention that the dock is not connected to the bulkhead. And
there is a 32"x20' seasonal ramp that is used to connect it.
That should also be in this application. Is there anybody here
to speak to this application?
MR. COSTELLO: John Costello with Costello Marine Contracting.
And we are the agents for Mr. Winchester on this application to
fix and try to keep the dock in. Like you said, the ramp is
there. It's on site. And it's only in a seasonal basis when
boating and somebody put it there. You can walk underneath it,
you can get around it. But it's only used seasonally, the ramp.
The boathouse and some repairs to the bulkhead evidently you can
see in the photographs is certainly --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I just want to verify, this was down in Nassau
Board of Trustees 74 January 23, 2013
Point. Is that it?
MR. COSTELLO: That is the adjacent neighbor's bulkhead and that
corner of that bulkhead right there is causing a major problem
and slumping on the whole cliff. And we are trying to put an
additional retaining wall support, because you can see their
upper retaining wall, the one before that, is basically a storm
surge hit that bulkhead and that upper retaining wall needs to
be replaced, and we might have to do some terracing after that
because the corner of the bulkhead on the first photo you had
is, right there, we have to do some terracing in that area in
order to -- we may not do the bulkhead. I don't know if they are
going to do it in the future but right now they don't intend to
do it. And he's becoming more vulnerable at that point. That's
the only dock out there. And it's still there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is this part of the application as well? That's
the dock.
MR. COSTELLO: The only thing that dock needs is some minor
repair. There is some decking pieces missing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All right.
MR. COSTELLO: We probably built that 25, 30 years ago. And it's
still there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Dave said it was there forever and ever. He
remembers it as a kid, I think.
MR. COSTELLO: I'm the only one here that could remember forever
and ever.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Jim is a close second.
MR. COSTELLO: I'm really surprised. I don't believe we ever went
back to do any repairs in the last 20 years, except for a couple
of pieces of decking. Thank God.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It seems straightforward to us. Any other
comments from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the addition of the 32"x20' seasonal ramp, and this will
address the inconsistencies.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. COSTELLO: Thank you, gentlemen.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 25, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of
KAREN & MICAHEL CATAPANO requests a Wetland Permit to replace
the existing storm damaged bulkhead and add two (2) +/-16'
returns; replace 10'3"X6'1" shed; replace 14'x20'1" upper deck
with a gate; replace 4' wide steps with handrails from top of
bluff down to beach with associated 4'x6'5 1/2" platform with
handrails; replace existing 16'8"x36' lower deck; fill storm
eroded area with sand. Located: 7325 Nassau Point Road,
Board of Trustees 75 January 23, 2013
Cutchogue.
Again this is another storm damage application to replace a
bulkhead and associated structures. The Conservation Advisory
Council looked at it. They support the application. It does
note however that the shed no longer exists and the proposed
shed must conform to current code.
The LWRP has found it to be exempt. The bulkhead is exempt.
The addition of the two returns and filling the storm-eroded
area with sand are consistent. It notes the deck and the steps
and the handrails and the lower deck as inconsistent, again,
because it didn't have a previous permit. So it has an
exemption, consistency and an inconsistency.
MS. MOORE: I do have a pre-CO for the shed, all the structures,
so if that helps to gives you, I have a pre-CO for all those
structures. Then there was a permit for the bulkhead, I think
you mentioned, so. Permit #4302 from 1994.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When the Trustees were out there, there is a
note here, and it's not in this particular picture, but there
was some trees on the bluff, and we are looking at, the
Trustees, we are interested in trying to save those trees, if it
was possible.
MS. MOORE: It was not trees, you are talking about the shrubs
that burned, what they had asked you to remove? Is that what
you were talking about?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think so.
MS. MOORE: I don't remember trees, to be honest.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I guess there were some cedar trees. I don't
know if they could be saved or not.
MS. MOORE: I don't know. There is such extensive damage there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Exactly. Derek?
MR. BOSSEN: Those were cedar trees on that property.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Those are cedars, right?
MR. BOSSEN: Yes.
MS. MOORE: Where are they, like on the bank?
MR. BOSSEN: They are to the south of the staircase. They just
look like they were wind burned, and speaking with the property
owner, I inspected the property with, I said they would recover
just with some minor pruning, but they looked just like they
were wind burned from the salt.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Knowing you were a landscape designer, what is
your opinion.
MR. BOSSEN: They add a lot to the property. I would like to see
them kept. There was some invasive privet on the bluff which
requires maintenance and people didn't, if those shrubs on the
bluff are not removed then someone is always walking up and down
the bluff keeping it, allowing it to become this big thing, it
will fall and that take off the bluff. Things like that we
generally want to see removed, it's non-native species.
TRUSTEE KING: Try to maintain the native species that are there,
try and save them.
MS. MOORE: I'm trying to identify what was there. Are we --
Board of Trustees 76 January 23, 2013
because on the south side is where there were some I think like
right on the bank, it was part, the root system was exposed and
there was some shrubbery there. I guess I didn't identify as a
cedar tree. Is that the privet or cedar?
MR. BOSSEN: No, the privet was right up near the top of the
crest of the bluff. In talking with the homeowner I mentioned
that's a non-native species and generally frowned upon on the
bluff because of the maintenance involved.
MS. MOORE: Okay, I don't think it's a problem removing the
privet, so. So, we'll do our best to preserve the cedars. I
mean, I don't know -- we have --
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: We realize there will be some re-vegetation
there.
MS. MOORE: Okay. lan Crowley is doing Catapano, so.
MR. CROWLEY: I don't necessarily remember the cedar trees
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: They're in the picture. I have the pictures up
here. If you want to come up, I'll show you.
MR. CROWLEY: Yes, please.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Obviously some of these you can't but there is
some that still exist.
MR. CROWLEY: That's his stairway and his house is to the right
of that.
MS. MOORE: Behind the decking there is the house.
MR. CROWLEY: No, the beach house, the shed, or whatever you call
it.
MS. MOORE: Oh, the shed was on the right-hand side of the
picture.
MR. CROWLEY: I was going to come, I think on this southern end
and cut a row down and then that would be the only thing I have
to do on the bluff.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, within reason.
MS. MOORE: Isn't that where the cedars are?
MR. CROWLEY: Looks to me they are on the other side of the
steps. If that's where they are, we have to change that. If
that's what you want. We do have to get down there some way,
somehow. Obviously we are not going to mow the trees down if we
don't have to.
TRUSTEE KING: We don't want to see them get annihilated
MR. CROWLEY: Absolutely not.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Any other questions or 'comments?
(No response).
From the Board?
(No response).
Aside from that it's a pretty straightforward application.
Repairing what was there. I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted with the stipulation that whatever existing native
Board of Trustees 77 January 23, 2013
plantings that can be saved, be saved. And that if you can
remove the non-native species and when you re-vegetate the bluff
you US native vegetation. Noting that with approval of this
application it will bring it into consistency with LWRP. Do I
have a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number 26, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of
JANE (~. WEILAND requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the
existing storm damaged bulkhead; reconstruct existing stairs to
beach; reconstruct the existing stairs with associated covered
platform down the embankment; construct a new retaining wall;
add fill and re-vegetate area to stabilize the eroded bank.
Located: 6485 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
This was found, once again, consistent and inconsistent.
The retaining wall, add fill, re-vegetate is consistent.
Reconstruct existing stairs and associated covered platform down
near bank is inconsistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
with the ten-foot vegetated buffer along the top of the bluff.
I think Dave looked at this. I don't think we were all down
there.
MS. MOORE: No, you were there.
TRUSTEE KING: Oh, yes.
MS. MOORE: I just want to add for some reason the description
Joe Fischetti did the design here and lan Crowley is going to do
the construction. Mr. and Mrs. Weiland are here as well. When I
gave you the description, the drawings came after, so I failed
to include the returns, and I should have just put it on the
description. The Fischetti drawings do show and identify returns
included in this plan.
We do have another issue that I want to put on the record
because I want to make sure you guys are in agreement. The
association built, or somebody from the association, built a
stairway and the decking adjacent to this property and they
didn't have a permit and they actually built it encroaching on
my client's property by about two feet. It's showing on the
survey. It was done maybe three years ago, two years ago.
MS. WEILAND: I think it was more about six or seven.
MS. MOORE: Six or seven, but less than ten, which is a concern
for adverse possession. We don't want to have an adverse
possession situation. But it was built without Trustee permits.
What we would like to do is cut the encroachment, it's a
three-foot encroachment, cut that back, rather than have to wait
until you issue violations and if you choose to issue violations
and get the association to remove it, since we are doing so much
work there and we have the returns coming back, it actually
might interfere with our returns. Do you see the survey?
TRUSTEE KING: Evidently it's a curved property line. You have
have a tie line and you have a curved property line. And this
Board of Trustees 78 January 23, 2013
is the encroachment of this deck here?
MS. MOORE: Hero's the property. Here is the easement. This is
the deck that --
TRUSTEE KING: That's the encroachment. That's what I'm looking
at here.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's a curved property line.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm looking at that.
MS. MOORE: That's not a curved property line.
TRUSTEE KING: It's a curve with a tie line.
MS. MOORE: It's a right-of-way.
TRUSTEE KING: Hero is the right-of-way.
MS. MOORE: The right-of-way is actually a meets and bounds
right-of-way with the property line.
TRUSTEE KING: They've done it with a tie line is what they have
done.
MS. MOORE: No, that's not --
TRUSTEE KING: There is your property line.
MS. MOORE: Yes, that's called an encroachment.
TRUSTEE KING: I know, but this is the property line. It's a
curved property line.
MS. MOORE: I won't argue because if you are taking it from the
street it's curved.
TRUSTEE KING: Because have you a right-of-way this width all the
way down. The only area you are looking at, this is what you
should be worried about, the encroachment. I don't know what we
could do about it.
MS. MOORE: We aro just letting you know we ara going to remove
it.
TRUSTEE KING: That'll start a good neighborhood dispute.
MS. MOORE: When you trespass, I mean it was done illegally
without a Trustee permit, usually you have a problem with those.
I'm not asking you to do anything other than just to let you
know that's actually an encroachment.
TRUSTEE KING: Now we have the lawyer ratting out the next door
neighbor.
MS. MOORE: No, I said we don't care what they do, I don't care
what you guys do, we just want to make suro you know that it's
an area we have to address, so. Since it doesn't have a permit,
I don't know if you want me identify, I'm putting it on the
record. I don't know. Do what you want.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm looking at the field notes Dave filled out.
There is no information needed and no modification needed. So I
don't think anybody had any issues with this.
MS. MOORE: Just make sure the returns ara included because I
want to be sure the description matches the drawings.
TRUSTEE KING: Is this a return here, Bob? Looks like a return.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Looks like the return is on the other property.
MS. MOORE: We aro going to --
TRUSTEE KING: On the north end of the property.
MS. MOORE: Yes, lan --
TRUSTEE KING: It shows the return actually going on to that
Board of Trustees 79 January 23, 2013
neighbor's property.
MS. MOORE: He'll actually straighten it and put it within our
property boundaries.
TRUSTEE KING: How long?
MR. CROWLEY: 16 feet. I think it's noted on the cross section,
but not on the site plan.
MS. MOORE: 16-foot returns at each end of retaining walls, right
above Joe Fischetti's red seal on the drawing.
MR. CROWLEY: But the one on the north we would tweak over, make
it more of an acute angle and install one on the southern end.
TRUSTEE KING: So 16-foot returns on each end of the retaining
wall.
MS. MOORE: Right. Then he has for the upper retaining wall
six-foot returns at each end of the retaining wall. That's the
second page of the design.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay. All right. So it should say 16-foot
returns at each end of the bulkhead.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: He has retaining wall in here.
MS. MOORE: There is two things. He has a retaining wall and
bulkhead.
MR. CROWLEY: That should be corrected.
TRUSTEE KING: See what I'm saying, lower bulkhead is a bulkhead.
So reconstruct new retaining wall along the bank.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The plan that we have doesn't show a retaining
wall. Unless I'm missing something.
TRUSTEE KING: Here is the new retaining wall.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He drew it in a different place. Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: We have it all.
MS. MOORE: I know I delivered it to you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It was not on the survey.
TRUSTEE KING: Now on the south end we'll have a return there
where the deck is. In other words you'll remove the deck and put
the return there.
MR. CROWLEY: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: That's the game plan.
MR. CROWLEY: That's proposed, yes.
TRUSTEE KING: It's on their property. I mean.
MR. CROWLEY: I wouldn't go cutting it without somebody telling
me it's all right.
TRUSTEE KING: This is the encroachment. This return is on this
edge of the property. They want to straighten it out and put it
on their property. And they want to build a return here and in
order to put the return here, they have to remove three feet of
that deck.
MS. HULSE: That has nothing to do with us.
TRUSTEE KING: I can't give them permission.
MS. MOORE: No, we are just --
MS. HULSE: I thought you were talking about a vegetation issue.
Yes, they can certainly give the approval.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: We can approve the project, how you build it is --
Board of Trustees 80 January 23, 2013
MS. MOORE: Our decision. Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else?
(No response).
Nobody else, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application, and
that includes 16-foot returns at each end of the lower bulkhead
and six-foot returns at each end of the retaining wall, and the
new retaining wall. And I think that's it. In the area between
the bulkhead and retaining wall will just be left in its natural state.
MS. MOORE: Well, there is some, was there a decking? It has a
permit already.
TRUSTEE KING: There is a deck there. We don't want to see sod
or something like that.
MS. MOORE: No, no, not at all.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve with the returns on the bulkhead
and retaining wall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Good luck.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 27, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on
behalf of BEE-HIVE DEVELOPMENT CORP., requests a Wetland Permit
to construct a new single-family dwelling; new sanitary system;
gutters to leaders to drywells on the dwelling; proposed brick
paver patio on grade on seaward side of dwelling. Located: 440
Old Cove Boulevard, Southold.
This was considered consistent by LWRP. The Conservation
Advisory Council moved to approve with a condition of a 15-foot
non-turf buffer. This was subject to ZBA action. The ZBA
required a ten-foot non-turf buffer. As field notes of the
Trustees are in conformity with the ZBA recommendation, we
discussed possibly a wider buffer but with the feeling of the
Board, at least in the field, in the initial discussion, was
that given the proximity of the property to bulkhead and the
fact that the lands, if anything, are flat or have no real slope
it would make an issue as far as a maintained lawn area we felt
the ten-foot non-turf buffer would be appropriate, if it's
agreeable.
That was it. It was very straightforward. It was basically
a return from the ZBA. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak
for or against? It was pretty straightforward.
MS. MOORE: It's very straightforward. And one of the few new
applications you saw tonight. My client is here but you don't
need to hear from us. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments?
Board of Trustees 81 January 23, 2013
(No response).
If not, I'll make a motion to close the here nothing this
matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this
application as submitted continuing the condition of the Zoning
Board of Appeals for a ten-foot non-turf buffer along the edge
of the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 28, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of
INA HASDAY requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 140'+/-
bulkhead along Peconic Bay; to add a 25' +/- return on the east
side of the bulkhead; to construct 4' wide steps to beach; and
to restore area landward of bulkhead. Located: 100 Macdonald's
Crossing, Laurel.
This is found to be consistent by LWRP. The Conservation
Advisory Council voted not to support the application because
there was insufficient information and noted that the
application should include numbered street addresses because of
difficulty locating the property.
The Trustees visited the site and the only note we have,
everything seemed to be straightforward, the only note was that
the eastern return should be increased from 25 feet to
approximately 60 feet to better protect this property and
adjacent properties. Is there anyone here to speak to this
application?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore, I'm here. I don't think that it will
be a problem.
TRUSTEE KING: We met the property owners there, Pat, and talked
it over with them. I showed them the property to the east is to
protect them because the property to the east is not very well protected.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And they don't anticipate it getting
protected soon, so there was a concern.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. I think they are looking for the maximum
protection. So that's fine.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: No, that was the only change we wanted to see.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments I'll 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 the application as
submitted, in addition with the condition that the return be
increased from 25 feet to approximately 60 feet.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 82 January 23, 2013
(ALL AYES).
MS. MOORE: Do you need me to submit revised drawings or just
mark off, because you had very simple drawings from my client.
TRUSTEE KING: I could just draw a line on it.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. I'll come back next week. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 29, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of
DAVID M. DALY & OTHERS requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing 3'6"x25'4" steps to beach (not damaged in storm);
remove damaged 31'6"x10' deck on beach; construct new deck
landward of new bulkhead; reconstruct damaged 82' long bulkhead.
Located: 625 Town Harbor Terrace, Southold.
The Conservation Advisory Council did visit this and they
resolved to support the application to reconstruct the damaged
bulkhead but not support the application to construct a new
deck. The Conservation Advisory Council supports reconstruction
of the bulkhead at same height, no boardwalk, and recommends the
installation of a 25' non-turf buffer landward of the new
bulkhead with native plants. The lower damaged deck should not
be rebuilt.
The LWRP coordinator finds this to be consistent with LWRP
noting that in 1992 the Board issued a letter of
non-jurisdiction, not requiring a permit for the bulkhead and
the stair structures.
MS. MOORE: Actually our proposal is not to rebuild this deck
into the beach but to bring it above, landward.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what I thought, yes.
MS. HULSE: Which is probably why it was found to be consistent.
MS. MOORE: Good, but I don't understand Conservation Advisory
Council comments. Sorry.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This was an interesting month. The Conservation
Advisory Council may have gotten some of these without the
benefit of the whole file because we had extended the month and
then everything else.
MS. MOORE: No problem.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When we were out there we noted that we would
like to see, you know, the boardwalk as we have been doing, give
it a slight pitch so it's inclined a little bit inward,
landward, to make sure the runoff goes landward rather than over
the bulkhead. Aside from that it was another straightforward
one, correcting a problem and bringing it more into compliance
with what we would like to see, under the reconstruction after
the storm. I don't think there was any other issues, right? Any
other questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: No, I just thought it was good getting the deck
off the beach. It's an improvement.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Seeing no other comments, I'll make a motion to
close the hearing
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. MOORE: I don't know that you need drawings for this but
Board of Trustees 83 January 23, 2013
maybe in your description just ask that, in the description when
you are typing up the permit, just refer to the boardwalk
pitching slightly toward, on the landward so that our contractor
will understand the proposal.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted with the only requirement being that the boardwalk be
slightly pitched landward so that the runoff will not go toward
the bulkhead but away from it. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number 30, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc.,
on behalf of BRICK COVE MARINA, INC., requests a Wetland Permit
to restore two (2) shoreline areas along the southern section
of subject property that experienced severe erosion as a result
of Hurricane Sandy; subject areas will be restored by the
placement of boulders (2.0 ton +) landward and parallel to the
high water mark; the existing concrete rip-rap will be
re-configured where necessary in order to make the placement of
the boulders optimal; additionally, the area landward of the
proposed boulders and the escarpment is to be backfilled using
clean fill obtained from an upland source (50 cubic yards +);
the backfill will be graded & groomed, and planted with Cape
American Beach Grass (Ammophila breviligulata).
Located: 1760 Sage Boulevard, Southold.
TRUSTEE KING: This was found to be consistent with the LWRP. The
Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application. We have nothing in our notes to indicate any
problems with this. Is there anyone here to speak for or against
this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicant Brick Cove Marina. We met out there, I think
everyone understands what the application is, if you have any
questions. I have no desire to prolong this evening, so.
TRUSTEE KING: No, we don't need a real long presentation.
MR. ANDERSON: I don't think so.
TRUSTEE KING: This is pretty straightforward. We all looked it
at it. I don't think anybody had any issues.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No.
TRUSTEE KING: So if there are no other comments, 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.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Next application, number 31, Suffolk
Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of STEVE SACHMAN
requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing bulkhead
Board of Trustees 84 January 23, 2013
(100.0'L +/-), construct two returns (20.0'L +/-), all with
vinyl sheathing; reconstruct the existing lower steps (60.0
sq.ft. +/-); and to deposit clean fill obtained from an upland
source in order to replace lands lost along the shoreline and
landward of the original bulkheading (700.0 cubic yards +).
Located: 4705 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
It was determined to be inconsistent because of a lack of a
prior permit history. The Conservation Advisory Council tabled
the application because the runoff going into the right-of-way
should be addressed. The plans are incomplete and Conservation
Advisory Council recommends a site plan for the project; the
information provided is inadequate.
The Board looked at this and on field inspection we felt
that it was all a quite standard bulkhead replacement. We did
discuss the existence of the right-of-way because Trustee Bergen
is a Nassau Point resident and familiar with the area. I don't
recall a discussion on the runoff issue. It didn't seem largely
evident. And certainly it would be unusual for us to stop a
project for a site plan approval for standard bulkhead
replacement.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Bruce, is this the proper picture?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Is that a proper picture?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So that's what we have in the file. Is there
anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicant Sachman. I'm not aware of any runoff issue
which affects Carpenter Road, which is a walking right-of-way
that runs along the northern side lot boundary. The survey
indicates a wood retaining wall around it but I don't think
there is an actual issue that I'm prepared to address here or
maybe that even needs addressing. But I'm open to any
suggestions anyone has.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We might have been to this right-of-way
previously, that was brought to our attention by Trustee Bergen,
the runoff coming off a town road at the road end may have and
up as a discussion but I don't think we saw anything that
pertains here. Derek, did you go out on this one?
MR. BOSSEN: No, I was not there for that one but we did talk
about it at the meeting, the natural flow of the land pitches
toward that roadway and that the property owner can do something
to address whatever issues are arisen at his property to address
any runoff issues. It's really addressing the runoff issues.
MR. ANDERSON: I could tell you this. What we do have here is we
have a flattened area at the bottom of the slope, so when the
bulkhead is replacing, you can see on the survey, there is about
a 15-foot area between the bulkhead and the bottom of the
stairs. You can see it right on your photo there, it's a
flattened area. Now, we would fill to just below the top of the
bulkhead so we don't have any water flowing over the top of the
Board of Trustees 85 January 23, 2013
bulkhead. But it's flat, it would be vegetated by beach grass,
and it seems to me you would have adequate capture and recharge
of whatever is running across land, which, by the way, is all
sand anyway. It's a sandy bluff. And we intend to use whatever
fill we are talking about will be clean sand and will be
vegetated with beach grass one foot on center. That's the plan
before the Board. So if that's not adequate to address it I'm
not sure what else I would do.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: What was the inconsistency?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The inconsistency was complying with Trustee
regulations, in other words permitting.
MR. ANDERSON: We are here because we didn't have a permit.
Otherwise I would have just done it with an emergency permit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Exactly, it was lack of a permit history and
there apparently was a waiver for the steps in 2000. The
inconsistency can be addressed with the permit process. Any
additional comments?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve the
application as submitted and thereby permitting the application
will bring it into consistency. So moved.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 32, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc., on behalf of DEAN BLAIKIE requests a Wetland
Permit to reconstruct the existing bulkhead (100.0'L+/-);
construct two returns (20.0'L+/-), all with fiberglass
sheathing; reconstruct the existing lower steps (60.0 sq.ft.+),
wood deck (350 sq.ft.+), upper steps (350 sq.ft.+); and deposit
clean fill obtained from an upland source in order to replace
lands lost along the shoreline and landward of the original
bulkheading (1,200.0 cubic yards +).
Located: 6925 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent because
of the lack of permit history. The Conservation Advisory Council
did not have an opportunity inspect therefore no recommendation
was made.
The Trustees visited this site and noted the extensive
erosion and made no comments or suggestions. It's pretty
straightforward. Is there anyone here to speak to this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environment Consulting for
the applicant Dean Blaikie. I'm here to answer any questions you
may have.
Board of Trustees 86 January 23, 2013
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is a good photo?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Some of the ones in Nassau Point got mixed up.
That's why I ask.
MR. ANDERSON: No, that's not it. I have photos for you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That was the big blowout.
MR. ANDERSON: Big blowout. The beach house and the deck are now
almost cantilevered over the top of the bluff. There is what the
house looks like from up top. This is from the top looking down.
This looks about right.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That looks like it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: It's a massive amount of erosion. It's
unbelievable.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to
close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I make a motion to approve this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 33, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc., on behalf of ELIZABETH SPERES requests a Wetland Permit to
reconstruct the existing lower bulkhead (100.0'L +/-), construct
three (3) returns (12.0'L each +/-), and reconstruct the upper
retaining wall (100.0'L +/-), all with vinyl sheathing;
reconstruct the existing lower steps (60.0 sq.ft. +), wood deck
(350 sq.ft. +), upper steps (350 sq.ft. +), and a portion of the
existing concrete walk towards the shoreline (100 sq.ft. +);
deposit clean fill obtained from an upland source in order to
replace lands lost along the shoreline and landward of the
original bulkheading (500.0 cubic yards +); and install a splash
pad (1,200.0 sq.ft. +) between the upper and lower walls.
Located: 9675 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
This project has been variously deemed to be exempt,
consistent and inconsistent. It is exempt for aspects that are
minor points of the applications. And inconsistent is not
explicitly stated; presumably to bring all the structures up to
permit. I just don't see it here. I'll take a second. If you
bear with me, I just want to review the LWRP coordinator's report.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is this it, Bruce?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It merely states what the definition of
"minor structure" was. I'm of the impression that the LWRP
coordinator basically gave a shotgun review of this to make sure
that we were including the project with permitting to cover
this.
MR. ANDERSON: I think it's inconsistent because it predates.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It predates permitting and it doesn't state
Board of Trustees 87 January 23, 2013
it here. It just describes minor action. I can't interpret it
further. And I have nothing to go on other than permitting.
The Board had no problems. The Conservation Advisory
Council supported the application with the condition the
drainage is retrofitted into the non-porous walkway and pitched
away from the water.
MR. ANDERSON: Say that again?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Conservation Advisory Council wants,
there is a non-porous walkway.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, that's true.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess they want to have a feature that
would handle water on the non-porous walkway. I guess that
would be most important where it would be pitched toward the
bluff. I'll be honest with you, I remember, vaguely, concrete,
but I'm not entirely picturing how it runs up to the bluff.
MR. ANDERSON: I'll say this. There will be no runoff over the
bulkhead whatsoever. If you look at the cross section you'll see
we provided the two feet splash pad rip rap. Underlying that is
filter cloth and underlying that is sand.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Two-foot thick splash pad --
MR. ANDERSON: That's as sufficient recharge as you could
possibly have. And I don't want puddles on the steps
themselves.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If there was a concern about the existing
concrete walk, they could always put a small non-turf or flower
bed area to handle runoff in the immediate vicinity where runoff
to either side to the bluff. I think --
MR. ANDERSON: The bluff will be restored using all native plants
anyway, so that's fine.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You don't have a problem with that, would
you?
MR. ANDERSON: No.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think everything seems to be pretty
consistent.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there something else?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, there was an amendment to the permit 4174 to
add a 12x22 deck, and that's what, 264 square feet, and they
have a 350-square foot deck. I think that's where the
inconsistency is.
MR. ANDERSON: Say that again, now.
TRUSTEE KING: There was a permit, the Trustees granted an
amendment to permit number 4174 to add a 12x22 deck above the
bulkhead. This deck is, it's the same deck. The deck is 350
square feet.
MR. ANDERSON: We are fine with that. It scales to 12x22 exactly.
So I think the 350 square feet is an error. It should be 12x22, so.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's 264 square feet.
MR. ANDERSON: Correct, that's exactly what it scales to.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what they had the permit for.
MS. HULSE: That's fine. As long as it's consistent.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, any additional comments?
Board of Trustees 88 January 23, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: So I just changed the description to be 264.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And the upper steps will be 350?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Not hearing any additional comments I'll
make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it's the same deck. They can both be 264.
There shouldn't be another deck.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm sorry. The wood deck is 264, right?
MR. ANDERSON: Correct.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Then it says upper steps. Is that included as
part of that or is that another?
MR. ANDERSON: It's another deck.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The upper steps says 350 square foot. What is
that?
TRUSTEE KING: Is that the square footage of the steps?
MR. ANDERSON: No, there is two steps that lead to the top.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So the 350 square foot that is mentioned in the
description after the upper steps, does that get scratched off?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, that scales to whatever it was, the 264.
It's part of the 264. The 350 is an error. It should read 264.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The upper steps on your plan show 15 square
feet. The wood deck is --
MR. ANDERSON: That's the steps that lead down to the deck. We
are trying to be as specific as possible.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We are doing 264 and scratch the one after that,
that's fine.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It seems like it was redundant. It should
have been the 15 square feet if you were going to describe the
upper steps.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. Is that what the plan says?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, it says 15 square feet for the upper
steps.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor to close the hearing?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll move to approve this application
subject to the correction in description that the wood deck is
264 square feet, the upper steps are 15-square feet, and that a
stipulation be made that to improve the drainage for the
concrete walk that a pervious area of, whether it be stone blend
or flower bed or such, of a minimum of say a foot to two feet be
installed for the last, I don't know, five feet before the upper
steps.
MR. ANDERSON: Where is that?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In other words this area here. I'm pointing
to either side.
MR. ANDERSON: Got it. Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That a non-turf type buffering area, whether
it be flower bed or gravel.
MR. ANDERSON: How wide?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Either side, say a minimum of two feet. Two
feet on either side for the last fight feet of the concrete walk
Board of Trustees 89 January 23, 2013
so it won't direct water over the bluff; to help diminish the
water near the bluff face. So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And that would also address the
inconsistency.
TRUSTEE KING: Number 34, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc.,
on behalf of CHRISTOPHER STABILE requests a Wetland Permit to
reconstruct the existing bulkhead (140.0'L+/-), construct one
return (20.0'L+/-), all with vinyl sheathing; applicant
proposes to reconstruct the existing lower steps (60.0 sq.ft.+),
wood deck (350 sq.ft.+), upper steps (350.0 sq.ft.+); deposit
clean fill obtained from an upland source in order to replace
lands lost along the shoreline and landward of the original
bulkheading (700.0 cubic yards +). Located: 9975 Nassau Point
Road, Cutchogue.
This was found to be inconsistent with the LWRP. It's
another one of a case where there were no permits on the
structures. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the
application with the condition the bluff and the crest of the
bluff is planted with native vegetation.
We have no questions on the field notes. Is there anyone
here to speak on behalf of or against this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for applicant Stabile. I have nothing to add. The bluff will
stabilized with natural vegetation as will the area immediately
landward of the reconstructed bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KING: We have another issue with upper steps 350-square
feet. I don't understand.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Did you get some new software, Bruce?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. How do you like it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Very nice. Doesn't constitute an
endorsement. It's just an offhand comment.
TRUSTEE KING: Wood deck, 350-square feet. Upper steps,
350-square feet. Can you straighten me out on this, Bruce? I'm
getting confused here.
MR. ANDERSON: Sure. What's the question?
TRUSTEE KING: Reconstruct existing lower steps, 60-square feet.
MR. ANDERSON: Right.
TRUSTEE KING: Wood deck, 350-square feet. They show a deck here
20x10.
MR. ANDERSON: No, I don't know where that 350 keeps coming up.
It's 20x10 which is 200-square feet.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what is on the drawing. I'm looking at the
description.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We'll change that to 200-square foot deck.
TRUSTEE KING: I think something got transposed between the
description because it's almost identical language.
MR. ANDERSON: I think that's what happened.
MS. CANTRELL: We have some problems with some of the project
Board of Trustees 90 January 23, 2013
descriptions, we had to revise.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Just scratch the 350 on the upper, because that
makes no sense.
TRUSTEE KING: And the wood deck is only 200.
MR. ANDERSON: Right, as per the plans.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And the bulkhead is 140-foot long.
TRUSTEE KING: This covered entrance, what's the square footage
on that; do you know, Bruce? Is this anything we can scale off?
MR. ANDERSON: It measures 13x12.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 13x12 covered entrance is at the top of the
bluff. Should be 156-square feet.
MR. ANDERSON: That's correct.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else on this application?
(No response).
Seeing no other questions, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application to
reconstruct the existing bulkhead, one return, reconstruct
existing lower steps; wood deck is 200-square feet, 20x10 wood
deck; the beach stairs and the upper covered entrance of
156-square feet. Did I miss anything? I think everything else
shown in the drawings. There is a buffer. Everything to look
for. So with those change to the deck sizes, I would make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with
the changes to those deck sizes, and that would bring it into
consistency with LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 35, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc., on behalf of VINCENT MATASSA requests a Wetland Permit to
demolish existing two-story single-family residence, and
construct a new two-story single-family residence with deck in
approximately the same footprint.
Located: 920 Sandy Beach Road, Greenport.
This application is to demolish AN existing two-story
dwelling and construct a new two-story dwelling in the
relatively same footprint. I took a look at this one. The
Conservation Advisory Council resolves to support the
application. The LWRP finds this to be consistent with the
LWRP, however is recommending a 15-foot landscape buffer
landward from the edge of the wetlands. And when I was out in
the field it was all staked, I checked everything out. It is
relatively in the same footprint. It is a home that does need,
Board of Trustees 91 January 23, 2013
you know, does need to be replaced or renovated, one or the
other, so I have no problem with this. The only comment that I
had was what was happening with the dock and the catwalk.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay, we are going to fix the dock. The
interesting thing about this particular property is the
immediate shoreline including the dock is within the Village of
Greenport. So we did not make an application for the dock
extension. Our intent is to extend the dock so it lines up with
the existing pier line on either side, but I don't believe it's
within the jurisdiction of the Trustees.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I was curious, because it looked dilapidated.
The only other comment or suggestion I had was kind of in line
with what the LWRP coordinator is suggesting, which is perhaps
setting up a 25 or 30-foot non-disturbance buffer there only
because of the consistency of the wetland there. For example if
the applicant decided to do go in and do a landscape buffer, it
would really break up the consistency of that style of wetland
on that, it's kind of a beachy area. The wetland is notated on
the survey, so I mean it would be pretty simple to do. We are
showing the edge of the wetlands, you know, and the flood zone
line and it's roughly 25 feet from the edge, from the mean high
water.
MR. ANDERSON: That exists today.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Correct. I don't have that on here as a
non-disturbance buffer. Well, it is in the village.
MR. ANDERSON: What I have is a 15-foot buffer landward of the
wetland boundary.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right.
MR. ANDERSON: Which we could provide with like a beach grass,
15 foot slot landward of that line, which I'm sure would be fine
with the client. And we'll provide plans to that effect.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That way we can try to maintain that continuance
of shoreline.
MR. ANDERSON: It would be Iow and windswept, which is the
character of the area.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. Good. Any other comments or questions from
the Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to approve the
application as submitted with the addition of a 15-foot planted
buffer just landward of the edge of the wetlands as noted on the
survey, to be with natural vegetation.
MR. ANDERSON: We'll probably just go beach grass.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Beach grass will be fine. And if we could note
that on the survey.
MR. ANDERSON: I'll do so.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do I have a second?
Board of Trustees 92 January 23, 2013
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 36, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc. on behalf of CHRISTIAN BAIZ requests a Wetland Permit to
repair the existing concrete sea wall (480.0'L +/-) located
along the shoreline where needed; repair the existing timber
jetties (2) located along the shoreline where needed (i.e.,
replace sheathing); repair/re-sheath the existing timber
bulkhead and return (78.0'L +/- overall) located within the
southeastern corner of the property where needed; install a
proposed bulkhead return extension (12.0'L) off the existing
return within the southeastern corner of the property; install a
proposed bulkhead return (20.0'L) off the northern terminus of
the existing sea wall within the northeastern corner of the
property; install a secondary bulkhead/retaining wall (480.0'L+/-)
located 15.0'+/- landward of the existing concrete seawall,
and comprised of vinyl sheathing, two (2) tiers of timber walers
(6"x6"), two (2) tiers of timber backing clamps (6"x6"), timber
top cap (2"x24"), timber pilings (8"-12" +/-), timber deadmen
and lay logs (8"-12" +/-) with tie-rods; deposit 700 cubic yards +
of clean fill obtained from an upland source between the
existing concrete seawall and proposed secondary bulkhead, grade
and groom same, and plant with native plantings (i.e., Cape
American Beach Grass @ 1.0' o/c, etc.); and relocate existing
shed situated within the northeastern section of the property to
the southwest (landward) to a minimum distance of 100.0 f +/-
from the existing concrete sea wall. Located: 120 Bay Home Road,
Southold.
This was found to be consistent by the LWRP coordinator.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with
the condition that the west end of the concrete wall move
landward ten foot and the groin should be replaced and
reconstructed as a Iow profile groin.
The Trustees in their field inspections noted that there
should be no modifications to the application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting.
I have, when we were reviewing this, we had a discrepancy or
project description and our project description speaks to vinyl
bulkhead on the secondary -- vinyl sheathing on the secondary
bulkhead, is item number six in the project description. But I
notice that our cross section listed it as fiberglass. What I
want to do is substitute vinyl so it's consistent. So I have
those plans with me.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Can you show me that?
MR. ANDERSON: Mike, what I'm referring to is, just so you know,
if you go to page two, here, this was changed to vinyl.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Right here?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, that's the change. So I'll provide you guys,
I don't know how many copies you need.
Board of Trustees 93 January 23, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: You can leave it as either. Fiberglass or vinyl.
MR. ANDERSON: Fiberglass is more expensive. We are trying to
keep our costs down.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: On the changes, duly noted in the file. Hearing
no further comments I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the change noted, the sheathing will be vinyl rather than
fiberglass on the return.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?.
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number 37, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc.,
on behalf of PRINCIPI PROPERTIES, LLC, c/o MILL CREEK PARTNERS
request a Wetland Permit to clear a portion (22,000 square feet +) of the
westerly section of subject property in order to provide areas of additional
parking and gravel driveways, storage for boats and trailers, and a portion
of a proposed cul-de-sac (24,500 square feet + overall) all within the
western section of the property in order to facilitate the commercial
use of the contiguous property to the east (Mill Creek Partners, LLC).
Located: 64600 Route 25, Greenport.
This was found consistent with LWRP. The Conservation
Advisory Council supports the application with the condition the
concrete debris is removed from the wetland area.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
for the applicant. Just by point of order, this is integrated to
the hearing that follows, which deals with the marina. Also for
the record, I thank the Trustees for meeting me out on the site
so we could see what the parking layout would look like in the
field. And my point number three is I apologize in that what I
did not realize until after I spoke to the client, after you
left, was that there was a planting plan in place before you
that talks about the planting of all native, indigenous
plantings that surround the parking area, which is a gravel
parking area. They are noted on the plan. Specifically the plan
before you prepared by Samuels & Steelman which is dated
December 5th, 2012. So you'll note it will say non-turf
plantings typical Uva Ursi, Bayberry, American beach grass and
switch grass. And these will be planted in the areas immediately
adjacent to the parking field.
The other thing I did not know at the time was that the
overall project being regulated by the Planning Board caused the
applicant to prepare what is called a SWPPP, which is a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. That plan was prepared and
accepted by the town and the native plantings together with the
grading, which as I understand is a slight lowering of that area
to meet existing grade on the periphery is really, I think what
Board of Trustees 94 January 23, 2013
you were looking for in the field, but I was not prepared to
articulate to you. But that's really already part of your record.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay. I think we were out there, Bruce, our only
concern was just maybe berm it up a little bit along the edge
there so nothing goes down into the wetlands. And I think the
one comment from the Conservation Advisory Council mentioned
removing concrete from the area. I would recommend removing all
manmade materials out of that wetland. I saw an old battery;
it's been a little dumping ground, from the way it looks, for
years. I would like to see all that manmade material removed
from the wetland area.
MR. ANDERSON: We are in full agreement.
TRUSTEE KING: Other than that --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's got a huge drainage plant.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think they can do much more. Is there
anyone else here to comment on this application?
MR. LARSSON: My name is Lars Larsson. I'm at 170 Dolphin Drive.
We are here to give our objections to the site plan as proposed
and to ask you to give consideration about the possible
encroachment on the freshwater wetland and what actually does
signify the wetland. In specific, one of the questions I have is
we walked the site, we see where the trees have been marked from
the surveyors, or from the environmental people, and I'm just
wondering what would the setback be from the outer limit of the
wetland? Am I making myself clear on this?
TRUSTEE KING: You want to know the distance from the parking
area to the wetland? Is that the question?
MR. LARSSON: Well, we are looking at, when we walk the site, we
can see where the, I would imagine the environmental people
marked off the end limit of the wetland. Just curious to know if
there is a setback from those markings where it can't be
encroached upon.
TRUSTEE KING: There not much -- there is not much area there.
MR. LARSSON: Do we know an actual footage of what it was or what
it should be? I mean I'm not familiar with the Town Code. I had
dealings with EPA people when I was employed, and I'm of the
understanding now that the setback on it should be a hundred
feet. I believe when I was working it used to be 150 feet, but I
think now it's a hundred feet. I'm not sure. And I don't know if
the town can change that or.
TRUSTEE KING: As far as parking, I don't think there is a
setback, required setback on the parking area.
MS. HULSE: Are you talking about from the Trustees' position?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: I know there is a setback for homes and stuff like
that.
MR. LARSSON: If I go by the markings on the trees and I look
back, we are encroaching on the freshwater wetland.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The parking structure is a pervious
structure and we routinely write pervious structures into almost
our permits; non-turf buffers, splash pads, all matter of --
Board of Trustees 95 January 23, 2013
MR. LARSSON: Are you talking about silt screens and hay bales
and stuff?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm talking permanently permitted structures
that are protective of wetlands, that are areas that ara added
to as conditions of permits, and the proposed construction is a
pervious type of driveway construction with a town-approved
drainage plan.
MR. LARSSON: Now, I have not seen the drainage plan and I don't
know if this is the entire proposal on the site plan. It's a
little hard for me to read. I was just wondering if you had a
copy, had a visual.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to see the new one?
MR. LARSSON: I received this in the mail.
TRUSTEE KING: There is a setback requirament for driveways on
residential araas of 50 feet.
MR. LARSSON: Okay, this is show the typical.
MR. ANDERSON: Maybe I could be of assistance.
MR. LARSSON: I don't know if it makes any differance to whoever
but you have your EL pole mismarked. It's not 851, it's 852. 851
would be on the west side of that existing driveway. That's the
same plan that I have.
MR. ANDERSON: It may be helpful. The components of interest I
would think would be as follows: Number one is a pervious
surface. It is a required act that is being required of us by
the Planning Board to bring the parking into compliance with the
use of the site. That's why it was added. And the client, in an
effort to addrass Planning concerns, actually obtained a lease
on the property so that they could address that. The design
itself, again, was subject to a stormwater pollution pravention
plan is actually graded away from the wetlands so there would be
no storm waters that would fall upon the gravel surface would be
directed into the wetlands. As to the setbacks, the setbacks are
variable. By scale they are as close as ten feet. They are
about as far away as 60 or 70 feet toward, as you go toward the
south, where the parking area narrows. And I think it's also
worthwhile noting that if you wera in the field, you'll notice
that the parking area takes place over previously disturbed,
largely previously disturbed and filled area. That's very
evident when you simply step into the wetlands araa, you look
back, you'll see two or three feet of fill. Probably as a result
of when the basin was created. I'm guessing.
TRUSTEE KING: And they put all the spoils up there.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. So we are developing a disturbed araa as
spoil area as part of this application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This was a requirement that the ZBA put on you,
right?
MR. ANDERSON: The Planning Board actually.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sorry, Planning Board, yes.
MR. ANDERSON: That is corract. So there has been a lot of
professionals involved in designing this and I'm going to say
the design process has been ongoing for a year-and-a-half or so.
Board of Trustees 96 January 23,2013
TRUSTEE KING: I was going to say it's over a year now already.
In my mind, I mean this is zone marine two. It's a commemial
piece of property that has been defunct for quite a while now
and I would like to see it up and running myself. I think you
have done all you can to protect the wetland.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You are right. And we walked it you can
certainly see this is probably a spoils area. You can step right
down, where the delineation and marks and the flags, or the
marks that you saw, as we stepped down you could see there was a
definite delineation.
MR. LARSSON: When you are talking about the spoils area, or
where you see what you say are the spoils.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm assuming probably was spoils.
MR. LARSSON: You are, you now, the way I understand spoils is an
everyday actions of doing construction and putting up your
spoils. To me it looks like junk and garbage, and looked like
someone ripped up a curb and put it there. But I don't know if
that was because of, I mean, I have been there for what, 15
years now, and I don't know if that was done prior to me coming
there, although it's been laying there I don't know how long.
And if it is a wetlands area and you are concerned about the
spoilage and the wildlife that inhabits the area, we are
poisoning them. I mean part of this plan, I was happy to hear
you say that will be cleaned up.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. And I think there is a spit of confusion
here. When I say spoil, what I'm speaking of is the earth that
was excavated within the basin, to create the basin, was
deposited in this area and probably throughout the whole site.
That is what is called spoil. Spoil is a description of soil.
Disturbed soil. That's why that phragmites that you see to the
right of the cedar occurs there. When I talk about refuse, I'm
talking about construction demolition debris, there is concrete,
there is all of that is going to be removed. Not just adjacent
to the parking area but throughout the remainder of the
property. Because in flagging it, as I did, I did all the
delineations on this, and inspecting it, there are various areas
throughout, this has been used as a dumping ground, I suspect,
for many decades. So all of that will be cleaned up and removed
from the wetlands. So what you'll see is a wetland that is
free, not even a wetland but wetland and adjacent upland areas,
that are free of all refuse. That's the point we are trying to
make today.
MR. LARSSON: How far, as far as your grubbing area is concerned?
MR. ANDERSON: No, we are going to remove any piles of debris --
TRUSTEE KING: Talk to the Board. I want to move this along.
Are you finished, Bruce?
MR. ANDERSON: I'm finished.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There was something that we noticed when we were
out there and was discussed.
MR. LARSSON: Another concern that I have is in regard to the
drainage plan, now you are putting in the drywells. I see that
Board of Trustees 97 January 23, 2013
according to my plan, which is the same as yours, they are all
tied in. The outlet, I would assume that is, I'm looking at
here, it's a little hard for me to see, but the outlet on that
is going out to Rt. 25?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No. It's all self-contained.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: State law prevents that.
MR. LARSSON: Looks like all your drywells are tied in, correct,
for your drainage?
MR. BOSSEN: What he is confused about is there is a French drain
across the entrance that is tied into a drywell.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay.
MR. BOSSEN: There is a grate that goes across the driveway that
catches any runoff from the roadway that would go into 25. So
that anything that instead of having it go out to the street, it
goes into a catch, the French drain, and into this drywell and
takes it further back. It's not tied into anything on 25.
MR. LARSSON: So anything that drains from here, starts here and
drains down here.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we are seeing too much discussion on
drainage issues here. This is getting a little out of hand.
MR. LARSSON: I'm sorry, I'm just trying to get an idea where the
outlet would be.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is no outlet. It's a self-contained
system.
MR. LARSSON: Okay. All right, I just wanted to --
MR. JOCHEN: My name is Ernest Jochen, I live at 160 Blue Marlin
Drive. When you say there is no outlet, is this dug down to a
sandbank? So is there a percolation to it?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
MR. JOCHEN: There is no percolation to the soil there because
it's all clay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is all done to specification of the
Town Engineering Department. It's really not our purview to pass
on an already approved drainage plan. And they have very strict
standards. The SWPPP is a new requirement of state law, so based
on the area of the property, they had to meet the engineering
specifications of the Engineering Department. It doesn't allow
any movement offsite. They have to have proper excavation down
to sand and gravel. And all those terms are known. It's
well-known this was a brick yard. Lord knows, back in the day
when I was a sanitary inspector for the Health Department, I was
there when they were digging by the hour to put new cesspools
in. Blue Marlin Drive, I think they did an excavation for a home
sanitary system was forced to dig and they went down through 65
feet of blue clay. It's well-known. The Engineering Department
knows this. It's a given. This is a highly engineered plan that
has passed with the approval of the Engineering Department. We
are not engineers. We are interested in protecting the wetland.
And that aspect has been removed.
MR. JOCHEN: Right. So you can't answer whether it goes down to a
sand vein or not.
Board of Trustees 98 January 23, 2013
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I can sure you that it has been designed so
that it will handle the capacity. We have a professional
engineer and a licensed PE and a license architect in our
Engineering Department reviewing these plans.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this application?
MR. BENFIELD: My name is Cliff Benfield, I live at 50 Blue
Marlin Drive. I'm immediately adjacent to the wetland under
discussion. I'm not questioning the commemial use of the land.
I understand it's their property and they have to get the best
out of it but we would like to see it done in the best way. I
have a question about the boat storage area, and I have worked
from a little map. I came into the planning office and spoke to
the planner and he described a bit of it to me. But starting in
the north, the Main Road, you see the entrance has moved over
and there is a curb where they are going to put the guardrail
that came around on the east side of that property. It's a
driveway and it comes down behind the boat storage, and comes
down to approximately, as I estimate, 240 feet from the water
line and turns at a right angle into the driveway, which shows
as a driveway along the dock side to the turnabout. Do you
follow that? What I'm saying is that it doesn't show that it's
a driveway, but it is a driveway, and if cars are coming in and
parking there and pulling all or you put them nose to nose, I
don't know, I think the scale would approve nose to nose, and
between a storage area, they are going to back out into a
parking area or there will be traffic down that read.
Now I see nothing in the plan that says that is a graveled
driveway behind the boat storage. And it's true, in the winter,
they may put boats there, they may not. As being next to the
wetlands, I'm concerned about, well, we see boats, we are in a
maritime area, I think that's fine. I would not want to see
high racks. I would not want to see us be adjacent to the Port
of Egypt. The fact is if there is traffic coming down that read
and leaving that road or backing into that read, there is going
to be lights and motion. Now, when that gets cleared out, as
shown on the map, as you look at it, most of the heavy foliage
will be gone out of there. From our houses on the read, and my
own, you are looking right through. And if we could see right
through trees that are not very thick, we are going to see
lights coming through trees that are not very thick. And I
think that these kinds of things should be worked out
before these things are put into stone.
I think the whole area where they put the guardrail there
is there for a reason. That's because cars are going there. And
if it's going down all the way to below the cul-de-sac at the
base of the water line there, I think it should be shielded.
MS. HULSE: Just a question, sir. Did you appear before the
Planning Board during their hearing? Because some of the points
you are presenting are issues that they considered at their
hearing. It's really not within the purview of the Trustees to
decide some of those issues you are raising.
Boa~ofTrustees 99 January 23,2013
MR. BENFIELD: No, I received no notice of that. No, I didn't
attend the meeting. I did speak to the planner and he thought
these were things I should bring up at this meeting. So I do
believe there should be shielding on that side.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's not something we would address.
TRUSTEE KING: That is not something we would address. That is
not an issue for us to address.
MS. HULSE: There are requirements in the code as to how much
lighting could be permitted in a location.
TRUSTEE KING: Not in the wetland code.
MS. HULSE: No. But there are code restrictions to that.
MR. BENFIELD: There are only two pieces of that property that
are being returned to anything that is environmental. Number
one, refurbishing with foliage below the last boat storage down
to the water line, and what little piece of lawn that goes up
according to DOT specifications to have along on the highway.
That doesn't seem to do it, as far as I'm concerned.
There are other things, I mean, that could be brought up. I
mean, I don't know if this is the proper time or whether this is
the proper meeting. That dock master house, two-story house,
279-square feet, has two bathrooms, showers and a second story,
that doesn't seem very feasible there. And if it does house
showers and toilets, where is the surge going? If it's in a
cesspool and that area is going right back into the bay. And I
can't believe that it's going to be carried all the way up to
the main road. I think there are several issues there that have
not been really thoroughly addressed. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. That's the other application. That has
nothing to do with this. Any other comments from anybody? Yes,
ma'am?
MS. SCHIAVETTA: Eileen Schiavetta, Southold Shores. Mine are
more environmental concerns. I live in front of wetlands, behind
wetlands, whatever you want to call it. And through the impacts
of encroaching on wetlands, taking down trees that have lived in
water for maybe 50 years and more, the area has become totally
flooded. And the same thing is going to happen in this area.
Because you are going to be removing trees, you'll be removing
brush, and even if you put some wetland plants, big deal, what
will it drink. You are talking about roots above the ground that
have been drinking this water from time in memorial, from back
when they had those brick yards. And that's clay. And if they
do this, I guarantee you some of it will go out to the bay. And
as it is, there are fishermen that earn their living. And it's
nice to have boats and it's nice to have three marinas in a row,
but I think it's overkill. And it's overkill for the
environment, as far as I'm concerned. And somebody must take
the responsibility for the damage to other people's land.
Because we are encroaching further and further and further into
wetlands with no regard for the existing homes, no regard for
the fishermen, the baymen. You know what's happening with the
fish. This is not new to you. You know what's happening out
Board of Trustees 100 January 23, 2013
there. Walk along the beaches. When I been coming out here for
40 years. Walk along the beaches in Southold. You'll see oil.
The rocks are oil, and there are all kinds of junk and garbage.
And yes, somebody dumps stuff in wetlands. Well, you take it
out. People dump during the night behind Sage Marina. Nobody
takes it out. There is an oil barrel lying right in the creek.
Nobody mentions it, nobody takes it out. Nobody follows up with
anything. And I think what I would also like to suggest at this
time is we need a full-time Trustee or two. Because we have to
be able to talk to somebody when people are cutting down things,
destroying things. I had a neighbor behind me is moving,
selling the property. He new what he had when he bought the
house. He bought it brand new. The builder was allowed to
encroach about the land. And, you know, these builders, they
tell you they'll build one thing, then you close your eyes and
they build another. They don't care about the environment. They
care about greed and money. This is what this is about. Principi
pulled all kinds of stunts when he built that building to begin
with. He added on where he shouldn't have. What, he doesn't know
who the Trustees are? He's new to this area?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Would you please keep your comments
pertinent to the hearing at hand. This is really far afield.
MS. SCHIAVETTA: I'm saying, keep encroaching and we are going to
have a disaster. Either you approve it and you are responsible,
the guy that is leasing the land is responsible or the person
that owns the land is responsible because he's leasing it. Or
is it going to be the person encroaching on it for their own
commercial use? Who is going to be responsible when that land
is ruined, like it is behind me? We are people living there 37
years. Never had water in their basement. Once you broke the
rules and you let people come within 20 feet, 50 feet, you know
what happens? I'll tell what you happens. Houses get flooded.
Water has to go somewhere. And it will. It will go somewhere.
And nobody follows up, nobody cares. What about the people that
live around us. Do these people care? Do you think they care?
You know, you've turn down things before. This has been going
on for four years. Because of improprieties. Now you are going
to agree to all the improprieties, it will be a two-story
restaurant, and at one time it was a catering hall, now it's a
dock house. And it's an upstairs living quarters or whatever
he's going to do, and it showers and it's bathrooms. Now it's
parking in the wetlands. I don't care how it was created. It's
been there for over 50 years and it takes care of the water
problems in the area. The clay is not going to take care of the
water problems. But somebody has to stand up and make a decant
decision. You either want to have fish in the bay, you want to
have healthy water for people to swim in or all you want is
marina after marina after marina. Okay, fine to have a marina.
But how about reducing the size of things. How about the
wetlands? You know, I'll give you a letter I gave to the
Planning Board. And it's not really, it's not totally a
Board of Trustees 101 January 23, 2013
Planning Board issue. It's an environmental issue, all you
people. So somebody is going to take responsibility. Because
they have to. And that's all I have to say. You know, you either
care about the wetlands or you don't. Make up your mind. You
read an article, you care. Then you read an article, it's
horrible. This has been going to forever. Who told them to
expand the building? They didn't know to come to you? You
might have said no, so they do it. They, the upstairs was
supposed to be for storage. They set it up, you can clearly see
what it is going to be. Who approved that? They do that before
it gets to you -- no, they do it after it gets to you, but there
are things you did not agree to. Now you are going to allow it
all. I don't understand. You have rules or you don't have rules.
This town has rules and doesn't have rules. You need a couple of
full-time Trustees. I have two houses and I'm not going to
mention them but they are two houses --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Please just address this application.
TRUSTEE KING: This is out of hand. It really is. I'm sorry.
MS. SCHIAVETTA: Okay. Whatever. Someone will take
responsibility. I don't know which one of you or any of you. But
it's either the town or somebody.
MR. SCHIAVETTA: Robert Schiavetta. That's my wife. She is
definitely quite upset, and I think she should be. We have been
fighting this fight for a long time for Southold Shores. We all
know it's a very sensitive area. And this is another part which
will be infringing on that wetlands. We were talking about these
parking lots, I mean you are talking about the slope that goes
down three foot to a marker that says this will be the end of
the parking lot. I mean, you'll fill this area in. And not only
are you going to stop there, you'll go further because you can't
just stop where that mark is. So you'll be filling this whole
area down for a thousand feet. Which is going to take more of
this wetlands away. We already have problems with pooling in the
area. We've got areas that, you know, in the last ten years went
from, you know, 30 foot to 200 feet pools. What these things
bring, they bring high, you know, the water table is higher, you
you have mosquitos, right; you've got flooded basements. And
from what I could see here we'll end up with septic in these
pools also. I mean I don't think that anybody has shown anything
where they can --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is septic going in here? This is just drywells
for road drainage.
MR. ANDERSON: Correct.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what I thought.
MR. SCHIAVETTA: He was talking about these 38 and 37 being --
MR. ANDERSON: It's fine if we combine them. I think that is
probably useful.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: To discuss both of them, okay.
MR. ANDERSON: The cesspools, just so you know, have been
designed, it's been through health department review, there will
be hydrological connection through the clay to sand barriers, as
Boa~ofTrustees 102 January23,2013
with the as with the drainage. What is proposed here is vastly
improved over what is here.
MS. SCHIAVE'I-]'A: Isn't what you are doing excessive?
TRUSTEE KING: We can do that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Bruce, can you clarify for me the drywells, one
of them at least will be penetrate the clay?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think for just clarity's sake, since we are
discussing both at the same time, really, we might as well just
open up the other one, too.
TRUSTEE KING: Number 38, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc.,
on behalf of MILL CREEK PARTNERS, LLC requests a Wetland Permit
to remove existing concrete wall along the northern section of
the property and replace with a new stone veneer wall and
pedestrian entry stairs (240 linear feet + overall); install a
new free-standing sign along the northern property boundary;
install a new timber curb (w/guard rail along boat basin side
and bay side) along the gravel driveway within the eastern
section of the property (1,300 linear feet + overall); install
non-turf plantings along the northeastern corner of the boat
basin (350 square feet +); install new drainage systems within
gravel driveway (i.e. 6 drywells); install new lighting,
underground utilities (electric, etc.) Where required; construct
new Dock Master/Marina building (290 square feet +) atop
existing decking along the eastern section of the property, and
install attendant sanitary system to the immediate northeast;
install native grass plantings along the southern shoreline;
remove ali non-indigenous materials (i.e., bricks) along
shoreline of boat basin, maintain existing vegetation and
reestablish native plantings in disturbed areas; construct
driveway and parking area; reconstructJreconfigure all dockage
within boat basin: East Side - floating dockage @ 4.75'Wx460.0'L
+/- (overall); finger docks 3.0'Wx24.5'L (seven (7) total),
4.0'Wx35.5'L (one (1) total), and 6.0'Wx35.5'L (two (2) total),
two (2) 10.0'W slips, fourteen (14) 13.5'W slips, six (6) 18.5'W
slips; West Side. Floating dockage @ 4.75'Wx320.0'L +/-
(overall); finger docks 3.0'Wx20.5'L (twelve (12) total), and
3.0'Wx24.5'L (two (2) total), twenty six (26) 10.0'W slips, two
(2) 13.5'W slips; install new handicapped accessible dock access
ramp and deck (285 square feet +) off the northeastern corner of
the boat basin; install new dock access ramp, stairs and deck
(185 square feet +) off the northwestern corner of the boat
basin; install new dock access (120 square feet ±) off the
southeastern section of property; install Iow-sill bulkheading
around the east and west sides of the boat basin, East Side @
615.0'L +/- (overall), and West Side @ 330.0'L + (overall);
native plantings installed landward of the proposed Iow-sill
bulkhead and seaward of the AHW (shoreline); install rock
rip-rap (5.0' - 10.0'W +/- x 290.0'L +/-) along the southern
shoreline of the property, inclusive of stone steps (8.0'W), and
backfill with 200 cubic yards of clean fill obtained from an
Board of Trustees 103 January 23, 2013
approved for upland source; remove dilapidated wood bulkhead
(35.0'L +/-) within the southwestern section of the property;
and maintenance dredge the boat basin (and southerly channel
outwards into Peconic Bay) to a navigable water depth of 6.0'
+/- (as determined at Iow tide); amount of resultant spoil @
4,890 cubic yards +; and spoil transferred to on-site temporary
de-watering area within southern section of the property
(35'x60') prior to being removed to an approved-for upland
location. Located: 64300 Route 25, Greenport.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What's the status with the sanitary? The
previous plan had a forest main that was going to take the stuff
from, there was a communication here from Mark Terry that was
sent to Elizabeth Cantrell. What's the status with the sanitary?
MS. ANDERSON: A Suffolk County Board of Review hearing was held,
I believe it was last week, concerning the septic system. The
essential, there are two essential technical difficulties with
this application. The first is that we have high degree of clay,
which the Health Department views as unsuitable soils. So you
address the unsuitable soils but excavating, essentially
punching a hole through them, backfilling with clean stand and
gravel so the septic system as well as the drainage works. The
second component is the fact that you are trying to keep your
drainage structures a hundred feet away from surface waters,
which is a bit of a lesser problem because of the thickness of
the clay takes you well below the bottom elevation of the basin.
So there is no sideward leaching of septic into surface waters
in this application. It's physically impossible.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How far down do you believe you'll be going?
MR. ANDERSON: We'll be going down approximately 65 feet. Now,
the bathrooms associated with the bathhouse is something that
the current environmental rules encourage, and most marinas, in
fact all that I know of, will have some sort of exterior septic
capacity. And the reason for that is they don't want people
overloading their boats with sewage in their holding tanks and
pumping them out. So the operators of marinas today provide pump
out. They also provide restrooms, and that, too, is integrated
into this project. So these are all elements that modern
regulation pushes, too. To improve the environment. Not to make
it worse but to make it better.
MR. BURGER: Eugene Burger, property owner/contractor. To answer
your question about the bathroom facilities in the dock master's
building, we are putting in a pump station and the effluent from
those buildings will be pumped forward to the main septic
systems. And those deep holes he's referring to are called wick
holes. And we had our hearing with the Health Department and
pretty much ironed everything out, so we are expecting that in a
short period of time.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, it was noted, this question concerning
the new map, because it didn't show the sanitary. So we'll be
getting a revised plan with what the Suffolk County Board --
MR. BURGER: It's generally the same area as what was there. We
Board of Trustees 104 January 23, 2013
are just doing new specs for them.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I will say that I did sit with Eugene and go
over some of the septic issues that were there and even looked
into it, together, we looked into a new system that has been
introduced that has not come to Suffolk County yet but we did a
lot of research on some environmentally appropriate septic
designs for this. You know, ultimately he ended up with the
Health Department, I guess, in getting something designed
MR. BURGER: I actually brought that paperwork to the reviewer.
But, you know, I think the flow in this place is greater than
that would be able to handle. This looks like it will meet the
flow for the amount of slips and the amount of seats in the
restaurant. We pretty much ironed all that out, so.
MR. ANDERSON: We don't have a design flow issue. These are just
technical things the engineers have worked out.
MR. BURGER: And one more thing about the trees. We are not
clearing into the woods. It's very minimal amount of stuff
getting cleared along the edge of the woods. It's basically
where the old spoil goes, where it drops off. I know you guys
are thinking maybe we are clearing the woods. It won't be the
case.
MR. LARSSON: Can I ask him a question?
TRUSTEE KING: No.
MR. LARSSON: Can I address it to you?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. LARSSON: My question in regard to that is you fellas walked
it, did you see the stakes that say parking area?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. LARSSON: What I would like to know, is that where the
guardrail is going or is that the limit.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't know if there is a guardrail going in
there.
MR. LARSSON: It's showing on this plan.
MR. ANDERSON: On the other side. On the water side.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm only seeing a guardrail at the very end and
I guess that's a guardrail to keep people from driving into the
water.
MR. LARSSON: I'm seeing a guardrail around the whole area.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, just at the very bottom. Right where the
cul-de-sac is.
MR. LARSSON: This here (indicating).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's not a guardrail. It's pointing over here to this
line at the bottom. That's a guardrail there. The arrow points
to this guardrail here.
MR. LARSSON: Okay, I couldn't see that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's why I was confused for somebody talking
about a road. It's not a road.
MR. LARSSON: Is there a limit of the grub, the serrated line?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The serrated line is, yes. What you'll see on
the outside of that is where they'll put the hay bale line for
the temporary --
Board of Trustees 105 January 23, 2013
MR. LARSSON: The hay bale I'm familiar with.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: (Continuing) that's right.
TRUSTEE KING: Bruce, we'll do these two at once.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHIAVETTA: Just one more question on the back end over
there, where they'll clear that entire area down toward the
water, partially to put their turnaround in, but the other part
will be replanted. Why do they need to clear the entire area if
they are just going to put replanting in there?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's already cleared now, isn't it? At one time
they were hosting parties down there in recent years, right?
TRUSTEE KING: I think he's talking right here.
MR. ANDERSON: I think it's worthwhile noting that part of this
program involves removal of some of the invasive vegetation and
it's replacement with natural vegetation.
TRUSTEE KING: Have we beat this up enough yet?
MS. SCHIAVETTA: I have a question. Where the wetland marker is
and it says parking lot, is that the furthest point of the
parking lot? Or is that where it begins? There is stakes there
that say parking lot. Does that mean it starts there or it ends there?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The side that is in the woods, you mean?
MR. LARSSON: I asked about that. That's the limit of the grubbing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. On the plan that you are holding, as I'm
reading it, the squiggly line is the limit of clearing. Just to
the east of that would be the hay bale line. That's right. And I
believe that was reflected by the stakes that we saw.
MS. SCHIAVETTA: What would protect the gravel from leaking care
with transmission fluid and oil? What will protect that? Will
thera be something under the gravel so that can't seep into the
clay?
MR. SCHIAVETTA: You have boats also leaking because it will be a
storage area.
MR. LARSSON: They'll be painting boats back there, they'll be
cleaning boats?
TRUSTEE KING: We don't know that. You don't know that. You can't
even paint the bottom of a boat unless you are a licensed
applicator. They can't just go in there and paint or even clean
the bottom.
MR. LARSSON: Well, a licensed applicator will go in and clean
and paint the bottom of the boats.
TRUSTEE KING: We are getting off the --
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's a legitimate question.
MR. LARSSON: I don't think we are getting off of it.
MS. SCHIAVETTA: My problem is mainly the dripping all from the
boats. You don't know when they put it in storage and they have
to have oil in your tank, you don't know that's not going to
leak. What will be underneath the gravel to keep it from seeping
into the clay and the wetlands?
TRUSTEE KING: I think you are assuming every boat leaks oil. And
that's not the case.
MS. SCHIAVETTA: You don't know when they do. Don't you have to
Board of Trustees 106 January 23, 2013
protect them if you are allowing them to put gravel in wetlands?
That's common sense
MR. SCHIAVETTA: You also have a parking lot, so we are talking
cars, too.
MS. SCHIAVETTA: I mean my boat was put in storage and my boat
ended up needing a new tank. All the oil and gas left the boat
and landed right where it was. So how do you know? Nobody
knows. You maintain your boat. You think my boat is the only
boat that does that?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Where was yours stored?
MS. SCHIAVETTA: Mine was stored in a marina up front.
MR. LARSSON: One last question as far as I'm concerned is,
because I really didn't get an answer on it, but as far as the
limits of the wetland are concerned, I don't know if you guys
answered it for me, what is, is there a rule on the distance on
a setback from the limit of the wetland?
TRUSTEE KING: No. There is on residential property, it's 50 feet
is the required setback, which can be waived. But that does not
apply to this commercial property.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It generally doesn't apply for pervious
structures. And best management practices now and the
requirements of the state do require licensed pesticide
applicators to go in and they are subject to state sanction if
they don't do what is appropriate. The marina operators are very
cognizant of the rules and regulations, they are subject to all
kinds of inspection, and the property zoning is not only
consistent with the intended use, it is in one of those areas
that has been determined through the town master plan as one
that is the most conducive and the most viable for these sorts
of activities. So these decisions are decisions that were not
made by a Town Board of Trustees. And your questions are very
valid. But I'm not sure any of us could live in this town if we
were concerned about what left our vehicles. I put a pervious
driveway in so I recharge the groundwater on my preperty. Is it
possible oil would occasionally leak? Sure. I have a couple of
old vehicles. I have not been able to get any new ones. But I do
my best and most of the people in this town do try.
MS. SCHIAVETTA: Are you parking in wetlands?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It doesn't matter. Everything you do in this
town ends up in a wetland.
MS. SCHIAVETTA: Well you know it's different now because there
is many more boats. You have to face it. There are many more
houses on the water, there is many more boats, there is many
more houses on wetlands. I have people I know that have a
20-foot setback. I mean, and when you close your eyes, that's
why you need a full-time Trustee, when you close your eyes,
they'll take more trees down and guess what they put: Grass and
fertilizer. And that can't surprise any of you. Because they do
it and you know it. You close your eyes. You don't go back again
and make sure people are obeying the law.
TRUSTEE KING: I think everybody has had adequate time to make
Board of Trustees 107 January 23, 2013
comments about this application.
MR. LARSSON: One last thing, as an officer in the Southold
Shores Association I'm voicing my objection to the plan as such.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
MS. SCHIAVETTA: And also who will take responsibility? Will
this be the town that gets contaminated or will it be Mr.
Principi or will it be Mr. Burger? Who will this lie on? The
town as a whole?
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to talk a little more about the
marina part of this. We all looked at this. This has been going
for quite a while. It was actually held up by the Planning
Department. I'm familiar with everything that they plan on doing
here. I think it's basically cleaning up the basin and restoring
the shoreline, the bulkheads, replanting. There is a lot of
good things going on with this project.
MS. SHCIAVETTA: Yes, there is, but you still have to protect the
environment. You can't pick and choose.
TRUSTEE KING: Like I say, this type of thing, the town has
encouraged marinas to clean things up and provide access for
people.
MS. SCHIAVETTA: Did Mark Terry?
MS. HULSE: It's not appropriate to discuss personnel like that.
TRUSTEE KING: We have to stop these comments coming out like
this. It's inappropriate. Really.
MS. SCHIAVETTA: Well, it's inappropriate making fun of people.
You're making fun of people. That's inappropriate.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm not.
MS. SCHIAVETTA: I saw what you did before. That's inappropriate.
You made a motion. That's inappropriate.
TRUSTEE KING: What is she talking about?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't know.
MS. HULSE: Ma'am, the Trustees don't enforce the code, they just
administer it. I'm clarifying your statement because if you have
an enforcement issue you should contact the bay constable or
police department. But this is not their duties. Their duties
are to administer.
MR. SCHIAVETTA: I just want to say one more thing about this
whole situation. No one is trying to keep anybody from running a
business and making a profit. The problem we ran into here is
the fact they wanted to double the size of everything they had.
They had a two pound bag of property and they want to put five
pounds of stuff into it. That's why we have this pushing on to
the wetlands. And it is a problem that they created and we are
going to suffer for. I just want to get that down in the record.
Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The original plan as I recall didn't include
this, right? This came up because the Planning Board wants you
to do this.
MR. BURGER: Correct. And also we have not increased the seating
in the restaurant. It's still what was originally approved when
we acquired the property. We've just complied to the parking
Board of Trustees 108 January 23, 2013
spaces and just trying to make everything that was there
legitimate and legal. We spent a lot of money on the drainage
and septic to really do the right thing for the environment.
It's meeting every EPA and New York State and SWPPP.
TRUSTEE KING: It's my understand you are required to have a
certain number of parking spots because you have a certain
amount of slips.
MR. BURGER: Including handicap spots even for the slips, too.
TRUSTEE KING: So if you don't have enough parking then you have
to take slips away. Then it reduces the business. I mean, to
have a viable business you have to have enough money coming in.
MR. ANDERSON: That is correct. And there is a lot of money being
invested into this to bring this up to code.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there any plans to operate this as a
maintenance facility?
MR. ANDERSON: No.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's strictly storage and that's it, right?
MR. ANDERSON: Boat storage, boat dockage, restaurant, that's it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: And the DEC didn't chime in on this because it's
an unregulated wetland?
MR. ANDERSON: The DEC approved the project.
TRUSTEE KING: I mean as far as it's area near the freshwater
wetlands.
MR. ANDERSON: DEC does not consider it a regulated freshwater
wetlands.
TRUSTEE KING: But they approved this.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. And they approved the overall project and
that approval arrived last week.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is all wetlands that was created as part of
the moores drainage, right?
MR. ANDERSON: It is. There is wetland vegetation and some
standing water various times of the year because of the high
clay nature of the soils.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And this whole area, the whole moores drainage
has changed over the last 150 years, every time something
happens, it changes its flow. You have buildings that are in
wetlands that were not in wetlands that are in wetlands now.
MR. ANDERSON: Sage Basin was a brick facility and became a basin
when the 1938 hurricane broke into it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I know the issues of drainage there, in an
ironic sense, I think with all this drainage and the pervious
driveway, I think it may actually get better.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I agree. I think it will tend to dry out.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
MR. LARSSON: Just to, a little addendum to your last comment
where you are hoping it's drying out. The majority of that water
comes from runoff from Rt. 25. So it will never dry out. As
long as it's going to rain and snow, that will never dry out.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: But instead of having it run into the bay at
least we can get it down into the sand, I think. These drywells
Board of Trustees 109 January 23, 2013
will be pretty deep. That's my hope. I mean there are no
guarantees in life but based upon what I'm seeing I think we may
end up with a situation that is even better than what we have.
Reduce runoff, is what I'm hoping.
MR. BENFIELD: As an environmentalist, that can't be too good.
Because as deer come down from Hashamomack, we get ducks and
geese every day drinking out of that stream that goes through
the wetland. There are probably any morning I can pick out 15
varieties of birds, I can't see that happening if that land
ever disappears.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The land is not disappearing.
MR. BENFIELD: It's shrinking.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? Everybody heard enough?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Unfortunately, I sense their frustration, Many
of the issues they raise are legitimate but not in our purview.
The lady mentions too many people, but we don't have any control
of the population. I think the gentlemen are constrained by the
code, the number of parking spaces and so forth, and their
concerns would have been better addressed at the planning
sessions rather than here.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MS. SCHIAVETTA: Excuse me, lesser things were turned down when
Principi built the building. Lesser things were not allowed. Now
all of a sudden is a new builder and a new owner and it's
allowed? What has changed except expansion? So what was the
difference when Mr. Principi was building? What held him up?
Do you have any idea? Were you involved? Why were you turning
down Principi? Why did he have to give up his land and his
building? What did he do wrong that someone else is doing right
now?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You have to ask him.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mr. Principi is not involved in this
application.
MS. SCHIAVE'I-FA: But he was. It's the same building, same
property.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Those are legitimate questions but not for this
Board.
MS. SCHIAVETTA: Well then doesn't make sense. It's been to the
Planning Board, it's been to the Trustees. You were involved
with Principi. You were involved in denying him. Now you are
saying everything is okay. And it's bigger? It makes no sense.
It's article after article in the paper of what you have done to
Principi. All of a sudden everything is peachy and it's bigger.
Amazing. I hope you write that down.
TRUSTEE KING: All right, I have heard enough. I make a motion to
close these public hearings.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I think there has been a lot of things said here tonight.
People are just frustrated because things change. I would make a
Board of Trustees 110 January 23, 2013
motion to approve this application as submitted. 37 and 38. The
other marina, the Iow sill bulkheads, we all looked at that, we
have been out there numerous times and I think that will be an
improvement to that whole basin. Removal of all the debris there
and replacing it with Iow sill bulkheads and natural plantings,
it will be beneficial. So that's my motion· rll tend to approve
both applications as submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I second the application. And I11 second
your notion, I think it's very frustrating, but given the level
of land disturbance, the fact there is spoil and it does cover a
large amount of area, the fact they'll be cleaning up the debris
and material that is in the wetland, cleaning up the old brick
fragments and debris that is strewn along the boat side; the
fact it will put a working marina back into service for the
town, consistent with the town's master plan, is all laudable.
And I understand people's frustrations, but things change.
TRUSTEE KING: It's properly zoned for this, I think they've met
all the requirements they need to meet. So that's my motion, to
approve it. It's been seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
rll make a motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: rll second that.
Respectfully submitted by,
· King, nt
Board of Trustees
//: ~0 ,,~,~:.
MAY 3 2013 :"