HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-03/20/2013 James F. King, President ~~Of S~~jyO Town Hall Annex
Bob Ghosio, Jr., Vice-President ~0 lQ 54375 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Dave Bergen ~ ~ Southold, New York 11971-0959
John Bredemeyer G Q
~ ~O Telephone (631) 765-1892
Michael J. Domino ~ Fax (631) 765-6641
~~OOUIIT'I,Nc~
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
Town of souTxoLD RECEIVED
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES 30
13.
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Southold Town Clerk
Minutes
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
5:30 PM
Present Were: Jim King, President
Robert 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, April 10, 2013 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 at 5:30 PM
WORKSESSION: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 at 5:OOPM
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of January 23, 2013.
TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone, welcome to our March meeting. Before we
get going, we usually have a reporter with us, Wayne Galante. He's not with us tonight,
so when we get into our public hearing sections, if you have any comments to make,
please come to the microphone and identify yourself, and if your name is a little difficult,
please spell it, so we get that.
We have some postponements tonight. Before we do those, we have Jack
McGreevey over here. He's from our CAC, the Conservation Advisory Council, and they
go out and do many of the same inspections we do, most of them, and make their
recommendations to this Board.
On page five, number five, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of JOHN 8~ EMILY
BREESE requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7200 for the storm damaged part
of the dock; replace 6'x9.6' wood dock with 4'x18' wood dock which will enable to use
Board of Trustees 2 March 20, 2013
shorter aluminum ramp; replace 28' permitted aluminum ramp with 20'x30" aluminum
ramp; add two (2) tie-off piles on east side; relocated existing float. Located: 3698 Pine
Neck Road, Southold, has been postponed.
Number 14 on page seven, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of
KATHRYN GRAY MELHUISH, c/o JOSPEH CHERNUSHKA requests a Wetland
Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to replace a storm damaged portion (140.0± sq.ft.)
of the existing dwelling; and elevate the overall dwelling (642.0± sq.ft. "footprint") by 2.3'
to result in a first floor elevation of 8.0'. Located: 600 Rabbit Lane, East Marion, has
been postponed.
Number 15, Docko, Inc., on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT
CORP., c/o FISHERS ISLAND MARINA, LLC requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to dredge 8,650± cubic yards of sandy silt over 63,000± sq.ft. with a
one-foot over-dredge allowance of 2,4001 cubic yards by clamshell bucket for open
water disposal; including the temporary removal and subsequent reinstallation of floating
docks A & B as necessary to facilitate dredging. Located: Central Avenue, Southwest
Corner of West Harbor, Fishers Island, has been postponed.
On page eight, number 11, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting Services on behalf
of HAY HARBOR CLUB requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to
reconstruct and realign a 5'x105' dock which was destroyed by Hurricane Sandy by
constructing a 5'x30' elevated timber walk; a 4'x100' timber walk on grade and to
remove and dispose of existing wood walk and to connect proposed walk to existing
walk as required. Located: 990 Fox Avenue, Fishers Island, has been postponed.
And on page 14, number 29, 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, is postponed.
Number 30, JAMES A. & NANCY W. CLOUS request a Wetland Permit to
rebuild and/or replace the existing storm damaged fixed pier and to extend it from 22' to
40' to move the docks to deeper water; add four new 12" pilings set apart from the
floating docks (two on each side of the floating docks); a 3'x20' seasonal ramp; and two
6'x20' seasonal floating docks; rebuild andlor replace the existing storm damaged stairs
to beach, and stairs from top of bulkhead to fixed pier and related pilings; and to repair
the existing 100' ± long storm damaged bulkhead by replacing the top cap-boards and
approximately 15' of a 4x4 transverse beam on the bulkhead where the fixed pier was
ripped off in the storm. Located: 3805 Bay Shore Road, Greenport, is postponed.
And number 31, 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.
So we will not be addressing those.
I'd like to set the date for our next field inspection, Wednesday, April 10th, at 8:00
in the morning.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Our next meeting, Wednesday, April 17th, at 6:00. Is there any interest in making it
Board of Trustees 3 March 20, 2013
earlier, like we did today?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Make it the same, 5:30 to start, 5:00 worksession.
TRUSTEE KING: So we'll have the worksession at 5:00 and we'll start the meeting at
5:30.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll move that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Do we have a motion to approve the Minutes of January 23rd, 2013?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make that motion to approve the Minutes of January 23rd,
2013.
TRUSTEE KING: Second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second it.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: This is Lori Hulse that just walked in. She's our attorney, our legal
advisor.
MS. HULSE: Hello.
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for February 2013. A check for
$9,951.39 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
11. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the
following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, March 20, 2013, are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
SEQRA:
They are listed as follows:
Linton I. Duell -SCTM# 24-2-12
Lazarus Alexandrou -SCTM# 33-1-11
Christopher Stabile -SCTM# 119-1-10
Thomas J. Aprea -SCTM# 37-7-9.1
Amy Uyanik -SCTM# 44-1-4
Susan E. Click Irrevocable Trust -SCTM# 31-13-6
Lawrence Bogard & Alice Medalia -SCTM# 31-13-5
Bruce Bollman -SCTM# 31-13-4
Donald J. Stanton & Virginia L. Stanton Family Trusts -SCTM# 58-2-3
Vicky Papson -SCTM# 31-13-7.2
Kathryn Gray Melhuish, c/o Joseph Chernushka -SCTM# 31-18-13
Brenda Collins -SCTM# 31-18-8
Gary Guja -SCTM# 106-6-29
Lucien Bohbot -SCTM# 127-8-8.5
Board of Trustees 4 March 20, 2013
Christian R. Zimmer -SCTM# 118-4-3
Michael & Kathryn Russo -SCTM# 90-4-22
Eugene Burger, Jr. -SCTM# 104-3-2
Raymond Strong -SCTM# 52-5-2
8925 Bay Ave., c/o Anthony Lomangino -SCTM# 104-3-15
Michael & Deborah Thompson -SCTM# 118-6-6
Thomas Dowling -SCTM# 104-9-3
Village Marine c/o PWK Enterprises -SCTM# 122.-3-15.1
Andrea & Steven Kolyer -SCTM# 81-3-23
Margaret & John Hochstrasser -SCTM# 104-13-9
Robert & Carol Willumstad -SCTM# 110-7-1
Hilary Pridgen -SCTM# 128-6-14&15
Janet T. Soukup Lifetime Trust -SCTM# 128-4-7
Robert W. Lehnert Credit Shelter Trust -SCTM# 111-13-1
Lehnert Family Irrevocable Trust -SCTM# 111-13-2
William & Millicent Tufano -SCTM# 122-9-9.6
R.C. Kopf Trust, F/B/O Bradley W. Helies -SCTM# 123-8-20.1
Alan Garmise -SCTM# 119-1-19
Joan L. Cooke -SCTM# 31-47-6
Melinda Jaques -SCTM# 105-1-5
IV. RESOLUTIONS -OTHER:
TRUSTEE KING: And under "Resolutions," RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees
finds that the following applications involve a project that is storm related pursuant to
Town Board Resolutions 2013-60, 2013-111, 2013-189, and Town Code §111-22; and
therefore authorizes a full refund in the amount as follows:
These are refunds that are given out because of the storm damage and a
decision was made not to charge a fee. They are also listed.
- $50.00 received on 1/30/13; payable to Robert E. Taylor; SCTM# 38-2-35
- $50.00 received on 1/30/13; payable to Charlotte & William Burkhardt
SCTM# 128-2-16
- $50.00 received on 1/28/13; for Charles & Janice Bovino, payable to Suffolk
Environmental Consulting, Inc. As agent; SCTM# 119-1-6.1
- $250.00 received on 1/3/13; for John Abbott, payable to En-Consultants as agent;
SCTM# 126-5-1
- $250.00 received on 1/3/13; for James Abbott, payable to En-Consultants as agent;
SCTM# 126-5-3.1
- $250.00 received on 12/31/12; for John Congdon & Others, payable to En-
Consultants as agent; SCTM# 128-4-6
- $250.00 received on 12/26/12; for Patricia Congdon O'Brien, payable to En-
Consultants as agent; SCTM# 128-4-1
- $250.00 received on 1/28/13; for Stephen & Elizabeth O'Shaughnessy, payable to
En-Consultants as agent; SCTM# 128-2-9.2
- $250.00 received on 1/28/13; for Mary McFeely, payable to En-Consultants as agent;
SCTM# 128-2-9.1
- $250.00 received on 1/25/13; for Matthew D. Volpe, payable to Jeffrey Patanjo as
agent; SCTM# 80-5-1.1
- $250.00 received on 1/31/13; for Mark Miller, payable to Costello Marine Contracting
Corp. As agent; SCTM# 81-3-24.2
- $250.00 received on 1/28/13; payable to Peter & Dina Masso; SCTM# 111-13-4
Board of Trustees 5 March 20, 2013
- $250.00 received on 1/29/13; payable to Philip & Carolyn Manning; SCTM# 117-10-11
- $250.00 received on 1/9/13; for Dean Blaikie, payable to Suffolk Environmental
Consulting, Inc. As agent; SCTM# 111-15-9
- $500.00 received on 1/28/13; for Soundfront Holdings, LLC, payable to En-
Consultants as agent; SCTM# 51-4-8
- $500.00 received on 1/2/13; for Peter & Marisa Patinella, payable to En-Consultants
as agent; SCTM# 38-6-12
- $500.00 received on 1/2/13; for Jonathan & Christine Meyer & Josephine Cippitelli,
payable to En-Consultants as agent; SCTM# 38-6-13
- $500.00 received on 1/2/13; for Edward & Rachel Flannigan, payable to En-
Consultants as agent; SCTM# 38-6-14
- $500.00 received on 1/28/13; for Kirk O'Farrell & Denise Cerasani, payable to En-
Consultants as agent; SCTM# 31-13-9.1
- $500.00 received on 1/29/13; payable to Norton & Wesley Davidson; SCTM# 12-2-5.3
- $500.00 received on 1/24/13; for Ralph Carbone, payable to Glenn E. Just as agent;
SCTM# 1-2-5
- $500.00 received on 1/25/13; for Suzanne Moyse, Mary Guerriera & Jennifer
Blackhall, payable to Jeffrey Patanjo as agent; SCTM# 31-18-5
These are refunds that are given out because of the storm damage, and a
decision was made not to charge a fee. So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: And we have a second resolution Dave will take care of.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is a resolution for the Board of Trustees to recognize and
support a program that some of the local pharmacies have developed to collect all
outdated prescription drugs, as far as personal care items, because as we all know, they
are showing up, when people are looking to get rid of them, they are flushing them down
the toilet and that shows up in our ground water, eventually. So the resolution reads:
WHEREAS the EPA and New York State DEC have found an increased presence of
pharmaceuticals and personal care products in local ground water.
AND WHEREAS groundwater flows into our bays, creeks, salt water and freshwater
wetlands,
AND WHEREAS a proposed program to collect old pharmaceuticals and personal care
products at designated at designated local pharmacies and drug stores for safe and
legal disposal, entitled "Do Not Flush, Take It Back" has been proposed.
WHEREAS the Southold Town Trustees are dedicated to preserving our bays, creeks,
salt water and freshwater wetlands,
THEREFORE IT BE IT RESOLVED this Board supports the initiative "Do not Flush,
Take It Back."
I move that resolution.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Under resolutions of administrative permits, number one, PAUL
PAWLOWSKI requests an Administrative Permit for the as-built natural stone wall;
replacement of existing steps to existing dock; and the small chicken wire fence 24"
Board of Trustees 6 March 20, 2013
high. Located: 950 Lupton's Point Road, Mattituck.
We have all looked at this. It was found consistent with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Lori, there was a violation on this, correct?
MS. HULSE: There has not been one issued yet but I have an understanding there will
be.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is on Lupton's Point.
MS. HULSE: Oh, I'm sorry, I thought it was Pawlowski.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It is.
MS. HULSE: Same individual, different property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MS. HULSE: He has not gotten it yet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For Lupton's Point?
MS. HULSE: He has not gotten any yet, no. I think that is in the works but it has not
been accomplished yet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If we'll be approving a permit, just so you know, he'll be receiving a
violation.
TRUSTEE KING: I thought he straightened that out, the first one.
MS. HULSE: That was the other violation. This is a new one.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: He has two properties; one on Lupton's Point and one
TRUSTEE KING: This is the first one.
MS. HULSE: The first one he cleared up a long time ago.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I'm asking. Okay.
MS. HULSE: But if he has a pending one, this still can be held until that is resolved.
TRUSTEE KING: He hasn't been served.
MS. HULSE: Right. But I know they are intending to. So that still could be held up.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Should we table this, then?
MS. HULSE: No, you can go forward with it. I think we would just hold the permit.
TRUSTEE KING: It was found consistent with the LWRP. The CAC has no comments.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was an admin.
TRUSTEE KING: All right. I would make a motion to approve this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number two, THOMAS McDERMOTT requests an Administrative
Permit for the existing patio 15'x30' made of composite lumber, and existing 3't
concrete walkways. Located: 315 Old Salt Road, Mattituck.
This is an administrative permit for an existing patio. It was found inconsistent
because the patio was built without a permit. But it's been taken care of. He's applying
for the permit. This was very, very minimal. I went out and looked at this a couple of
times. It has no impact whatsoever. It's a patio right by the house and he's got a little
walkway coming down to the bulkhead. It was inconsistent because there was no permit
on it. I didn't have an issue with this. I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Eileen Santora on behalf of ELIZABETH PENNISI requests an
Administrative Permit to construct a front one-story addition with covered front entry
porch where existing enclosed front porch exists; with the installation of gutters to
leaders to drywells. Located: 1425 Pine Neck Road, Southold.
Mike, you looked at number three?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes. No problems with that.
Board of Trustees 7 March 20, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: That was also found consistent. The LWRP recommended a
landscape buffer landward of the bulkhead. Do you have any thoughts on that, Mike? I
looked at your field notes. It's all right?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Then I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE KING: On page four, applications for extensions, transfers and administrative
amendments, what we try and do is move things along. If they are simple and there is no
controversy over them, we'll lump them together and approve them all at once. So I
would make the motion to approve:
Number one, CONSTANCE C. VICKERS requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#11-88-113-6-11 from Gerald Wood to Constance C. Vickers, as issued on April 4,
1989. Located: 900 Holbrook Lane, Mattituck.
Number two, DOUGLAS KALUNAS requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #1068 from
Paul Kalunas to Douglas Kalunas, as issued on May 5, 1975, and Amended on June 18,
2008. Located: 625 Osprey Nest Road, Greenport.
Number three, STEPHEN & DOREEN DIMEGLIO request a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#1563 from Felix Alfano to Stephen & Doreen Dimeglio, as issued on October 1, 1982.
Located: 755 Harbor Drive, Cutchogue.
Number four, J. Donald Higgins, Jr., Esq., on behalf of KEVIN D. CONLAN & DANIEL
F. CONLAN request a Transfer of Wetland Permit #2206 from Edwin W. Stewart to
Kevin D. Conlan & Daniel F. Conlan, as issued on August 28, 1986. Located: 20 Carole
Road, Southold.
And number five, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of VINCENT MANAGO requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #4578 to add a 15' wide x ±150' long
stone splash pad on filter cloth along the landward side of the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number one under Amendments, LINTON I. DUELL requests an
Amendment to Wetland Permit #4338 and a Coastal Erosion Permit for taking the
existing catwalk, ramp and float and modifying the existing total length of 60' to 88' by
means of lengthening the present catwalk by 28'; place four new 8'-9'x20" pilings to
secure the new catwalk and relocate other pilings to secure the float in new location; the
existing 10'x20' float will be replaced with a 6'x20' float in two to three years when its
useful life has ended. Located: 450 Bay Lane, Orient.
The Trustees did go out and looked at this. The CAC inspected and resolved to
support the application to extend the existing walkway by 28 feet. It was reviewed under
the LWRP and found to be inconsistent. And the reason for the inconsistency, the
proposed dock is located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard area be constructed in the
near shore, pursuant to 111-6. Allowable activities within the near-shore area may
Board of Trustees 8 March 20, 2013
include docks, built-in floats, columns, open timber piles and other similar work supports
with a top surface area of less than 200-square feet. This dock is greater than 200-
square feet.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
If you would step up to the microphone and introduce yourself, and if you can spell your
last name. We don't have our court reporter here.
MR. DUELL: My name is Linton Duell. I think the application is pretty straightforward.
It's just an extension of an existing catwalk by 28 feet, placed on the four new pilings,
and the relocation of three other pilings.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The 28-foot extension, is that at the seaward or the landward end
of the catwalk?
MR. DUELL: It would be at the seaward.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. I'm just thinking, as I'm sitting here, of a way to address the
inconsistency under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would appear that the applicant has agreed to reduce the
size of the pre-existing float, which would probably offset, provide an offset for the
additional depth needed. The fact is that this is a minimal, 3-foot wide catwalk, which is
something the Trustees have long tried to have in our creeks. It's not even the standard
4-foot wide. So the existing 3-foot wide catwalk, the small extension of an additional
28 feet, is essentially the same area that would go over the water, which would be
accomplished by a future supposed float replacement, which would bring the float into a
6x20. So the net surface area, the structure essentially remains the same, reduces the
need for dredging and keeps the whole structure at or below the current usage. So
essentially it's a no net gain with a positive environmental benefit by not compelling a
dredging in the coastal erosion hazard area.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think any of us had any problem with this at all.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So I think we can address the inconsistency by
quintessentially no net change, but an improvement because we eliminate the need to
get deeper water for dredging.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Does anyone else have any comments on this application?
(No response).
If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSETE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Linton Duell,
finding that with the reconfiguration it will have a positive environmental impact and will
reduce the need for dredging for the dock to go into deeper water, hence bring it into
consistency under the LWRP, and also I have been informed there will be a refund of
$150 to the applicant toward his total application fee. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application is En-Consultants on behalf of
LAZARUS ALEXANDROU requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7752 for the
as-built location of a 3'x88' timber stairway with associated wood landings and platforms
(where a 3'x92' stairway with associated wood landings and platforms situated in a more
easterly location was approved) and to require the native re-vegetation of all areas
adjacent to the stairway that were disturbed during construction. Located: 2700 Sound
Drive, Greenport.
Board of Trustees 9 March 20, 2013
The Trustees performed an additional field inspection. 1 believe we have been to
the site now probably three or four times to consider changes to the stairway
configuration and to inspect the landscaping and the buffered areas. I don't believe we
had any issues with it in the current configuration. The deck had been pulled back,
believe all the violations have been settled. I believe that is fairly accurate. Is there
anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants. We submitted the application.
Unless the Board has any questions or comments of me, I don't have anything to
present.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing nothing from the Board members, I would make a
motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this application noting
that it can be brought into consistency with the Town's LWRP by virtue of satisfying the
violation with extensive re-vegetation and buffer areas established, and based on the
field inspection of the Trustees this last Wednesday where we noted there were no
additional outstanding items of concern. So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of
CHRISTOPHER STABILE requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #8027 to
construct a 16' bulkhead return on the northern side of the property and a 20' bulkhead
return at the southern end of the property. Located: 9975 Nassau Point Road,
Cutchogue.
The LWRP coordinator reviewed this and found it to be consistent. The CAC
voted unanimous to support this application. On our field inspection on the 15th we
noted there were no issues observed by the Trustees. Is there anyone here to speak to
this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, for the applicant.
I have nothing further to add.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else to speak to this application? Any comments
or notes 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: 1 make a motion to approve this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number four, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of
DAVID C. ESSEKS requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #5974 from Jennifer & Philip
Stanton to David C. Esseks, as issued on August 18, 2004, and Amended on May 18,
2005, and Amended again on December 16, 2009; and for an Amendment to Wetland
Permit #5974 to maintain the original "L" configuration of the floating dock; and install
two (2) mooring pilings (8.0" .)with SlideMoor Systems off of the seaward end of the
floating dock. Located: 522 Town Creek Lane, Southold.
Board of Trustees 10 March 20, 2013
This was tabled from last month. We had some questions as far as the tie-off
piles go. It was found consistent with the LWRP the first time. And the CAC does not
support the application because the pilings may prove to be a navigation hazard, and
the floating dock currently sits on the bottom. And there is a question for the need for
additional pilings. Those are the comments from the CAC. Is there anyone here to speak
on behalf of or against this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, for the applicant.
I understand that there is some level of objection among Board members and so I would
ask that the current application be tabled until next month so that we'll have a full Board.
TRUSTEE KING: At the applicant's request, we'll table this until next month.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND 8 COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits, number six,
THOMAS J. APREA requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to repair
42' of existing bulkhead located on inlet to Spring Pond; and erect ready-rock sea wall
along property behind existing bulkhead to stop any more erosion of property; and
replace sand behind seawall. Located: 500 Beach Court, East Marion.
The Trustees did go out and looked at this. The CAC resolved to support the
application. And it was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. Is there
anybody here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application?
MS. MOONEY: My name is Maureen Mooney and I'm an adjacent property owner to the
Aprea property. First of all, I never received any notification of the hearing. And when I
inquired about it at the Town, down to the Trustees, I was assured Mr. Aprea had sent
me a letter, however when I went to the Post Office, this so-called notification cannot be
found in the Post Office records, it cannot be traced. So therefore the letter was never
sent. Number two, when I did review the permit application I was surprised to find that
work that has been done on the property, in the second level decking portion of the
property, is not included in the permit which he is applying for at this time. So I'm
inquiring as to whether or not this is going to be incorporated into that permit or should
another permit be obtained.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are stating there has been asecond-floor deck put on since
the hurricane?
MS. MOONEY: Yes, since Hurricane Sandy, which does not appear on the property
schema that he sent to you. It does not appear on that. It was added since Hurricane
Sandy and yet it is not included in the permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Since they have not applied for it, it would not be included in this
permit.
MS. MOONEY: No, but he was applying for work to be done.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Gotcha. If there was other work that the applicant did without a
permit, that will be reported through to the appropriate agencies with the town. The
Building Department, to start off with. Because what you are alleging is he did some
construction on the house. So that should be reported to the Building Department for
their action. It is not included in the permit here. There is not presently an outstanding
violation for it. So what you are asking for I don't want to assume anything but what
you are asking for is the Town to look into this matter that you just brought to our
attention to see
MS. MOONEY: And the reason I'm hesitant in going to the Building Department, is when
Board of Trustees 11 March 20, 2013
other complaints have been made about this property, the Building Department does not
seem to effect any change, does not affect or make the person get a permit for any of
the work that is done on that property and in fact gives the person my name so he can
be vindictive and abusive to me that I made complaints. So where do I go in terms of
trying to find some justification?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It would be to the Building Department. That would be the agency
to take it to.
MS. MOONEY: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, you said you didn't receive notification?
MS. MOONEY: No, I did not.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mr. Mooney, right?
MR. MOONEY: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't know if we have a copy of it here.
MS. HULSE: It could be true that it was noticed to her, but if she is here, it is notice. So it
is not really relevant to the conversation.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. And I was going to say we do have a copy of
MS. MOONEY: Which numbers on the receipt are non-existent in the postal system. So
I don't know what that means.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe that's something to take up with the postal
department.
MS. MOONEY: Well, they don't even know what these numbers are on this receipt.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else that wants to speak for or
against this application?
(No response).
I know when the Trustees went out and looked at this, we had a question regarding the
elevation of the rocks they are requesting to put in. It appears as though the elevation
comes up to what is depicted as ground level on the plan that we've had submitted.
Again, we were concerned whether or not these rocks are going to go up above ground
level, and it does not appear as though that will happen, if it's built according to the
plans. Are there any other comments from the Board?
MR. MCGREEVEY: There are quite a few of the applications coming in because of the
storm and the type of damage that has taken place with bulkheads and washout behind
the bulkheads, and we are concerned where this quote unquote clean fill is coming
from. It's at a premium price right now and we are concerned that bogus fill might be
coming in that is not appropriate. It's just a comment the CAC would like to make. We
have quite a few applications where there is supposed to be clean fill that is brought in.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Jack, in the future, you have to step up to the microphone
because we don't have a court reporter. But, Jack McGreevey, for the record, was just
issuing a concern on behalf of the CAC regarding when applicants in general are
including in their application clean fill. The concern from the CAC is that it is in fact clean
fill and not a substitute. Did I summarize that correctly?
MR. MCGREEVEY: Exactly.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to
close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: There is one question by the gentleman who came in the office and
was concerned about dredging, and I told him it was my understanding the material
that's leaked through this bulkhead that's been damaged will just be pulled back behind
the new bulkhead and used as backfill. So it's not a dredging project per se. It's just
retrieving the lost sand through the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. I know we noticed out there in the field we could see
where the sand had leaked through the bulkhead into the channel area.
Board of Trustees 12 March 20, 2013
Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Listening to Jack McGreevey's concerns, I'm wondering, for
an application that has as much fill to be brought in as this one, whether we should
compel an additional inspection of backfill material to make sure in fact it is clean
material. Because it's a very sizeable amount of material coming in and it would seem
we would not want to go to a site and find out that silty loam had been brought in behind
a bulkhead and they were trying to establish a lawn right up to the bulkhead where we
are trying to maintain beach areas and open areas, and it would be an additional
inspection, similar to a hay bale inspection, would be a minor inconvenience for all
concerned, the Trustees, the applicant, to inspect the first load of fill material being
brought in. It's just a thought. Because I think we were talking there is several thousand
yards of fill on this job. And I'm just putting it out there. It seems when we are talking
about the typical 25 or 30 or 40 cubic yards, 100 cubic yards is a couple of truckloads of
sand.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we would have to specify a certain amount that triggers an
inspection, as long as it's 2,000 or whatever. I don't want to do it for everything, stalling
the project. If it's an exceptionally large project, many thousands of yards of fill, maybe
we should have a final inspection to check the fill. It's something to think about, I guess.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This application does not specify the amount of fill he's bringing in.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's necessary for this one, at this time, anyway.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We had several that I know were in the almost thousands of
yards of material.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments?
(No response).
If not, I'll make motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the wetland and coastal erosion
application of Thomas Aprea as described, and it was noting it was found consistent
under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number seven, AMY UYANIK requests a Wetland Permit
and a Coastal Erosion Permit to replace all existing pilings @ 6'0" o/c (±150LF); all
damaged and broken whalers/sheathing to be repaired or replaced in-place using
untreated wood; all deadmen systems to be excavated/inspected/repaired or replaced
as needed in-kind; all excavation work and stockpile material shall be protected with
filter cloth/silt fence; existing beach stairs to be repaired or replaced in-place; and to
legalize the existing 1190' bulkhead, existing ±100' stone jetty, ±4' wide steps to beach,
existing 10'x10' platform and 4' wide staircase. Located: 54875 County Road 48,
Southold.
The project has been determined to be inconsistent with the LWRP, based on the
fact that the initial construction did not have Board of Trustees permit. I believe the
construction here substantially predates any Trustee jurisdiction and wetland permits
and coastal erosion. So by virtue of the timeframes of when the activity took place, it
was legal by virtue of predating our jurisdiction. The CAC was concerned also with the
legalization of the structures involved. The Board of Town Trustees, we all looked at it
and we thought the repair work was consistent with the cautious approach of trying to
make use of as much of the existing materials as they can. We wish them well. I don't
Board of Trustees 13 March 20, 2013
think we feel it's going to be easygoing for them to save any of the fascia and any of the
materials there. But they certainly can try. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on
behalf of this application?
(No response).
Not seeing anyone here to speak on behalf of the application, are there any Trustee
members who have any additional comments or concerns?
TRUSTEE KING: No, I think you have everything.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 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 resolution to approve the application of Amy
Uyanik as proposed, noting that the application is to be consistent with the LWRP as
virtue of the fact they are seeking permits now for repair to an existing structure that
conforms with the standards we currently enforce under the Wetland ordinance and
coastal erosion hazard area. So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number eight, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of
SUSAN E. CLICK IRREVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to remove the existing bulkhead sheathing and any damaged portions of
the existing ±g5' bulkhead structures, face pilings and stringers as needed; replace any
face pilings and stringers removed, inplace; install ±g5' of new vinyl sheathing, new
backing system, new clamps and caps; fill void area landward with clean trucked-in fill
(approximately 240 cubic yards); re-grade area and re-vegetate with native plantings to
match existing. Located: 1655 Truman's Path, East Marion.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC voted to support this
application with the condition that the concrete path landward of the bluff be removed
and the 15-foot non turf buffer. The Trustees inspected the site on the 13th and found
everything to be okay. Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, on behalf of the applicant, here to answer any
questions there may be.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else to speak to this application?
(No response).
Any comments or questions from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 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).
TRUTSEE KING: Number nine, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of
LAWRENCE BOGARD 8 ALICE MEDALIA request a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to remove ±50' of existing bulkhead remains; construct ±50' of new
bulkhead in-place; fill void area landward with clean trucked-in sand (approximately 80
cubic yards); re-grade area and re-vegetate with Cape American beach grass.
Board of Trustees 14 March 20, 2013
Located: 1705 Truman's Path, East Marion.
This was found consistent with the LWRP, and the CAC supports the application
with the condition the bathhouse is relocated landward of the coastal erosion hazard
area. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, on behalf of the applicant. As far as where that
boathouse is, that's really the only place it can go. I don't think we are addressing the
boathouse. We were just going in to do the bulkhead, really, as far as this application
goes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there any repair needed to that boathouse?
MR. COSTELLO: The front door was knocked out of it. There was some damage to the
front wall. The side walls are still intact.
TRUSTEE KING: Is it this here? Or the walls behind it, further down?
MR. COSTELLO: It's the next piece of property to the west.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. There are three contiguous properties all together. This is the
second piece of property down.
TRUSTEE KING: Any Board comments?
(No response).
Any comments from anybody else?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
This is strictly really addressing the bulkhead situation rather than the bathhouse. I think
it is what it is. If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to approve the
application.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number ten, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of
BRUCE BOLLMAN requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove
t50' of existing bulkhead remains; construct ±50' of new bulkhead in-place; fill void area
landward with clean trucked in sand (approximately 60 cubic yards); re-grade area and
re-vegetate with Cape American beach grass. Located: 1755 Truman's Path, East
Marion.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. The CAC
supports the application however has a concern with the location of the deck and patio
seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. The Board did go out and looked at this. Is
there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine, on behalf of the applicant. This is
straightforward. We are just dealing with the bulkhead once again, same as the last two.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is no planned work to be done on this deck and patio, there
was nothing that needed to be done, correct?
MR.COSTELLO:No.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. This is contiguous to the other two properties. It was the
idea here to get all the work done at once?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Which is something that we have encouraged, is applicants that
live next door to each other that come in and get their permits at the same time so all the
work can be done at the same time so there is less disturbance in other areas during
construction. Is there anybody else here in the audience that has any comments
Board of Trustees 15 March 20, 2013
regarding this application?
(No response).
Not seeing any, 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 Costello Marine on
behalf of Bruce Bollman as described, noting it was found consistent under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number eleven, En-Consultants on behalf
of DONALD J. STANTON 8 VIRGINIA L. STANTON FAMILY TRUSTS requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to reshape existing ±53 linear feet of
partially buried stone armor (and t5' and ±14' returns) and supplement structure with
additional 2.5' - 3.5' diameter; 1 - 2 ton stones to raise height of structure approximately
2 feet to match elevation (8.5' MSL) of proposed/approved stone armor on adjacent
property to east; re-nourish and raise height of eroded beach landward of stone with
approximately 45 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be planted with beach grass and
switch grass (except in areas underneath dwelling or deck). Located: 1480 Leeton
Drive, Southold.
This has been determined to be consistent with the LWRP. The Trustees
inspected the site and we did not have any particular issues with the proposed plans,
given the erosion and damage to this property and neighboring properties. The CAC
inspected the property and supports the application. They did have concerns concerning
the flank erosion of the neighboring properties. Is there anyone here who wishes to
speak on behalf of this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of Don Stanton. A
couple of years ago, after the Christmas storm of 2010, you may recall the Board was
down looking at the two adjacent properties owned by Alfonse D'Amato and David
Zarore (sic). The Board approved very similar applications also designed by Jeff Butler.
Don's is basically the property that sits between those two parcels and the adjacent
bulkhead, and so this is essentially a proposal to reshape and raise that stone to match
the elevation of the stone that the Board has already approved for the neighboring
parcels. So I think that would probably respond to your concern for the erosion flanking,
because the intention now, those two guys are kind of waiting for Don now to finish up.
Then they hope to install the whole thing as part of one project simultaneously. So, other
than that, I didn't hear anything to respond to. So I'll leave it at that, unless the Board
had any other questions.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It is interesting. We've had two Christmas presents two
years in a row, and two tropical storms two years in a row.
TRUSTEE KING: Will there be any filtering border behind it?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, there will be four waves of beach grade behind it and plant it out
with beach grass, except what is underneath the deck. And that's it on the engineering
side of it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional questions?
(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).
Board of Trustees 16 March 20, 2013
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve the application as
submitted, noting it is consistent with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 12, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting Services on behalf
of VICKY PAPSON requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to
reconstruct in-place approximately 6' of upper concrete retaining wall; repair as
necessary the concrete retaining wall and concrete bulkhead; to reconstruct that area
located between the concrete retaining wall and concrete bulkhead by reclaiming
scattered stones and placing approximately 17 cubic yards of stone in that area and
re-grading; backfill the void located landward of the concrete retaining wall with
approximately 21 cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source;
replace boat house door, repair sprinkler system and repair gate and fence. Located:
11120 Main Road, East Marion.
The LWRP found this to be consistent. The CAC voted to table this application,
recommending a full site plan and/or survey to verify the location of the boathouse and
the CEHA line. The Trustees and their inspection on the 13th, noted there should be no
habitation of the boathouse. It is simply to be used as a boathouse. Is there anyone here
to speak to this application?
MR. JUST: Good evening, Glenn Just, JMO Consulting, for the applicant. I don't know if
there are any specific questions, but you can see where the storm came in, it had
broken up all the, that, like patio, for lack of a better term. It used to sit just behind that
one seawall. And it swept a lot of the material out into the bay, to the east. What we
basically want to do is just replace what was there, reset all that stone. There is no
bathroom, as far as my knowledge, in that boathouse. The door had gotten knocked
down during the storm. I don't know if you saw the pieces of slate that actually got flung
through the door. And it's going to be, the property next door, there was a permit from
the last month at the Trustees meeting that Rob put a 16-foot return, and I think this
blends right in very well with the project that was approved last month.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: For the record, I would like to note there is a survey submitted on
the 27th of February of this year noting the location of the boathouse and the location of
the coastal erosion hazard line that addresses the concern
MR. JUST: I think this goes back, this was a project that was approved years ago, prior
to the enactment of the coastal erosion hazard line code. We are coming back to repair
and legalize it under the Coastal Erosion Hazard taw.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: One last comment from me, do you think the 38-cubic yards total
will be enough?
MR. JUST: The totals I got from the contractor seems like it's a little low. But I had to
work with what the contractor told me.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application?
(No response).
Any other notes or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. I think I agree, since this boathouse was pre-existing, I would
not want to see it effectively lost due to the minor damage that has been done to it. So I
have no problem permitting it in, because of the minor repairs that are needed, with the
notation in the future it will not become habitable space. There will be no septic in that
structure.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close this
application.
Board of Trustees 17 March 20, 2013
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted with the
note that the Trustees do not want the boathouse to become habitable.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number 13, Mark K. Schwartz, Architect on behalf of BRENDA
COLLINS requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to repair storm
related portions of house structure; deck at grade; deck landing with stair; rebuild front
porch; replace missing break-a-way walls around perimeter; relocate fuel tank; replace
mechanicals as required. Located: 350 Rabbit Lane, East Marion.
This was found inconsistent and consistent. The proposed action to repair
stone-related portions of the house, rebuild front porch, missing breakaway walls, has
been found consistent with the LWRP. The proposal to replace the deck at grade, deck
landing with stairs seaward of the coastal erosion hazard area, is inconsistent with the
LWRP. The CAC will not support the application unless the dwelling is elevated.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The dwelling is already elevated.
MR. MCGREEVEY: I didn't do the inspection.
TRUSTEE KING: This is one of those two or three houses that have already been
elevated down in that area. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MR. SCHARWTZ: Mark Schwartz, architect for the project. I do have an updated set of
plans. So the house has been elevated to an elevation that is to go on pilings. So there
is no issue with the actual two stories of the house itself. It's the lower level wiggly walls
that got damaged and removed. They lost some stairs and upper deck and they are
looking to repair or replace them. Some duct work, electrical, things like that.
TRUSTEE KING: These decks are all seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard area, am I
correct?
MR. SCHWARTZ: The decks are actually underneath the house and the existing porch.
If you look at the photo.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We're looking at the survey here.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Correct, yes.
TRUSTEE KING: What do we do now?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, I think our challenge continues to be, in this neighborhood
and other areas of town, that the Coastal Erosion Code says decks are to be limited to
200-square feet. That continues to be our challenge.
MR. SCHWARTZ: It looks like the portion of the deck that is within the Coastal Erosion
Hazard line is somewhere right around 200-square feet. I'd have to calculate it. But it's
very close to it. It's an area of 9'8"x25'6", so that's maybe a little bit more than
200-square feet. So we could cut it back to give you the 200 maximum.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't see that we could do anything with it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Put it in the resolution as a condition.
TRUSTEE KING: There's an upper deck and a lower deck. Wasn't there a deck right on
the beach, I thought?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It shows in the plans here a deck and stairs right on the side of the
house, the eastern side of the house, a small 4x6' deck and stairs.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, that was wiped away by the storm. They want to rebuild it.
TRUSTEE KING: It looks like it would be on the southwest corner of the house, there
was a deck on the beach?
Board of Trustees 18 March 20, 2013
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any intentions of putting that back?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, there is a 25'6"x9'8" deck that was removed completely, they
want to replace. And I thought it would be funny to show that pre-storm.
TRUSTEE KING: They had it decked the whole length.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. Again, that's a little more than 200-square feet, that area that's
within the Coastal Erosion Hazard line. So we could cut that back to the maximum 200.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't know how they get two decks out here. We'll need some legal,
technical advice here.
MR. SCHWARTZ: The upper deck was untouched. So that's in fine condition.
TRUSTEE KING: So it's primarily the lower deck and the deck on the beach. Was that
lower deck damaged also?
MR. SCHWARTZ: The Tower deck that was down on the beach is gone.
TRUSTEE KING: And the deck above that, that's still there, right?
MR. SCHWARTZ: That's fine, yes. The entire house and the upper deck were
Untouched. They're fine, there was no damage. It's just the lower portion.
TRUSTEE KING: See, when we were out there it looked like there was only decking
where that awning is. But the pictures you showed us, there was decking across the
whole span, right? I guess if we cut that back to make it under 200-square feet, I guess
we could let it fly.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's the only thing we can do. We are compelled by code.
TRUSTEE KING: Basically what we have been doing with all these structures, all these
decks that are in coastal erosion, if it was under 200-square feet, it was exempt. That's
what we've had to do.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments from anybody? Board?
MR. MCGREEVEY: The CAC has some serious concerns going forward with the reality
of rising sea levels and super storms that are coming more often. Our concern is that
properties like this and similar properties, going forward, I would like to let the Board
know we are concerned about these sanitary systems. We can elevate these properties,
we can refurbish them, but these cesspools and sanitary systems are getting flooded
and the water, surface water, is on it for quite a while. To give you an example, is this
one on Rabbit Lane?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, it is.
MR. MCGREEVEY: When that water came in, it was on that ground level for quite a
while and whatever was in the cesspool came up and was pushed into the lake just to
the north. So we have two problems we think have to be addressed. One is public
health. The other is the contamination of ground water, surface water, and the bay, and
possibly any drainage in the area. But maybe we can re-engineer these systems. I don't
think we have to reinvent the wheel. Down in North Carolina, they simply addressed the
problem. Elevate the systems, re-engineering.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Jack, too bad you were not here for our work session this
evening. I contacted some of the people that I know in the Health Department where I
worked for 35 years and I spent the better part of an hour discussing sanitary systems
near the bay with Ed Lyons, who is one of the senior inspectors there, and detailed a
fairly broad-ranged discussion on what the current standards of the Health Department
were post-Tropical Storm Sandy and what their expectations were, what the limitations
of how they were running their program. And we had a very interesting discussion
amongst the Trustees. And we are very concerned. Because we are all seeing drastic
changes to the waterfront, we've witnessed now for a couple of years. We are up to four
major storms in as many years and we've got a number of properties where we've
Board of Trustees 19 March 20, 2013
actually seen old, historic sanitary systems been torn open. We have actual block pools
collapse; small, precast systems, with everything eliminated. And so we are starting a
dialogue, and we want to handle everyone in a fair and even-handed manner. But it
would appear there would probably have to be referrals back through the county and
their board of review, since we are not engineers. And/or we make specific requests of
design professionals, engineers or architects, so they could at least try to minimally
meet the county's standard. And of course the current standard is 1,000 gallon septic
tank for moving soluble solids, and a sanitary system that is at least two feet above
groundwater in these coastal areas. It's a daunting task because it seems like we are
going backwards here.
(Inaudible).
TRUSTEE KING: Jack, we can't hear you. You have to speak up.
MS. CANTREL: We have no transcriber, so everybody needs to speak clearly into the
microphone so the transcriber can type up the Minutes.
MR. MCGREEVEY: With the concern being taken seriously and discussed, any
feedback that you get from the Health Department or from the town engineers, if the
CAC could be copied on it, we'd appreciate it. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments on number 13?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would just like to note for the record that Trustee Bredemeyer
and myself have been sampling waters in Marion Lake post-Sandy. We are cognizant of
the potential trouble there.
TRUSTEE KING: Being no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the stipulation the
deck is downsized to less than 200-square feet, and that would bring it into consistency
with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: We'll take afive-minute recess.
(After afive-minute recess, these proceedings continue as follows).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number one under Wetland Permits, GARY GUJA requests a
Wetland Permit to construct and install new private pleasure boat dock as follows: All
lumber to be untreated materials-tropical greenheart; 4'x16' onramp to a 4'x58' catwalk a
minimum 4' above grade of wetlands (ramped) to 3'x15' float ramp to a 6'x20' float with
thee (3) secure piles plus one additional 10" round tie-off pile; total overall length
approximately 96 linear feet. Located: 372 North Drive, Mattituck.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. The CAC
resolved to support the application.
There is a little history here. There was a dock approved, I believe it was 2008 at
this location. Then in 2010 was aone-year extension approved for this location, and that
has now run out, and the applicant is back before us to apply for a dock.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. GUJA: Gary Guja.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mr. Guja, I'm looking at the plans that you submitted with this and
Board of Trustees 20 March 20, 2013
we looked at the plans from what was approved in 2008, and the plans looked identical.
But in the description you are asking for aten-inch round tie-off pile. So I was just
curious as to why in the description you are asking for something that is not in the
diagram. Was that a mistake that you didn't want aten-inch pile; in other words do you
want to apply for exactly what is on your diagram?
MR. GUJA: The best I can remember, in 2008, we wanted to be able to park a larger
boat there. In other words we were putting in the ten-inch piling so a larger boat would
be able to dock there. Because 1 believe the float is only 20-feet long.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, the proposed float is 6x20, correct.
MR. GUJA: I would be willing to remove that, if it's a problem. I mean, we could scratch
that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. The other thing we noticed was that I believe the
original float is kind of floating around in front of the property; is that correct?
MR. GUJA: It's a float that had drifted up and it's still there. It's been there for a while
and I have to, I was hoping to use that to work off of, but we can dispose of that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, that would be great. Because there are floats around there,
it disturbs the area, so. Are there any other comments you had?
MR. GUJA: No, I was just hoping to be able to get the permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anybody else in the audience want to comment on this
application?
(No response).
If not, any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
If not, 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 Gary Guja for a
Wetland Permit as shown in the plans dated December 23, 2007, stamped received by
our office February 27, 2013, noting that in the description we will remove from the
description the ten-inch round tie-off pile and that the stray float will be removed.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, number two, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
HENRY GOETZ requests a Wetland Permit to remove 77 linear feet of existing timber
bulkhead damaged by storm and replace with 77 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead and 15
linear feet of return in same location as existing; remove existing timber deck supports to
construct bulkhead and replace with new timber supports; existing deck (29'x31.5'
overall) to remain undisturbed. Located: 645 Richmond Road East, Southold.
The proposal is determined to be consistent with the LWRP. The CAC supports
the application with the recommendation that all structures, including the deck, should
be landward of the bulkhead, and the house should have gutters leading to drywells.
The Trustees inspected the site and felt that based on a site inspection and the amount
of bulkhead replacement, that aten-foot non-turf buffer might be indicated.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patango, on behalf of the applicant. As far as the non-turf buffer, I
could easily take care of that because there is a deck over most of that non-turf buffer. 1
can do gravel or some sort of other decking under there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Decking or gravel material is acceptable as a non-turf
Board of Trustees 21 March 20, 2013
substrate.
MR. PATANJO: That's fine, I agree with that as well. As far as all the other structures
there, the deck is to remain in place
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess the question is the concrete walkway. The CAC
wanted to have structures that were seaward how does that play; is it bulkhead, is it a
walkway?
MR. PATANJO: It's a walkway and it does extend to the neighboring property to the east
as well. My client would like it to stay, if it could. Although I want it to be removed. So
whatever you guys feel.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I've got to admit, as a Trustee, I'm surprised we didn't note it
in the field because it would be the kind of thing we would ordinarily ask you, and usually
a report would come in that would be very similar between the CAC and I have to
hand it to the CAC, I don't know, it might have been one of those really cold days --they
nailed it, I think, because it really is the kind of thing, with all the construction and new
bulkhead, it's an area that would allow vegetated wetland to thrive. And that's my
personal observation.
MR. PATANJO: With regard to the structures landward of the bulkhead seaward of the
bulkhead I still would like to keep the platform that is there down to the beach area.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Beach access.
MR. PATANJO: And would it be acceptable to do a small, say 4'x4' platform at the
beach base, with untreated, greenheart timber, in lieu of the concrete?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I can't speak to that, but other members may want to
discuss that as part of a resolution.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is in lieu of the concrete
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In lieu of the concrete, to have a small piece
TRUSTEE KING: It would be an improvement.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would be a great improvement. That's a substantial piece
of concrete. That's a lot of wetland that can come back. Sounds good.
Any additional comments? Members of the Board?
(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 would make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, with the stipulation that the pre-existing concrete walkway be removed and
that in lieu of it a 4x4' greenheart constructed deck, at the beach level be permitted, and
that a set of plans depicted the greenheart deck be submitted to the file. So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number three, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of
MICHAEL & KATHRYN RUSSO request a Wetland Permit to raise the low lying area of
the property to prevent flooding. Located: 775 Oakwood Drive, Southold.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC voted not to support
this application as it would be a detriment to the area and cause flooding on adjacent
properties. There is a letter in the file from Mark and Susan Memelio (sic) who own
adjoining properties and they note they are concerned for potential flooding on their
property. And if that is addressed, they have no other concerns.
The Trustees, on their field inspection, commented that the log should be moved
ten-foot landward of the proposal submitted on February 27th, with the naturalized buffer
Board of Trustees 22 March 20, 2013
seaward. Subsequent to that we received revised plans on March 15th noting that
concern would be addressed. Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Dave Chicanowicz, Creative Environmental Design. Yes, we did
submit the amended plans as we had talked about in the field. One additional item was,
at a request of the client, was that the non-turf buffer be allowed to be vegetated with
beach grass. They feel that will help keep the phragmites that are already there at the
edge from encroaching further on to the land at the side of the property. And that's the
only addition to the plans we have submitted. We don't feel it's going to affect any
adjoining neighbors. It's really just keeping the upland area in better tact. Are there any
other concerns of the Board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: As a condition, this would also have to meet Chapter 236 of the
runoff code of the town, which means that all water must be contained on their own
property. That would address the neighbor's concern.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Okay, that wouldn't be a problem, as far as what Mr. Bergen said
about containing the water, drainage, gutter water on the property and not affecting the
neighbors.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would be covered under Chapter 236 of the Town Code, they
are required to maintain the water on their own property.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: That would not be a problem at all. We'd be happy to comply.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else to speak to this application? Any other
comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. As you noted, the plans depict exactly what we talked about
out in the field. So I think this is fine.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to indicate for the record, the request as written does
not specify how you are going to address the flooding issue. So we have to rephrase the
motion so that we raise the low lying area by adding fill to prevent flooding.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: From high tide from the adjoining creek, yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: By adding fill, that doesn't affect any adjoining pieces.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Correct.
TRUSTEE KING: Do we have any idea how much material will be brought in?
MR. CHICANOWICZ: About 50-cubic yards. It's a fairly small portion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: 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 the application noting the applicant will
raise the low-lying area by adding fill to prevent flooding in such a manner as to not
affect the adjacent property, approximately 50 yards. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number four, Eugene J. Burger on behalf EUGENE BURGER, JR.
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 131 square foot wood deck along existing
timbers at top of bank with new steps down to beach area; install new 2' high rock
revetment wall. Located: 2385 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue.
This was found consistent by the LWRP coordinator, and the CAC supports the
application, however has concerns with the deck at the top of the bank. The CAC
recommends a 15-20' non-turf, vegetated buffer along the top of the bank. Is there
anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application?
MR. BURGER: Yes. Eugene Burger.
Board of Trustees 23 March 20, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just trying to read the notes from out in the field. Returns on both
ends. We felt in the field you should bring a couple of returns on either end, so it's not
open-ended. We didn't have any serious issue with the new deck. I didn't think there was
a lot of lawn there to begin with.
MR. BURGER: There's not. It's very tight.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is a brick patio there also.
TRUSTEE KING: The only thing we would like to see is just some plantings between the
wall and the existing timber. The native vegetation, not these fancy, ornamental flowers,
okay?
MR. BURGER: Okay, not a problem.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from anybody? Audience?
(No response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the addition of returns on
each end of the wall landward, and native plantings between the proposed wall and the
top of the bank.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: If you would give us a set of plans showing those returns, Eugene.
Thank you.
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five, Lehnert Construction on behalf of ROBERT W.
LEHNERT CREDIT SHELTER TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to install a new
retaining wall to hold back storm damaged bluff; existing stairs to be repaired and
replaced in-kind. Located: 5425 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
The Board did go out and looked at this. The CAC supports the application with
the condition of a 20-foot non-turf vegetated buffer. This property has extreme bluff
erosion. The bluff is at a critical angle and the stairs are completely destroyed. This
application will be repeated in another storm event. It was reviewed under the LWRP
and it was found to be consistent, noting that the Board had issued a permit for bulkhead
in 2007 but no permit for the stairs was found. And that would be in this permit if it was
approved tonight. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. LEHNERT: Rob Lehnert.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The plans show an area behind the wood bulkhead. It appears to
be all sloped down. Is there a flat area at all there behind the proposed bulkhead that
could act as a non-turf area?
MR. LEHNERT: Yes, that whole bluff up there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
MR. LEHNERT: From the edge of the grass on the toe of the bluff down to the retaining
wall will be the bluff that's there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we are looking at is the plans here, just show the bulkhead,
not a retaining wall.
MR. LEHNERT: Well, it's a bulkhead retaining wall.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, so we are looking at one structure there.
MR. LEHNERT: Yes, it's one structure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So this is not a proposal to put in a secondary structure behind a
primary bulkhead.
MR. LEHNERT: It's a retaining wall behind the primary bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You are proposing to go with a navy bulkhead style.
Board of Trustees 24 March 20, 2013
MR. LEHNERT: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
MR. LEHNERT: The plans that are in the file, the second page.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Here we go. (Perusing).
MR. LEHNERT: It's one to 20.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The width of that property is approximately 200 feet?
MR. LEHNERT: The width of the property is 100 feet. They are both 200 feet. It's going
across both properties.
TRUSTEE KING: Oh, the new retaining wall is across both properties.
MR. LEHNERT: Correct. The other property is the next hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: So they are both about 100 feet long.
MR. LEHNERT: Yes, they are both 100'-wide lots.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to comment
on this application?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
If not, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Lehnert
Construction on behalf of Robert W. Lehnert Credit Shelter Trust to install new retaining
wall approximately 100' long, plus permitting in the stairs, at 5425 Nassau Point Road.
And this is found consistent under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, Lehnert Construction on behalf of
LEHNERT FAMILY IRREVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove the
two (2) storm damaged retaining walls and replace with new single retaining wall;
existing wood decks (18.8'x14.4') at bulkhead to be rebuilt and replaced in-kind.
Located: 5605 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
The LWRP coordinator made a determination that the retaining wall construction
is consistent with the LWRP but comports that the decking may not be consistent with
the LWRP. We'll get to that later. The CAC supports the application however noting the
application will be repeated in another storm event. Something that can be said about
many of the applications we've seen.
The Board went to the site, conducted an inspection, did a permit search. There
are not permits on the old structure. It predates permitting. And noting there is existing
decks and a boat storage shed which currently does not have habitation in it, which we
would not want to have habitation in it. Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. LEHNERT: Rob Lehnert.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any questions? It's a straightforward application. It's a
continuation of the structure that was presented in the last public hearing. With respect
to the inconsistency, since this is not in a coastal erosion hazard area and it's not
located on the beach or on the bluff, the existing decks in fact are consistent with the
LWRP. I don't, unless I stand corrected by another member of the Board or our attorney,
I don't see the inconsistency in trying to rebuild small decks that are behind a retaining
wall, which the Board routinely reviews for general environmental reasons, if it's an area
we think the vegetation may be more suitable than a deck, we might request a
Board of Trustees 25 March 20, 2013
downsize. I don't believe during the course of field inspection that I heard any issues
raised of an environmental nature concerning the deck structures. If any Board
members want to add anything to that or have any questions.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: A couple of things. First off, that storage shed that's talked about.
believe we took dimensions of it. Would you like us to permit that in also at this time so
you can do exterior repairs to that storage shed?
MR. LEHNERT: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, so the shed is 10x6' and the deck, the measurements
are in the proposal. There was a question. There was a large, corrugated, iron drain pipe
that came down near the structures
MR. LEHNERT: That was an old storm drain from the driveway that was cut, I would
have to say 20 years ago when the house renovation was done. So we just didn't feel
like tearing it out of the bluff. It doesn't go anywhere.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. I guess at this time if it's part of the construction or
near it or if it's in the way, just cut it back.
MR. LEHNERT: We'll just cut it back.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, how are you going to remove those walls and maintain the
bluff; in other words, without the bluff coming down?
MR. LEHNERT: The bluff is vegetated. We are thinking it's not going to a little bit is
going to fall, we know that. It's inevitable. We'll come in by barge and take everything
out, because there is not access at the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing no further comment, 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
noting that the proposed retaining wall which is to be in the navy-type of bulkhead
construction is approximately 100' long and that to be included in the proposal is a shed
approximately 10x6' which is used for boat storage and related items and shall not be
used for habitation. So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. LEHNERT: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number seven, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of FRED
YOUNG requests a Wetland Permit for pedestrian access and kayak launch, 4'x245'
low-profile catwalk with open deck, 2' above grade with kayak rails/braces at 4'x14' open
deck platform with steps down to creek; and hardwood piles 10' on center. Located: 780
Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent by reason of the fact that he
is defining the walkway as a dock, and that would make it inconsistent under our current
code. The CAC voted to support this application with the condition that the catwalk be a
minimum of three feet in height. In other words, raise it a foot. On our field inspection on
the 13th, the Trustees noted that they would like to make this catwalk narrower. That is
reduce it from the four-foot width in the application and possibly move it so that it would
be situated over the existing drainage ditch. Is there anyone here to speak to this
application?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore, for Fred Young. Mr. Young is here with me. He relayed
the conversation that you had. He has no problem relocating the proposed catwalk, the
Board of Trustees 26 March 20, 2013
pedestrian walkway, over the ditch, since it's already a disturbed area. So that made
sense. He finds the three feet, that's not a problem. And the height of it, I think the two
foot above grade was actually a recommendation the Trustees had given us after a
pre-submission inspection. But if you want it three, that's okay, too. It's grated material,
so the light will continue to penetrate. So whether it's two or three.
MR. YOUNG: Fred Young. I believe we were talking about 4x4's at the time. I had
looked into using the mono-style, and that's ten-inch piling, and we decided that was too
much, so we were going to go with the two 4x4's
TRUSTEE DOMINO: For the record, I want to comment that the majority of this
structure is landward of the mean high tide. And that would make it a catwalk and not a
dock. Having addressed the inconsistency as proposed by the LWRP coordinator. The
rest of the structure is a T-shaped structure, would be the dock.
MR. YOUNG: It would have to be L-shaped though, to put it over the ditch, because of
the 58' from the property line.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm not proposing changing the structure. I'm just saying
MS. MOORE: Oh, okay. I mean, we're okay with a "T" but if you want us to stay away
from the property line, then we have to adjust the end.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I see no need for that. Anybody else?
TRUSTEE KING: Personally, I'm a little uncomfortable with it. This is really a large,
undisturbed marsh area. And what I've seen in the past, we've approved something in
an area like this, pretty soon the neighbors come in and they want the same thing, and
then you put a marsh that is completely segmented by catwalks. That's my only
comment. It would be hindsight to say why did we ever let that go and see what's
happened.
MS. MOORE: Just for the record, my aerial photograph shows there are several, in fact
all the neighbors at this point do have these catwalks out.
TRUSTEE KING: To the north?
MS. MOORE: Well, to the north, no. But from the property north of us pardon me.
The property directly to the south and then further to the south, and then further down to
the kind of float.
TRUSTEE KING: I think as you go to the south you have more navigable water. We've
sunk enough in this water, I'm sure at low tide that creek is bare, it's not even navigable.
MS. MOORE: It's our understanding you actually approved one much further north but
they decided not to build because it was just too expensive. So it seems to be a
common design for accessing. Otherwise people are tramping through the marsh. And
this is for non-motorized vessels. So we could certainly keep that as a condition. It's
really kayak or canoe access.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a question to my fellow Trustees, what's the lowest
height for open-grate docks the DEC will ordinarily approve?
TRUSTEE KING: We've seen them as low as 18 inches. Normally, two feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was thinking two.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: A question for the Board: Would you like to see revised plans
showing the width reduced to three foot?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And maybe located over the existing vector control ditch
that is there.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Or is it sufficiently noted?
MS. MOORE: Well, we would be preparing the drawings for you, assuming you approve
that, we would be submitting drawings consistent with that recommendation.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know for myself, we've had other applications in the past where
we've had to weigh the environmental impacts of a dock in a heavily vegetated area
against people walking through and in some cases carrying or dragging through canoes
Board of Trustees 27 March 20, 2013
and kayaks. And it is a tough decision, for myself personally, to permit the smallest
possible structure, particularly since we have this ditch here, over the ditch area, I think
from an environmental perspective, would have less of an impact than it would for the
applicant and their friends or relatives or whoever walking through the wetland. I know I
shared the same concern initially when I looked out there that this might be a new
structure in this area, then I walked out on the structure next door to take a picture,
which I'm sure is in that group of pictures someplace, and noted there was a dock
nearby. Because obviously I walked out on it to get out there. So for myself, personally, I
think to downsize the structure as much as possible and to put it over the ditch and limit
this, as the applicant has already stated, to non-motorized vessels, I think
environmentally is better than having people walk through that whole area of wetland
and trample down the wetland. But, you know, I shared in Trustee King's initial concern,
really did, until I looked at it carefully.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: If there are no further comments, I make a motion to close this
public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A note for the record, that Trustee Ghosio is now present.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sorry I was late.
TRUSTEE KING: Better late than never.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion we approve the application for a pedestrian
access and kayak launch 3x245', low profile catwalk with open deck, using 4"x4"
uprights, to a 4x14' open-ended platform, with steps down to the creek, located over the
existing ditch. New plans to be submitted by the applicant. And with those modifications,
it would bring it into consistency under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye). (Trustee King,
nay).
TRUSTEE KING: For the record, I can't support this application. I find no compelling
reason to disturb that marsh to this extent, so I'll vote nay. Motion passes.
TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, 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'± from edge of wetlands for structures. Located: 465 Halls
Creek Drive, Mattituck.
The LWRP coordinator found this consistent with the LWRP. His
recommendation is the existing trees east of the ten-foot contour line be incorporated
and preserved as a potential non-disturbance buffer. The CAC does not support the
application because there is insufficient information.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore. I also have Joseph Fischetti, the engineer on this project
and design professional Vincent Quartararo. I do understand you were out in the field
and Joe Fischetti was there. You received and you have in your file an updated survey
that has the wetlands flagging. The original application was with the wetlands where
they were noted from the subdivision and from the earlier project. And then there has
been some creeping of the wetland edge, so that was re-flagged.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think the wetland edge creeped. It was just flagged wrong the
first go-around.
MS. MOORE: Okay, tomato, tomatoe.
TRUSTEE KING: The second one was better.
Board of Trustees 28 March 20, 2013
MS. MOORE: The second was better. I'm glad you're happy.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm never happy.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: News flash.
MS. MOORE: Joe is here. Why don't I have Joe put on the record the plans.
TRUSTEE KING: We met him in the field. He really explained everything.
MS. MOORE: All right. That's wonderful. I have the plans. Also, Mr. Quartararo did have
a landscape plan that he prepared for the Macari's and that we have now.
MR. QUARTARARO: Vincent Quartararo. Good evening, members of the Board. I just
wanted to show a quick landscape plans where we are vegetating the wetlands with
native vegetation. We are vegetating the wetlands border, we are giving it a 20-foot
buffer from the flagged line now, so native vegetation of bayberry, pink berry, cedar and
amelanchier. So all species are conducive to the wetlands and also the images there. I
have a copy for each Trustee and it's atwo-page package. The second part of that
package is just a preliminary drainage feed. I did speak with James Spencer and we
talked about containing all water onsite as per Chapter 236 and that represents the
drainage schematic as well. Sheet L-2 is showing the vegetation, and as you can see,
it's a 20-foot buffer from the flagged wetland area.
TRUSTEE KING: How does that compare with the nine-foot contour?
MR. QUARTARARO: It's right around the nine-foot contour. The terrace right now is
being built, the corner of the terrace is at ten. More specifically we are giving a 20-foot
buffer in that area.
TRUSTEE KING: I know the LWRP coordinator wanted seaward of the ten-foot contour
to be anon-disturbance area, and when we were in the field with the engineer, it was
seaward of the nine-foot contour would be anon-disturbance area to be left alone. It
could be planted up and then remain undisturbed.
MS. MOORE: I was going to say we want that designated non-disturbance, so. And
that's why the landscape plans
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just looking, the drainage system is actually in some of that
non-disturbance area.
MR. QUARTARARO: That actually, if you go by the survey, after talking with James
Spencer, I wanted to just be sure we were taking into consideration the depth of the
drywell. So on that drainage schematic, the one important fact is that we are changing
the rings to four-foot deep rather than five. But otherwise the location should remain
where the survey shows.
TRUSTEE KING: Will they ever have to be maintained somehow? I'm just thinking down
the road. Once they are installed
MR. FISCHETTI: Joe Fischetti, engineer. If you have a problem with them, you can just
dig down and get to them. We have the drainage we put on the survey is probably, we'll
move them probably closer to the deeper area, closer to the house. As you get lower,
the grade is lower, less than one foot. So even that we are moving closer, so. The
drawing from Vince, the landscape architect, is really just a preliminary.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mr. Fischetti, the plans show aten-foot diameter drywell.
Couldn't you go with smaller, pre-cast drywells and add asecond
MR. FISCHETTI: Which plan are we talking about? Yours. Yes, I originally had, because
they were going to be higher. We'll probably use eight because they will be at the
deeper end. What Vince was doing, he was getting shallower and getting too close to
the ground water. When I spoke to him before, I said, no, we'll just move them to the
deeper end, closer to the house, and we'll be in higher grade and we'll be able to use
the eight-foot diameter drywell.
MR. QUARTARARO: We'll have clearance from the bottom of the well to the water
table, so
Board of Trustees 29 March 20, 2013
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could move closer to the microphone. We are not picking up
your comments.
MR. QUARTARARO: My concern with the drainage, Joseph and I are still discussing it.
Basically I just wanted to make sure we had greater than two feet from the bottom of the
drywell to water. So I was suggesting we go 10x4' rather than 8x5', but that is something
we'll work out and submit a final drainage plan to the building department and James
Spencer.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In looking at this, I'm just wondering if there is an opportunity to
shift the location of the drywells, like the one directly in back of the pool, to I would say
the southeast of the proposed pool
MS. MOORE: Drywell three? I'm looking at the survey. What are you looking at?
MR. QUARTARARO: Sorry for the confusion. The survey should rule on the drainage.
Please refer to the survey. But the plan I submitted was a preliminary and basically the
planting plan that we should be looking at.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's confusing because the drywell locations on the survey don't
match the drywell locations on the proposed plans.
MR. FISCHETTI: Please do not use the landscape drawings. Use the survey.
MS. MOORE: The landscape drawing is just for vegetation, that's it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. So it looks like drywell three, is there an opportunity to
move that out of that dirt path, closer to the house, so it's out of this non-disturbance
area?
MR. FISCHETTI: We have that area, yes. You can see it goes closer. Our intent is only
to get higher.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would only make sense, yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from anybody in the audience? Board?
(No response).
I think when we were out in the field, we were satisfied with what Mr. Fischetti was
showing us. If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve the application and we'll stipulate that the area seaward of
the nine-foot contour can be planted up with native vegetation and thereafter will remain
as anon-disturbance area.
MS. MOORE: The only problem with anon-disturbance is you can't, until it takes, you
have to weed and wouldn't it make sense to keep it as a vegetated area in perpetuity?
TRUSTEE KING: I would prefer the non-disturbance area myself. Once it's vegetated
and grown up, leave it alone.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Leave it as anon-disturbance area.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I agree with Jim.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That was the sense we all had.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: So if you plant it up and then left as anon-disturbance area.
MS. MOORE: Okay, that's fine. We'll give you new drawings for your file.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, that's my motion. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Michael A. Kimack on behalf of BRUCE BEANEY requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing wood bulkhead (100'±) including existing wood platform (120sq.ft.±), existing
Board of Trustees 30 March 20, 2013
deck (200sq.ft.±), and existing staircase from platform (4'±), and staircase to beach
(4't); replace two (2) stepped retaining walls at approximately 66' in length each at
approximately 4' in height from grade; repair slope and bank with approximately 200
cubic yards of sand, covered in burlap and planted with Cape Ann Beach Grass at
1'o.c., with bayberry as needed; walls will be constructed with 6"x6" pressure treated
from and sheathed with Shore-Guard 225 O/E. Located: 6200 Indian Neck Lane,
Peconic.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent, noting that the
Board issued permits for the above action in 1988 and 1993. A retaining wall is
mentioned in the 1993 permit but no further information is provided. The CAC resolved
to support the application with the condition of a 15-foot non-turf vegetated buffer along
the top of the bluff and a stabilization plan for the slope. Now, I also have a letter in here
from a Michael Kimack
MR. KIMACK: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: (Continuing) which I stipulate will be entered into the record, so
that I'll just highlight it. That at a regular public hearing in other words this already
came before us for a public hearing, there were several concerns brought up and you
were addressing a concern of Mr. Scopaz, who I believe is an adjoining neighbor?
MR. KIMACK: He is.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. That if my client's retaining wall is not extended to the
property line and connected to his recently constructed bulkhead, a future storm would
cause further damage to the property. Mr. and Mrs. Beaney are aware the decision to
extend the retaining wall is solely their own and would do so if the work provided a
greater protection to their property than presently exists. And as such, the Beaney's
decline to extend the retaining wall to the end, as the end result would be to make the
float more prone to future collapse than leaving the slope in its present natural condition.
The Board raised concern about the 100-foot upper deck and please accept the
enclosed documentation to permit the retaining wall, deck, as well as the stairs. And I'll
get to that in a second. That there was a Trustee permit in 1986 and 1993 and that those
permits were then transferred in 2007, and a copy of a survey dated January 8, 1998,
shows the wood platform stairs and deck. The Board requested dimensions of the upper
landing be put on the drawing, and please find across-section of the retaining wall. And
I do have here in the file dated January 24, 2007, that the Board of Trustees transferred
the permit 86-7-1 to replace existing wood deck, steps inkind/inplace. I have a copy of
that permit, specifically 86-7-1. It shows both the lower deck and the upper deck, with
the upper deck being, it looks like approximately 12x18 and the lower deck
approximately 12x19, with adjoining stairs between the decks and stairs to the beach.
And the pictures show those are approximately what is there today.
Given what I've said, is there anyone here to comment on this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, for the applicant. I think you pretty much covered it all. I
apologize, we didn't realize that particular permit had existed. My client dug it up out of
an old briefcase. And I put in there a copy of the old 1988 survey so that you can see on
the survey it basically represented the existing upper deck and lower deck pretty much
as it exists now. The permit was issued in 2007 and rebuilt the upper deck, lower deck
and the stairs to that particular configuration. So I would respectfully request the permit
be reissued, basically, to that configuration that now exists: The lower deck, the stairs
and the upper deck. Which does exceed the 100-square feet, but was permitted.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, I'm not sure how my fellow Board members feel. I know that,
you know, town codes change over time. And when structures are permitted in the past,
if they then fall into a state of disrepair where they need to be replaced, it appears to me
it's been the practice of this Board to then allow them to be repaired, or permitted and
Board of Trustees 31 March 20, 2013
repaired, but under present town code. So my concern still remains with that upper deck,
what is in the plan being deck number one, being cantilevered out over the top of that
bluff. While I do understand a previous permit had been granted and that permit had
been transferred for the location of the deck as it presently stands, if it's going to be
replaced, I would like it pulled back so it's not cantilevered over the top of the bluff. But
that's just my opinion. I welcome other opinions from the Board or other members of the
audience.
TRUSTEE KING: Did they plan to do anything?
MR. KIMACK: They had. They had found that 2007 but they had rebuilt the stairs and
both lower deck and upper deck. As you can see they are all in very good shape. They
had weathered the storm.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In that application description it includes those decks. So it would
be permitted in, this permit, if it's approved.
TRUSTEE KING: This repair was permitted. If the upper deck was to be rebuilt, it would
have to be moved landward. Right now it doesn't seem to pose any problems.
MR. KIMACK: From the picture, gentlemen, that area to the right is the area of concern
by the neighbor Mr. Scopaz. And quite frankly, to cut into that, you take the compacted
material out and the vegetation that's probably withstood more storms than we've been
alive, would create a situation by putting a retaining wall in and putting un-compacted
soils, it would be more vulnerable. It would be less strong than it is now. In that case, we
have been through a lot of storms without a hitch.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand what you are saying, Jim, about it was previously
permitted, and it doesn't need to be replaced now, so permit it in, but then they
constantly, legally repair it, then what happens is you are repairing and slowly over time
replacing the deck that is cantilevered over the bluff. Again, it's just my opinion, that
when we have the opportunity to move it back, we move it back.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You don't plan on doing any work on that upper deck at this point,
are you?
MR. KIMACK: No, it had withstood the storm very well. It actually had been repaired and
replaced. Both lower and upper deck and staircase are in excellent condition.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience that wanted to speak to this
application?
(No response).
I just wanted to make sure no one wanted to come to the mic, that's all.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't see what we are gaining here by making him do it now.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The bluff form is not a very high bluff form and it is
vegetated. I'm not sure either. At this point it would not have any standing in the permit,
we could always request that future rebuild, in the owner's best interest to have it so it's
not cantilevered because it could start to be a problem. I don't see it as a major problem.
It's pre-existing.
MR. KIMACK: That area is the only place that withstood.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I would request another member of the Board to move a
resolution on this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll move it. I'll make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, with a request that future rebuilds, not binding, but with a request that future
Board of Trustees 32 March 20, 2013
rebuild of the upper deck consider moving it landward of the top of the bluff. So moved.
MR. KIMACK: Fair enough.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(Trustee King, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino,
aye). (Trustee Bergen, nay).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For the record, I'll vote nay because it was just a suggestion and
not binding. If it was binding that should it need to be replaced then it would be moved
back, I would have voted to approve also.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, Michael A. Kimack on behalf of
CHRISTIAN R. ZIMMER requests a Wetland Permit for the existing wood bulkhead
(100't); existing staircase (9'±), and platform (64tsq,ft,); replace approximately 300sq.ft.
Deck with 2 benches with pressure treated joists and cedar decking o/e; replace 4'x6'6"
staircase to beach with pressure treated buried wood and cedar wood o/e for treads,
stringers and railings; replace approximately 80 yards of sand to toe of bank at various
locations and against new retaining wall along southerly line (by others); burlap bank
and plant beach grass at 1' o/c; repair 3 treads on existing staircase; replace damaged
log border to deck as needed; and remove approximately 10 yards of debris. Located:
7525 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
The application has been determined as being both consistent and inconsistent
under the LWRP. It is noted the Board issued a permit for the retaining wall and stair in
1993, but the 300-square foot deck was not referenced in the prior decision of the Board
or shown on the plans at that time. Further, the proposal to replace 300-square feet of
deck with two benches with pressure treated joists and cedar decking is inconsistent
with the LWRP. The CAC supports the application with a total of a five-foot non-turf
vegetated buffer and the beach stairs be removed. There was concern of the legality of
the bathhouse with evidence of electricity. I'm not sure, I don't recall a bathhouse in
connection with this property.
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. I think they are referring to
that square section on the extreme right there, that 8x8 section. There was a structure
upon that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, and it was not proposed putting a structure back.
MR. KIMACK: No, there is no proposal to put a structure back.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. We thought that on our field inspection. I just wanted
to put that out there.
MR. KIMACK: We knew better than to put that back. The staircase going down was a
fixed staircase that has been approved by DEC. We got that permit approval. And we
had proposed to put it back inkind. Not a removal for one. And I do understand the deck,
as it has been constructed without a permit, is approximately 300-square foot.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That creates for us the dilemma of an unpermitted structure
that is also in great disrepair and is inconsistent with the LWRP.
MR. KIMACK: The recommendation would be to cut it back to not exceed 200-square
feet. The cutback would be from the left going to the right. Because the staircase is from
that drawing over there, is on the right-hand side of the deck. So the current section over
there, that's where the two benches were. The staircase goes down
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, you lost me with the left and the right. The
perspective being
MR. KIMACK: Sorry, as you are looking at it, on your right hand, you see where the
stairs coming down there is a little curve to the deck right there. You've got it right there.
That's where the two benches were, and right immediately in front of that is the staircase
going down. So the suggestion would be that we would assure there would be no more
Board of Trustees 33 March 20, 2013
than 200-square foot from that location going to the left. And we would end it wherever
the 200-square foot came.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Any other questions or concerns from Board
members?
(No response).
Hearing none, any additional comments, anyone?
(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 would make a motion to approve this application with the
stipulation, as offered by the applicant, that the deck area, surface area, would be
reduced to no more than 200-square feet, and that plans be submitted, new drawings be
submitted to show that 200-square foot or less deck, and that would bring this
application into consistency with the LWRP. So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KIMACK: Thank you, gentlemen.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number eleven, Mark K. Schwartz, Architect, on behalf of
RAYMOND STRONG requests a Wetland Permit for a new proposed pool (512 sq. ft.)
With patio on grade; and proposed pool drywell for storm water runoff. Located: 2205
Bayview Avenue, Southold.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC voted to support the
application, suggesting a 20-foot non-turf vegetated buffer. The Trustees did an
inspection on the 13th and found, the only question is where the hay bales and silt fence
would be. And that was shown on the plans submitted on March 11, 2013. Is there
anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. Mark Schwartz. I believe we did show a hay bale line on this.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Duly noted.
MR. SCHWARTZ: And the pool is about 90 feet from the bulkhead. A prior permit for the
house construction, we had a 10-foot non-turf buffer. I was hoping we could leave it at
ten feet.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application?
(No response).
Any questions or comments from the Board concerning a 10-foot buffer?
TRUSTEE KING: This is quite a bit upland, too, isn't it?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, as I remember it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: 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 BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 12, Mark K. Schwartz, Architect on behalf of 8925 BAY
AVE., LLC c/o ANTHONY LOMANGINO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new
tennis court at side yard of existing house; tennis court to be partially cut into ground 2
Board of Trustees 34 March 20, 2013
feet; tennis court to have wall and fence; drainage and drywells to be installed for tennis
court. Located: 8925 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue.
The CAC resolved to not support the application because when they were there,
the project was not staked. The LWRP coordinator has found this to be consistent with
the LWRP. And while the Board was out there, we did note there weren't any stakes at
the time. And also we found what we believed to be a potential violation for cutting down
cedar trees in anon-disturbance buffer. So what we decided to do is open the hearing
tonight, since it was on the agenda, but I don't think we'll be moving on this. Is there
anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. Mark Schwartz. Do I need to describe the area of the cedar
trees cutting? Or do you know exactly where it is?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This area right here. This area has been cut down. There were all
cedar trees. I think we saw something to the effect of 15 to 20 trees. There were a lot of
stumps.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Something along the order of that.
TRUSTEE KING: This property also has the dock.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The stumps, for example, you can see it here. That's a pretty large
one. Here you can see them, as I zoom into them. This is all part of anon-disturbance
buffer, so.
MR. SCHWARTZ: That's north of the house?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, this is north of the house.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That middle piece of property, Mark, that's there.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. So it's not actually on this
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, but on the piece of property where the tennis courts were
going, we had a question, that's near a dock also, and we noticed it was all sodded. And
we had to check but we thought that was supposed to also be a 50-foot non-disturbance
area that's now been sodded.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So if you consider that, the fact is was not staked, there is
really nothing we can talk about.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If I were you, I would just move to table it.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I agree.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to table the application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 13, Mark K. Schwartz, Architect on behalf of MICHAEL &
DEBORAH THOMPSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct afirst-floor addition of
17.9sq.ft. at kitchen, 11'x10' deck on south first floor addition; 11'x10' deck on south
existing second-floor roof to be removed and construct new roof with higher pitch.
Located: 9280 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be exempt. The CAC supports
the application with the condition of a 15-foot non-turf vegetated buffer at the top of the
bulkhead. I went out and looked at this, and actually, there previously had been a permit
for this project issued in 2009 and had expired. And the description from what was
approved in 2009 is very similar to the description of what is being applied for here
today. So is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz, for the applicant. It is a very similar project pertaining
to the second floor roof and building a new roof. The other one was more alterations.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I notice as far as the footprint goes, it's a proposed deck on the
Board of Trustees 35 March 20, 2013
side, which I believe was there also with the original application.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, a question for the CAC representative. Jack, it said in the
recommendation they were recommending anon-turf buffer. But I see there already is a
non-turf buffer here proposed on this of ten-foot. So would that take care of the CAC's
recommendation?
MR. MCGREEVEY: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Any comments from anybody else in the audience?
(No response).
Any 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 Michael and
Deborah Thompson, noting it's been found exempt under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number 14, DKR Shores, Inc., on behalf of THOMAS DOWLING
requests a Wetland Permit to remove all portions of dilapidated timbers/old bulkhead
and reconstruct a 189' navy style bulkhead in-place of existing utilizing vinyl sheathing;
to reconstruct a 39' return and an 11' return, both with vinyl; to dredge area 10' off
bulkhead, in boat slip to a depth of -4'ALW; resultant spoil (approximately 75 cubic
yards) to be used as backfill for new structure; to reconstruct 3'x40' timber walk using
untreated lumber; to install a cantilevered 4'x6' platform, 3'x12' ramp, and 6'x20' float
secured by (3) 10" piles; to install electric/lighting to existing flagpole; to install an
irrigation line to boat basin; to install pervious path with stepping stones at existing 4'
path to boat basin. Located: 1200 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue.
MS. RIGDON: Agena Rigdon, DKR Shores, representing Mr. Dowling.
TRUSTEE KING: Let me start first. This was found inconsistent and consistent. There
were sections, remove all portions of dilapidated timbers, bulkhead, etc. Use the
resulting spoils, backfill, dredging, that was all found consistent. This is from the LWRP
coordinator: It is my recommendation that the proposed action to install a cantilevered
4x6' platform, 3x12' ramp, 6x20' float, secured by three ten-inch piles is inconsistent with
the LWRP. So the bulkhead replacement with all that work done around that basin has
been found consistent. The bottom structure will result in net decrease in public access
to or on public underwater lands. The applicant presently enjoys access to the
waterbody via the opportunity for a mooring. Due to shallow water depths and
environmental sensitivity of the area, seasonal moorings for vessels are more
appropriate for this area. That's the LWRP report. Parts of it.
The CAC supports the application, however the property was not staked and
They noticed the hearing card was not posted. But they do support the application.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application?
MS. RIGDON: Thank you. Agena Rigdon, DKR Shores.
TRUSTEE KING: I think in the field we had some questions on the backing system. And
is also the wetland delineation.
MS. RIGDON: The wetlands were delineated as per the survey by Robert Fox. And that
was the same delineation that was used when Mr. Dowling proposed his house. He
Board of Trustees 36 March 20, 2013
demoed the other house. I didn't do these permits. And reconstructed a new dwelling.
It's the same identical line that was confirmed.
TRUSTEE KING: I notice on the survey indicates upland area there. I don't find that as
upland area, myself.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This area here.
TRUSTEE KING: That's not upland, in my mind.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No.
TRUSTEE KING: Quite frankly we have some concerns about this project.
MS. RIGDON: Which particular aspect?
TRUSTEE KING: Some of the concerns are we noticed from the tie rods to the bulkhead
are actually above grade.
MS. RIGDON: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: And reading the description, are you going to backfill behind the new
bulkhead with the dredge spoils?
MS. RIGDON: With the dredge spoils.
TRUSTEE KING: You are actually covering up a wetland. That's definitely a wetland
right there and now it's going to be covered up, with this proposal.
MS. RIGDON: I don't see any other choice. As you probably saw, the sand, the fill is
coming out through the bulkhead into the water. The bulkhead ultimately needs to be
replaced. There is another bulkhead that is actually buried. I don't know if you noticed.
TRUSTEE KING: There is one bump out there.
MS. RIGDON: Yes. That's inside about, almost two feet, in some parts. That needs to
come out as well. The area will be disturbed temporarily, but the dredge spoil, which is
native, to be used, and the area would be allowed to naturally re-vegetate. If Mr. Dowling
had to replant a native Spartina, he would be fine with that. A vertical deadman would
not let the tie rods go down quite as far. My main concern was the areas of the returns
where there is some intertidal marsh.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm looking at the plans submitted February 27th, 2013, and I have
to agree with some of the comments made by Trustee King. It's very difficult for me to
accept that this area noted as upland area is in fact upland. It was wetland when we
were there. There are concerns about rising sea level. I'm very concerned this does not
accurately reflect what we observed in the field.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's got high tide marsh and patens right up in this area that
has been noted as allegedly or purportedly being upland. The project screams for some
form of scaling back and trying to remove hard structure, in my mind, and I think it is
going to be problematic doing all that work out in the Spartina. And where the owner has
a cutback into his land, or he has a basin, it would seem that the attributes that the basin
provides should be the center or focus of the rehabilitation of his watertront access and
possibly consider removing structure that is seaward and letting some of the area revert
to a natural wetland system.
MS. RIGDON: Okay, which particular part of the structure?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'd say everything seaward of the basin. To my mind,
everything there just provides additional possibilities of amplifying wave action and
destroying marsh, and that just goes backward. This is an area that a ramp and float
could be put inside the basin. The dredge spoil could be moved to a suitable upland site
and the areas could be allowed to naturalize and revert back to a natural type of
shoreline.
TRUSTEE RIGDON: Do any other Board members feel I think that would do a lot
more damage to the property in general. The area itself is consisted of upland and
lowland marsh area. High marsh mainly. There are some uplands, where you thought
was an upland, there are some variations. Where the Baccharus is are the upland areas.
Board of Trustees 37 March 20, 2013
Those were denoted. And Mr. Fox's boundary delineation, he marked out those areas.
The areas where the phragmites are, are also partially upland. There is also another
area to the left that grades higher. I don't think that removing part of the bulkhead would
be acceptable by Mr. Dowling, considering it's been there for quite some time. I think it
would do quite more damage in the long run. I have no problem, that small 11-foot
retaining sheet of timber, I have no problem taking that out completely, and letting the
area of intertidal marsh to vegetate normally and expand. That timber sheet is doing
absolutely nothing. That part, I agree, should not be replaced.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Where do you stand with the DEC and your marine habitat
protection on this application?
MS. RIGDON: (Inaudible).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll tell you, I'm extremely uncomfortable with this project.
TRUSTEE KING: You're not the only one.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This goes to the heart of trying to do better and meeting
upland owners' reasonable access needs, along with actually protecting the
environment. I'm really concerned about this. I would hope we could work with an
applicant who would do that.
MS. RIGDON: Would it be possible if we could re-vegetate the area in a proactive
manner to restore any footprint in disturbed areas? It's a buffer area anyway. It will grow
back. But we could help it out and plant some plugs, that would be fine.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You realize the DEC didn't approve the floating dock, right?
MS. RIGDON: No, it's on there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's not approved.
TRUSTEE KING: Not on that drawing that they've approved.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's there. But they have not approved that drawing, they approved
the other one.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just looking at the drawing with the DEC drawing on it and it
doesn't show the float. In addition, that platform ran into the float. You can see this was
approved by them six months ago. And it was after us to put the floats out in the deeper
water, right?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there an opportunity here to meet the applicant out at the next
field inspection so that we can walk the area and talk about the concerns?
MS. RIGDON: I could ask him. He does travel a lot. He's a CEO for Goldman Sachs.
He's not out there in the summer most of the time.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: He could have somebody represent him, yourself or somebody,
out in the field represent him out there in the field.
MS. RIGDON: I could represent him.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would be more comfortable to meet the applicant out in the field
to go over it. It's one thing to look at diagrams and it's another thing to actually go out
and stand there and look at it. Because I share in a lot of the concerns other Board
members have brought up. So maybe if we met out there in the field, table this to meet
out in the field. You've heard already from us some of our concerns tonight. So you can
take that back to the applicant and meet us out in the field.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And maybe, just to be a little bit more clear, are we not going to
approve or not leaning toward approval of the ramp and the float? If that's a deal
breaker, then why even meet?
MS. RIGDON: If you notice, on the left side, this side of the boat basin, there's a ladder
that goes down the bulkhead. That's the only way Mr. Dowling can get on and off his
boat, because the rise between high and low water is almost three to four feet. He could
only access his boat on a little, dilapidated ladder, which is why he wanted the float and
platform. And it is within private property. It's all within his property line. And he cannot
Board of Trustees 38 March 20, 2013
safely get on and off his boat in any other way.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, there are other structures that can be added inside the boat
basin to address that situation, I think.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And the application asked that area to be dredged to four-foot
depth.
MS. RIGDON: Well, the sand came through the bulkhead, and with the storm it got
worse. It is something that is routinely done, all the time.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to table this application. We'll revisit it for the next
field inspection. And invite the applicant or a representative to be there with us.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'fl second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Can we keep that copy of the DEC permit?
MS. RIGDON: Yes, I made a copy.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number 15, DKR Shores, Inc., on behalf of VILLAGE MARINE c/o
PWK ENTERPRISES requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 27' vinyl bulkhead
extension; a 12' section and 34' section of vinyl bulkhead along existing boat ramp; to
drive support pilings and reconstruct existing concrete boat ramp. Located: 175 Bay
Avenue, Mattituck.
This was found consistent with the LWRP. The one comment he made is storm
water cannot enter James Creek over the boat ramp. The plans show the pitch from the
top of the boat ramp is toward Bay Avenue. However, the collection floats are not
shown. Where is the storm water contained onsite. Those are the questions from the
LWRP coordinator. And the CAC resolved to support the application, with no other
comments.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application?
MS. RIGDON: Agena Rigdon, DKR Shores, representing Village Marine. I actually had a
conversation with Mr. Levy after this application was submitted and it seems it is a state
road, some kind of mish-mash draining situation. It doesn't work properly; either there is
a lot of storm water runoff that runs down into the marina, which actually made the boat
ramp collapse in the first place. He asked me after the fact, after the application was
submitted, if he could install a French drain system at the head of the ramp. Also I was
approached by the neighbor, just outside here at the hearing, Mr. Finora
TRUSTEE KING: He's the adjoining property owner to the south.
MS. RIGDON: Correct. He asked actually if it would be possible to put some kind of a
return on the south side and some fill. I told him I would ask.
TRUSTEE KING: Where did he want this return?
MS. RIGDON: On the south side, at the end of the new wall. Sort of angled, or he said
rock would be fine.
TRUSTEE KING: That would be the west end of it?
MS. RIGDON: Yes, the west end of the south side of the ramp.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So the landward end of the ramp.
MS. RIGDON: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: I see. This area here.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think it's a big deal.
TRUSTEE KING: No.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the applicant has proposed a French drain at the landward
end of the ramp also, to address the concern from the LWRP coordinator.
MS. RIGDON: Correct.
Board of Trustees 39 March 20, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had any issues with it. We'd have to see that proposed
return on a set of plans. It doesn't look like it would be an issue, if it's on the landward
side. And I called the Highway Department, too, on this. Because I was confused as to
whether this was a town road or a state road. And evidently one drain is maintained by
the town and the other drain is maintained by the state. And talking to the Highway
Department, this is on their agenda for springtime to fix that area and take care of that
drain. They know about it. They are in the process, as soon as the weather clears and
they have the time, they'll be going down there to address that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I had also asked the office. I know the office submitted a work
order to, in the meantime, have that drain pumped out. Because we notice that drain is
full. And they could go in there right now with their vacuum truck and pump out that drain
and also would get some material out there that might make it more useful. So I'm
hoping rather than waiting for spring for this full project, to get ahead of that and get
down there with their vacuum truck and just to do a quick service on that drain.
MS. RIGDON: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you have any idea how long that return used to be?
MS. RIGDON: I don't have my scale with me. It's not very long. Five feet, maybe.
TRUSTEE KING: Five feet?
MS. RIGDON: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: All right, is there anybody else with any other comments?
(No response).
MS. RIGDON: Did you have any objections to the fill being placed behind that portion of
the bulkhead?
TRUSTEE KING: No, I don't think so. Not up in that area. It's pretty well landward.
MS. RIGDON: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application. And we'll look at the
return on the south bulkhead, on the landward end, of between five and ten feet long. So
that gives you a little room to work. And revised plans showing that.
MS. RIGDON: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: And inclusion of a French drain at the landward end of the ramp.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number 16, Costello Marine Contracting
Corp., on behalf of ANDREA & STEVEN KOLYER request a Wetland Permit to remove
125'± of existing bulkhead and construct 125'± of new bulkhead, in-place; construct new
8' south bulkhead return; reconstruct previously existing 3' wide stairway to beach,
in-place; fill void area landward of bulkhead with approximately 70 cubic yards of clean
trucked-in fill; re-grade area and re-vegetate with Cape American beach grass. Located:
1350 Paradise Point Road, Southold.
This is a pretty straightforward bulkhead replacement. It is consistent under the
LWRP. The CAC supports the application with the condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer
landward of the top of the bluff. The Board reviewed the application on field inspection. I
think we discussed anon-turf buffer but felt that the existing slope and bulkhead
replacement would naturally provide an approximately 15-foot buffer on that existing
vegetated slope. So I'm not sure what the Board's feeling and/or discussion on that
Board of Trustees 40 March 20, 2013
would entail. It's straightforward. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of the
application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello on behalf of the applicant. If you guys are fine with the
non-turf buffer being the slope, that would be acceptable.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any questions or concerns?
TRUSTEE KING: It's pretty simple.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 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 would make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, with the stipulation that 15-foot landward of the bulkhead on the slope of the
bluff be maintained as a vegetated, non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUTTEE DOMINO: Number 17, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of
MARGARET & JOHN HOCHSTRASSER requests a Wetland Permit to construct 1100'
of new retaining wall with two 6' returns; re-contour top of bluff as necessary; fill void
area landward of retaining wall with clean trucked-in fill (approximately 200 cubic yards);
re-grade slope and re-vegetate with native plantings; re-grade area between bulkhead
and new retaining wall; re-vegetate areas with Cape American beach grass; replace,
repair and/or reconstruct existing stairway down bank in-place; install nineteen (19) 10"
diameter sister pilings adjacent to existing bulkhead face pilings and bolt together;
construct a new 4'x5' cantilevered platform and 3' wide stairway from bulkhead to beach
level inplace of existing one destroyed. Located: 2855 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC voted to support
this, with the condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer landward of the bluff. The Trustees, on
their field inspection on the 13th suggested including the existing bulkhead in the permit.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, on behalf of the applicant. Yes, we'd love to include the
bulkhead in the application. It sounds like a lot but it's pretty minimal. It's a small job.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: How about the non-turf buffer?
MR. COSTELLO: I'd like to do what we did with the last application, just from the top of
the retaining wall to the top of the bank. Along with the flat area behind the bulkhead, it
seems there is plenty of non-turf buffer without encroaching on their backyard than it has
already been encroached upon because of storms.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are the Trustees comfortable with that?
(Affirmative response).
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
(No response).
Any other comments or questions from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing none, I move to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted with the
inclusion of the existing bulkhead in the application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
Board of Trustees 41 March 20, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 18, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of
ROBERT & CAROL WILLUMSTAD requests a Wetland Permit to in Area A: Construct
150' of new retaining wall with a 6' return on east end; fill void area landward with clean
trucked-in fill (approximately 200 cubic yards); re-grade area and re-vegetate with Cape
American beach grass; reconstruct existing stairway to beach as needed and reinstall
in-place. Area B: Add 30 tons of new stone filler rocks to existing. Area C: Remove any
existing rock and debris from top surface areas; place 150 ton of 1-ton cap rocks on filter
cloth in-place. Area D: Add 75 tons of new rock armoring to existing; reconstruct existing
platform and stairway to beach as needed and reinstall in-place. Area C & D: Fill void
area (eroded area) with clean trucked-in fill (approximately 400 to 450 cubic yards);
re-grade areas and re-vegetate with native plantings to match existing. Located: 1305
West Road, Cutchogue.
The CAC resolved to support the application. The LWRP coordinator has found
this to be consistent and inconsistent. He writes in his recommendation that the
proposed action to reconstruct existing platform and stairway to the beach as needed
and re-installing inplace is inconsistent, because the structure described is not
constructed pursuant to Southold Board of Trustees permit, pursuant to Chapter 275.
The rest of it is consistent.
TRUSTEE KING: Probably didn't have a permit when it was constructed.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When we were out there doing our inspections we noted that we
should request aten-foot non-turf buffer behind the retaining wall and perhaps a
revetment on top of the bank. Is there anybody here who would like to address this
application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, on behalf of the applicant. A revetment on the top of
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think I may have taken the field notes. It may have been to
have anon-turf buffer behind the revetment. That may be a scrivener's error.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, there is already plenty of non-turf buffer that is already existing
behind the stones. I don't think that would be an issue.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's another one of those that has an awful lot of details in the
application but it really is straightforward, just repair of storm damage. There is plenty of
stone out there to begin with. Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jack, I have a question with what is depicted between area A and
B and it was shown on, I think, a previously photograph. That one. There is an area
there that I've noticed they left void of any revetment. And it looks like on your plan it's
the intent to leave that void of any type of stone work in there?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there any reason why?
MR. COSTELLO: Just access.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because my concern is, that's where, I think partially because of
that void, there was such a washout in the storm that filled in that creek entrance, I'm
sorry, the interface there. And I know, as one who frequently goes in and out of that
creek entrance in the summer time, there is a hump that develops there in the channel, I
think partially because of that void. So I'm just wondering if there is another way of
maintaining access but at the same time continue that revetment across so in the event
of another storm they don't have that mini-blowout there and all that gets washed into
the channel that is maintained by the county.
MR. COSTELLO: In this area, just behind the revetment, we are proposing to put the
retaining wall, so there will be less fill available to go through that hole. You know what
I'm saying?
Board of Trustees 42 March 20, 2013
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
MR. COSTELLO: Now that we've retained that fill on the back side, there will be less
material that can actually escape through that hole.
TRUSTEE KING: By putting the retaining wall.
MR. COSTELLO: By putting the retaining wall back behind the rock revetment. So it will
be less material available. Because it's kind of flat behind that part of the revetment. It's
very flat back there. And of course it's in the client's best interest to make sure it doesn't
go into the inlet.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It wouldn't be a possibility with the large amount of material
that will be coming on the site, will be a large amount of concrete product there that a
step or set of stairs built with existing materials or something to incorporate the features
of continuing the wall could be built in there?
MR. COSTELLO: Now they'll have the retaining wall, and that area is I think an access
for kayaks and stuff like that
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I hear you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It would be tough to fill that in with revetment and try to get, you
know, make something over the top. He has to go by going to the bridge.
MR. COSTELLO: There would have to be a set of steps on the other end of the
property. It would make it very difficult access to the water.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or questions?
MR. SLADE: I'm Mike Slade. My property is located just north of this picture. I viewed
the plans that were sent to me. Seems as though I'm also concerned about the gap
between "A," which is the proposed bulkhead, and "B," which is the rocks you are going
to add to at the end. What happens is when we get the storms here, the winds come out
of the south when it's blowing the most fierce. And it blows right in there. A huge
amount, if you go back to the other picture please, a huge amount of fill was washed
away and it's in the creek now. And I'm concerned that putting forth this large space
between area "A" and area "B," and actually any space at all there, this south wind,
which gets fairly fierce, will wash more sand into the creek, necessitating dredging not
only for the county, but also depth, by littoral drift, that sand eventually ends up on my
property where it obstructs my boat slips. I think that this should be addressed by a
continuous bulkhead to prevent that from happening. Has anybody addressed this issue
in this way? Because I'm concerned about it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I had the same concern, that I just mentioned.
MR. SLADE: You just said you go in and out that channel.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MR. SLADE: So you know exactly what I'm talking about. And we are not really hearing
this, but this bend, is on the south end, the bay side. You come around that bend, where
the washout occurred behind that rip-rap that was put there, most of the erosion that
occurred came from where the current staircase is and that current area behind these
rocks, which the water came over. And the proposed bulkhead leaves gaps, and I think
it's only going to get worse with time.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, I've been out there a couple of times with the water
sampling we've been doing and you can notice, when I was kayaking, when you get
right there
MR. COSTELLO: Everything we are proposing to do is on that will only help the
situation. I mean the retaining wall will retain the fill. It's a massive amount of fill that did
go in, and we'll beef up all those rock forms that's there. In Mr. Slade's best interest and
the applicant's interest, and everyone who uses the creek, Imean
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm just concerned that the water overtops the current
concrete revetment and then runs the length
Board of Trustees 43 March 20, 2013
MR. SPADE: This was put in some time in the early'30's or'40's and it is sinking slowly
over time. Because there is no cloth of any kind under there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Let me ask this then. I'm looking at the plan. If we were to bring in
a rock revetment and continue where the six-foot return currently is, and carry that rock
revetment down and around to connect to the existing rocks in area "B" would that be of
any help?
MR. COSTELLO: We could do it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: See what I'm saying, bring the retaining wall down and around
here, toward the flagpole area, it may serve to close that gap.
MR. COSTELLO: That would be fine. If there is a gap there, we can certainly do it. The
retaining wall would bring it there because it seems like it was blocking and vegetation
still existing there. But we could certainly connect that retaining wall with the rock
revetment.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you understand what I'm saying?
MR. SLADE: Absolutely.
MR. COSTELLO: If there is a gap there, we can certainly connect it.
MR. SLADE: And how are you addressing, if I may, how are you addressing this area, in
the other picture, where there is an opening, how is this going to be addressed?
Because this is really where a lot of the sand was washed out. Will bulkhead close this
off, so it will be right up to the bulkhead that's on my property?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, the bulkhead that will connect to his property, come straight past
that. So the bulkhead is right behind these rocks, basically. So all this sand is down
lower than the rocks. So we'll basically going to trap all the material behind the retaining
wall.
MR. SLADE: I think that would satisfy it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I guess it would have helped me in hindsight if that bulkhead was
staked out there because, again, I share in Mr. Slade's concern. I would hope that
bulkhead is as close as possible to those rocks to help eliminate as much opportunity for
the upland fill to fall down there, through that gap, into the water and fill in the channel.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What is the possibility of considering two returns, either side
of that sandy patch, that would go back to the new bulkhead construction that would
have filter clothe, in other words use similar material or stone, then run them back say
15 feet. That would provide continued access with a soft entry for kayaks and such. In
other words run two returns, so it would be sort of like an apron, and that would return
stone, stone material return to the retaining wall, that would possibly provide some
protection and they would still have some ease of access for their kayaks.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's not a bad idea, I guess.
MR. SLADE: I suppose if there were an opening that's not open to that south wind that
comes across the bay. Because if there is an opening and it is not fenced off in some
way, then the sand just comes in.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think what Trustee Bredemeyer is proposing here is basically to
create almost, if you could picture a basin there. In other words put returns on either side
of the rock, I like the idea, back to this proposed bulkhead. There will be just a very small
space where material can escape into the channel, and it still provides the applicant with
access for his kayaks.
MR. SLADE: Anything that will decrease the likelihood of more sand coming in there, I
would be happy with.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It makes sense. It's something we normally would not do, but it
does kind of make sense here.
MR. COSTELLO: If you guys want to add that in, that would be fine. As far as this
Board of Trustees 44 March 20, 2013
hearing goes, if we do it like John suggests, we could do that, and if the client is willing
to forego the whole thing and just go there with rocks, I'll come back and amend the
permit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further comments?
MR. MCGREEVEY: I hear the word "normal" being used quite a bit. And in looking at the
overall big picture are we taking into consideration the rising sea level so when we get
another storm like Sandy, what we are proposing here, I could see it very well take care
of the problem under normal conditions. But if we do have another Sandy, which is
expected, will what we are proposing here handle the problem.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think the reality is that probably 90% of the structures we've
approved in the last three months that are next to the water would not prevent property
damage in the event of Sandy. Sandy would go right over the tops, as it did of this
proposed revetment, just as it did over the tops of bulkheads, etc.
MR. MCGREEVEY: I just wanted to bring that to your attention.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Duly noted. Thank you. Any additional comments or
concerns?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted
with the stipulation that the area between "A" and "B" on the plan include stone or similar
concrete existing material, returns, that would run back landward to the retaining wall to
minimize the loss of sand material that might occur with subsequent storm events. And
to submit an amended drawing to depict those changes. And by permitting those
structures would address the inconsistency under the LWRP. So moved.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number 19, En-Consultants on behalf of HILARY PRIDGEN requests
a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-place ±47' and t51' low-profile timber groins
with low-profile vinyl groins; remove existing t36' and ±50' timber groins; and construct
(2) 14'x6' steps to beach inplace of storm destroyed (Hurricane Sandy) steps. Located:
2140 & 2530 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
The LWRP coordinator found this consistent. He is recommending the Board
require a vegetated buffer, width undetermined, incorporating existing vegetation
landward of the bulkhead. The CAC supports the application with the condition the stairs
are removable. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicant. I'm
actually happy to hear that Mark found it consistent, because these groin applications
he asks us to try to take a broader shoreline approach. And we were able to do that here
since there are in effect two properties owned. There are four groins on the property,
three of which are functional, one of which is not. The one which is not is shown in the
picture at the end and closer to Peggy Cannon's property. So what we are proposing to
do is to remove the non-functional groin permanently at the far end adjacent to Gannon,
and then also to remove the groin that is in between the other two that we are proposing
to remove and replace. So that is actually between the two adjacent properties, and this
one you would have a series of 50-foot groins spaced about 100-feet apart, which in
theory is the way they are supposed to be spaced.
Board of Trustees 45 March 20, 2013
So we are basically proposing to construct the two low-profile groins, again, with the
Board's prior policy, the 18-inch height, both at the landward and seaward sides, with
the right spacing in between, once we pull that groin out in the middle.
With respect to the non-turf buffer, there was a 15-foot non-turf buffer approved, or
required as a condition when the bulkhead was replaced, I think back in 2006. That was
the last time the Board had been down to this particular property was for a bulkhead
replacement at that time, and that was the requirement at that time.
TRUSTEE KING: It's basically all just sand here.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, it really is a very beachy area, but since you raised the
question, or at least read the question from LWRP, I just wanted to respond to it.
Normally you don't deal with buffers in association with a groin replacement. But, just for
the record, it's permit 6402
TRUSTEE KING: It's already established.
MR. HERRMANN: (Continuing) already required it. So that's that.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from anybody?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just want to make a comment on the CAC's recommendation. I
know in other areas of Peconic Bay that applicants have started to rotate the stairs
around so they are hinged and run along the edge of the bulkhead, and possibly that
way they could be seasonal also. I think there is something to the idea of making them
seasonal, particularly if, I don't know if these are fulltime residents or not, but I'm just
trying to help them preserve their property, that would be the stairs in the event of a
storm. It's just something to consider. That's all.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: I suppose they could be hinged at the top and just pulled back
along the top of the bulkhead when they are not, you know.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Aluminum and light weight so it's easy to move.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Absolutely. I think it's a good idea.
TRUSTEE KING: I would leave that up to the property owner.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Absolutely. It's just a suggestion.
MR. HERRMANN: Dave, on that note, what I've been trying to do with the applications
during this Sandy period on the stairs, and you'll notice I did it here, is to be purposely
vague sometimes about the steps. Like I'm not calling these footsteps. I'm just saying
steps. Because some of the people have said just what you've said. They've said, you
know, this is the second or third time this has happened, I'm just going to get one of
those aluminum stairways. But rather than going into that and locking them in one way
or the other, I just said steps. So I think some of the people are going to do what you are
describing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from anybody?
(No response).
I thought it was a nice project, seeing the removal of some groins, and the new,
low-profile design, I think it's a vast improvement.
If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
And I'll make a motion to approve the application as it's been submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 20, En-Consultants on behalf of JANET T. SOUKUP
Board of Trustees 46 March 20, 2013
LIFETIME TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct storm damaged (Hurricane
Sandy) ±3'x±20' timber stairway down embankment; reconstruct at top of stairway a
storm destroyed 8'x10' wood deck previously located at base of stairway; and construct
4'x8' steps to beach in place of storm destroyed steps. Located: 500 Birch Drive South,
Laurel.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be inconsistent, and the reason
for the inconsistency is no permits were found for the proposed actions. In other words
the structures that were previously there. The CAC resolved to support the application
with the condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer. The Trustees did go out and looked at this.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of Janet Soukup.
This is revisiting these properties that the Board looked at back in January. The
bulkhead that is destroyed in front has already been approved by the Board. That is the
bulkhead that exists on what became fondly known as the Congdon and others or
Connolly, Congdon and others, for that joint ownership. But as I had originally discussed
with Lori and with the Board, we did not bundle the deck and stairs in with that
application because this is really an access way for the upland owner Janet Soukup,
whose property actually sits landward of that owned jointly by that whole group of
owners that they call The Colony. For the record, and again, Lori had asked me to do
this. I just handed up to Liz the authorization from all of the owners of the joint property
because most of the stairway that we are proposing to replace actually physically sits on
that jointly owned land. I'm missing one, Liz, which is ironically John Congdon. I got that
today. I saw it on my iPhone on my way here, so I will fax that over to you tomorrow.
There was actually the platform, going to Mark's comments, all of this stuff, as with all
these other properties, were put in before the Board had jurisdiction down here. But
what we've done, for a couple of reasons, we have taken the 8x10' deck that is not
sitting on the beach there, that you can see. That had been at the base right behind the
bulkhead closest to the bay and what we are proposing to do here, for a couple of
reasons, is to take that deck and move it up behind the top of the slope, number one,
where it will be a little safer; number two, it will be consistent with the configuration that
the Board has already approved both for the joint ownership property and also for Pat
O'Brien to the east of that. And it also takes more of the structure and puts it physically
on Janet's property as opposed to having more structure on the jointly owned piece. So
that's basically it. It's really just trying to get back what she had before the storm, with
some improvements, we hope. Oh, on the buffer, there is already a 35-foot buffer
behind the bulkhead that was made part of the permit that was issued for The Colony.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: On the plans it shows that 8x10' deck slightly cantilevering over
the top of the slope. Is there an opportunity here, would the applicant consider moving it
back a few feet so it's not cantilevered over the top of the slope.
MR. HERRMANN: If you look in the section on sheet two, Dave, and I'm not an engineer
so this is not going into real detailed science here, but basically we are just trying to
perch it on the corner to get some elevation for the steps so that the vegetation has
some room to grow underneath the steps going down. As you start to slide the deck
back tighter against the landward side, it causes the stairs to kind of have to hug in
against the bluff face tighter. So, there is no real issue for the deck overhang but what it
does accomplish is it gets the stairs off the face of the bluff a little bit and gives a chance
for vegetation to be established.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any questions from the Board?
(No response).
Anybody in the audience wish to comment on this application?
(No response).
Board of Trustees 47 March 20, 2013
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 En-Consultants on
behalf of Janet Soukup and with the condition of approving this structure will then
address the inconsistency and in fact bring it into consistency under the LWRP. That's
my motion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number 21, En-Consultants on behalf
of WILLIAM & MILLICENT TUFANO requests a Wetland Permit to construct
approximately 84 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of (and approximately 12 inches
higher than) existing storm damaged (Hurricane Sandy) timber bulkhead; construct ±50'
and ±51' vinyl returns in place of (and approximately 12 inches higher than) existing
timber returns; place approximately 100 cubic yards of clean sand/loam fill landward of
bulkhead; and construct 4'x4' wood platform and 14'x5' steps to beach alongside
westerly return in place of storm damaged steps. Located: 2482 Camp Mineola Road,
Mattituck.
The project has been determined to be consistent with the LWRP. The CAC was
unable to get there due to flooding in the road. Something we noticed also. And the
Board viewed the property. It's a pretty straightforward replacement. And the Board's
primary concerns were that we try to incorporate a 10-foot non-turf buffer. It's a very
sandy area, so there should be no problem either keeping it with sand or some kind of
non-turf material. And we note the remains of a prior walkway was there. Is there
anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of Tufano's. And Bill
Tufano is here. I just handed up a couple of pictures to Jim. One of them shows the
10-foot non-turf buffer that had been previously planted, so that's fine. One issue that
was left unattended, that Bill spoke to me about this morning and mentioned he also
spoke with you all about when you visited the property, was incorporating into this permit
the ability to put back those Bluestone, basically masonry slabs, on-grade. It's not a
concrete patio. I was asking Bill what the size was. He said it was about 10x10, more or
less in that corner. Then there were several bluestones that were laid down to get to that
patio. If it's not actually set in a masonry base, do the Trustees even need to approve
that?
MS. HULSE: No.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No. It's got large gaps between it
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, they're loose. Okay, then we'll just leave it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There was a question about the existing groin there. We
were there, actually the tide was fairly low. I think the flooding in the street was from the
previous rain. But there was a question that it seemed like there was not a lot of sand
fill up on the sides of the groin. I'm wondering about the history of the groin and whether
or not, if the bulkhead replacement is taking place, whether we could possibly have the
groin a little shorter. I know the bulkhead is going up but it's a question of it seemed like
a fairly high-profile groin. I don't think we got a measurement on it, but it's almost to the
height of the existing bulkhead.
MR. HERRMANN: I'm not sure I follow your question, Jay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The existing groin is basically a very high-profile groin. It's
not aloes-profile groin. I was not very clear on that.
Board of Trustees 48 March 20, 2013
MR. HERRMANN: But we are not proposing to do anything with the groin.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, you weren't. It's just a question if we could possibly
have that shortened just, like 12 inches, while the work is taking place.
MR. HERRMANN: He's asking if you would shorten the height of the groin while you are
doing the bulkhead work. But I don't know how they would do that without actually
replacing the groin.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They would have to replace the stringers, I would think.
MR. HERRMANN: They would literally have to start sawing off the top of the
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think I heard a Trustee say all it would take would be a
chain saw.
MR. HERRMANN: I think Mr. Tufano would probably prefer to leave that to when the
groin is replaced.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. I'm just throwing it out. I'm not hearing a lot of
tremendous support. We had just briefly touched on it in the field.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right. Any additional comments or questions?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted,
noting my longstanding appreciation for Mr. Tufano. He and I go way back. So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 22, En-Consultants on behalf of R.C. KOPF TRUST,
F/B/O BRADLEY W. RELIES requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 100
linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of (and up to 18 inches higher than) existing storm
damaged (Hurricane Sandy) timber bulkhead; construct ±20' vinyl easterly return in
place of (and up to 18 inches higher than) ±12' timber return; remove and replace
masonry landscape wall landward of bulkhead; remove and replace (as needed) 4' wide
wood walkway landward of bulkhead; reconstruct storm damaged ±4.5'x4' wood
platform and ±4.5'x9' steps to beach; and re-nourish 10' wide (and variable) storm
eroded area landward of bulkhead with approximately 40 cubic yards of clean
sand/loam fill to be re-vegetated with native vegetation and subsequently maintained as
anon-turf buffer. Located: 3190 Park Avenue, Mattituck.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC voted to support the
application with conditions that the stairs be removable, the top of the bulkhead be
consistent with neighboring bulkheads, and they request a construction plan for the
block wall, and alive-foot non-turf buffer landward of the block wall. The Trustees, our
inspection found this to be straightforward and suggested a 15-foot non-turf buffer. Is
there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant.
Yes, I struggled with how to show the buffer here. Because there is a non-turf buffer that
exists between the existing bulkhead that we are replacing, which is pretty straight
forward, and then also this landscape block wall. And that varies from anywhere from
about seven to 20 feet back. So I just didn't know how to categorize it because I didn't
want to start trying to reconfigure the wall form. So, you can see in the photos and I'm
sure when you were there, the way I showed it on the plan, I said ten-foot wide and
Board of Trustees 49 March 20, 2013
variable vegetated area between the bulkhead and the landscape wall is to be
re-vegetated and maintained as a non-turf buffer upon project completion. And I think
the way he uses that landscape wall is to kind of separate that native vegetated
adjacent to the bulkhead from the lawn. So I would ask if we could leave it the way it's
shown on the plan. Again, it becomes a variable width buffer. It goes up as far as 20 feet
but probably as fewer than ten. So I don't know how you want to do that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would ask also, how are you addressing the concern about the
plans for the masonry wall? I guess looking for the footings
MR. HERRMANN: I don't know that there are any. It just a block wall. It's realty a
landscape feature. There is no grade behind it. In other words it's not really retaining any
fill. It's really a landscape wall. I could ask them to provide something from a contractor
but it doesn't have any structural purpose, which is why we didn't get into it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else to speak to this application? Any questions or
comments from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 23, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of
PAUL HOLOBIGIAN requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing timber dock
(4.0'W x 31.0'L) and extend an additional 38.0'±, to result in a new catwalk measuring
4.0'W x 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, Southold.
The CAC resolves to support this application, with the condition the structure
does not extend further out than the neighboring docks. The LWRP coordinator has
found it to be inconsistent with the LWRP, noting the expansion of the dock structure
may promote power boat traffic and the possible following impacts may occur:
Degradation of water via the bottom scouring and prop dredging, re-suspension of
bottom sediments and turbidity, impacts to submerged, aquatic vegetation
I'll say here it is proposed to be in a New York State Department of Significant
Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area. And there are vegetated wetlands identified
around the existing dock. Suffice to say he goes on with a few other reasons that putting
this dock here would not be found consistent with the LWRP. He does recommend that
the Board consider a seasonal mooring to meet the intent of the original permit issued in
2000. The permit included a dinghy ladder to allow access to a mooring.
On our field inspections when we were there, we noted that the seaward edge of
the float should be where the pipe is located. We found that the stake was too far out in
relationship to what we had in the file. I know when the Trustees looked at both the
neighboring docks, and we looked at it, it extended quite a bit further than the existing
docks to the left and to the right.
With that, is there anyone here who would like to address the application?
Board of Trustees 50 March 20, 2013
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant.
Here are photographs that show the docks in place in relationship to how they are now.
The first thing that is worth noting about this application is that the dock as presently
constructed extends into inadequate water depth. That's what is causing us to extend
the dock. You should know we did make application to DEC. They responded by
granting the permit. And their interest in granting the permit is to in fact extend into
deeper water so that impacts relating to propellers and so forth are addressed. So we
looked at the comments from the LWRP coordinator. They would suggest the
application should actually be approved. Because the shorter dock which extends to
approximately less five inches at low tide effectively puts a boat on the bottom, resting
on the bottom, and any engine that would be propelling the boat would of course stir up
the bottom. So there is a physical need to extend the dock and there is an environmental
benefit in extending the dock. And I think that needs to be stated for the record.
Now, on to the aerial photograph, when you take a look at this, you'll see the dark
water is actually the navigable channel. And we tried to delineate that channel by the
broken yellow line that you see placed on this. And you'll see what we've done, we've
extended very, very close to it in order to get that water depth. Obviously there is no
impact to navigation. But some of the docks immediately to the south are in fact
constructed in waters that are too shallow. And I'm not here to represent their interest,
but there is a reason for the length of this dock, and that is to reach waters that are
sufficiently deep, and to do so in a way that won't impact on anyone else's ability to
navigate this dredged waterway. So that's why it's laid out the way it's laid out. It extends
to exactly three feet at low water. So we should be very close to what is ideal in this
location.
MS. HULSE: Bruce, is that consistent with what the DEC permit gave you, the 69 feet?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
MS. HULSE: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The photographic perspective is definitely different than the
one I had on the ground. I think the others remember seeing the channel in this
particular location, on field inspection it appeared the channel was much closer to the
property than in fact the aerials show. It doesn't appear to me there is a problem. It
doesn't extend more than a third of the way.
With the landfall, it's true, the dock to either side may in fact be a little on the
short side with respect to the depths, based on what we saw there, in comparison to
where the channel is.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The interesting thing about this location is because of the radius of
the shoreline and the nature of how it's rounded, depending upon where you draw your
pier line, it's either consistent with the policy or it's not. In fact, the reason I bring that up
is Jim saw the area and drew a pier line that made sense to him. And it doesn't meet the
criteria. At the same time he was doing that, I was doing the same thing, and I saw
something completely different. And my pier line is fairly consistent, so.
MR. ANDERSON: The question of --there is really no specific guidance on where the
pier line is but I guess from a practical standpoint there is a benefit of extending the dock
at least to the edge of the channel because that is where the waterway is navigable.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't know that I entirely agree with that. As a boater, my
concern is that if you put a boat at the end of this dock, I think that boat will be very close
to being in the channel, if not in the channel, and I have a concern, there is a small
marina up toward the end of that channel, so a lot of boats are kept up there. You could
have a lot of boat traffic through here, particularly in the evening or in the dark. I'm
concerned this will be a hazard to navigation. I'm afraid I understand the need from
the property owner's perspective to get into deep water, but maybe this is just one of
Board of Trustees 51 March 20, 2013
those locations where a dock is just not going to work. Maybe it is going to be a stake
and pulley system or a mooring or something else. I know there was a mooring out there
already. It's not in the picture there.
MR. ANDERSON: I think the stake and pulley system is more dangerous than a dock.
Particularly at night, because you can't see them.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm not saying extend out to where I think this is extended too far
out. Plain and simple, I think it extends too far out.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I agree.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I understand if it's any farther in, that you'll have a problem
with the water depth.
MR. ANDERSON: Right now the plans show we are at three feet at low tide. That's what
they show. If you ask the client for two-and-a-half feet, would DEC? Probably. I would
think there would be some flexibility. But the point of this is really to you certainly, the
whole notion of certainly this pulley system has never been a good solution for anyone,
from any perspective, because even if the idea you are going to pull your boat in, hop in
and start it up, what have you accomplished by it. And the answer is nothing except that
you are disturbing the sediments more. So the whole point of doing that simply doesn't
serve anyone's interest.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then, like I said, this could be a property where a dock is just not
going to work.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, we already have a dock.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, but (mean okay, an extension to the dock. The dock you
are asking for is just not going to work. It could be that's what this property is.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Have you gotten a DEC permit yet?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, we do.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What about trying to pull it in a little bit, or changing the
configuration. The "T" will put the beam of that boat
MR. ANDERSON: I would consider that, but I would have to consult with my client first.
TRUSTEE KING: This has been an ongoing battle for years. We try to maintain these
pier lines because what happens, you let somebody go out 20 feet then the next door
neighbor wants to go out 20 feet and then everything is out of check. We try to maintain
these lines, it's just
MR. ANDERSON: My problem with a pier line is you are assuming the shoreline is
straight and that all the docks line up. That's not really what we have here. And we don't
have that in a lot of places. You have to I hope the idea is to sort of fit the dock where
it sort of belongs in relationship to the shape of the shoreline, the existing channels of
navigability.
TRUSTEE KING: Another thing, you talk about fitting things, sometimes you have to fit
the boat to the creek or to the spot, not fit the creek to the boat.
MR. ANDERSON: I understand that. But if we are not in the channel at this length, and
I'm not saying we can't make it a little shorter, we are not impacting someone else's use
of the creek, because they are not in the channel. What we are here is close to the
channel.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I've got to tell you, I'm getting the feeling the Board is not going to
approve it as is. Do you want to do anything with it? Do you want to bring it back?
MR. ANDERSON: Like I said, I could speak to the client about reducing by some
distance.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What's the feeling of the Board? Do we want to bring it back to that
pipe?
TRUSTEE KING: That would be my recommendation. Give or take a few feet.
Board of Trustees 52 March 20, 2013
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Give or take a few feet so the pipe I think Dave's concern
about navigation is a real one, short of putting a requirement, what do they put a green
light on some docks for signaling, you know I think bringing it back a ways would be
quite helpful.
MR. ANDERSON: Let me see what the client says. I would say let's table it and see
what we can work out.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to table the application.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number 24, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of BERT
A. COLLISON & GLENDINNING FAMILY TRUST c/o KOPEN & COLLISON, L.P. &
c/o PORT OF EGYPT ISLAND requests a Wetland Permit to construct a brush jetty
(500'± overall) along the southwesterly shoreline (seaward of AHW) of Port of Egypt
Island in order to protect same and the shorelines to the northwest. Located: Off Bay
Home Road, Southold.
This was found to be consistent with the LWRP, and it's consistent providing that
the Board evaluate the need for lighting for safe vessel navigation around the structure.
The CAC resolved to support the application, and no other comments. It wasn't
unanimous. It was carried by a 3-2 vote.
The only question we had was on the length. It seemed to me it was a little on the
long side. We need to hear from somebody to either support this or speak against it.
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, for the applicant.
I'll start by describing so that one understands what the essential problem here is. There
is a couple of things going on. Number one, we have this sand island here. And the two
ends of the sand island are moving north. Port of Egypt has had its issues with the
eastern end of that, which is addressed in part by ongoing dredging that the county
does. I can tell you they were in there this year and dredged it again. I can also tell you
that, fortunately, they decided to deposit the spoil above the high tide mark. Their
permits had shown their spoil site was actually between high and low tide. In other
words they were dredging the inlet there and depositing the spoils into an intertidal
zone, which meant that any westward wind would just simply drive it back to that
easterly point. So in part, the east end of the island is addressed because they changed
the location of the spoil. They are actually putting the spoil on the island above the high
tide mark, where it belongs. So we're happy for that.
Now, the county records show and we have been through all their dredging
records and so forth, that we have a prevailing littoral drift from east to west. When I
speak of that, what I mean is that the storm winds out of the east will drive sand to the
west. And when you look at the long-term movement of the sand, those forces move
more sand than the westerly wind that occurs mostly during the summer and warmer
seasons. So the sand moves in that direction. And you can see here on the westerly
point, that's also migrating northward and it's causing a navigational issue for Albertson's
Marina. And if you have been up there by boat, you know it's very tight from the distance
from the end of the "T" dock, which is actually on the Port of Egypt side and that island.
So, what we are seeking to do here is we are seeking to take advantage of the sand that
is moving in that direction and trapping it, in essence, behind this brush jetty. The other
major benefit this would have, beside navigation, is when we get the storm winds out of
the southeast, Albertson is placed in the unenviable position of having to remove all the
boats at the end of the dock, that are docked in the southerly docks, because there is
not protection afforded in this arena. And when Bill Witzke originally approached me with
this problem, I'll say a couple of years ago, what we wanted to do was to install a wave
Board of Trustees 53 March 20, 2013
curtain, because it's becoming increasingly more difficult to protect these boats. And we
had the DEC come down and look at the property. No one liked the wave curtain idea.
So I had come up with this notion of the brush jetty because I had seen them used in
other locations. And so that you know, what you are essentially doing, you are building a
frame, if you will, and then you are packing brush in. And it works the same as a snow
fence would up on the North Road, to capture drifting snow. You see the farmers will
install snow fences up on the North Road, they are usually about 50 or 60 feet in, off the
road, and typically it will be a northeast or northwest wind blowing the snow will be
trapped, in part, by this fence. Some of the snow, obviously, goes through the fence and
some of it just piles near it. This is the same concept here. This is like a snow fence in
the water. And there seems to be support among DEC for this. And I'll hand you up
another set of photos. This is an actual brush jetty constructed (inaudible). So the first
photo shows what it actually looks like. There is seaweed and things that are attached to
it. You'll see the beach on the right side of the photo. Then you go to the second photo
and you'll see it actually protects an inlet. This may be a useful device in maintaining
navigable channels without having to install permanent hard structures to do so. They do
degrade over time. They have to be managed pretty much on an annual basis. But they
will trap some sand. And you'll see in the aerial, which is the third photo, that it does
indeed trap. In this case littoral drift is moving from west to east. So you'll see the sand
that piles up on the right side, which is actually the west side of this brush jetty. The area
we are putting the brush jetty in is not navigable, in any event, because if you walk out to
250 feet off the point, which we did, you wind up with about 3-3 1/2 feet at low tide. The
reason for the length was an accommodation to the owner, who again, is seeking to
improve navigation but also to protect the boats that are docked at Albertson's. It is
experimental at this location, so it may be worthwhile to do it in sections. In other words
maybe not do the entire 250 feet. Maybe do half now, see how it goes, then install the
second half if everyone is satisfied with the result. We might similarly find out that an
extra 125 feet doesn't really accomplish anything for the client. So we don't really have
an actual scientific measurement on how long this should be. So I'm not opposed to
doing it in sections. I think you'd certainly need to put in at least 100 off that point. But
the real key is how much sand will it trap and what benefit will it ultimately have.
Because if it doesn't work, the only think I could suggest to Mr. Witzke is that we do in
fact install some sort of a wave curtain like has been attached at Mitchell Park, if you
look at that marina. And that's what protects those docks is an actual wave curtain on
the outer, I'll say, 250 feet of the westerly pier. You'll see it as you come in on the ferry.
Those wave curtains do work. And it may come to that. But this is a softer solution to
that and that's why there was willingness to try it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Will there be any markers or lights up there to aid in navigation
around it?
MR. ANDERSON: I suppose we could. We didn't put it in there because this is not
navigable in any event. In other words, you never enter this waterway because not only
is it shallow but there are intermittent boulders. In fact there is one very large boulder
that is exposed at low tide. It's got a name for it but I don't remember it. I can tell you
this. If you go back, and I could probably provide you with some of this history, but if you
go back two decades this island extended almost all the way across to the other
shoreline. And when Albertson's was originally built, it was completely behind the island.
It was a very safe marina to keep your boat. And people have different theories. Some
will say it's dredging, some say these things travel in cycles. I don't think it's really useful
to have that debate, only to say that what was once a protected marina is in fact no
longer protected from the fetch driven from the south-southeast wind. Which is a major
storm.
Board of Trustees 54 March 20, 2013
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I did talk to the owners of the island a little over a year ago now,
maybe even two years ago. And it was a very interesting conversation. They said it was
once a peninsula. It wasn't an island. It was according to his grandfather. So we are
going back three generations.
MR. ANDERSON: Who, by the way, passed away about five weeks ago, which is
unfortunate, because he had a lot of knowledge about this.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was concerned for the people who keep boats in Budds Pond
because I know given the local knowledge they have living right there many of them do,
particularly high tide go out and head to the south, they don't go all the way along
MR. ANDERSON: They would have to hug that shoreline there because that's where the
old channel is.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. And that's why initially I was concerned about how far this
would jut out into the bay. I like your idea of maybe at first going with 150-foot and
seeing if that worked, seeing if there is even a need to go out the additional 100 feet to a
total length of 250 feet.
TRUSTEE KING: I'd make it 125.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, there are two legs to this, and each leg is 250. So what I was
suggesting is we half each leg, if that makes sense.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think it's a great idea. I know when this was brought to my
attention a couple of years ago this was a great idea to try this at this location. If it works
it might even be considered to be used at the other end of the island where they have a
similar situation with sand coming in there. But for now, I think it's a great idea, a great
concept.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Making it that short we might avoid the need to discuss the
aid to navigation. It seems the length you have here you want to be talking to the Coast
Guard seeing about a (inaudible)
MR. ANDERSON: I'm not necessarily opposed to that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't know what other thoughts are. I just think starting a
little smaller and phased-in approach in might be a good start.
MR. ANDERSON: But you know, there is a flip side to putting some sort of a light or a
marker on the end of this, and that is it may invite people to go in there, thinking it's a
channel.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I've thought about that. And that would be something, if it
were deemed to be appropriate, at least at some level discuss it with the unit of the
Coast Guard that handles private aids to navigation, is what would be advisable.
Because what you would not want to do is misdirect people who would otherwise going
around, making the entrance from the other side, it would just be a matter of making it
safer for the people going in and out of Budds Pond.
MR. ANDERSON: I would probably take the position that we would make an application
to Army Corps of Engineers and they are going to route it to the Coast Guard. And I
would sort of let the federal process tell us where we were going with that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess they would automatically do that. That's a possibility.
MR. ANDERSON: I mean I don't know that this Board wants to get involved with aids to
navigation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Not particularly, no.
MR. ANDERSON: I mean, if we are going to mark it in some fashion because someone
tells us to, we'll have to go to Coast Guard approval to do that. But again, I don't even
know if that's a good idea. Because there are some large rocks out there and people will
likely collide into those rocks if they think it's a navigable channel.
TRUSTEE KING: All right, I think we have all come to the conclusion it should be
shorter. So we'll half it at each end?
Board of Trustees 55 March 20, 2013
MR. ANDERSON: Well, I want to reserve the right to come back, if it's necessary. I can't
tell you whether it is necessary. So I think it's just a good place to start.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm not uncomfortable with the concept of the brush jetty, I'm a
little uncomfortable at arriving at a length without using some sort of metric or an
algorithm. I would opt for the shortest length, if everything would work, because you
could always add on to it, if you are essentially experimenting, is what I'm saying.
TRUSTEE KING: My feeling is if we shorten it by more than a half, I don't think it's
going to be very effective.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I tend to agree with you, Jim.
MR. ANDERSON: By the way, if it doesn't work, the regulatory response should be to
remove it.
TRUSTEE KING: It's a tough call. How do you want to handle it?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would recommend we approve it at 125 feet and they can always
come back to amend the permit on a later date.
TRUSTEE KING: 125 on each end? The area along the shore, too?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't have a problem along the shore going the full length and
giving them the option of putting it whatever they feel is appropriate. That's out of the
way, it's not impeding navigation, it doesn't have any negative environmental impact, so
would be inclined to agree with 250 feet along the shore. But the other one, 125, and if
it's not long enough, come back with an amendment with their permit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If this particular structure you are trying to encourage sand
trapping and such, is this something to consider it be constructed entirely of inert or
non-toxic materials so it would be a substrate for oysters or other things that would tend
to grow as opposed to sea choir or other products that would tend to be killing marine
life. I'm just wondering if this should be built with locust posts
MR. ANDERSON: Our thought was to use locust posts. That's exactly
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And cross members of either plastics or plastic lumber or
something like that.
MR. ANDERSON: We'd probably just use cedar. Because quite honestly it will be above
the water, so I'm not really worried about it. Like a cedar 2x4 would probably be easy to
install. Like I said, you really have to manage this. So you are sort of back-fiddling with it
at least once a year.
TRUSTEE KING: The drawings show six-inch timber posts.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. We envisioned locust posts.
TRUSTEE KING: All structure material will be untreated.
MR. ANDERSON: That's what we have to do.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As far as the structure, ostensibly, we could always hold the
provision to have it removed, if it was a problem with navigation. But otherwise, if it's
non-toxic, it may not serve a purpose for sand keeping that low but it may start growing
all kind of beneficial marine life and it may have a life after its intended use, but it
wouldn't have to be removed, possibly.
TRUSTEE KING: No other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve the application with a reduction in the length of the
westerly structure to be reduced from 250 feet to 125. And all materials are to be
untreated materials.
MS. HULSE: Are you going to condition the permit in any way to it being functional?
Approving functionality? Like requiring it to be inspected? If that's what your thought is,
Board of Trustees 56 March 20, 2013
you could put that in if you wanted to.
MR. ANDERSON: I don't think we would have an objection to that. It should be
inspected. And quite honestly, if it works and becomes a real inspection, you should
want to inspect it so it could be used in other places.
TRUSTEE KING: We could have a yearly inspection on it after it's completed.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Can't hurt.
TRUSTEE KING: So we reduced the westerly structure to 125 feet in length, all
non-treated materials and there will be a yearly inspection after the project is completed
to see how it is progressing.
MS. HULSE: To see how it's progressing or to make a decision it might be required to
be removed?
TRUSTEE KING: To see if it's working. If it's not working, it's to be removed. That's my
motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
25. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of ALAN GARMISE requests a
Wetland Permit to remove the existing damaged shed (1281 sq.ft.) And existing decking
(308± sq.ft.) Within the southern corner of the property along the shoreline and Great
Peconic Bay and reconstruct same further landward; the proposed reconstructed shed
will measure 120± sq.ft. And the proposed reconstructed deck will be 300± sq.ft.;
additionally, a proposed rock revetment will be installed along the embankment
measuring 100.0't and be comprised of 1-3 ton stone installed atop a bed of corestone
and filter cloth; proposed beach access stairs (4.0'x34.0') will be constructed from the
decking to the beach; also, 50t cubic yards of clean sand will be
deposited/graded/groomed behind the proposed revetment and planted with native
plantings (i.e., Cape American beach grass @ 1.0' o/c); finally, various storm-damaged
portions of the existing walk within the southwestern section of the property will be
repaired where deemed necessary. Located: 9980 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
This was a project that had come before us last month. We had tabled it, making
some recommendations for changes, and it's now back this month. The LWRP
coordinator found it to be consistent provided the Board determines the shed and deck
structures are located landward of top of bank and it's outside the AE flood zone. The
CAC resolved to support the application. The Board did go out and we looked at this in
the field and we saw that you had incorporated into this new proposal the ideas we had
provided to you last month, and that the shed has now been moved back from
essentially cantilevered over the beach or located over the beach back up on to, looks
like approximately the 15-foot contour line of the bank. And there is a proposed rock
revetment as was described last month down along the toe of the bank. So is there
anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. I really have
nothing to add other than we are not in a flood zone and these types of accessory
structures are not subject to flood plain regulations, in any event, because you can't get
flood insurance for them.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I thought it was a good improvement from what we had seen. I was
real happy with it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. I think it's a great improvement. All I would ask is when
you are putting the shed in, is to try to remove as few trees as possible. I know there are
a lot of cedars in that area and obviously some will be required to be removed for this,
but I would ask during construction to remove as few as possible. It would be beneficial
Board of Trustees 57 March 20, 2013
to the property owner.
MR. ANDERSON: Right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anybody else in the audience wish to comment on this
application?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Suffolk
Environmental on behalf of Alan Garmise as it has been deemed consistent under the
LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number 26, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting, Inc., on behalf of JOAN L. COOKE requests a Wetland Permit to elevate the
existing single-family dwelling and attendant decking (1,0951 sq.ft.); extend the existing
front steps by 2.0' towards Bay Avenue; add additional stair treads to the existing deck
steps; and deposit/grade 200± cubic yards of clean fill thereon; the dwelling is to be
elevated 3.1' to result in a first floor elevation of 8.0'. Located: 2205 Bay Avenue, East
Marion.
The project is determined to be consistent under the LWRP. The CAC applauds
the proactive actions of the applicant to elevate the dwelling. The Trustees at site
inspection were pleased to see they were raising the dwelling. It's fairly distant to the
edge of the vegetated wetlands of Marion Lake, and the proposed grading is as gentle
as would permit for the sized lot. We didn't have a problem with it. And there are
drywells proposed to meet the Chapter 236 requirements as per code. Is there anyone
here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant
Cooke. I don't have anything further to add, but I'm here to answer any further questions
you may have. I can tell you the house was flooded, sheetrock damage, insulation
damage. It was flooded above the existing first floor. That's what's prompted us to
elevate the house.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess the only question I have is because there is an
elevation raise, the owners consider the possibility of any retaining walls to help adjust
the elevation to the side property lines.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, there is a small retaining wall on the east, the rear property line.
And we are going to encircle this with hay bales and we'll make sure it's fully stable
before we removed the hay bales. But the budget is very limited here. And we can't
really afford to encircle the whole property with a retaining wall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The soils are modestly sandy there and I know there is a
transition from very much like beach sand at Rabbit Lane. What do they propose to
stabilize it with?
MR. ANDERSON: Just turf grass.
MR. BREDEMEYER: Any other questions? It's pretty straightforward.
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
Board of Trustees 58 March 20, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES)
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 27, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of
MELINDA JAQUES requests a Wetland Permit to remove the dilapidated remains of the
original bluff stairway along the bluff within the northern portion of the property; and
construct a new bluff stairway within the same approximate location of the original
stairway, in order to provide shoreline access; the proposed bluff stairway will measure
4.0' wide x 270.0't long (linear length)/287.0'± long (total length) and be comprised of a
proposed top platform (4.0' wide x 8.0' long); a proposed top walkway (4.0' wide x 16.0'
long) and proposed steps (4.0' wide x 263.0' long ± total); the proposed bluff stairway
will be supported by timber posts (6.0"x6.0") and be situated at 8.0' o/c; cross-bracing
will be utilized additionally to further provide structural support to the proposed bluff
stairway.
Located: 3502 Private Road #13 (off Ruth Road), Mattituck.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC voted to support this
application, suggesting the erosion control devices on the stair and sensitivity given to
existing vegetation. The Trustees field inspection on the 13th found this to be
straighfforward and okay in all aspects. Is there anyone here to speak to this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, on behalf of the
applicant. It's pretty clear everyone is in agreement to rebuild the stairs where they once
were because that involves the least amount of disturbance to the bluff. So that's what
we have tried to do. There will be some pruning, obviously, in some places. But there is
an actual pathway that this stairway followed.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So observed. Anyone else to speak to this application?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We love this structure. We heard the history.
MR. ANDERSON: You did. I don't even know what the history is.
TRUSTEE KING: It was a lookout for rumrunners.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And hence the reason for the towers, so they could signal the
ships coming down the Sound. It's amazing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing none, 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 as submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you all, very much. Have a good evening.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 28, Barbara Laskin on behalf of LUCIEN BOHBOT
requests a Wetland Permit to add 758sq.ff. (Or less) of living space to the existing house
consisting of a proposed addition on southern side of the property, adjoining the existing
one-story structure, and another addition on the north west corner of the existing
structure; installation of new septic system; installation of gutters to leaders to drywells;
remove existing bilco doors and stairs; construct new stairs to a new cellar of 100sq.ft.
Board of Trustees 59 March 20, 2013
For mechanical equipment; remove part of the existing deck on the south side of house
along with access stairs and affix new stairs to remaining deck on the south side; the
existing walkway and stairs to the entrance of the house would be removed and a new
entrance walkway would be added along with new stone steps about 4' wide; legalize
the existing one-story frame structure, and existing deck and stairs on east side of
house. Located: 480 North Oakwood Road, Laurel.
The CAC did resolve to support the application with the condition there is a line of
staked hay bales seaward of the house and a 15x30 non-turf at the southeast corner of
the property at the creek's edge. The LWRP coordinator has found it to be consistent
with the LWRP although asks us to consider the establishment of a vegetated buffer
seaward of the ten-foot contour. Also finds it to be inconsistent. The further the proposal
to legalize the existing deck and stairs on the east side of the house is recommended as
inconsistent with the LWRP because they were not constructed pursuant to Southold
Board of Trustees permit, and 275. I guess it was not a permitted structure previously.
TRUSTEE KING: It might not have been in our jurisdiction back then.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right. When we were out in the field, overall, we didn't have a
problem with the project or the extension. Although we were possibly recommending a
non-disturbance buffer from the eight-foot contour towards the water with an allowance
for afour-foot wide path and putting a hay bale and silt fence at the ten-foot contour.
With that, is there anyone here who would like to speak to the application?
MS. LASKIN: Hi, I'm Barbara Laskin, on behalf of the owner. I don't think I really have
anything to add but I probably would require some clarification. I don't think I quite
understand exactly what you are saying. But is it going to be in writing so I could take it
to others who would? You are asking for some sort of I'm not quite sure where these
buffers are or what exactly you would require us to do. I'm sure we'd be pleased to do it,
if I just understood what it was.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: First off, our recommendation of having a hay bale line and silt
fence at the ten-foot contour. When you look at the survey, the contour lines, and
ten-foot, along the whole length of the contour line across the property, we'd ask for a
silt fence and hay bale line to keep any runoff or debris from the construction from
getting down into the wetlands.
MS. LASKIN: Oh, that would just be during construction?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MS. LASKIN: Oh, I thought you meant permanently.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, no.
MS. LASKIN: Okay, that seems perfectly logical.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As far as anon-disturbance buffer, we were suggesting at the
eight-foot contour toward the water, that be non-disturbance, allowing for afour-foot
wide path to get to the water.
MS. LASKIN: Understood.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And in fact based upon what I remember seeing out there, it
shouldn't be a problem. I think it pretty much already exists that way. You can see all
down in this area pretty much seemed non-disturbed as it was. We just want to stipulate
as a Board we have been doing that more and more where we see the opportunity.
MS. LASKIN: Okay. And I think you made mention of the existing house and deck,
correct?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The LWRP referenced that.
MS. LASKIN: So when I came into the Trustees office and asked for some assistance,
because I did this myself, and it's not easy to do this by yourself, as you can see from
the consultant, it was suggested for me to ask for this because the previous owner I
think apparently did not. But I think it was pre-your jurisdiction. Am I understanding you
Board of Trustees 60 March 20, 2013
correctly?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
MS. LASKIN: So I put it in because I was requested to.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That is in fact what we would request. The Board and the
clerk regularly requests that. It appears based upon the age and construction that it
predated the jurisdiction of the Trustees under the Town's wetland ordinance, which has
grown a bit throughout the years.
MS. LASKIN: So would there be any
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Not unless there is something in the file review that is going
on presently, it would generally not be an impediment to formalizing or getting any
inclusion in the permit. So as you asked for, it would be appropriate for the Board to vote
on that.
MS. LASKIN: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This allows us to acknowledge that it's there, put it on a permit, so
you can address it in the future.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Seemingly, it's consistent with our current construction
guidelines, it's not over a bluff, it's not cantilevered over the marsh or wetlands so that it
is not at issue as to how it's built.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Just for the record, we'll be changing the description to include,
rather than have it say affix new stairs, we are actually going to put a dimension on that.
It will be affixing a new five-foot wide stairs for the remaining deck on the south side.
MS. LASKIN: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what's on the survey.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or questions from the Board? We are
comfortable with those contours in what we discussed?
(No response).
Any comments or questions from anybody else?
(No response).
In that case 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
following changes: Adding the dimension of a five-foot wide stairs to the remaining deck
on the south side; the addition of a hay bale and silt fence at the ten-foot contour; and
creating anon-disturbance buffer from the eight-foot contour toward the water. And
you'll need to submit a revised set of plans. And with these changes it will be consistent
with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. LASKIN: Thank you. I hate to keep you any further but may I ask one follow-up
question?
TRUSTEE KING: Sure.
MS. LASKIN: Thank you. When you say to submit revised plans, I'm assuming this will
be in writing so I can see how we are to do that, or not?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No.
MS. LASKIN: Okay, and who do I submit them to? Resubmit them to the Trustees
again?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MS. LASKIN: And would this require us to come back in 30 days?
Board of Trustees 61 March 20, 2013
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No. You just want to depict on it the conditions that we
voted, the ten-foot hay bale line and the eight-foot non-disturbance.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Once you submit the revised plans, we'll look at them to make
sure they've complied with what we've approved tonight. Then at that point we would
sign a permit to be released.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll tell you what, we can draw it in on here. It's just simple to draw a
hay bale line.
MS. LASKIN: I'm just so afraid I didn't write down what you've instructed. I thought there
would be Minutes ahd they would be submitted to me.
MS. HULSE: Basically you submit the minor changes and the permit will be released.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll do it here. It will be in the permit and we'll write it on here and
that will be it.
I'll make a motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
R pecttully submitted by,
James F. King, President
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED
s~ Pf
S
ESP
1 6 20,1,3;>~ '