HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-05/15/2013 James F. King, President O~~~F SDUryOI Town Hall Annex
Bob Ghosio, Jr., Vice-President ~ ~ 54375 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Dave Bergen ~ ~ Southold, New York 11971-0959
John Bredemeyer G
• ~O Telephone (631) 765-1892
Michael J. Domino O Fax (631) 765-6641
~y00UNTl
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED
ia:
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES SEP /1-j~
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold T~olwn Clerk
Minutes
Wednesday, May 15, 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, June 12, 2013, at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, June 19, 2013, at 5:30 PM
WORKSESSION: Wednesday, June 19, 2013, at 5:00 PM
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of February 20, 2013, and April 17, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: Good afternoon, everyone, welcome to our May
meeting. We have a fairly busy agenda so we'll try and move
things along as rapidly as we can.
I would like to set the date for the next field inspection, Wednesday,
June 12th, at eight o'clock in the morning.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Our next meeting, do you want to start earlier or
Board of Trustees 2 May 15, 2013
do you want to go back to six o'clock? Keep it early?
(Inaudible)
TRUSTEE KING: All right, how about if we see if we can possibly
set our next meeting, will be June 17th, that's a Monday, at
5:30, with a work session at five o'clock.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is that a motion?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We'll have to notice that so everyone will know.
MS. CANTRELL: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve the Minutes of February 20th and
Aprif 3rd.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for April 2013. A check for
$13,921.51 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the
following applications more fully described in Section VI Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, May 15, 2013, are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
SEQRA:
TRUSTEE KING: They are listed here on the agenda.
Celeste Theophilos -SCTM# 51-4-9
Jonathan Becker & Ann Marie Greco -SCTM# 128-4-17
New Suffolk Waterfront Fund -SCTM# 117-8-18
Richard Frizzi -SCTM# 31-18-15
Dean Stefanides -SCTM# 31-18-17
James & Nancy Clous -SCTM# 53-6-18
Joseph J. D'Angelo -SCTM# 115-11-20
Kathleen K. Cooper -SCTM# 86-6-9
Kathleen & David Kilbride -SCTM# 118-4-14.1
Richard & Susan Meyerholz -SCTM# 53-6-23
Margaret Pisani -SCTM# 126-11-9.1
Goose Neck Property Owners Association -SCTM# 76-3-15.1 &27
Joseph LaVecchia -SCTM# 17-2-1.5
Board of Trustees 3 May 15, 2013
Laura A. Yantsos -SCTM# 53-6-11
Steven & Yvette Einczig -SCTM# 70-4-11
Charles Rodin -SCTM# 103-10-16
Arthur Skelskie & Nan Molofsky -SCTM# 111-14-36.8
John Montoya -SCTM# 90-2-18
Revocable Trust F/B/O Ellen M. Violett -SCTM# 90-2-17
Marilyn Angelson -SCTM# 123-7-13.1
James & Kathleen Neefus -SCTM# 81-3-15.2
Ann Amiaga -SCTM# 135-3-17.1
Susan Oliveira -SCTM# 135-3-15.1
Geoffrey Pazzanese -SCTM# 135-3-8
John & Robin lovino -SCTM# 37-4-3
Richard Antoniello -SCTM# 122-9-7.20
Mildred David - 137-1-3.1
Robert J. & Bonita M. Schwan -SCTM# 77-1-9
Rochelle Byrne -SCTM# 122-4-43
Murray Gaylord -SCTM# 116-4-20.1
Lois T. Anderson Personal Residential Trust -SCTM# 70-4-45.5
Eugene L. Daneri -SCTM# 123-6-14
TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a motion to approve those?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Under resolutions and administrative permits, we have a number of
them. What we try and do, if they are all fairly simple and are not controversial, and
without any problems, we try and group them all together and approve them at once, to
move things along a little quicker, rather than each one individually.
So I would make a motion to approve numbers one through seven. They are
listed as follows:
Number one, Scott Albrecht on behalf of ALBERT LEUTWYLER 8 DIANA DELUCIA
request an Administrative Permit to install a monolithic septic tank in same location as
existing; replace and relocate three 2'x8' leaching pools further landward of septic tank.
Located: 4573 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck.
Number two, JAMES BAKER III requests an Administrative Permit for aTen-Year
Maintenance Permit to hand-cut the Common Reed (Phragmites australis) to 12" in
height by hand on an as needed basis; and to trim dead wood from trees by hand as
needed. Located: 1475 Grathwohl Road, New Suffolk.
Number three, THOMAS APREA requests an Administrative Permit to replace the
existing t80' fence along the property line and ±80' fence along edge of driveway.
Located: 500 Beach Court, East Marion.
Number four, HUGH SWITZER requests an Administrative Permit to install an 8' high
deer fence along the side yards and rear of property. Located: 3180 Mill Lane, Peconic.
Number five, Ratsey Construction on behalf of PAMELA J. WILLIAMS REVOCABLE
LIVING TRUST requests an Administrative Permit to replace the deck boards on the
existing 475sq.ft. deck and 4'x4' staircase to ground; and to construct a new 2'x20'
staircase on southerly side of deck. Located: 1110 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold.
Board of Trustees 4 May 15, 2013
Number six, JOHN LIEGEY requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 3'x3'
platform with stairs to dwelling; for the existing outdoor shower; and place
boulders along the side yard property line. Located: 2395 Bay Avenue, East Marion.
Number seven, TODD FREED requests an Administrative Permit for regular
maintenance of established foot path which includes spreading out woodchips along the
path. Located: 12400 New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE KING: And the same thing for applications for
extensions, transfers and administrative amendments. I would
like to lump together numbers one through five, seven through
ten and number 12. They are listed as follows:
Number one, 1300 PROPERTIES, LLC requests aOne-Year Extension
to Wetland Permit #7590 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7590C, as
issued on July 20, 2011. Located: 1300 Leeton Drive, Southold.
Number two, En-Consultants on behalf of ALFONSO & ANTONIA ROMANO
request aOne-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7589 and Coastal
Erosion Permit #7589C, as issued on July 20, 2011. Located: 1380
Leeton Drive, Southold.
Number three, Docko, Inc., on behalf of LEONARD ORR requests the
Last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7315 and Coastal
Erosion Permit #7315C, as issued on May 19, 2010, and Amended on
May 16, 2012, and Amended again on September 19, 2012. Located:
Private Road, off Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island.
Number four, ROSE L. MILAZZO REVOCABLE TRUST requests the Last
One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7054, as issued on May 19,
2010, and Amended on November 17, 2010. Located: 1165 Island
View Lane, Greenport.
Number five, Garrett A. Strang, Architect on behalf of RENATE
HERTEL requests the Last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit
#7330, as issued on June 16, 2010, and Amended on December 14,
2011. Located: 205 Cedar Point Drive West, Southold.
Number seven, Mark Schwartz, Architect on behalf of RAYMOND
STRONG requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#8107 to alter the approved 4' high fencing to go continuously
along the side yard property lines up to the concrete sea wall.
Located: 2205 Bayview Avenue, Southold.
Number eight, THOMAS APREA requests an Administrative Amendment
to Wetland Permit #8085 and Coastal Erosion Permit #8085C to
replace 42' of existing bulkhead located on inlet to Spring
Pond. Located: 500 Beach Court, East Marion.
Number nine, ALI REZA HOMAYUNI requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit #7896 to add a ±5'x4' platform and a
±5'6"x4' platform to proposed staircase to beach. Located: 22195
Soundview Avenue, Southold.
Number ten, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of DAVID M. DALY 8
Board of Trustees 5 May 15, 2013
OTHERS requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #
8019 to reduce the length of the deck from 78'6" to 30' and
increase depth to 10'. Located: 625 Town Harbor Terrace,
Southold.
And number 12, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of 430 WSD LLC c/o
PETER COSOLA requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit #8072 to replace the approved 200 sq. ft. deck with a 200
sq. ft. stone patio in same location. Located: 430 West Shore
Drive, Southold.
And I would make a motion to approve those.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: We'll start with number six, Latham Sand & Gravel
on behalf of MARILYN SFERRAZZA requests a Transfer of Wetland
Permit #1614 from Eugene Bolter to Marilyn Sferrazza, as issued
on March 4, 1981; and for an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit #1614 for the existing 3'x72' fixed catwalk; 3'x14' ramp;
10'3"x16'3" floating dock with four 8" diameter batter
piles. Located: 1120 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue.
This was a transfer, I believe. I think it's the float we
have the issue with. The float is 10x16. The issue with this
one was the float does not meet the code. It's oversized.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And it's brand new. It looks brand new, anyway.
TRUSTEE KING: It looks fairly new.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is that more than 120 square feet?
TRUSTEE KING: Right. The original permit was fora 6x16 float.
So something has happened in between the original permit and
today, where a fairly new one has been installed, and it's quite
a bit larger. I would make a motion that we approve this with
the stipulation that the float size is reduced to no more than
120 square feet, which meets the code.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When does it have to be done by?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: How about July 1st.
TRUSTEE KING: Let's give them 60 days. Is that fair enough?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do we have to make a motion for that?
MS. HULSE: If you would like to.
TRUSTEE KING: Included in this motion will be a timeframe of 60
days to get that float reduced so it meets the current code.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So seconded.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: The next one, number 11, Patricia C. Moore, Esq.,
on behalf of WEST LAKE ASSOCIATION, INC., requests an
Administrative Amendment to modify the method of dredging to be
by mechanical equipment (such as, but not limited to, excavator
and front loader) from adjacent upland or barge; and dredge
Board of Trustees 6 May 15, 2013
material shall be deposited at an approved upland site or on a
barge for transport to a DEC and Trustees approved location.
Located: West Lake Channel, Southold.
1 really don't know what we are going to do with this.
MS. MOORE: Can I help you with anything?
MS. HULSE: This is not a public hearing.
MS. MOORE: I know. I'm here to answer any questions.
TRUSTEE KING: They are seeking to change the method of dredging
and also the disposal site. They have a permit modification from
DEC for the use of a clamshell or closed-bucket equipment. But
this says nothing about --the material replaced to upland
portion of 250 Midway Road prior to being removed. They want to
approve an upland location.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's the location in the original permit.
MS. MOORE: Angel Shores is there now getting approval for the
placement of the spoils on their piece. So I actually have a
survey that I could provide for you from Angel Shores. Angel
Shores has an emergency permit from you guys but they needed to
make sure the DEC, my advice was let's just make sure the DEC
has no issues with replacement of the spoils there. They
actually, we actually got an emergency permit for that
purpose excuse me, Angel Shores got an emergency permit to
place the spoils there but my concern was that the DEC was
giving me inconsistent E-mails back whether or not it was
permitted under emergency permit or it was not. So rather than
take that chance where so many people and such expensive
equipment that will come from Port Jefferson, Mr. Saparita
(sic), who is doing the Angel Shores application, went and met
with Matt Penski, and they are actually reviewing that as a
disposal site as we speak. They are supposed to get back to us
this week.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we did an emergency permit to place fill
there but it was not necessarily from West Lake. We didn't know
where the source of material was coming from.
MS. MOORE: Yes, what happened is they got the emergency permit
first and then they contacted us because the material actually
that landed in our inlet came from Angel Shores. It's only
about 150 feet away, so.
MS. HULSE: This is not a public hearing
MS. MOORE: Lori, I'm just trying to answer questions.
MS. HULSE: I understand what you are doing. But, legally,
obviously there was a public hearing on this. So it's really not
appropriate, as you know, as an attorney, to then open it up for
discussion without noticing the neighbors.
MS. MOORE: No, it says to an approved site and I left it open
that way because until the DEC approves Angel Shores Beach as an
approved site, we can't relocate it there. So the equipment
that is coming from Miller Environmental is a barge that takes
the material, de-waters it on the barge and then takes it over
to the beach and spreads it, and it dries on the beach. So, um,
that's the procedure that is typically used when relocating that
Board of Trustees 7 May 15, 2013
type of material.
TRUSTEE KING: Does anybody have an issue?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't have an issue with the method. It's
standard.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The method, no, but I was under the impression
the spoil site was going to be next to that house.
MS. MOORE: It avoids a lot of expense.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Pat, time out.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So for us to approve another site without
noticing the neighbors to that site
MS. MOORE: Angel Shores?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Whatever. Those are the people asking for it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think, for myself, the Angel Shores site was a
site that we had approved by emergency permit to bring in fill
and place there. So the changes now, fill coming from the
entrance to West Lake being de-watered then being placed at
Angel Shores, I don't have an issue with that at all. I just
don't know legally if we need permission from Angel Shores to do
that. In other words, if Angel Shores gives us a letter agreeing
to it, I have no problem. It's just taking material from one
place and putting it to another that is being de-watered. I have
no problem with that. I just want to make sure we are not giving
a permit to place material on property belonging to Angel Shores
without written approval for that. In they have that, that's great.
MS. MOORE: I have that. I have that in my office, I didn't
realize you would need that. But they actually applied with a
map for DEC that shows the distance from this site to place it
on to the Angel Shores. So I could provide that for you
tomorrow, if you would like, so.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to do an administrative amendment or
full amendment?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The only way to have a hearing is do a full
amendment, right?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, I have no problem with approving this and
just not granting the permit or not releasing the permit is a
better word --until we get the letter from Angel Shores. That
would enable us to move on this tonight, and have the letter
come in tomorrow and we can release the permit upon receipt of
that letter.
MS. MOORE: That's not a problem. I know they are actively
looking for it.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we've heard enough.
MS. MOORE: If DEC doesn't allow us to use Angel Shores, we'll be
putting it on our upland site and
MS. HULSE: I would recommend this be re-noticed at this point.
I don't know how much clearer I could make that. This was the
subject of a public hearing and now you are taking testimony on
an amendment.
MS. MOORE: I'm merely answering questions. We are trying to
accomplish this before June 1st, so.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There are too many ifs here. If this, then
Board of Trustees 8 May 15, 2013
that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are lumping conditions upon conditions
here.
MS. MOORE: There are no conditions. All I'm saying is we need a
different method, it's a simple amendment, and all I'm saying to
you is that Angel Shores wants our material, and it has to be
dredged by June 1st. So you can imagine the timeframe and the
pressure we are under right now because we are trying to
coordinate with the DEC, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could, Pat
TRUSTEE KING: We have had six months to get this to
MS. MOORE: We have been working on it for six months. I have to
tell you, they have checked with every contractor, and the
material from Sandy caused the first permit to create problems.
It's not the way maintenance dredging will continue in a
normal course in the future. It's this particular first time
dredge has to deal with the storm damage, the material has come
from Angel Shores, from the water.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could, at this point, I would like to make
a motion. I would like to make a motion to approve this
administrative amendment subject to the actual permit will not
be released until we receive a written letter from Angel Shores
giving permission for material to be placed at their location.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
MS. MOORE: I have no problem with that. My question is, if Angel
Shores doesn't become a site, the end site, we'll be using the
original permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It will go back to the original motion.
MS. MOORE: Exactly, that's all I want to clarify. Thank you.
(Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer,
aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Ghosio, nay).
TRUSTEE KING: For the record, Trustee Ghosio voted nay.
TRUSTEE KING: Number 13, MARY HUETTENMOSER requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7914 for the installation
of a 14,OOOIb. elevator lift attached to bulkhead for personal boat.
Located: 2235 Cedar Lane, East Marion.
This is an administrative amendment to a wetland permit for
a 14,000 elevator with a boat lift. Unfortunately, boat lifts
are prohibited by code, so I don't think we can move on this
one. So I guess I would make a motion to deny this application
based on the fact that it is prohibited by code. Denied without
prejudice.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 9 May 15, 2013
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE KING: We'll get into the amendments now. These are
public hearings we are getting into now. If you have anything to
say about it, please come up to the microphone and identify
yourself. If you have a difficult name, please spell it so Wayne
can get it on the record, and try and keep your comments limited
to five minutes or less because we have quite a few here to go
through. And as you can see, sometimes we get a little carried
away.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Under public hearings, number one, under
amendments, K. Russell Glover, Architect, P.C. on behalf of
CELESTE THEOPHILOS requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7615
and Coastal Erosion Permit #7516C to rebuild the existing t2'-4' High x t80'
long retaining wall. Located: 20365 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
The Trustees went out, we took a look at this and obviously
it is in disrepair. It has this retaining spoil and vegetation
from the neighbor's side. The only question we had was whether
or not or what the material will be for the building of the
wall. As you can see it's currently a block wall.
The Conservation Advisory Council supported the application
and with the suggestion that they install and maintain a
non-turf buffer. LWRP finds it to be consistent with LWRP.
When we issued the permit back in 2011, we did have a condition in
that permit that all disturbed areas on the bank would be
planted with native species. And I believe that work was done.
Is there anybody here who would like to speak for this application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Seeing nobody, does anybody from the Board have
any comments to make?
(No response).
Well, we don't know what the construction of the wall will be,
what kind of materials they will be using. Since there is nobody
here to speak to it, do you want to describe what the materials
will be or just put in a stipulation what they won't be?
TRUSTEE KING: I would assume they'll rebuild as a block wall,
but you know what happens when you assume.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Non-treated material?
TRUSTEE KING: It could be replaced with block or untreated
material.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, I would think based on what we saw where
they took that and they covered that, they covered the vinyl
bulkheading all the way down the bluff with these wood
coverings, I would assume it's going to be matching something to
that. So we could just make it non-treated material.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Or block.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Or block, yes. I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 10 May 15, 2013
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application
with the stipulation that the wall be built either using cement
block as it is now or other types of non-treated material.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number two, En-Consultants on behalf of JONATHAN
BECKER & ANN MARIE GRECO request a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#363 from Jacqueline Grassi to Jonathan Becker & Ann Marie
Greco, as issued on October 30, 1986; and for an Amendment to
Wetland Permit #363 to construct approximately 66 linear feet of
vinyl bulkhead in-place of existing timber bulkhead; reconstruct
existing ±3'x28' walkway and 7'x8' deck behind bulkhead;
reconstruct existing 3'x13' steps with platform to beach;
maintain existing 3'x28' stairway with landings down embankment;
and backfill/re-nourish storm eroded embankment landward of
bulkhead with approximately 150 cubic yards of clean fill to be
planted with native vegetation and maintained as a non-turf
buffer. Located: 4718 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
This was found consistent and inconsistent. I assume there
are two parts to this. The rebuilding of the bulkhead and clean
fill on the plantings was found consistent. The proposed 3x20
walkway, deck behind the bulkhead and the steps to beach, with
landings, is inconsistent. That's the findings of the LWRP.
They were constructed without a Board of Trustees review or
permit. That's because they preexisted when we had jurisdiction
there. He finds the proposal to reconstruct the walkway, the
deck behind the bulkhead is not a permissible action.
This is where we have he's considering the deck being
associated with the stairs. It's another one of those tough
situations. The CAC recommends to support the recommendation.
The bulkhead to be no higher than the adjacent bulkhead and a
ten-foot non-turf buffer at the top of the bank.
We all went out and looked at this. I don't think we had
any issues with this. I looked at this myself. I didn't have any
issues and I just want to maintain the naturally vegetated area
that's there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, looking at the plans, it looks like the
deck is associated with the stairs to the beach, and the code
says 100-square feet. So that's probably where the
inconsistency came from.
TRUSTEE KING: 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. We had actually originally submitted this under
their Hurricane Sandy permit, but the previously issued permit
had never been transferred to the current owners. So the
application before you is to transfer the rather old Trustee
permit for the bulkhead and modify it to include the
Board of Trustees 11 May 15, 2013
construction of the newly proposed bulkhead in place of the old
and the structures behind the bulkhead.
It is pretty straightforward. I'm a little confused on the
consistency issue, because there is a three-foot landing and stairs that
lead down to the base of the bulkhead and then there is a three-foot wide
walkway that runs along the bulkhead and then off to the east closer to the
Supka (sic) property and that private road is a seven by eight deck. So even
if it were associated with the stairway, it was my understanding that now
your limitation for that is 10x10. So it would be less than
that, regardless. So I don't, to me, having a walkway along the
back of the bulkhead and a platform and steps to the beach is
something that is allowed under code and approved by your Board
routinely. I don't know why it would be recommended by Mark to
be inconsistent.
TRUSTEE KING: I think he's taking all the square footage and he
added it up.
MR. HERRMANN: Well, creative, but not really right.
TRUSTEE KING: In my mind, I always associated the platforms and
stairs as part of the stairway itself. Most those are down
bluffs where it's along the bluff and you have to have--
MR. HERRMANN: Right. You could do that, I mean the way the code
had been written when it was, I forget, it was 32-square feet or
something, it was per platform. Your Board never said, okay,
well, there is four 32-square foot platforms, that exceeds 100
square feet so you can't have a fifth platform. You always
regulated it on the size of a specific platform or deck. So here
we are under the 10x10 and that deck is clearly not associated
with the stairway.
TRUSTEE KING: It's physically connected, that's why.
MR. HERRMANN: There is a stairway that leads to a walkway that
leads to a deck.
TRUSTEE KING: If you put a gap there, then it would be a
separate deck, realistically.
MR. HERRMANN: Which would be silly. As I said, that would be
creative and ironically inconsistent with the way your Board has
regulated for as long as I can remember.
TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this. 1 don't have any issues with it
at all. Just that the whole bluff area be maintained as a
vegetated area.
MR. HERRMANN: We show that it's the same as we have done with
other properties along that strip. This is probably the eighth
or ninth I have had down in that stirp. And that's what you have
been doing is just having that area between the bulkhead and top
of the bank remain naturally vegetated, and that's what they
would do here. I mean even the stairway and landing here is
really in good shape. We are not even planning on doing
anything I mean, 1 would like to see the stairway reflected
in the permit so they don't run into that issue in the future
where it's an unpermitted structure that they can't maintain.
But I don't think there is any major work going on the bank face
now anyway. You know, they'll have to restore whatever is
Board of Trustees 12 May 15, 2013
disturbed in the bulkhead replacement.
TRUSTEE KING: To address the inconsistency, 1 simply don't
consider that small deck part of that stairway, in my mind. If
that was in the middle of the stairs coming down, it would be a
different story.
I would make a motion close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I would make a motion to approve this application
as it has been submitted and I find that the small platform, the
8x7 platform to the east is really not part of the stairway. I
would move this to be consistent with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Pat McIntyre on behalf of the NEW
SUFFOLK WATERFRONT FUND requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit
#7950 to increase the amount of bulkhead to be replaced to ±395
linear feet and raised 2' above present level; increase the
amount of backfill to 450 cubic yards; install ±270' of ±6' wide
walkway parallel to easterly bulkhead using untreated materials,
and with walkway pilings installed 8' o/c; and install temporary
4' to 6' high fencing to secure the storm eroded area along
easterly bulkhead for a total of approximately 162 linear feet.
Located: 650 First Street, New Suffolk.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be
consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to
support the recommendation --with the recommendation that the
site plan be updated to reflect recent changes. So that was the
recommendation of the Conservation Advisory Council. I did go
out and looked at this myself. Is there anybody here to speak on
behalf of this application?
MS. MCINTYRE: Yes, Pat McIntyre and Greg Rivera. Basically, in
the November meeting you approved plus or minus 224 feet of new
bulkheading at two feet higher. At that point in time, when we
submitted that, that was pre-Sandy. we submitted it in October.
The walkway that we are asking for, we are asking to increase
that for all of our bulkheading now because of the damage. The
walkway that we are asking for is a combination of replacing a
prior walkway and replacing our 18-and-a-half foot wide deck
that we had behind the Galley-Ho. So we'll have a walkway along
there instead of a large deck. And that's kind of it. It's all
replacement activities. The reason the cubic yards had to go up
was because our original filing was pre-Sandy and this is
post-Sandy.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This also looks like it matches the plan of a
previously submitted application that the Board went out and
reviewed and had no problem with several years ago. We had
Board of Trustees 13 May 15, 2013
recommended at that time to raise the bulkhead up, which is what
is happening here. And you are just increasing the length of
the bulkhead to what had been, also had been discussed several
years ago.
I think what the CAC was referring to was this specific
site plan you had submitted had the restaurant in its former
location rather than the present location. And I don't see any
need to update this site plan for this amendment to the permit.
MS. MCINTYRE: Yes, we know we have to come back later. One thing
I did on the map we submitted, the temporary fencing that will
be just while we are repairing the bulkheading, I did not give
the contractor enough room to work. So is it possible for me to
give you a new map of where that would be? Because he really
needs I drew kind of diagonal and he would not really have
access there to be able to get in and out safely. So it's a
temporary fence while this is going on, until it's completed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could come on up and show me the exact
area of the fencing.
MS. MCINTYRE: Okay. I did a few copies of this. Here, right
There (indicating).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Perfect.
MS. MCINTYRE: It's a temporary phase one fence that basically
goes west of the old Galley-Ho position, giving about 60 feet for
him to bring in equipment. Because now we'll be doing the work
from an upland approach and not from the water. Then the fence
moves over to the north part. It can either be, whether we do
poles in the ground or if it's, if it doesn't have to go to
Trustees, we can do weighted stanchions.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: A question I have, for the temporary fencing for
phase two, how does that impact your parking area there?
MS. MCINTYRE: It would take part of the parking area for
approximately a month or so while he does that work. It sort of
cuts in the middle of the parking area, but since there is
nothing down there, we don't have use for that part of the
parking area.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I guess my only concern with that is if there
was any type of events planned during that period of time and
parking had been eliminated, you could see where there would be
an obvious problem.
MS. MCINTYRE: Knowing it would be under construction we only did
the Memorial Day weekend event and nothing else on the property
for the rest of the year.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So there would not be any events taking place at
the site while this project is being done?
MS. MCINTYRE: No.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience that wants
to comment on this application?
MR. HARKOFF: Dennis Harkoff, Legends Restaurant. My concern is,
I guess it's been approved for the two feet already, right? But
the dirt they'll bring in, whatever that is, the cubic yards,
the fill, how far out is that going to come from the dock? I
Board of Trustees 14 May 15, 2013
mean any dirt you put over there is making water go another
direction. And you know what my concerns are from Legends
Restaurant. So, I can understand, I don't know, the two feet, I
don't know if it helps us or doesn't help us, if it helps them
or doesn't help them, or vice versa, I don't have any clue on
that. I'm not an engineer. But filling in more dirt over there,
bringing in more soil, makes water come our way. And as you know,
we are the lowest building on the block. Since Summer Girl. So those
are my concerns. And the fence, I understand now, with this conversation,
that's temporary. That's okay. Sometimes these things don't go away either.
As long as it's going to go away, for the view. It sounds like it is going to
go away, so I have no problem with that. But dirt is a problem. And that,
also, do you have a picture?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I only have a picture of that building. That's
all I have.
MR. HARKOFF: You know when you come down toward Captain Marty's
Dave knows, all of you probably do, then it cuts over to the
building of Phil's, the fishing station, that corner is the
major corner for small nor'easters.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MR. HARKOFF: You can't see it there. But the water just comes
through that corner. Is there any way, I guess you have
permission from the other property owner, but to block off that
corner somehow?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let me try to address three points now. From
what I hear, first off, the raising of the bulkhead, when we had
recommended that a couple of years ago, had to be at least a
couple of years ago, we recommended when this bulkhead be
replaced to be raised, to help prevent the flooding that comes
from the bay into that area. Because we do recognize in many
storms where water topped over that bulkhead and flooded out
First Street. So we thought raising that bulkhead would assist
with that.
With the concern about flooding due to bringing in fill,
the applicant will have to comply with Chapter 236 which is the
Storm Water Runoff Code of the Town of Southold. That code
states that all water will be retained on the property. So if as
a result of this there is natural occurring events, in other
words not major storm events but natural occurring events, there
cannot be water flowing from the property on to First Street.
It must be contained on the property. That's under town code.
Obviously in the event of a major storm there is nothing anybody
can do about that, and flooding will happen regardless.
MR. HARKOFF: Exactly.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: With regard to the third point you are talking
about, the northeast corner of
MR. HARKOFF: I guess it's the northwest corner, actually.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You're right, thank you. It's northwest. I gave
up my sailing days. It happens. I'm not sure, you know, for the
applicant, if the applicant would consider some type of
retaining wall in that area, again, to help keep water on the
Board of Trustees 15 May 15, 2013
property.
MR. HARKOFF: Well, the dock that they are going to raise comes
down to a certain point and ends. The problem is you are leaving
an opening will go on to another person's property. I don't know
how to address that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We can't require the applicant to do something
that is on somebody else's property. The owner of Captain
Marty's, that's something that you can certainly approach him on
and see if he would be willing to do something and maybe there
could be a joint effort between New Suffolk waterfront, the
owners of Captain Marty's, and, I'm sorry, I don't know who the
owner is, it says here Phil Loria, but I know he sold it. But
the owners of Captain Marty's can get together and maybe come up
with a plan to address that. But we couldn't impose something on them.
MR. HARKOFF: As long as it's something, because that's a problem.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, it is. You are absolutely right. But I
hope I was able to answer your first two questions.
MR. HARKOFF: That's fine. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes?
MS. HORTON: Audrey Horton, and I serve on the Conservation
Advisory Council, and we have been seriously talking about this
issue that was just brought up about the displacement of water.
And obviously you can figure my family has been here over quite
a few centuries, and every time one person builds up where water
goes, the same amount of water will come and then somebody
else's property will be the low place to get it. And that is
science, it's a fact, it's going to happen. And it's one of the
reasons we have to stick to even coastlines. You can't be
letting each neighbor come up an inch and an inch because then
there is a new low place. Because the same amount of water has
to come and it has to find a place to go. And it will find a
new place. There will be a new low. So it's kind of a way of
slapping the poorest person and the lowest person, the person
who doesn't have the money to build up. And I wanted to make
that clear to people that we have to recognize that issue.
The second thing I want to bring up is not related to New
Suffolk Waterfront, which the Conservation Advisory Council
loves what they are doing. But, um, you are glossing over
I'm hearing everything you are saying, it's hard but you are
glossing over our issues with non-turf buffers. I was out doing
my field work this month and I saw so many infractions where
people have loaded in the fertilizers, the sprinklers are going
and they are putting in new grass because Sandy destroyed their
grass. And I personally believe that that is one of the worst
things for the baymen, for the fishermen, to have to deal with,
the pollution. And I think that when people know better, they
will choose to do better, and that the public needs to realize
how detrimental that is.
In my family, there was always talk about
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sorry, I have to stop you. This is a hearing on
something. And you are not
Board of Trustees 16 May 15, 2013
MS. NORTON: This is a public hearing and I'm going to say,
because you glossed over
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You are not discussing his application.
MS. NORTON: You didn't even ask. You said if there was anyone
else who wants to speak on the ones you glossed over. You didn't
allow for the public to do that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, we did.
MS. NORTON: No. Do you want to read it from the Minutes? I
didn't hear it. Maybe there is something wrong with my hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are you suggesting in your comments
MS. NORTON: I'm saying not to gloss over
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you would let me finish my question. Are you
suggesting that in this application, this applicant, that a
non-turf buffer be included in this application?
MS. NORTON: No, that's not an issue for this at all. But you are
glossing over, and I'm standing now, and I was not given the
opportunity on the one you glossed over.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm not sure what you are talking about when you
say "glossing over."
MS. NORTON: We asked for anon-turf buffer and you approved it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In this application?
MS. NORTON: No, the last one.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That public hearing is closed. I'm sorry, but
that's closed.
MS. NORTON: I'm talking to the public, sorry. You allowed other
people do this that were out of order, and you set a precedent
earlier in the meeting, and I'm talking about something that is
important to everybody here because I believe when people know
better, they choose to do better.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would encourage anybody that wants to speak
during a public hearing on a particular application, about the
merits of that application. That is what we are here for tonight.
Is there anybody else who wants to speak for or against
this application?
TRUSTEE KING: I would just like to say one thing. A lot of these
properties, I don't know what's going on with some of them, but
a lot of these properties were issued emergency permits to
replace their bulkheads, and on those emergency permits, it's
right in there, they are mandated to have a 15-foot non-turf
buffer behind the bulkhead. So if they are not doing that, they
are out of compliance and they should get a violation. But we
can't be the watchdogs of the world and go out and check
everything either.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And it's fair to say during the course of
field inspections where we carry between 45 and 65 jobs a month,
that we have seen a number of violations that have occurred on
all matters and shapes and sizes and they are referred through
the office to law enforcement. And I would encourage anybody
who sees that, where they think there is a non-turf buffer that
has been violated through the placement of fertilizer material,
to refer a complaint to the Trustee office and it will be
Board of Trustees 17 May 15, 2013
handled in the due course and with a referral made to law
enforcement. We don't shy away from these things.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could, I would like to get back to the
merits of this application. Are there any other comments from
anybody in the audience on this application?
(No response).
Are there any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: No, it's a problem. It's a flood problem down
there. I would not know how to handle it. Water seeks it's own
level. You get a high piece of ground, it goes around behind it.
It's just a tough situation. I don't know what the solution is.
It's been flooded down there for years, and it's not getting any
better.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Given that, I'll now 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
New Suffolk Waterfront as submitted with a change to the fence
that will reflect the plans submitted this evening, that being
May 15th, and that the applicant will conform with the Storm
Water Runoff Code of the Town of Southold.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And it was found consistent under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I seconded it.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number four, Mark
Schwartz, Architect on behalf of DOUGLAS & KATHLEEN FOLTS
requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7837 for the existing
foundation to remain; new first floor to be at elevation 12; the
south screened porch and its foundation walls will be removed
and replaced with new deck piers and decking; the north bedroom
and its foundation walls will be removed and the proposed
foundation installed to support proposed exterior walls; no
first floor walls will remain; due to the water table, the
existing basement will be filled in with approximately 2' of
sand with a new concrete slab. Located: 90 Oak Street, Cutchogue.
This has been deemed to be consistent with the LWRP. It has
a prior approval from the Trustees and prior support from the
Conservation Advisory Council. It is a return from the Southold
Town Board of Zoning Appeals. The Trustees have visited the site
several times and recently after the request for the amendment
was made. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz, Architect. I just want to be here
for any questions.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have one question in reviewing the file. I
noticed that the latest stamped drawing of yours of December 28,
Board of Trustees 18 May 15, 2013
2012, and received in our office the same date, did show a
non-turf buffer. And I was wondering if we might be able to
bring that forward into the amendments. It shows a 25-foot
non-turf buffer in the site plan, and I was wondering if it
would be possible we could include that in this permit.
Apparently, I didn't see the ZBA requiring it, and as a matter
of course, the Trustees usually do. But we have referred this
back to ZBA previously after we reviewed it and I didn't pick it
up in any of the language that it had been a requirement.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, is that the minimum you would allow?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Generally speaking, on a rebuild, we
usually, the Board reviews it during field inspection and makes
a determination based on the lay of the land and the existing
natural vegetation fronting either side with neighbors and what
is in front of the property. I just mention it here only because
your set of plans included it and it would be a simple matter of
affirming that during the approval process, but I'm sure it
could be a matter the Board will discuss now. 25 feet may be a
little more that than we see.
TRUSTEE KING: Was it 25 feet under the first application?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, I didn't see a requirement for a buffer,
unless I missed it in the permitting.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't recall it being part of it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I see just drywell, all standard
requirements; gutters, leaders, drywells, staked hay bales, silt
fencing along the limit of clearing line prior to construction.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Did the ZBA require anon-turf buffer?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I did not see it in the ZBA approval. That's
why I thought if we formalize it now, this would be the time to consider it.
TRUSTEE KING: What's the distance from the house?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's 55 feet from the house to the storm rip
rap. The ZBA approval limits it to a 55-foot setback to the rip rap.
TRUSTEE KING: Actually, it doesn't look bad, 25 foot buffer.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I approved it according to these plans submitted
that include a 25-foot non-turf buffer there on the plans
submitted by the applicant.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we should stay with that.
MR. SCHWARTZ: It may have been, I don't recall, it may have been
a DEC requirement.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we should include it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. Is there anyone else who wishes to
speak to this application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing no one, I make a motion to close the
hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application as per plans submitted December 28, 2012, and dated
on the same date, same date, December 28, 2012, with the
condition of a 25-foot non-turf buffer.
Board of Trustees 19 May 15, 2013
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you.
WETLAND 8 COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits,
number five, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of RICHARD FRIZZI
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to
demolish remains of residence, decks and sanitary system;
construct new 18'x36' two-story (903 sq. ft.) single-family
dwelling with a 96 sq. ft. deck; and 200 sq. ft. patio landward
of bulkhead; retain existing garage; construct new gravel
driveway, water lines and sanitary system landward of proposed
dwelling. Located: 680 Rabbit Lane, East Marion.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The
Conservation Advisory Council voted not to support this, noting
that there was no drainage or sanitary system on the plans, and
recommended a no-lawn area between the CEA shaded line and the
bulkhead. This matter was before the ZBA and was granted
approval. The ZBA noted that the deck should be less than
200-square feet, and that the area
MS. MOORE: The patio be less than 200-square feet.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The post-patio shall be less than 200-square
feet and be constructed with pervious materials to mitigate
storm water runoff.
The Trustees inspected the site on May 8th and there were
no comments in the field notes. It's fairly straightforward. Is
there anyone here to speak to this application?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of Richard Frizzi. This is
one of the homes on Rabbit Lane that was completely destroyed
when the proposed house was being designed. Mr. Frizzi is in
his 80's. This is the last thing he wanted to do was to have to
replace his home, but it will be for his son. So a minimal house
was designed, pushing the house back to behind the coastal
erosion hazard line. And the patio was reduced down to the
200-square feet to bring it into conformity with LWRP. So aside
from that, the sanitary will be in the front. It's being
designed right now by Joe Fischetti and the surveyor. So
unfortunately I don't have the actual design, but we know it
will be in the front.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The front being landward.
MS. MOORE: The landward side of the house, yes. That's where the
old sanitary was, on the landward side of the house, but it,
too, was damaged by the storm.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this
application?
(No response).
Any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: Pat, does the new sanitary square the land with the
Board of Trustees 20 May 15, 2013
original one?
MS. MOORE: The original one I think is where the new house is,
so it's being pushed back. It's just a challenge because it's
such a small area in the front. I know it's being designed with
a lot of area, so.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to
close this application.
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).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number six, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc. on behalf of KATHRYN GRAY MELHUISH, c/o JOSEPH CHERNUSHKA
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to
replace a storm damaged portion (140.Ot sq.ft.) of the existing
dwelling; and elevate the overall dwelling (642.Ot sq.ft."footprint") by 2.3' to
result in a first floor elevation of 8.0'. Located: 600 Rabbit Lane, East Marion.
As we can see, this is Sandy storm damage. The LWRP
coordinator has found this to be exempt from the LWRP. The
Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application with no other suggestions. The Board has all been
out to see this, and again, it was straightforward project,
something that needs to be done. The owner is willing to do it.
There were no objections or comments out in the field. Is there
anybody here who would like to address this application?
(No response).
Seeing none, are there any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: As long as it doesn't turn into a demo.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have another picture here, I think. It's a
second picture from another angle.
Hearing no comments or questions from the Board or
audience, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of DEAN STEFANIDES requests a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit to repair portions of the existing
dwelling which includes the repair of the south wall framing and
windows; re-construction of new concrete foundations under the
Board of Trustees 21 May 15, 2013
south half of the dwelling; and re-construction of the existing
living room floor. Located: 780 Rabbit Lane, East Marion.
This was found could be consistent with LWRP. And the
Conservation Advisory Council took no action on the application
as there was no site plan provided for CAC review. I believe we
were all out there. Is there is there anyone here to speak on
behalf of or against this application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KING: Some work had already been done. I don't think we
had any issues with what they want to do.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In fact, I got underneath there and everything
is fine. They just rebuilt that corner to support it.
TRUSTEE KING: The only notes we had in the field was did the
Building Department authorize further work to date. We don't
know. I would be comfortable moving ahead with it. No other
comments from anybody on the application?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It might be worth while noting they are removing
or moving the backing system for the bulkhead so it's front of
the piers now, from the house, so nothing to worry about on the
lay logs pulling on the piers from the house, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't have a problem with either excepting
for the fact that I guess I would like to hold the issuance of
the permit, if the Board decides to go ahead and approve it,
hold the issuance just to confirm that the Building Department
is currently, you know, on top, has followed up on the changes,
which I think we verbally heard they had been contacted. I just
think it's wise to confirm that the Building Department has an
open file on it and is working with the owner.
TRUSTEE KING: That sounds reasonable. I know what you are
talking about, Bob, on the bulkhead application it showed
deadmen actually underneath the building. They changed that
design. They won't do that because that would put stress on
these columns. So with that being said if there is no other
comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I would like may make a motion to approve the application, and
we will not issue the permit until we have verification from the
Building Department that they are good to go.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under wetland permits, number one, JAMES & NANCY
CLOUS requests a Wetland Permit to repair existing 100' long
bulkhead by replacing the 2'x12" cap boards along top of
bulkhead, and a ±15' long 4"x4" traverse beam; for the existing
20' return on northerly side of property; replace existing
Board of Trustees 22 May 15, 2013
3'xt5'6" stairs to beach on each side of pier; replace existing
stairs from top of bulkhead to fixed pier; replace existing pier
with a 4'x40' fixed pier using thru-flow type decking materials;
replace a 3'x20' ramp; and (2) 6'x20' floating docks with (4)
12" diameter pilings to secure floats. Located: 3805 Bay Shore
Road, Southold.
From the Conservation Advisory Council: Do not support, high
energy area, two float docks may be excessive and may also need
to be removable. Recommend a 15-foot non-turf buffer landward of
the bulkhead.
Bear with me. I'm trying to see if there is an LWRP review
with this.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There was apre-inspection. Okay. So apparently
there was no LWRP review of this application.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it's in the process.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This application was received on the 19th of
April. The LWRP consistency form, the 26th of April. He has up
to 30 days to review the application. So we are still within
that 30-day window. So just so the applicant knows, we are still
waiting on an LWRP review of this. So we will not be able to
move on this tonight but we can certainly open the public
hearing and accept comments and discuss the application tonight.
MR. BONTJE: That would be fine.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The Board did go out and looked at this. Is
there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. BONTJE: Michael Bontje, B. Laing Associates, on behalf of
the applicant. The application you have before you
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you would stand by for just a second.
MR. BONTJE: Sure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you know if the applicant, the Clous', had
submitted permission for you to speak on their behalf?
MR. CLOUS: James Clous. I had. I put Michael Bontje in my
application as my agent.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So it's okay with you that he speaks on your
behalf?
MR. CLOUS: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, very much, please continue.
MR. BONTJE: Not a problem. The application you have before you
is for the reconstruction and an 18-foot extension of mixed
fixed dock with two floating docks at the end. It also includes
a repair of the bulkhead. All the damage or the vast majority of
the damage that was done was as a result of Hurricane Sandy. I
just wanted to point out in the description that you have, in
your notice, one small change is that there is a 4x4 inch
transverse beam that seems to be a part of the northerly return
that is actually a 6'x6' beam that is transverse to the
bulkhead. It's one of the cross members of the bulkhead that is
being replaced.
In the submission that you got on the 19th, we provided a
lot of evidence that the dock has been in existence for 40 and
_
Board of Trustees 23 May 15, 2013
possibly has many as 60 years. There are aerial photographs that
go back to 1976, 1974, and in 1974 it actually had adouble-size
float. The float was about 12-feet wide. Looks to be somewhere
about 16 to 20-feet long. You are probably familiar with the DEC
photographs, sometimes they are a little fuzzy, so dimensions
could be a little off, but it's clearly adouble-width float at
that particular point.
We also found a 1954 photograph that showed a perpendicular
structure in a slightly different location. That is not unusual
because on this particular location there are actually some
extra or extraneous pilings that look to be from a dock at a
different location that are no longer part of the dock a little
to the north. So that would not be surprising.
We all found on the 1971 survey that was provided to the town
as a result of obtaining a certificate of occupancy for the
house. Basically we know this was, this structure was installed
prior to the permitting requirements for the Trustees in 1991,
and we believe the proposed action is consistent with
275-11(c)(12). They are going to be changing the fixed decking
from wood and solid decking to a through-flow type of structure.
They are trying to extend the floats a little further out to
somewhat deeper water. The dock and bulkhead are both a
reconstruction or largely reconstruction on the face of the
dock. And basically, again, since it was prior to the town's
requirement for a permit, we don't believe they would be setting
any precedence here in terms of the shoreline and approval of
the structure as it's rebuilt.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: One question before we get to the dock. One
question for the bulkhead repair. There has been a
recommendation of a 15-foot non-turf buffer by the Conservation
Advisory Council. Would the applicant consider including a
15-foot non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead?
MR. BONTJE: I think the neighbors to the south have aten-foot
non-turf buffer. So we would like to go with ten foot, if we
can, to be consistent with them. That actually did get ripped
out by Sandy, so it was kind of hard to tell exactly what it
was, but it looks like aten-foot buffer. So we would like to
go with that, if we could.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It has been the Board's practice when there is
adjoining properties that already have non-turf buffers in place
to remain consistent with the new non-turf buffers, so they
are consistent as far as width goes. So if the Board doesn't
have a problem with that, I have no problem going with a
ten-foot there.
Now getting to the dock, one thing that we noticed, there
are no soundings, we didn't see any soundings provided, depth
around the dock.
MR. BONTJE: We actually provided that in the revised submission
from April 19th. I think it's my appendix, it's in with the
drawings, appendix five. What we did is, what I did, I went out
with the aerial photograph that you actually have posted, and I
Board of Trustees 24 May 15, 2013
marked that up, measured it and marked it up at mean low water,
on that particular day. It was, I put it in my report. It was a
new moon, the winds were light out of the southwest. It was
really just a perfect time to do that because there was not a
lot of wave action.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking at what is marked here five, top
view of plans of new dock.
MR. BONTJE: Yes. And if you go back to the second portion of
that, you see the top view, and behind that is aerial
photograph.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Not here.
(Trustees respond in the negative).
MR. BONTJE: I guess all of them are missing? I can give you
mine. That's not a problem. So you can look at it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, I don't see it in here.
MR. BONTJE Why don't I just read this into the record, then
give you my copy, since we don't have individual copies.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's fine.
MR. BONTJE: As you get to the end of the first or second set of
pilings on the fixed dock, it's about zero inches at mean low
water.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have it here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we have a Google map. I apologize. I found
it buried in here with the other photographs of the area.
MR. BONTJE: Let me just come forward to take a look at it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, just to make sure we have the same thing.
MR. BONTJE: That's this.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, thank you. Okay, so what you are proposing
is that the extension, the end of your proposed extension is 37
inches total in depth.
MR. BONTJE: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Now, the current Town Code for docks
states one 6x20 float, so you just need to know that the code
only allows for one float. We realize that maybe prior to the
current Town Code, when you had this, or when the previous
resident had the dock built, they had it built according to the
code then, but now it's being replaced, so it has to conform
with current Town Code. So you would be limited to a 6x20
float.
MR. BONTJE: I think that's acceptable to the applicant if the 20
feet that is occupied by the second float could be part of the
fixed structure. So you would wind up with basically the same
length. You have 40-foot fixed dock, then a ramp, and then the
6x20 float.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And you are requesting two new tie-off piles to
the north?
MR. BONTJE: Yes. And I believe the code allows for two.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just curious as to why you need the tie-off
piles out there.
MR. BONTJE: Basically, from Mr. Clous' description and my own
knowledge of the area, they use various methods to keep the
Board of Trustees 25 May 15, 2013
boats off the floats and off the docks, including flexible poles
and all that sort of thing, and they just have not worked. So a
fixed piling would be much better in keeping the boats off the
docks when the wind turns out of the east.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What was the date of these soundings that
you made?
MR. BONTJE: The soundings were on 4/10/2013. And again, I
described the conditions more thoroughly in the report.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: As I alluded to earlier, we won't be able to act
on this application tonight because of a lack of LWRP evaluation
or review. Would the
MR. BONTJE: Is it possible to continue to the public portion of
the hearing and then close the hearing and have the LWRP come in
as an administrative portion?
MS. HULSE: No.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, thank you. I'm afraid we can't do that.
MR. BONTJE: That's fine. I had to ask.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. Are there any other comments from anybody
else in the audience pertaining to this application?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: I'm afraid I'm not a big fan of docks on the bay.
Most of the time they end up not usable. There are no docks to
speak of in this area, that I know of. I mean, we have had other
applications, unfortunately, we turn down. That's all I have to say.
MR. BONTJE: If I might comment further, then. Again, I have
personal knowledge of the shoreline, I have been boating on it
since 1988 and since about 1983 I know the prior owners as well
as the Clous' use of the dock, and it does get substantial use
and it has been there for a long period of time.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When is the last time it was functional?
MR. BONTJE: Last year. As far as I know it's been functional
continuously since 1988. Again, I knew the prior owners. They
used a boat. They don't bring in 55 footers to go out into the
ocean. But they have runabouts and other recreational craft
that they use that are appropriate in size to the waters and the
dock. And I personally have been witness to them using it,
including last year.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I would suggest then for a review next
month is coming in with a new set of plans that reflects only
one 6x20 float, and a suggestion, a suggestion, that you think
about pulling it back as far as you could landward.
Where are you with the DEC with this application?
MR. CLOUS: The DEC, we sent in our application, we are in the
process right now. One of the reasons that we extended it was to
meet --the DEC has a minimum depth requirement for the landward
side of the float, and that was the only reason we extended it
was to meet their requirements. So I need to figure out who
TRUSTEE KING: It has been a constant battle between
MR. BONTJE: And you'll notice on the outer piling right now it's
32 inches. And it's proposed 37 and 32 inches. So we would make
Board of Trustees 26 May 15, 2013
sure we did comply.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there are no other comments I'll make a
motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. BONTJE: If I may ask one question. I notice you moved your
June meeting to the 17th? Is that June or July?
TRUSTEE KING: June.
MR. BONTJE: So it's Monday, June 17th, not the 19th.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think it's subject to room confirmation
and noticing. It's mostly ready to go. I just want to caution
you on that. The Board approved it for that date and time but if
we can't get a meeting assigned, it may be changed.
TRUSTEE KING: It may be best to check a week in advance.
MR. BONTJE: Very good, thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, number two, JOSEPH J. D'ANGELO
requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 3'x15' brick and
concrete paver pathway leading to a 5'x4' platform; 3.5'x4'
steps; 4'x20' catwalk; 4'x12' ramp; and 5'x16' floating dock;
and to replace the floating dock and anchor piles inplace;
and to cover the existing treated decking with untreated lumber.
Located: 490 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck.
This project as proposed has been determined to be
inconsistent under the town's LWRP in that the structures were
placed without the benefit of a Southold Trustee permit. And
depending on the course of determination by the Trustees, the
Board may require a vegetated buffer landward of the existing
tidal wetland boundary. The Conservation Advisory Council issued
conditioned support for this application noting that except for
materials and removal of nonconforming materials be performed
and that the applicant be requested to re-vegetate the bank and
to comply with the one-third navigation rule.
The Board of Trustees, in reviewing the application,
specifically, I know we were concerned about the one-third rule
and felt the proposed design would be problematic, and
specifically I know Trustee Domino indicated his concern about a
proper vegetative, natural vegetative buffer in that there was
some telephone pole materials there that seemed to be impinging
on the wetland and damaging the wetland.
That said, is there anyone here who wishes to speak on
behalf of this application?
MR. D'ANGELO: Yes. Joseph D'Angelo. As stated in my application,
when our family purchased this house 18 years ago, we were not
aware of the fact that none of the structures had any permits
whatsoever. It only came to light recently after we replaced the
floating dock which was destroyed, initially, partially
destroyed by Irene but totally destroyed by Sandy. And I was
unaware at the time and I acted ignorance in terms of the
Board of Trustees 27 May 15, 2013
decking being none conforming pre-treated lumber, which we'll
certainly take care of. So, I guess not sure about the other
things you mentioned. I'm not familiar with the other aspects.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the primary aspect for the Trustees
was the fact that there is another dock to the landward and
upstream of yours and that the application as you submitted it
with the ramp and float seems to go against the one-third
navigation rule, which is a general rule that is applied by this
Board and also by the DEC and particularly by the US Army Corps
of Engineers. So I believe based on our inspection we would
probably be encouraging you to submit an amended plan that would
not have a ramp and float structure but would have just a "T"
structure at the end so that you would not go out into the
navigable waters more than one-third of the way across the
stream so that adjoining neighbors could navigate to their own
properties, similar to what you have.
MR. D'ANGELO: Well, these are all pre-existing conditions.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I can only tell you what the Board saw
during the course of the inspection, because we saw a new
structure there, and that particular rule, regardless of
pre-existing condition, if there is no permit associated with
it, I'm just being straightforward with you. We just can't
grant permit approvals that violate basic precepts of allowing
other riparian owners along the foreshore to navigate to their
own properties. We couldn't grant an approval here because we
would disadvantage your neighbors who have shared rights to the
same waterway.
MR. D'ANGELO: So I'm not exactly sure what I'm supposed to do.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think I'm speaking fairly clearly in terms
of what the Board saw. We would be requesting that you submit an
amended drawing that would show some soundings and show the
width of the creek, and we would encourage you to put a "T"
shape on the end and not have the float section. That said, you
already have a float and you want to change it, you can try to
incorporate the float as close as you could to the bank so you
would still be keeping it, with a vessel on it, no more than
one-third out.
MR. D'ANGELO: It couldn't be brought in any further because it
would then be on the land.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think that's why we are encouraging you to
consider the "T" formation. In cases such as this, a "T" with a
step-down access which would allow you to easily get into a small
vessel or canoe or kayak is typically what comports with this
sort of a narrow stream form.
MR. D'ANGELO: I don't know how that would be possible.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm just telling you, I don't know if other
members want to join me at this point. I'm starting to repeat
myself.
MR. D'ANGELO: I have a small 17-and-a-half foot Bowrider.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The challenge we have is, in the code, docks
cannot extend with a vessel more than one-third across the
Board of Trustees 28 May 15, 2013
waterway. And we realize when this dock was originally built was
prior to the code coming into play. When somebody, when a
structure gets destroyed and it needs to be rebuilt, or there is
a decision to rebuild it, it has to conform with the code today,
not the code back when it was originally built. And the code
today on these docks says no more than a third, with a vessel,
no more than a third across the waterway. And clearly just the
dock is more than a third. Add a vessel on and it will be even a
greater distance across. So what we have done with some similar
situations, when they've come up, when an applicant is coming in
who wants to rebuild in other words your case you already
have built. But when an applicant comes in and asks to rebuild,
what we have considered is a catwalk with a fixed "T" at the
end, that way it complies with current code. I don't know if
that helps to explain it.
MR. D'ANGELO: I don't know what you mean by a fixed "T," and I'm
not sure where that is. At the end of the catwalk?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You would probably, either at the end or a
shortened catwalk with a fixed "T." Meaning it's a permanent
structure, it's not a floating structure. It's held by supports
in the ground.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Currently as proposed, you are proposing a
"T" shaped floating dock. If you envision that as just a solid
portion of the catwalk, back attach the catwalk. Maybe there
might be one of the neighbors may have one. I don't know if
that's a ramp or float.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's a float. This is a straight catwalk.
MR. D'ANGELO: First of all, if you notice between the dock that
I have and my neighbor to the west, is a very large pine tree.
It has grown into that area in which he has to navigate around
anyway.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That was the pine tree that was on a 90-degree
angle.
MR. D'ANGELO: I mean was there a complaint by this particular
neighbor about this issue?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess the Board does hear your concerns. I
think we could probably move to take additional public comment
on this application at this time.
Is there anyone else, members of the Board or members of
the public that would like to speak on this application?
TRUSTEE KING: I think we are stuck with in excess of the code.
If we can shorten it up and make a "T," We could probably do
something.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think the members of the Board feel
this is acceptable. And if we move to deny this without
prejudice, you have to re-apply all over again, so fees would
have to come back in. I think as nice as I could do it without
preempting the Board's vote, I suggest you might want to have us
table this and resubmit a set of plans maybe come in and talk
with one of the Trustees when we are working in the office so we
can explain to you typically how these sorts of structures are
Board of Trustees 29 May 15, 2013
conform so that you have the opportunity to amend the
application and keep it going forward in a favorable way.
MR. D'ANGELO: I guess I don't have a choice.
MS. HULSE: Or you can allow them to vote on it tonight if you
would like.
MR. D'ANGELO: Apparently it would not be acceptable.
MS. HULSE: So are you requesting that they table it?
MR. D'ANGELO: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: My only question to the Board, prior to that
vote, is if we table this do we want to issue a limitation when
this structure must be modified or removed so that it complies
with code. Because right now what is existing there is a
structure that does not comply with code, and my concern is
TRUSTEE KING: Did you have a violation issued on this?
MR. D'ANGELO: No, because I said I would take care of business.
TRUSTEE KING: I would say have it on for next month. We'll make
a decision next month. It will be on, make sure you get in for
next month.
MR. D'ANGELO: Who would I see on the Board of Trustees? Who
would I make an appointment with?
TRUSTEE KING: I'm usually there on Fridays and Tuesdays. Next
Tuesday is out. I won't be.
MS. HULSE: You can call the office.
TRUSTEE KING: Call the office.
MR. D'ANGELO: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing no further comments I'll make a
motion to table this hearing until next month.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under wetlands permits, number three, KATHLEEN
K. COOPER requests a Wetland Permit to repair the existing
5'x76.5'± fixed catwalk; 3'x16' ramp; and to replace existing
float with 6'x20' float; and reset the two (2) existing 8"
diameter float pilings. Located: 775 Wood Lane, Peconic.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent by
virtue of the fact the structures as described were not
constructed pursuant to Southold Town Trustees reviewing permit.
The Conservation Advisory Council voted unanimously to support
this application. The Trustees inspected the site on May 8th and
noted that in their inspection that it appears that the ramp
might be non-repairable and requested the applicant provide
steps down on either side to the beach and consider downsizing
the width to four foot, the width of the catwalk, that is, to
four foot, to bring it into compliance with present practice.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. PENN: Charles Penn. I'm Kathleen Cooper's husband.
To speak to the notes that were made, the ramp is repairable. I
have been assured by Portman Dock and Dredge that that can be
repaired, and as a retired remodeler, I also feel that could be
Board of Trustees 30 May 15, 2013
repaired relatively easily. It's only the railing on the side
that is loose, and that can be tightened up. As far as the
there were three items that you mentioned.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The steps.
MR. PENN: The steps. I do understand about having steps on both
sides. There are steps on one side now and I'm wondering if
because of the you can't really see it. But if you come up
one side, if you step on to the dock, the non-turf buffer that
is there, there is no bulkhead, but from the lawn toward the
water there is a terraced area and you could easily step on to
the terraced area and walk down. Does that satisfy the
requirements for the ability for somebody who might be walking
that beach to be able to continue or does it have to be steps?
It's a pretty, that stretch there, I don't know who went to look
at it, but there is only maybe five properties that you could
walk. Beyond that, you can't. There is no access. Because the
water comes up to where the bulkhead is. So it's not really much
of an issue for, I never actually seen anybody walking there,
but if they were, they could easily walk up the steps and then
walk down the terraced area.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are there any comments from other members of the
Board to help me out on this?
TRUSTEE KING: Is there an original permit on this dock?
MR. PENN: No, it's anon-permitted structure.
TRUSTEE KING: There was never a wetland permit on it?
MR. PENN: No, when we bought this house, it was there. But I do
have submitted with the application is a survey from the '60s
that shows the dock in place exactly as it is, which brings me
to the next item, which is reducing the size of the dock. That
would basically require rebuilding the whole thing when right
now all we have to do is kind of straighten out the two pilings
that are crooked and then just everything, pretty much
everything that is there will remain. There is not much that has
to be replaced, except we did lose the floating dock and we
propose replacing it with the 6x20.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Well, the Trustees, more often than not, the
common practice is catwalks are four foot or less. This is a
generous width. And we understand it would be a major project
to reduce the size, but that would bring it into compliance with
current code. We have to address the inconsistency as pointed
out by the LWRP coordinator, which is this was not built with
the blessing of a permit.
MR. PENN: There was no permit required when it was built.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Correct. But as pointed out earlier by Trustee
Bergen in a previous application, that doesn't mean that we can
grandfather that. It has to be constructed according to code as
it exists today.
MR. PENN: I understand. Let me ask you another question. If this
dock had not been damaged by Sandy and if I had applied for it
to be become a permitted structure with nothing to be done to
it, would it have had to have been reduced?
Board of Trustees 31 May 15, 2013
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's hard for to us speculate on what we would
do with another application before us. We can only comment on
the application that is before us tonight. That's all we can do.
MR. PENN: It would be a severe economic hardship to have to
rebuild the entire dock.
TRUSTEE KING: Just for the record, I believe a permit was
required at the time that was built. The Trustees permits have
been in existence since the'50's, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: On Trustee land it's a Trustee permit has
been in existence since the '50's.
MR. PENN: I'm not sure when it was built. Anecdotally, I heard
it was there prior to the survey they have, which is in the
'60's, but I can't really say when. So I can't really speak to
that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For myself, since it is a simple repair, there
is more environmental harm that would be done to require this to
be completely ripped out and rebuilt. I know in the past what we
have done is approved, permitted in a structure for repair
purposes with the caveat that should the dock need to be
repaired in the future or, excuse me, have to be replaced in the
future, it would have to comply with current code. So that is
what I recommend with this one.
TRUSTEE KING: At the time when this gets deteriorated to the
point where it need to be rebuilt, it should be brought into
four-foot width. I think that's fair.
MR. PENN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this
application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: May I ask the Trustees, are we satisfied on the
point concerning the steps on either side?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm fine.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I would make a
motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would make a motion to approve this
application to repair the dock with the caveat that if in the
future it needs to be replaced that it will have to conform with
the code existing at that time, and that the structure include
steps on either side to provide access, thus bringing it into
compliance with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Stand by.
TRUSTEE KING: Technically, it's a dock, it's acatwalk
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And a float.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do we need to re-open this public hearing to
take more comment?
TRUSTEE KING: Let me just take a look at the code. What does it
say a catwalk is in the code and what does it say a dock is in
Board of Trustees 32 May 15, 2013
the code. That's what we need to verify.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have the definition of a dock.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The definition of catwalk is an elevated walkway
usually built to gain access to a commercial or residential dock
built at a fixed height above grade, which is constructed
landward of the high water mark.
TRUSTEE KING: It's both.
MS. HULSE: As long as the resolution reads both. Because you are
saying dock and it's listed as a catwalk. Just to clarify,
change the resolution to include catwalk and dock.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I withdraw my second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Note for the record the second has been
withdrawn of that motion.
TRUSTEE KING: The catwalk is the landward portion. The catwalk
goes across the wetland to where the dock begins. So it's really
both.
MS. HULSE: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to
approve the application to repair the existing catwalk and dock,
and replace the existing float, re-set the two pilings, with the
caveat that if in the future this needs to be replaced, that it
will conform to the code that exists at that time. And that
there be steps included on either side to provide access.
TRUSTEE KING: Did you include the 3x16 ramp to the float?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And the 3'x16' ramp.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number four, KATHLEEN & DAVID KILBRIDE request a
Wetland Permit to repair existing 100 foot long timber bulkhead,
stringers and waters; replace existing bulkhead cap; replace
decking surface of existing 11'x22' deck and extend out another
11'x18' to create an 11'x40' deck; replace 7'x5' bulkhead
platform for beach stairs; and replace existing 4'x16' retractable aluminum
stairs to beach. Located: 9045 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
The Conservation Advisory Council has found that they will
support this application, but they do raise a question
concerning the size of the deck. They are recommending a seven
to ten foot non-turf buffer at the top edge of the bluff. The
LWRP has found this to be consistent and inconsistent. The
inconsistency has to do with the proposal to replace the decking
surface of the existing 11x22 deck and extending it out another
11x18, creating an 11x40 deck that would be inconsistent with
the LWRP. When the Board was out there, we looked at it. We had
spoken about moving the steps to the beach and the platform to
the new deck area. Adding six feet to something on the deck.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is that my handwriting?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you want me to read it?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, please.
Board of Trustees 33 May 15, 2013
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Add six foot to the north end of the deck. Move
stairs to the beach and platform to meet the new deck area.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's right, so we could all tie it together
and he didn't have to extend the deck that far.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That was the comments. Is there anybody here who
would like to address this application?
MR. KILBRIDE: David Kilbride representing myself and my wife
Kathleen, who had just advised me your recommended deck size
would work for her and my daughters. The placement of the
platform originally was a surprise to us. It was offset. Not
sure why it was put there. We were not there when it was built.
And it would be more logical to have it contiguous to the deck.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Great. In which case we are talking about
reducing the size of the deck in total, and moving I'm trying
to picture this on the drawing here. We were talking about
straightening out the stairs, too, right? Or leaving the stairs
where it is, just have it meet the platform.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MR. KILBRIDE: The original dimension of the deck is to the left
side of the stairs there. That is where the 22 foot, about where
the gentleman is standing, is the original northern perimeter.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right.
MR. KILBRIDE: So you are recommending moving it to the left an
additional six foot would be acceptable.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And reducing the size at the same time.
MR. KILBRIDE: So it would be 28x11 all together.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We spoke about that, or did we say 11 by
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's right. 11x28.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Move it six feet
TRUSTEE KING: 11x24 is in my notes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Six feet, which direction is that?
MR. KILBRIDE: It's toward the north.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or questions?
(No response).
By doing that will make it consistent with LWRP. Seeing no
comments, 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
with the stipulation that the deck be changed to 11x28 and its
location be moved six feet to the north from where it is drawn
on the drawings submitted April 24, 2013. And by doing so brings
it into conformity with LWRP. It makes it consistent. And we'll
need to just have revised drawings.
TRUSTEE KING: That would be a good idea.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We'll need revised drawings as well.
MR. KILBRIDE: Could I ask for a clarification? It's not being
moved, but the incremental section you are approving is to the
north. The original location of the 11x22 of the pre-existing,
Board of Trustees 34 May 15, 2013
pre-approved deck is okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, by increasing it to the six feet, to the
north, it's going to make it a total of 11x28, so we'll just ask
for a revised drawing, that's all, to show that in the file.
MR. KILBRIDE: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five, RICHARD 8 SUSAN MEYERHOLZ request a
Wetland Permit to demolish existing dwelling, foundation,
driveway and septic system and construct new foundation for a
new two-story t2,325sq.ft. dwelling with attached garage, and a
401sq.ft. Deck; new hot tub; new sanitary system on landward
side of dwelling with approximately 6'6" high concrete retaining
walls; new pervious driveway; add ±27 cubic yards of clean fill
to existing beach area within 15' of foundation to raise the
elevation and protect oak trees; and a retaining barrier will be
put in place to protect the three oak trees on the beach.
Located: 4245 Bay Shore Road, Greenport.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and a review dated May
14th, 2013, found it inconsistent, suggesting to move the
existing development structures as far away from flooding and
erosion hazards as practical. Based on new FEMA maps, the
parcel is a risk for flooding and storm surge. The expansion of
the current code is 28.9 or 8.9 beyond the permitted 20% lot
coverage.
know this went before the ZBA and I believe it received a
ZBA variance to the lot coverage from ZBA. The CAC resolved no
action, proposed structure not flagged on the property. And we
do have one letter in the file which is very brief, so I'll read it.
It's from a Robert Swing located 4295 Bayshore Road.
May 7th, to the board of Trustees. The following are concerns
the homeowner adjacent to the proposed construction would like
considered. Elevation of runoff on to 4295 Bayshore Road,
location of shower in front of property, oil tank located
outside instead of garage, height of concrete wall as it affects
property 4295, runoff from the sanitary system on to 4295.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Hi, my name is Rich Meyerholz.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: A question about the concrete retaining wall
that is there. Is that going to remain or are you looking to
remove it?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: I was going to propose to keep it as is.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. There was also a question of where
you talked about bringing in clean fill for the, I'll calf it
the seaward side of the house where it's all, and along the side
of the house, which is also all stone right now. Is there any
reason stone can't be used instead of clean fill for that?
Board of Trustees 35 May 15, 2013
MR. MEYERHOLZ: I'm not sure which area you are specifically
proposing. This area here you are photographing?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, you can see along the side of the house, 4
believe that's the northern side of the house, for the record.
If there was any thought of using stone instead of fill there,
just to conform with what is next door. It's just a suggestion
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Stone would be acceptable.
TRUSTEE KING: To be consistent with what is there.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: What is there is actually Sandy. Sandy came in
and deposited a substantial amount of beach material there. It
was probably 18 inches lower. It just came right around and
wrapped around.
TRUSTEE KING: So that was not all beach stone before?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: It had been beach stone put in, but there was
some added to it. You see there is a ripple, see where the
flower pot is, the white one on the wall, you see there is a
slight elevation increase, some of that sand came in. You can
see the little dip.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking at the plans that we received with
the application. The wall that is around the retaining wall,
what will be the elevation of that? I'm sure it's on here but I
don't see it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The wall surrounding the septic system?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, the total septic system. 1 see a proposed
garage raised to 6'6" elevation.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: This is Robert Brown, the architect who has done
the design work.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The reason I ask, I'm trying to address the
concern of runoff on from the elevation of the sanitary system.
Obviously you would have to comply with the storm water drainage
code, Chapter 268, I believe, of the Town of Southold, which
means all drainage has to be retained on your property.
MR. BROWN: And that was the reason for the retaining wall. I
don't recall the exact elevation of that retaining wall, but
that was the intention.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Is there an opportunity take the oil tank
and put it inside the proposed garage instead of on the outside
of the house?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, again, just a suggestion, not a
requirement from this Board.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: That will be moved and relocated to the inside.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only other item from the neighbor was
location of the shower on the front of the property. I'm trying
to find that on the diagram here. I see a hot tub.
MR. BROWN: It's the small box with an "X" on the lower portion
attached to the house.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. That's just an outdoor shower?
MR.MEYERHOLZ:Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What's the objection to that?
Board of Trustees 36 May 15, 2013
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't know. We have seen plenty of homes in
Southold have outdoor showers.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's on the landward side.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Okay, is there anybody in the audience who
wants to comment on this application?
(No response).
Any other comments from members of the Board?
(No response).
Not hearing any, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve this application
noting that the determination of the ZBA would address the
inconsistency so it would now bring this into consistency under
the LWRP; that the oil tank is going to be removed from a
proposed location and placed inside the dwelling, either the
garage or the house, at the choice of the applicant; and that
the project will conform with the town storm water runoff code,
Chapter 268. That would be my motion.
TRUSTEE KING: Add that this whole stony area remain as a
non-turf area?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And that the area on the north side of the
dwelling, starting
TRUSTEE KING: And the seaward side.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: On the north side of the dwelling starting from
the landward end of the house, going seaward, will remain stone.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: If I could just get clarification. There is
currently no stone there where that gentleman is standing.
That's the property. So are you suggesting that I add stone to
that area?
TRUSTEE KING: No, just keep everything that is stone now, keep
it as stone.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: The stone that is showing in the picture is not
my property.
TRUSTEE KING: On the seaward side of the house.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: That will all remain stone.
TRUSTEE KING: That's just to be maintained as is.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: I thought you were talking about the grass area
that is currently there now. Do you want stone there?
TRUSTEE KING: No.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Okay, that's fine.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's your motion, Dave?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think due to the discussion that just took
place, I'll withdraw my previous motion. It was never seconded.
My motion is to approve the application of Richard and Susan
Meyerholz with the notation that the inconsistency has been
addressed through the ZBA ruling, hence bringing it into
consistency under the LWRP; the removal of the oil tank from
outside the house to inside one of the structures, either the
house or garage; and that it has to comply with Chapter 268
Board of Trustees 37 May 15, 2013
Storm Water Runoff Code of the Town of Southold; that it was
brought into consistency with the ZBA determination; and the
area seaward of the house is to remain stone.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KING: Number six, MARGARET PISANI requests a Wetland
Permit to remove existing cinder block cabana; reconstruct
existing 21'x17' deck and 4'x5' stairs. Located: 7180 Great
Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
This was found consistent and inconsistent. Removal of
cabana is consistent. Reconstruct the existing 21x17 foot deck
and 4x5 foot stairs is inconsistent. The Conservation Advisory
Council took no action. There was insufficient information and
no site plan. We all went out to look at this a couple of months
ago, I think. We went out there in April. It first came in as an
administrative amendment. We felt there was too much work to be
done to meet the criteria.
I went out and looked at it again myself, with Mike Domino.
The two of us looked at it, and we came up with the same
suggestion that was made in the first go around: Remove the
cement cabana and the existing deck over it and downsize. There
is a seaward projection of that that goes over the top of that
cabana. So the seaward side of that deck that extends out is
six-and-a-half by 14. We'll have that, when the cabana is
removed, remove that part of the deck, and then the remaining
deck is still really a nice size. It's 21x11. So we take this
seaward projection of the deck that is over the cabana and just
knock that off. It will still be a nice-sized deck, and that
will probably do it.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MS. PISANI: Yes. Margaret Pisani, the applicant.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you understand what we are saying?
MS. PISANI: Not really.
TRUSTEE KING: The concrete cabana, the section of the deck that
is right over the top of that concrete cabana we would like to
see it removed and not replaced.
MS. PISANI: But the deck now is existing, it's 21' wide and
projects out 17'.
TRUSTEE KING: We are trying to address the inconsistency with
the LWRP, because of the deck size. It's like an extension of
the deck.
MS. PISANI: Correct. But the total extension now is 17 feet. So
what are you proposing, coming back to 11 feet?
TRUSTEE KING: Ten-and-a-half. I didn't have it in my notes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We suggested cutting back the overhanging
six-and-a-half foot by 14 foot section.
TRUSTEE KING: Right.
Board of Trustees 38 May 15, 2013
MS. PISANI: So the whole deck, the projection would only be 11
feet out and 21 feet wide?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MS. PISANI: As it stands now I could not even fit the furniture
that I have now on there. And that was one of the selling points
when we bought the house, and that was, the deck was there when
we bought it. I went to the Building Department and they said
that was grandfathered in. The builder says that can be built to
code, structurally correct, just the same size that it is now.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Then it would not meet code.
MS. HULSE: It would not meet code.
MS. PISANI: What if I just repaired it?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It would still not meet code.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to point out there are decks
further down the beach but none of them project out as far as
this one. By cutting it back it would bring it into compliance
with what exists there.
MS. PISANI: The woman just to the west of me has the same size
deck. And she got approval for repairing that last year.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't know what else to do. Any suggestions?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we have been trying, throughout the
town, when decks have had to be replaced because of Sandy, try
and bring them more in compliance with code. And there has been
other decks that have been cantilevered out over bluffs that we
have pulled back. So for myself, you know, I would prefer not to
see the deck extend at all over the bluff, but I understand this
historically has been there and that Sandy caused the damage to
it. So that's why I would be willing to go with what has been
recommended with downsizing it, or if you want to keep the size
of the deck the same size, move the entire structure landward so
the deck doesn't extend
MS. PISANI: I mean that's the whole beauty of the deck. In the
afternoon you get a breeze there and we eat dinner there every
night.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand. Part of what we have seen in
Southold, when you have cantilevered decks underneath, I know
you had a structure underneath, you had this cabana. And that's
now being removed. And where people have tried to vegetate under
there, vegetation doesn't grow on the bluff. It's very difficult
to stabilize the bluff.
MS. PISANI: It's not a bluff. It's bulkheaded.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You'll have a bank underneath that. There is an
area between the height of the deck and water, there is an
elevation there. There is a bank or a bluff there.
MS. PISANI: Not really. It's level. There are three bulkheads
there. You can see it on the plans.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Personally, for me, I think it's a compromise,
what has been proposed by the Board already is a compromise, and
I would support what has been proposed by the Board.
MS. PISANI: I mean that's we are doing the right thing. We
had something damaged by Sandy, I'm coming for a permit. I could
Board of Trustees 39 May 15, 2013
have just repaired it.
MS. HULSE: It would be illegal to do that.
MS. PISANI: To repair it? An existing structure that I own and
you gave me a CO to and I purchased it?
MS. HULSE: It does not conform to current code. It would not be
legal.
MS. PISANI: So if anyone buys property
MS. HULSE: I can't entertain hypotheticals. It's nonconforming
MS. PISANI: Even the DEC has a letter of non-compliance. They
don't have a problem with it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The point is well made. I have argued that point
as well from time to time depending upon the application and the
things we have seen.
MS. PISANI: And it really has no detrimental effect on the
environment there, and it's been there now, as it is, since
1985, after Gloria.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Those are debatable points. And even going back
to your point that was made that it projects further out than
the neighbor's. It does.
MS. PISANI: If it does, it's within a foot.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would like to move this along. We are not
a debating society. We are deliberative board and we are here to
take the testimony of the applicants. I would like to move this along.
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments on this application?
MS. PISANI: Do I have cause for appeal? Can I appeal this? Is
this the final body?
MS. HULSE: You'll have to confer with counsel with respect to
that.
MS. PISANI: None of my neighbors have complained about it. They
are fine with it.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it's the only way we can address the
inconsistency is to remove that one section.
MS. PISANI: I mean that's so narrow, why would I even have a deck
out there now?
TRUSTEE KING: It's the cantilevered section, that's it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What's on the other side?
MS. PISANI: If you see my neighbor, hers is the same projection.
(The Board is perusing the file).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: She can pull it back.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close this hearing, if there
are no other comments.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application to
remove the cabana, and the deck is to be downsized by removing
that seaward portion that is cantilevered out approximately, to
six-and-a-half by 14 foot section, to be removed, when the
cabana is removed, and that is not to be replaced. That's my
motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
Board of Trustees 40 May 15, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: And we'll need revised plans showing that section
being removed.
MS. PISANI: What's the overall size it has to be?
TRUSTEE KING: The deck without the cantilevered section?
MS. PISANI: The deck that you now proposed. What's the size I'm
allowed?
TRUSTEE KING: The existing deck that was left would be 21x11. I
think that downsizing that addresses the inconsistency with the
LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing number seven, John Carway on
behalf of GOOSE NECK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC, requests a
Wetland Permit for the following existing docks. On Lot 15.1: To
repair or replace two existing floating docks and ramps: Dock #1
consists of an as-built 5'x16' floating dock with an as-built
3'x24' ramp constructed with non-treated decking materials; Dock
#2 consists of a 4'x12' floating dock with a 30"x18' ramp; to be
reconstructed using non-treated decking materials; and docks to
be relocated ±5' as not to encroach onto neighboring properties.
On Lot 27: To repair or replace two existing floating docks and
ramps: Dock #3 consists of one 5'x18' floating dock, one 5'x12'
floating dock, and one 3'x16' ramp; each to be reconstructed
using untreated decking materials; Dock #4 consists of a 5'x16'
existing floating dock with a 2'x18' ramp. Located: 1080 & 420
Smith Drive South, Southold.
The LWRP administrator has requested that we do not
conclude a determination and a vote on a permit for this
proposal as the application was received in his office April
26th and there is a month allowable for his determination and he
is still studying the application.
The Conservation Advisory Council has voted to support the
application without comment. And that is their determination.
And we have a letter from a neighbor, a Denis L. Rousseau and
Syun-Ru Yeh at 970 Smith Drive, I would like to read into the
record. Addressed to the Board of Trustees concerning our date,
we will be unable to attend the meeting on May 15th with regard
to the requests of Goose Neck Property Owner's Association for
the repair and replacement of the two docks on the association
property, on lots 76-3-15.1 and adjacent to our property, 970
Smith Drive South, at 1000-76-03-16.1. One of the docks on the
association property is in disrepair and the other had a new
ramp installed recently. However it is unclear if the ramp will
survive high tides as it does not appear to properly anchored to
the ground. We are particularly sensitive to this issue as boats
docked ended up on our backyard and destroyed our dock during
Hurricane Sandy. We are also concerned about the placement of
the docks. One is currently ten feet from our property line. In
the application Mr. Carway states that the dock will be moved by
an additional five feet, however as we understood Town Code
Board of Trustees 41 May 15, 2013
Chapter 275 Wetland and Shoreline section two, item five, docks
and any vessels attached to it must be 15 feet from the adjacent
property line. Specifically as written in this section of Town
Code, all docks including any vessel tied to the dock shall have
a minimum clearance of 15 feet of the seaward extension of any
property line from the adjacent parcels.
Therefore, in an addition to the five foot movement, the
dock should be moved another eight feet, i.e., moved 13 feet from
its present position to account for the beam of any vessel
attached to the dock. On this basis, only one dock should be
permitted in the 50-foot frontage of the association property to
comply with Town Code regarding the distances of the dock from
both the Gitlin/Potter property and our property. And it's
signed by Denis Rousseau and Sung-Ru Yeh.
Also it's my understanding it's Mr. Carway?
MR. CARWAY: Correct.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is some material here that you
submitted to the clerk for distribution to the Trustees; is my
understanding correct?
MR. CARWAY: Yes. If I could go on the record. My name is John
Carway, 1350 Smith Drive North, in Southold, and I am the
immediate past president of the Goose Neck Property Owners
Association and currently I'm acting as the boating and docking
chairman, and I'm here with the consent of the new president.
These docks, these two parcels of land were deeded to the
association from the developer in the early 1960s and have been
used continuously for the docking of boats since that time. I
could personally attest that I have had a boat at a dock in that
exact same location since 1971 or 1972. These docks do not have
permits at the current time and the document that I had
submitted and distributed, rather, to the Trustees, if I could
have it entered into the record, is a letter dated July 13,
1976. It's from Oliver Goldsmith, the then-chairman of
the Board of Southold Town Trustees. And it was addressed to
Mr. Thomas O'Neil who is present here tonight, and Mr. Arthur
O'Neil, in which they say that they have looked at the deeds and
surveys and everything else. And that this was a dredged canal.
The bottom and the marshland on the other side are the property
of, primarily, of Mr. Thomas O'Neil and I believe one other
owner that lives down the block, a Mrs. Roskowski. And this
letter says that, if you read the one, it is therefore in the
opinion of the town Trustees, the Town of Southold does not have
ownership of these lands and land underwater and consequently
does not have jurisdiction over them.
So we had been operating all of this time on the basis of
that, too, as long as we had the permission of the owners that we
could, you know, put stakes into the bottom and otherwise not
abuse the land. And it's only recently that we found out that
the Board of Trustees has asserted control over these lands.
And I only mention this just to say that, you know, we are not
really scofflaws. We are trying to do the right thing. And even
Board of Trustees 42 May 15, 2013
though it's been a year or more since this was originally
brought to our attention, we have 50 some odd members in the
association and we were delayed last year because there was some
concern among the members as to the insurance coverage of the
that has been resolved --and some of the people, including my
son, jumped the gun a little bit in getting the, you know, my
personal dock repaired, and we were then advised to put in an
application for all of them.
So we are trying to do, you know, really the right thing
here. We try, with regard to the encroachment issue, I would
take issue with the fact that, you know, the boats of the person
in my, adjoining my dock, and my boat, destroyed his dock. It
may have been destroyed by Sandy but it was up on the shore
right at the end. And right now, you know, it may be,
technically, we have a small portion there and we will try to
put these things as far away from the adjoining properties as we
can, but we would like permission to, you know, continue to
utilize these things, because otherwise we are severely, because
as I said, 50 members in our association, not all of them are
really, you know, want, a lot of them have waterfront property
on the canal and the creek on the other side of the U-shaped
road. But all of the other so called landlocked owners have the
rights to it. We can only, you know, dock maybe eight boats
there, total, for all of these people. So we would like to be
able to, we have a practical problem in, you know, trying to
utilize this property as best we can. I don't want to take up
more of your time except that if you have to adjourn this thing,
I guess you have to.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just a point of clarification. First of all
I'm actually very familiar with the area because I actually
spent summers and a good portion of my adolescence across the
creek and we come here and crab and I knew Arthur and I know
Tom. The simple fact is the Trustees did not exert jurisdiction
over the private lands of which the prior determination of the
Trustees was a truthful one by the prior chairman, that in fact
it's not Trustee land. But the Town Board requested of the
Trustees
MR. CARWAY: I didn't mean it as a personal
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, in other words we were requested to help
out with the wetlands ordinance of the town board in 1991 and we
basically are agents for the Town Board and also for the good
and welfare of the people to try and protect wetlands. So
clearly, the Trustees, we don't own this property. I think it's
well acknowledged it's one of those we have known about that is
in private ownership, but we still have the responsibility to
administer the town wetland ordinance on behalf of the Town
Board and all the people of the town
MR. CARWAY: We accept that. I only bring it up by virtue of the
fact that somebody had mentioned somewhere along the line, well,
you have been running this thing for, it's been time, because
for all these years you have been running this thing without any
Board of Trustees 43 May 15, 2013
permits. And it was not certainly by intent. We even had other
people come to us, other people along the canal who went through
the permit process, and we told them, what are you crazy, you
don't have to do it. All you need is a letter from Tom and a
letter from Arthur. So, that's where we are at. We reluctantly
accept the jurisdiction of the town.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Given the fact the LWRP coordinator is still
putting the matter under review, and he does a very thorough
review for matters that are parallel to ours but not entirely
the same but for which we have to address inconsistencies that
may come up, I'm wondering if there may be an opportunity for
maybe an additional field inspection with the Board of Trustees
to discuss some of the issues that the neighbors raise.
MR. CARWAY: We never had any problem with the prior owner. Mr.
Rousseau has only, as a matter of fact his name was not even on
the tax rolls yet, so he didn't even get a formal notice because
we didn't know where he lived other than on weekends. And I
spoke to him and he had, you know, when I last spoke to him, he
had no problem. So obviously he must have changed his mind.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't know, maybe, I don't want to speak
for the whole Board, I'm sure additional members will add their
comments, but I think on the field inspection we felt that dock
by dock there might be some individual suggestions that we would
make and discuss some of the issues of property line setbacks,
the state, current state of repair and disrepair, possibly
consider a different level of organization in that second area
that might actually allow keeping more vessels than you
currently have.
So I think there was a general but not complete
MR. CARWAY: We would be happy to entertain
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In other words not completely formed ideas
that we wanted to do in isolation of your homeowners
association. So that's what I was wondering, if it might be an
opportune time while we await the determination of the LWRP
program coordinator to maybe meet again and to discuss some of
the concerns of the Board.
MR. CARWAY: That would be fine with me. I just ask one question,
really just for information. As you know, some of the docking
material, if you want to even call it that one up at, not this,
yes, this one, you see the dock up on the top of the screen, is
kind of in there in a cockeyed, the ramp is not even set in, and
it obviously needs a lot of repair. Are we allowed to, on the
land, work on the ramp and start the repair job?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think it might be problematic at this
point.
MR. CARWAY: I just, in terms of time. Summer is approaching.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Our next field surveys are coming up fairly
Short we have been on a short cycle lately. So, what are we
talking about for our next meeting?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: June 12th.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are on for June 12th for field surveys.
Board of Trustees 44 May 15, 2013
MR. CARWAY: Would June 17th for the meeting?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. I think it would be unwise, we can't
get in a position as a board to authorize repairs.
MR. CARWAY: It was just
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It is well understood, one of the things, I
understand, because of the boating season, but I just think it
would be better to talk it out.
MR. CARWAY: It was just really a request for information. I
didn't know. And obviously from the state of the artwork that
was submitted, you know, we are not at the level of some of the
others. I never took mechanical drawing in school. So I would
formally, if appropriate, request that matter be adjourned.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We'll table it until field inspection.
MR. CARWAY: And that the hearing be kept open until June 17th,
if that's acceptable.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, very much. Does anyone else here
wish to speak to this application?
MR. GITLIN: I am Walter Gitlin and I own the adjacent property
on the eastern side. And my concern is the existing code as it
relates to the docks and as far as I can see, it states that the
dock and a boat attached to it as mentioned in Mr. Rousseau's
letter, should be 15 feet from, encroachment from the adjoining
properties. That being the case, the application is for two
docks, and I can't see, 15 feet and 15 feet, a dock and two
boats, eight foot beam each, that accounts for 50 feet. One
dock. So I'm hoping that the existing code, that we go by the
code as it exists today. And as far as, in Mr. Rousseau's
defense, two boats were during Sandy upon his property. One of
them did as far as demolish his catwalk and his dock was also
destroyed. That's my opinion about the matter. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes
to speak to this application?
MS. HOLLOWELL: Good evening. My name is Margaret Hollowell and
my husband Timothy and I have been residents of Smith Drive for
18 years. And we do live two doors down from the marina, which
is next to the Gitlin's. We are in favor of this proposed
request and I have heard everything you've said. I understand
you are reconsidering. These marinas, I just want to say, add to
the charm of our neighborhood. Boat owners have the comfort and
ease of having these docks. And of course the real estate value
is enhanced. And there has been 60 to 70 years that these
docks, as everyone knows, has been there. And there really have
not been any questions or problems brought up until this evening
of Mr. Rousseau's letter and the Mr. Gitlin's statement. And I
just wanted to say, hearing all this, that I thought that when
homes are for sale, I thought there are title searches and
surveys and if there was a problem with the marina being located
too close to someone's home when they bought, I don't see how a
closing could have gone into effect. And basically I'm
requesting that, I thank you for that consideration. And if you
buy something next to a duck farm you have no right to complain
Board of Trustees 45 May 15, 2013
about the smell. So if they knew the marinas were there, I
don't understand how they can complain about how close they are
to their existing home.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to
this application?
MR. OLLEN: I'll be brief. My name is Matt Ollen. I have a home
at 480 Smith Drive North. My wife and I have been there since
1990. I would like to speak in support of the application. We
have been boaters on and off since 1990, and to echo earlier
comments, these marinas do in fact add to the charm of the
neighborhood and they absolutely enhance the value of the
properties. That would be waterfront properties and landlocked
properties. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else? If you could make your
comments brief, if you will. Anyone else to speak to this
application?
MR. GITLIN: Just a few comments. Matt Ollen just raised the
point of ownership of the docks enhance real estate properties.
Well, actually, the docks are, it's a strange arrangement. The
docks are not owned by the association, I'm told. They are owned
by dock owners. And there are, Matt Ollen is a dock owner, so
called, John Carway is a dock owner, and they have the use of
that dock in perpetuity, until they decide to sell. So that the
opportunity for others who are not, who do not have waterfront
property is limited.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I can appreciate that, but this is not
Trustee land. This is part of a wetland determination. We would
not be apportioning or considering a public trust, and that is
essentially I would think is a private matter between your
association
MR. GITTLIN: It is, but it was raised and I am responding to it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In other words, the things that the Board
can do is of course the code and protecting wetlands. I just
want you to understand that.
MR. GITLIN: I do understand. That's why I'm making a rebuttal to
what has been stated here.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
MR. GITLIN: Thank you.
MR. CARWAY: If my wife were here she would tell me to sit down
and shut up, even though there are things I would disagree with.
So I'll sit down and shut up.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to close the discussion
at this point and make a motion to table this hearing until next
month.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number eight. Bennett Enterprises, LLC on behalf
of JOSEPH LaVECCHIA requests a Wetland Permit to construct an
in-ground 22'x42' pool with associated pool drywell surrounded
Board of Trustees 46 May 15, 2013
by a ±165 linear foot retaining wall; a 4'x6' pool equipment
area; and pool fencing to be relocated along property lines and
along edge of established lawn. Located: 908 Birdseye Road, Orient.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The
Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this application
without comment. On the field inspection it was noted that the
physical aspects of the property conform to the survey, that is
the distance from the wetland to the pool matches, confirms the
lines established by JMO Consulting, and other than that, it was
a straightforward application. Is there anyone here to speak to
this application?
MS. LAVECCHIA: My name is Lesley LaVecchia, I'm the owner with
my husband Joe LaVecchia, and you came to the house. Am
supposed to say something?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think the Board had any questions on
the application. I did the field inspection. I live in Orient.
And it was a very straightforward application. It consists of a
phragmites wetlands that is disconnected and non-contiguous with
your property. There is a paper road in between. The setbacks
all were in line with the wetland boundary measurements that I
took that your consultant had, so basically it was an
uncomplicated application and we didn't have any particular
questions for you on that.
MS. LAVECCHIA: So sit down?
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 hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted on the plans received April 23, 2013.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Before we go to the next one, I apologize, if
anyone has been sitting here, we have had three
postponements, I forgot to mention it at the beginning of the
meeting, on page 12, number 28, 29 and 30 have been postponed.
We won't be addressing those tonight. My apologies. They are
listed as follows:
Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of LOIS T. ANDERSON
PERSONAL RESIDENTIAL TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to
re-nourish a section of the beach within the southeastern
section of property by depositing, grading, and grooming 1001
cubic yards of clean sand obtained from an approved upland
location; and a sand berm that will measure ±18' wide (max) x
±135' long and will be planted with Cape American beach grass on
1' o/c. Located: 2515 Calves Neck Road, Southold, has been
Board of Trustees 47 May 15, 2013
postponed.
Number 29, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of
ROCHELLE BYRNE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed
elevated catwalk (4'x28'); and elevated platform (4'x12') along
the shoreline. Located: 360 North Riley Avenue (ROW off Ole Jule
Lane), Mattituck, has been postponed.
And number 30, 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 feet; tennis
court to have wall and fence; drainage and drywells to be
installed for tennis court. Located: 8925 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue,
has been postponed.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number nine, LAURA A. YANTSOS requests a Wetland
Permit to partially expand foundation on existing dwelling for
additions; construct an 8'x12' addition to dwelling; remove and
reconstruct existing 20'x12' section of dwelling; construct a
9.5'x6' covered porch addition; construct a 2'x16' addition on
landward side of dwelling; construct dormers; install new septic
system; new driveway; gutters to leaders to drywells installed
on the dwelling. Located: 3455 Bay Shore Road, Greenport.
MS. YANTSOS: Good evening, my name is Laura Yantsos, I'm the
owner and applicant.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The Conservation Advisory Council has seen this
and they made no action because they had no site plan being
presented for review by the Conservation Advisory Council.
However they recommend aten-foot non-turf buffer. The LWRP has
found this to be consistent with policies, and inconsistent. The
consistency is with the new septic system, driveway, gutters
leaders and drywells. But he is recommending that the proposed
as-built actions are inconsistent with LWRP because they were
not constructed with a permit. Further recommending the Board
clarify the wetland line setbacks and the as-built structure additions.
I did take a look at this and I have seen the plans.
Frankly, I saw this as being no big deal. It's additions to a
house, most of it is landward. I have the plans here. It's an
existing house. We in fact were there just a couple of months
ago, back in April, I think it was. Was it April or March? I
have a picture
MS. YATSOS: For the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO For the bulkhead, which we approved. And as
part of that we did stipulate anon-turf buffer. It's down in
that corner. She is adding the proposal here is basically mostly
landward of the end of the house. Almost all of it is landward
of the end of the house, the existing house. Adding drywells and
doing nothing more than enhancing the drainage on the property.
It's quite a distance away from the bulkhead. I didn't see any
problems. Is there anybody here who would like to address this
application?
MS. YANTSOS: There is an expansion of 2x16 on the seaward side.
Board of Trustees 48 May 15, 2013
You mentioned it's landward, but it's seaward.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That was just to square off the back of the
house. So it was not going past the footprint of the existing
house.
MS. YANTSOS: Exactly. And I also, to put in the septic system, I
have to cut down a few trees. And I measured them. I didn't put
that in the application. But I measured the distance, and it's
about 116 feet from the high water mark.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I saw that. I figured you would have to, based
on what you are doing, bringing all your septic up to the front
of the house.
MS. YANTSOS: Yes. And I just want to call your attention that
the surveyor drew one drywell, because you can't even bury a
peach piton the landward side anymore with the new septic
system.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He'll bring all the roof runoff to that one
drywell, though.
MS. YANTSOS: In other words the one on the landward side, bring
that all the way around to the front, to the seaward side again?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You have the one in the front. You also have the
one in the back.
MS. YANTSOS: It will be constructed there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right. That's what I'm saying. So as long as
it's in conformity. The only comment I had was putting hay bales
during the construction along the flood zone line just to make
sure debris doesn't get into the water. I'm seeing you have your
ZBA determination.
MS. YANTSOS: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The ZBA granted it with no stipulations. Is
there anybody else here who would like to address this
application?
(No response).
Any questions from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: Looks straightforward. Isaw it. I couldn't
understand the inconsistency.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think it was mainly because it was originally
built without permits. And we'll be permitting it now.
MS. YANTSOS: It was built in 1956. I was there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You were very young then.
MS. YANTSOS: Not that young. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application
with the stipulation that a hay bale line is made at the flood
zone line on the property to protect it during construction.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And the inconsistency will be rectified by
having May 14~h, 2013, inconsistent
TRUSTEE KING: Do you need a break?
Board of Trustees 49 May 15, 2013
MS. HULSE: No.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Just to reiterate, by actually giving this a
permit, brings it into consistency.
TRUSTEE KING: And improving the septic system also.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right. Everything will be as per Chapter 268
with the drainage as well. So that will bring it into
consistency as well. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number ten, EUGENE L. DANERI requests a Wetland
Permit to demolish existing dwelling and existing accessory wood
framed structure and construct 44'x60' two-story dwelling with
10'x44' porch attached to southern side; install a new sanitary
system; construct a 24'x36' detached garage; construct
approximately 68 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead inplace
of and up to 18" higher than existing timber bulkhead; construct
10' westerly and easterly returns; backfill storm damaged area
with approximately 150 cubic yards of clean sand/loam fill; and
install a 10' wide non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead.
Located: 200 Terry Path, Mattituck.
This was found to be consistent with the LWRP. The
Conservation Advisory Council votes to support and recommends
that the bulkhead to be no higher than adjoining bulkhead. And
elevation of house proximity to shore is of concern.
This was one we looked at quite a while ago. And we
revisited it. I believe we issued a permit in 2006. It's an
almost identical house except this (indicating) I believe is a little
bit larger. I think there are some issues with zoning. That took
quite a while, evidently, and they are back to us now for a new
permit. And it also includes the bulkhead which was damaged
during the hurricane.
The Zoning Board granted the requested variances on this.
It was evidently a court decision. It took so much time.
Trustee Domino and I went out and looked at this. It's pretty
straightforward. I don't think any of us had any problems with
it. It was aten-foot non-turf buffer proposed behind the new
bulkhead. Some of it is out of our jurisdiction. The proposed
garage is out of our jurisdiction. Is there anybody here to
speak on behalf of or against this application?
MR. DANERI: Yes. My name is Gene Daneri and I am your applicant.
I would just like to note for the record the house I'm submitting
to you today compared to the house that was submitted to you
back on August 23, 2006, is actually a little further from the
bulkhead and the wetland and also a little narrower. So it's
actually a little smaller in those respects.
TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was a little longer, wasn't it? 55
originally?
MR. DANERI: There was some confusion as to the length of the
house. This is the house that was submitted to the Zoning Board
Board of Trustees 50 May 15, 2013
which was referenced in the determination you have from December
26, which is why it says what it says. Obviously during
construction it's our plan to use hay bales and filtration
fencing. There are drywells on the plan.
TRUSTEE KING: I think everything is there. It shows a row of
staked hay bales with silt fencing during construction, ten-foot
non-turf buffer. And it's a vinyl bulkhead. I think it's, that's
everything for us. Does anybody have any other comments?
(No response).
Hearing 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 as it has been submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. DANERI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number eleven, Richard Petrowski on behalf of
RICHARD ANTONIELLO requests a Wetland Permit to re-vegetate the
buffer area using 60-6' Eastern Red Cedars, 60-24"Bay Berry, and
5,000 dune grass plugs. Located: 2404 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck.
This was reviewed under LWRP and found to be inconsistent.
The inconsistency being the proposed restoration plan does not
accomplish the restoration of the wetland. The spacing and
placement of the eastern red cedars and bayberry establish a
landscape buffer rather than attempt to replace the vegetation
removed. It is recommended the plants be regrouped and placed
throughout the wetland area to achieve a more effective
restoration. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to
support with no comment.
The Board has been out and looked at this and we realize
that our understanding the applicant purchased this and there
had been a problem with anon-disturbance area being completely
plowed over, to use a technical term. An irrigation system had
been installed and I know, myself, personally, I remember going
out there, first looking at this lot when it was applied for to
put a house there, and so I do recall what was there originally.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. PETROWSKI: Richard Petrowski. Basically, the owners bought
into a quagmire and they want to fix it. So that's what we are
trying to do.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was there a violation issued for this property?
MS. HULSE: No.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I got a yes and a no.
MS. HULSE: I didn't get one.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was for the previous owner.
MS. HULSE: Yes. He's the previous owner did pay the fine on
Board of Trustees 51 May 15, 2013
that, yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do we know who was it that came in and plowed
under this non-disturbance buffer?
MS. HULSE: It was the previous owner. That is part of what he
was charged with.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, seeing and knowing what was there, and I
understand, as you said, the owner bought into a quagmire, I
think what has to happen here is a re-vegetation plan that more
accurately reflects what was there originally that was set up as
anon-disturbance area. It was not a buffer, it was a
non-disturbance area, I believe, at that time.
TRUSTEE KING: It was a 30-foot buffer.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was a 30-foot buffer. Okay, thank you, for
that clarification.
TRUSTEE KING: He came in, the previous owner came in and applied
for a swimming pool and a garage and at that time we went out,
we denied the pool, gave him the garage and we established a
non-disturbance buffer. He never came in and did anything with
that permit. And after that, the house was sold and the clearing
took place.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I believe that non-disturbance buffer was on the
westerly side of the property. But we are talking about where
the majority of the disturbance took place is really on the
northern side of this property.
TRUSTEE KING: We need to establish it was anon-disturbance when
this was done.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't disagree, but where I'm going with this
is I think we need to have that restored to the best extent
possible. There is no way to restore it to what it was, but I
think it could be restored. There had been a Swale in there.
There was a lot of vegetation all throughout that area, and
right now, as was noted by the LWRP coordinator, all that is
being done is a re-vegetation along the property line. There is
nothing being done to re-vegetate the entire area that had been
vegetated.
TRUSTEE KING: I believe there were a lot of birch trees in
there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was heavily vegetated, and as I said, there
was a Swale, there was a wetland area in there, and they have
been completely demolished.
MR. PETROWSKI: On the drawing it reflects that it's all along
the property line, it will be that entire zone.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I would suggest at this point, and again,
the Board could add their comment, is that we get a new
landscape plan that shows a variety of plantings, not just red
cedars, but a variety of indigenous plantings to go throughout
this entire decimated area, that the irrigation system that is
in there is removed, and then what I would want to do is go back
and look at the plans from when we approved this site for
construction originally to see what type of buffer, whether it
was non-turf, non-disturbance and the width of it, was
Board of Trustees 52 May 15, 2013
established, and so that we come up with something that is
comparable today to what was directed in the original building
application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That sounds very reasonable.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience who wishes
to comment on this application?
(No response).
If not, then I just would make the suggestion for the applicant
to come in and work with a Trustee in the office again to look
at what was originally established for this area so that we can
assist you in coming up with a plan that might be given serious
consideration by this Board for approval. With that I would make
a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE KING: And part of that, when we get into this replanting
and restoration, I think we should be really specific there is
to be no re-grading or no fill to be brought into this area,
because the topography has been changed from what it was. I know
we can't put it back exactly the way it was but we can address
the future where no fill and no re-grading is to be done.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And actually, 236 of the code, too, bringing
fill or changing grade there will start to flood the road and
create a lot more issues.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know I'll be looking to see this is basically
restored to the condition, as close as possible, to the
condition it was originally.
MR. PETROWSKI: That's what the owners are looking for.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Does the sprinkler system sit there and the
sprinklers that are obviously well above the present grade,
leading one to infer it was the intent to bring in fill. So
this is something that we felt strongly on the site visitation
that no fill be, no further re-grading and no further fill, and
distribution of plants more accurately reflect what was there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a point of order, I know there was a
motion to table. I'll second that motion if there is no further
discussion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, the motion is seconded.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 12, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting
on behalf of ROBERT J. & BONITA M. SCHWAN request a Wetland
Permit to reconstruct in-place approximately 114.5' of concrete
bulkhead utilizing vinyl sheathing and to backfill structure
with approximately 10 cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in
from an upland source. Located: 1200 Oak Avenue, Southold.
The project has been determined to be consistent under the
LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council has indicated that they
would like to see the bulkhead supported but they would like to
see the bulkhead in line with the abutting bulkheads, and
they would like to see a disposition plan for the concrete of
Board of Trustees 53 May 15, 2013
the existing retaining wall.
The Trustees visited the site. On-site inspection, the
Trustees felt that the project is reasonable. The existing wall
has failed and we are recommending aten-foot non-turf buffer,
based on field inspection. Is there anyone here who wishes to
speak on behalf of this application?
MR. JUST: Good evening. Glenn Just, JMO Consulting on behalf of
the applicant. Jay, what was the question about the concrete,
that the Conservation Advisory Council had?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They just want to know that it might be
trucked offsite. I think they are implying disposition meaning
that where wasn't referenced.
MR. JUST: Okay. What was the other question; aten-foot buffer?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The property to the north, or as you face
the water, the right-hand side, has a wood retaining wall that
is approximately 17 feet to the landward. I guess the
Conservation Advisory Council was hoping we might tie in the
existing line because there is no structure to the west. I guess
it would be the east. In other words the opposite facing of what
we are looking at, the Trustees, it was the property to the
right. There is an old wooden bulkhead.
MR. JUST: About 17-and-a-half foot back there was a recess. What
are they asking?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They are asking that it line up.
MR. JUST: Pulling this back 17-and-a-half feet? I don't think
the applicant will go for that. You are asking about giving up
17-and-a-half feet of their property.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm just indicating that. Next to you is my
granddad's property. I kind of know it personally. It's a very
stable shoreline. So I mean a lot could be said this could be
tailor made for aless-structured kind of approach to save
MR. JUST: I've done a lot of work there in the last 20 years.
It seems like all the bulkheads
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is not a regular line there. If
anything yes. It's a very stable area, whether you are using
any of the new materials, it's just a thought I was throwing out
there.
MR. JUST: The only question the applicant had me ask when I came
here tonight was if we were to establish a buffer area, is there
a way to keep afour-foot wide corridor path to the dock.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's the usual.
MR. JUST: That would be okay?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
MR. JUST: Other than moving the bulkhead back, again, the
concrete will be disposed of properly.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Concrete will be removed from the property.
MR. JUST: Definitely. Definitely.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any questions?
(No response).
Anyone else who wishes to speak to this application?
(No response).
Board of Trustees 54 May 15, 2013
Hearing no additional comments or concerns, I will make a motion
to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application with the condition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer
with an allowance for afour-foot wide path to the existing
dock, and that the concrete, waste concrete material owing to
the construction of the new bulkhead would be removed offsite.
So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much, have a good evening.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 13, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of
STEVEN & YVETTE EINCZIG requests a Wetland Permit to partially
demolish existing residence; re-construct first floor with new
second floor (50'x27'); new two-story addition (31'x21') house
and garage; retain existing foundation and add new foundation
for addition; new 5'x21' deck along the side of dwelling; new
21'x31' deck; and new 5'x21' deck no closer than 42' from
bulkhead; install new water lines, sanitary system, and gutters
to leaders to drywells; install and subsequently maintain a 15'
wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead;
mature trees in rear yard to remain; and a line of staked hay
bales along rear yard to be installed prior to construction.
Located: 3055 Wells Avenue, Southold.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent and
recommended anon-turf buffer to be vegetated with indigenous
species. The Conservation Advisory Council voted no action,
stating there was insufficient information lacking a site plan.
And I'll note there is a site plan in the application permit in
the folder that is dated April 23, 2013.
The Trustees in their field inspection made no conditions,
that the project was fairly straightforward. Is there anyone
here to speak to this application?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of Steven and Yvette
Einczig. This has been reviewed by the Zoning Board. We got
variances for the setback to the bulkhead. The Zoning Board,
with the LWRP comments, we modified the decking, cut it back a
little bit. Other than that, it's, you know, it's as shown.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else to speak to this
application?
(No response).
Any comments, questions, notes from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing none, I make a motion close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 55 May 15, 2013
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
stated and described on the plans received April 23, 2013.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
In our number 14, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of
CHARLES RODIN requests a Wetland Permit to create a seawater
surge barrier berm approximately 325' long, 24' wide, and
approximately 4' at highest point throughout the low-lying
areas. Located: 70 Strohson Road, Cutchogue.
I don't think I have a picture of this. The LWRP has found
this to be consistent with the LWRP. And the Conservation
Advisory Council does not support it because the plans submitted
to the Conservation Advisory Council is lacking in detail and
therefore insufficient for review. There are too many issues,
height of the berm, DEC approval, deposition of material. The
project should be engineered by a coastal management specialist
due to character of the project.
We all went out and took a look at this project and didn't
make any comments out in the field. Is there anybody here who
would like to address this application?
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Dave Chicanowicz, Creative Environmental Design
representing Charles Rodin. Do you have any concerns or any need
for any explanation as to what was designed?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It seemed pretty simple when we were there. It's
helping to protect the house from flooding from the creek. It
seemed to make sense. I don't think any of us had any objection
to it. There is a letter in here received on May 15th, it's
written to the Southold Town Board. That came in just today.
I'll take a moment to peruse it. I'll read the letter because it
was only submitted today. I know the Board has not had a chance
to see this. This is from Linda Moler. This comes to us by way
of Washington DEC, I am writing with respect to the permit
request of Charles Rodin, Creative Environmental Design. My
husband and I own the adjacent property at 3600 Little Neck
Road. The property includes marshland and upland directly west
and northwest of the proposed berm. The boat ramp at the end of
Little Creek is within our property line. Mr. Rodin has been a
good neighbor. He takes excellent care of his property. We
understand his house was flooded during Hurricane Sandy and the
proposed effort to mitigate the risk future flooding seems
sensible. Nonetheless we do want to convey three concerns about
the proposal. First, in the event of surging high tides pushed
by winds from the south across Little Peconic Bay, water will
likely be displaced from the berm toward our marshland and the
lower sections of our upland. The marsh on the east side of
Little Neck Road floods more frequently than it did 20 years
ago. Regular displacement of high storm tides might contribute
to the erosion of their marsh.
Board of Trustees 56 May 15, 2013
Second, our house was nearly flooded during Hurricane
Sandy. Water came from the top of the concrete block foundation
at the northwest corner of our house. We may need to build a
similar berm in self-defense within a year or two. Will the
Board assure us now that our permit application would be
approved if this permit application is approved.
Third, the dirt and dump trucks required to build the berm
would make our property a much less attractive rental during the
height of the summer season than it would otherwise.
Following my mom's death last August we've spent the past
year and a fair amount of money preparing the house to be rented
this summer. Will the Board please consider requiring
construction begin next fall if the permit is granted.
My husband Dave McMillan is in Cutchogue now and he'll
attend the hearing on Wednesday, May 15. Thank you, for your
kind attention, Linda Muller. With that, is there anybody here?
MR. MCMILLAN: I'm David McMillan. My wife is more eloquent than
I, but I'll answer any questions you might have for us.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I guess the points are well taken. To address
the second point, the Board can't assure they'll permit an
application that doesn't exist. So we really can't address
that. But I get the point.
MR. MCMILLAN: Is this a precedent?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No. I don't know if it is in this Board's
bailiwick to decide whether or not or when work can be done
because of how it would affect the value of a rental. Dave, can
you tell us, when is the plan to do the work?
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Pending approval from this Board and receiving
all the paperwork, we are scheduled to start work some time in
June. The entire project will take about three weeks. All of
the berming put in place, shaped, and the heavily sloped berm
Imean it's not a heavy slope, it's gradual berm. We are trying
to make it consistent with the surrounding landscape so it
conforms to the area and doesn't become an eyesore. But the
berm itself will be sodded. They do have already an existing
irrigation system to take care of that, so the area will be
replaced, replanted and actually beautified from its existing
condition. And, you know, in a very short time.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: One item I want to note for the record, due a
code change, much of this project is non-jurisdictional for the
Trustees because it's across a public road. If you follow what
I'm saying. Even though it could be within a hundred feet, if
there is a public road between the wetland and the property,
that now in the Town Code was changed so it's
non-jurisdictional, anything landward of that public roadway.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I do realize that the berm that's along, that
fronts the wetlands there is obviously, and proposed non-turf
buffer, that is all within Trustee jurisdiction. So, yes, this
project is partially within Trustee jurisdiction but due to the
code change most of the work along Little Neck and anything
Board of Trustees 57 May 15, 2013
along Strohson is technically non-jurisdictional
MR. CHICHANOWICZ: Is there any other concerns I could maybe
address? I did speak with Mrs. Muller yesterday. She called me
at my office and I discussed the entire project with her, you
know, it was like no surprises, exactly what it is. She seemed
to be put at ease.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have seen this from time to time where there
are a few projects like this done in town. They seem to work. I
mean, Gagen's Landing has one that seems to work pretty well
in that area. So, I think it's probably, as far as I'm
concerned, a good plan. Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
Any other comments from the audience?
(No response).
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.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number 15, Creative Environmental Design on behalf
of GEORGE YATRAKIS requests a Wetland Permit to re-vegetate any
disturbed areas due to the construction of new rock revetment and
access area; removal of existing grass from top of bluff to northern pool
fence line, and re-vegetate with native plant species; construct a 4' wide
access path to stairs consisting of bluestone flagging set on sand base.
Located: 18805 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
This was found inconsistent and consistent, recommending
the proposed action to remove existing grass from top of bluff
to north of pool fence is inconsistent with policy standards.
Although the existing grass is proposed to be removed and the
area will be replanted, the native species to be planted have
not been identified nor have survival requirements for the
planted species been proposed. It is recommended that plant
coverage of the buffer area is restored to minimum of 90%. The
proposed action to re-vegetate any disturbed areas due to the
construction of new rock revetment and access area and construct
a four-foot wide access path to the stairs is consistent. So the
inconsistent part of it is restoration of this area. I don't
see anything in here from Conservation Advisory Council.
There is nothing recent from Conservation Advisory Council, but
they did make a recommendation in November. They supported the
project with at least a 15-foot non-turf buffer landward of the
top of the bluff. Doug Hardy inspected the property and found
the bluff to be severely eroded and recommends the application
be resubmitted after the bluff has been stabilized. That's from
the Conservation Advisory Council back in November. Is there
Board of Trustees 58 May 15, 2013
anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application?
MR. CHICHANOWICZ: Dave Chichanowicz, Creative Environmental
Design, for Dr. Yatrakis. You recently received an amended
landscape plan for re-vegetating the area between the pool fence
and the top of the bluff. I know we have had discussions in the
past as far as how this was going to be re-vegetated. I know it
was suggested by one of the Board members to put in 26-inch
caliper trees to kind of bring it back to the original state
before the violation. My recommendation is to limit trees to
just three (3) 4" to 4 1/2" caliper shape trees as noted on the
plan, allowing enough sunlight and growth for the undergrowth of
the other plants on my plans. Putting in larger trees, I think,
would be a detriment to the integrity of the bluff, putting too
much pressure on the upper edge. Along with that, I did propose
an additional berm that is approximately 15 feet seaward of the
pool fence. Another way of helping control some additional
erosion. All of the existing grass that is there will be removed
and just wood chips installed around the vegetation. Does
anybody on the Board have any questions for me?
TRUSTEE KING: I see, I'm just looking at the new berm that is
there. This was an area that was very heavily vegetated, that
was completely wiped out. I guess there is a violation still
pending on this.
MS. HULSE: Yes, I discussed that with counsel today and his
intention is to resolve that matter as well. The next court
date is in June.
TRUSTEE KING: What's the Board's pleasure?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think it's important to note the history here.
MR. CHICHANOWICZ: I think it might be in the Board's interest to
listen to counsel representing Dr. Yatrakis. He's here right
now, if you may.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. He's welcome to come to the mic.
MR. FERRIS: Thank you, very much, for moving this along. I
appreciate that. At the Trustees meeting with you last
Wednesday, Mr. Bergen, I'm very much aware of the history on
this. I want to thank you for moving on this tonight, looking at
it, and meeting with us last week. Let me assure you, too, that
my client, Mr. Yatrakis, is also anxious to move on this. I
can't speak to what happened in the past but I just know what we
could do going forward, and working with Mr. Chichanowicz in
terms of the plans, I think that he has developed a plan that is
certainly environmentally sound and wilt restore the property,
that section of property as best as possibly could be, under
present circumstances. And I know that Dr. Yatrakis is prepared
to move forward with the plans as proposed tonight by Mr. Chichanowicz.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, from an historical perspective, it was an
empty lot with a very small, old, falling down shed, that maybe
once was a dwelling a long time ago, that the applicant bought.
The Board went out and reviewed this prior to any construction
starting. The applicant knew there was going to be a very large
area that was deciduous trees. Clearly he knew what he was
Board of Trustees 59 May 15, 2013
getting. He knew that those trees had to remain. He elected to
build a house. He then elected after this Board had met with
him out in the field and told him specifically there would be a
small area that would be cleared because of the removal of this
structure that had previously been there, that the rest of this
whole area of the property going to Long Island Sound was to be
left in a naturalized state. It was so heavily vegetated, as the
pictures showed, that well, it was heavily vegetated. I'll
leave it at that. The applicant then chose to wipe it out, and
now has come back to us asking for forgiveness and I'll put
three trees in and some shrubs. A lot of shrubs. I know,
understand, and I respect Mr. Chichanowicz's opinion as far as
survivability of trees that are six inch in diameter, five inches
in diameter, greater or lesser, because he's an expert in that
area. And I know he's an expert in that area. So, from what I
understand, four-inch diameters are the size that would survive
out there. They require a lot of work to maintain survival. But
the applicant chose to wipe this area out and defoliate it. If
that requires a little extra work on his part to maintain,
re-vegetation, so be it. For me, there is no way I can accept a
plan with just three trees in it. Absolutely not. It will have
to be, I don't know the exact number, just for myself, I don't
know how the rest the Board feels, there has to be more trees of
four-inch diameter in there. I want to see that property
restored. It can't be restored to the condition it was in. Your
client prevented that from happening when he elected to wipe it
out. So now it needs to be restored to the best of everybody's
ability here. And so I would like to see many more additional
trees put in there and the vegetation, you know, increased, to
what it was as originally intended by this Board.
MR. FERRIS: I think that's why Dr. Yatrakis relied on Mr.
Chichanowicz as someone who has the expertise in this area, both
in terms of engineering and in terms of conservation of
resources and the best ability for these plants and trees to
survive. I understand very well that no matter how many trees
Dr. Yatrakis has put there, and the shrubs, will require a fair
amount of maintenance in making sure they survive. He
understands that. Let me also say to you, Mr. Bergen, I was not
party to the prior conversations, but I'll tell you from my own
experience, in terms of dealing with the client, and I say this
not to aggravate you any further than you already are, but to
just let you know from my client in talking to him, for whatever
reason, there was confusion on his part in terms of what he
could or could not do. Now, you may not believe me on that, but
I'll tell you 1 spent a fair amount of time going over this with
him. I understand where the Trustees are and the jurisdiction
that you have. He now fully understands what happened here and
that is why, again, he has engaged Mr. Chichanowicz to continue
to try to restore the buffer area, and it is a buffer, and it's
on the map. I understand that well, on the plan Mr.
Chichanowicz has. So having said all that, I understand where you
Board of Trustees 60 May 15, 2013
are coming from. But he does want to move forward. That's why
I'm here tonight as well. And I want to thank you for putting
this on the calendar tonight in doing that.
MR. CHICHANOWICZ: Mr. Bergen, again, I would like to challenge
you on the requirement of how many trees, whereas you are trying
to recreate what was there originally. And I understand that
wholeheartedly, 100%. We talked on the side about this. The
fact of the matter is that the native trees that were there
before they were removed was not helpful to the integrity of
that bluff. So you, as protectors of our lands, should be first
and foremost encouraged to do the best that you could with
improvement of areas closest to the bluffs and erosion and such.
With the plans that I have submitted, that is taking that
full-heartedly in mind. Putting in 20 trees, if we could put
six-inch healthy, would not be a stronger bluff. It would not be
stronger. Putting in 20 4" trees is not going to be as good. We
need to get additional sunlight. Similar to you when you create
catwalks and such, you want sunlight to create in areas where
the undergrowth will allow to grow hardily. Same condition here,
on a larger scale. So I kind of beg to differ with you on your
opinions. I know what you are trying to come up with but as far
as a horticultural point and protecting this environment, I
think our plan here has a solid foundation for that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have a question. Once this is re-vegetated, of
course, it's still anon-disturbance buffer.
MR. CHICHANOWICZ: Still non-disturbance.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Once this is established, there is no mowing, no
cutting, there is no trimming. I'm just kind of curious, what do
you see this thing looking like in a couple years; two, three
years down the road when there is nothing done to it at all?
What do you think it will look like?
MR. CHICHANOWICZ: Actually, the undergrowth should mature out at
a culmination of probably anywhere from two to four foot in
height, fully filled, on the underbrush. And then the selected
trees that we are planning on putting in will have a high
cascade. The nature of the honey locust is a high umbrella
effect of shade with filtered sunlight to still allow the
undergrowth to survive nicely. So you'll get a much nicer
result from just leaving it alone after it's established and is
allowed to grow full.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I was very disappointed myself. I made that very
clear in the proceedings that happened before this.
MR. CHICHANOWICZ: I was not too happy, myself, to tell you the
truth.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I know. We all go back to the beginning of this.
But, in an effort to move on, you know, and knowing that I trust
what you are telling me, if we leave it, if it's left alone and
it's non-disturbance and a couple of years this will grow in,
the only suggestion I would make, knowing the history of, that
we have with Dr. Yatrakis, is that the Board would establish a
bond. We have it within our rights to be able to do that. So,
Board of Trustees 61 May 15, 2013
that's the only suggestion I would have. Aside from that, I'll
go with it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I don't want to repeat word for word what
Trustee Bergen said before but I can say I admire his eloquence.
He stated it very well, and I fully endorse his position. There
needs to be more trees in this plan.
MR. CHICHANOWICZ: So what's the magic number? What's the
breaking; do we put in five trees, ten trees?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I recommend that you, to quote the phrase, go
back to the drawing board, redesign something with more trees,
that you are comfortable with, and I'll understand if you are
not comfortable doing that, but.
TRUSTEE KING: I think he's comfortable with what he's proposed.
MR. CHICHANOWICZ: I'm very comfortable with what I've proposed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, I'm not. Again, I fully respect what you
are saying. And you have a much greater knowledge base of this
than I do. You really do. But I just can't go for a plan,
knowing what that lot looked like, and that if they were mature
trees, that lot had been heavily vegetated for years and years,
the bluff was completely stabilized when we first went out
there. There were no --there was erosion problems to the
neighbor to the west, I guess it is, but I don't see any reason
why, in my opinion, this can't be more heavily vegetated. To put
three trees and a lot of shrubs out there doesn't cut it for me.
But that's just me.
MR. CHICHANOWICZ: Again, you know, I could go back to the drawing
board and I could put in what you like to see to approve it, but
again, it will go contradictory to what we are trying to
accomplish on the long run. So I would say I would like to stand
my ground as to this is what I feel is a good compromise. It's
not putting back what you had. I know what it looked like, too.
I was out there with you. I saw it plain as day. But again, as
far as root structure, you know, in that whole area, what was
there and what will be there, is completely different,
completely different format.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anybody else on this application?
MR. FERRIS: May I just add another thing, Mr. King? Mr. Bergen,
I hear your anger, okay
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's not anger, sir. It's frustration. It's
just frustration.
MR. FERRIS: (Continuing) in dealing with my client on this
issue. I just ask, again, I have had no input with the plans
with Mr. Chichanowicz. I relied on his expertise and time out
here in the area to know that certain things may not be restored
exactly to what they were, but in terms of having trees and
shrubs that is good for the soil and good for the bluff, for my
limited perspective, sir, is what is really important, as
opposed to just restoring to what it was before. And we have a
plan now that actually is going to help the bluff in terms of
erosion, and in terms of drainage. I again would encourage you
to follow Mr. Chichanowicz's plan.
Board of Trustees 62 May 15, 2013
If I may also, Mr. Ghosio mentioned something about bond.
Um, assuming this is approved, my client is prepared to move
forward with this as quickly as possible. I have already spoken
to Ms. Hulse regarding the issue of a bond. There are other
things this Board can do if my client fails to comply with the
requirements both in terms of what this Board is doing and in
terms of the Board adherence. And again, I understand where Mr.
Ghosio is coming from in terms of history, with all due respect,
sir, I look at that as almost a punitive type measure. Because
my client is going forward. I'm here for a particular purpose.
You gentlemen have responded to that request. And we are ready
to move forward on this. We don't need a bond to encumber that
and slow it down.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand what you are saying, sir, but when
you say if my client doesn't do what is asked here, there are
certain measure this Board can take in the future. That horse is
already out of the barn. Your client already did that. So that
horse is out of the barn. Your client knew what we approved
there and he knowingly wiped it out. So don't say to me if he
does it again you guys can impose further punitive action. That
doesn't work. It just doesn't work for me. So, you know, I have
discussed this enough tonight. That's just, I'm sorry.
MR. FERRIS: Any other questions from any of the gentlemen?
(No response).
MR. FERRIS: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I say we seta $25,000 bond and go with this
plan and move this thing along.
TRUSTEE KING: Dave, do you have a timeframe when this project
can be done and completed?
MR. CHICHANOWICZ: Approximately 60 days from the time the permit
is received.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If we take a bond, it will be in his best
interest to do it as fast as possible.
TRUSTEE KING: If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion
to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to move this thing along. It's been a
very troubling project right from the get-go. I know the Board's
frustration because we met out there on more than one occasion
and then saw what happened. I would make a motion to approve
this restoration project. It's to be completed within 60 days of
the permit being issued. You want a $25,000 bond on this?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think that
TRUSTEE KING: Just to show we are serious. If the project can't
be completed within 60 days, we need notification of how much
longer it will take to finish it. And if it is not completed
within 60 days or a modified time period at the request of the
applicant, then I think you should just be re-violated.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Or forfeit the bond. I'm not up on the
Board of Trustees 63 May 15, 2013
provisions of a bond. That's not my area.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Believe me, once you make bond on something you
are looking to get whatever the project is finished as fast as
possible.
TRUSTEE KING: I think that's our intent. We want to get this
thing straightened out as best we can. It can never be put back
the way it was. That's unfortunate. In my mind it's kind of sad,
really. People come out here, they buy a piece of property.
Oh, I love Southold so much. It's so beautiful, it's so natural.
Then they come along and they create what they want. They wipe
it out and re-create what they want. I don't understand it. I
really don't. It's happened it happens time and time again
with us. I have been on this Board 18 years. In the last ten
years seems to be progressing. People are, I don't know, I just
know how frustrated this Board gets sometimes when we see
projects like this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What about amulti-year inspection?
TRUSTEE KING: We need, as was recommended, we need survivability
for the plantings, too, of two years, so the stuff doesn't die
off and doesn't get replaced. That would be part of this
project. Two-year survivability of the plantings. And it's to
remain anon-disturbance buffer, unless they have to go in and
replant something that passed away. That's basically my motion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(No response).
Do you want to do a roll call vote?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is that motion clear enough for the record?
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make motion to approve the restoration plan
as submitted. It's to be a two-year survivability of all the
plantings. We'll give him 60 days to get this job done from the
issuance of the permit. If more time is necessary, we need to be
notified to what extent they need for an extension of it. If it
is not completed within that timeframe, there will be new
violations issued. There is to be $25,000 bond issued on this
project. And it's to remain non-disturbance buffer, unless they
have to go in and restore any plants that perhaps died within
the two-year period. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have to address the inconsistency.
Re-establishing this
TRUSTEE KING: We've established the planting plan. There is, the
plants have been identified and we are stipulating there is a
required survival rate of 90% for two years. And I think that
addresses the inconsistency problem. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Can you emphasize this is anon-disturbance
buffer in perpetuity?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, this will be in covenants on the deed.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That if indigenous species sprout up, they can't
be taken out.
TRUSTEE KING: That's right. Do you want a roll call vote?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I seconded.
Board of Trustees 64 May 15, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Domino?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bredemeyer?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Nay.
TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bergen?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Nay.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll vote aye. Trustee Ghosio?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll vote aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Motion carries, three to two.
(Trustee King, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Domino, aye.
Trustee Bergen, nay. Trustee Bredemeyer, nay).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 16, En-Consultants on behalf of ARTHUR
SKELSKIE 8 NAN MOLOFSKY request a Wetland Permit to demolish
upper story of existing 1.5-story dwelling and construct a
new second floor and roof to create a finished 1 & 2-story
dwelling with a 10'x16' one-story addition in place of existing
6'x16' covered breezeway; a +/-2'x13' easterly addition
with new crawl space below, a +/-7'x10' easterly porch with
steps, a +/-8'x9.5' westerly porch with steps, and an outdoor
shower on west side of house; maintain existing 10'x36' deck
attached to west side of house and construct enclosed storage
area on slab below; remove and replace roof and cupola over
attached garage; expand existing masonry patio on south side of
house; remove existing sanitary system and install new
sanitary system more than 100 feet from wetlands; install
drainage system of drywells to collect roof runoff; repair
existing concrete retaining wall along driveway; remove existing
fish pond and brick patio; remove existing +/-3,100 sq.ft.
Impervious asphalt driveway and install new pervious stone
driveway; and establish an approximately 34,000 sq.ft.
(approximately 45% of upland area) non-turf buffer. Located: 510
Bayberry Road, Cutchogue.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be
consistent. The action's approved but it's recommended a
non-turf buffer be specified. That was it for the LWRP. And the
Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
recommendation with sanitary system drainage plans to be noted
on the site plan.
The Board did go out and looked at this. Is there anybody
here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann on behalf of applicant from
En-Consultants. The applicant Mr. Skelskie is here in the
audience and the project architect Mark Schwartz is here as
well, if you have any questions of any of the three of us.
This project involves a number of renovations, most which
are occurring within the footprint of the existing structures
without further encroachment on the wetlands. And with very,
very minimal change in lot coverage as defined under Southold
Zoning Code.
To mitigate the renovations there is an existing
Board of Trustees 65 May 15, 2013
nonconforming sanitary system located below the ten-foot
elevation contour and less than 50 feet from wetlands, which
will be removed and replaced with a new upgraded sanitary system
located more than 100 feet from wetlands and beyond the Board's
jurisdiction that will conform to the current County Health
Department code. And I heard a comment that you had read about
it being noted on the site plan, that is on the site plan. It's
up near Bayberry Road. There is also a drainage system of
drywells proposed for roof runoff. Those are also indicated on
the plan. The overall coverage by impervious surfaces will
decrease substantially as a result of the project because the
existing asphalt driveway is being removed and replaced with
pervious gravel. It's really a pretty straightforward project.
There are a number of things going on but as the crow flies
there won't be any real major change to the site. And as noted
quite a number of upgrades with respect to the environmental
condition of the property.
If the Board has any questions, we can answer them. Oh,
sorry, there was also a question of the buffer. The buffer is
specified. This is a little bit of a tricky property because on
the west side of the house there is a short bulkhead with a dock
and then the wetlands run along to a certain point. And we have
shown aten-foot non-turf buffer adjacent to the bulkhead and
wetlands. And then we basically fanned that out to the south, as
you start to get to the south of the property where that
existing fish pond and brick will be removed, and then the
entire area to the west of that would remain basically as a
buffer. And it's notated as a non-turf buffer because it's part
of the non-turf buffer that we are proposing along the bulkhead
and wetland boundary nearer to the house. But really that would
be anon-disturbance buffer, that portion of it. But I didn't
know really how to spell that out. Obviously there is no
clearing or construction or anything proposed in that portion of
the property. So those items that you had noted that, I don't
remember whether it was the LWRP coordinator or Conservation
Advisory Council wanted to see in the plans, alf those items are
on the plans.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we saw the sanitary system is up there, as
you said, it's close to Bayberry Road.
MR. HERRMANN: Right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We had a question on the deck in the back of the
house. It appeared to be recently reconstructed and we could not
find any permits for that.
MR. HERRMANN: That's why we included on the plan the way we
labeled that would be for that existing deck to remain with an
enclosure underneath it. That, I don't know when, I don't know
if Mr. Skelskie or Mr. Schwartz would know, I don't know when
that deck was put in, whether it was by the prior owner, current
owner, I don't know. But basically we would be seeking to
maintain that as part of this permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you enclose it right now you would have a
Board of Trustees 66 May 15, 2013
family of Robbins very upset at you. I got dive bombed.
MR. HERRMANN: That's why we called that deck out as an existing
deck to remain.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know what you have here as an island path
abandoned. I just want to make sure that's not aright-of-way to
that island.
MR. HERRMANN: I see, on the southerly portion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, there is an island path. I just want to
make sure that's not some type of easement or right-of-way for
the adjoining property owners at all.
MR. SKELSKIE: My name is Arthur Skelskie, I'm the property
owner. Originally there was a private right-of-way through the
Nassau Point Owners Association that ran through that area, and
that was abandoned well before we bought the property, I think
back in the'50's or'60's. So it's something that doesn't exist
anymore.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Besides that, we didn't have any other comments
about this project. Everything else looked like it was fully in
compliance with 236, so I think everything else was fine.
MR. HERRMANN: Sounds good to me.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience who wishes
to comment on this application?
MS. NORTON: I have to say for the record so we can clear up what
is going on back and forth. We were not given site plans on
multiple properties, so I just want to make that clear, for the
record.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
If not I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Arthur Skelskie and Nan Molofsky. It's been deemed consistent
under the LWRP. And that is my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And we would like to take alive-minute break,
if we could.
(After afive-minute recess, these proceedings continue as
follows).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 17, En-Consultants on behalf of JOHN
MONTOYA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a t66'
low-profile vinyl groin in-place of existing ±7g' timber groin;
construct approximately 101 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead
in-place of and approximately 6" higher than existing timber
bulkhead; stabilize and repair existing 15'x30' deck as needed,
and remove and replace adjacent ±3.5' wide existing stairway
down embankment; remove and replace existing f5'x6' platform and
Board of Trustees 67 May 15, 2013
±4'x7' steps to beach; and backfill with approximately 300
cubic yards of clean sand/loam fill to be replanted with native
vegetation to restore storm eroded naturally vegetated
embankment landward of bulkhead. Located: 750 Cedar
Point Drive East, Southold.
The project has a dual determination from the LWRP
coordinator. It is deemed consistent for the deck and stairway
repair and the fill and the replanting. It is deem inconsistent
for the repair of the existing 15-foot by 30-foot deck, noting
that the deck and stairs were constructed without Board of
Trustees review or wetland permit. The Conservation Advisory
Council recommended the bulkhead be no higher than the adjoining
bulkhead. The deck should be moved landward to the new bluff
edge and removable or retractable stairs installed and to align
with the adjacent bulkhead, and the source of clean fill should
be identified. The Trustees, on field inspection, reviewed the
property and indicated on field notes that we suggested that the
deck be removed and, excuse me, suggested to move the deck
landward and to downsize it so it's behind the edge of the
bluff. We did a permit search, we found no prior permits on the
property.
Is there anyone here wish one who wishes to speak on behalf
of this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of the
applicant John Montoya, who is also here. This project, although
getting later in the year now, is very, very similar to many
that the Board has looked at and has been reviewing and
approving since Hurricane Sandy. And we have approached this
application the same way.
With respect to the deck, the deck is not proposed to be
reconstructed or replaced. It basically needs to be stabilized
in place when the rest of the work is done. The deck was
constructed prior to when a Trustees permit would have been
required for this site. Specifically, it was approved through a
building permit from the Town of Southold in 1988. And a
certificate of occupancy for the deck number 217142 was issued
by the Building Department August 1, 1988. So it is a legally
pre-existing structure with respect to the Trustee Code, which
is why it does not have any permits from the Trustees. And
actually, I should correct what I just said because I read
something incorrectly here. The certificate of occupancy is
dated August 1, 1988, but it references a building permit that
was filed in June of 1978. So at the time it was constructed it
was well before Trustee jurisdiction and it was permitted by the
town and it's recognized as a legally permitted structure by the
town.
What is being proposed to be removed and replaced is the
stairway and platform and steps that are located adjacent to the
deck, which did get twisted up to the point that they should be
and are proposed to be replaced. Otherwise the project includes
the replacement of the storm-damaged bulkhead, and also at this
Board of Trustees 68 May 15, 2013
time we are proposing, I think, in the next picture, to replace
the groin. This is an approximately 79-foot groin. There is a
bit of an angled bend at the end which seems to be well into the
tidal waters, even at low tide. And so the outer 13 feet, which
I think removes that well, I know it removes the entire bend
but I think it will also remove a couple of feet into the
structure at that point. It was hard forme to ever get out
there at a real good dead low. Our estimate was that somewhere
between 60 and 66 feet is probably about where that low tide
line is. I submitted a couple of aerials from 2006 and 2012 with
the application that you could see where that sand appears to be
built up to. And the one conclusion, although in 2006 it looked
like the material was all the way out to the end, pretty much
the rest of the pictures I looked at, I would routinely find
that angled section at the end should definitely be removed.
So we are proposing to remove at least the outer 13 feet.
Again, otherwise, it's pretty straightforward. It's very
consistent with the other applications that the Board has looked
at with these kind of situations and these kind of pre-existing
decks and stairways and the lot.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Other than I was not on the tape doing the
assessment of the groin, because think Jim was, I don't know if
the specific issues
TRUSTEE KING: I think it was pretty accurate. What he's
representing is pretty accurate.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the field notes didn't have any
additional notes on that. And I took the field notes. But the
deck we sort of view as a poster child of probably what we don't
want to see going forward because of tremendous loss of the bank
underneath it. And, understood, I'm sure the Board hears what
you say, there is a history of illegal building permits on it,
but it doesn't really comport well with current thinking and the
code we have to administer. It leaves us in a difficult position.
MR. HERRMANN: Again, my sense is, I don't want Mr. Montoya, he
has been in a long line of folks here. I mean we have decks
around this size similarly permitted situation down on Peconic
Bay Boulevard, that the Board approved within the past number of
months. Where it was a legally, pre-existing structure, where
we were not proposing to reconstruct it and where it had been
constructed prior to a permit. I mean one thing the Board has
done in the past is, you know, for some of these pre-existing
structures, particularly one that is otherwise permitted by the
town, it obtained a permit that is required, the only permit
required by the town at the time it was built, that you would
stipulate that if it were to be reconstructed, it would require
separate approval and would have to come in and, you know, would
be subject to downsizing or relocation or whatever. The point
is, and Mr. Montoya is and he can speak to this if he wishes. He
has no plans to undertake the expense of rebuilding that deck.
And he doesn't want to. He has spoken with the contractor and
basically it can just be stabilized where it is once the
Board of Trustees 69 May 15, 2013
bulkhead is replaced and the fill is brought back in.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm glad Bob just changed this picture. Because
we took that picture on purpose. It really shows how the area
under the deck probably, we don't know for a fact, but probably
had very little vegetation because of inability of light to get
through there. And look at the part of the bluff that got
destroyed in the storm. It's that area under the deck. And you
look farther down in the picture and you see what did not get
destroyed, was right there, obviously very heavily vegetated.
You have an LWRP inconsistency on the deck. You have the
Conservation Advisory Council saying they are not happy with the
deck. And on our field notes we were not happy with this deck. I
think it's time for this deck to be downsized and moved back.
Again, just like you might have been here, we had an applicant
here earlier who was very upset. We did not remove the deck but
we insisted it be downsized. Because decks cantilevered out over
the bluff are not beneficial at all to the environment, and in
turn, in this case, are not beneficial to the property owner
because you can see what happened to the property underneath it.
MR. HERRMANN: Again, John is here, he can speak to this. But the
only issue I have with it is we are not proposing to rebuild the
deck. So you are suggesting that as a condition of replacing a
storm damaged bulkhead and groin that he undertake the
additional expense of completely reconstructing, relocating and
reconfiguring that deck. One has nothing to do with the other.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: My response is that deck does need construction
work. It's not stable. It needs to be re-stabilized. So there
needs to be new stabilization and supports put in. So I would
disagree with you, no, the whole deck doesn't have to be
replaced, but the support system for that deck, the outer
support system has to be re-built. So now is the time to move
that deck back. And downsize it. That's just one Trustee's opinion.
MR. HERRMANN: I understand. I just think it brings us back to,
you know, one point of contention that we have argued over and
over again. This is not an illegal structure. It has a
certificate. It has a building permit and a certificate of
occupancy from the town. I don't know, John, if you want to
speak to it or what you want to do.
MR. MONTOYA: There was vegetation under the deck. And when the
storm certainly did hit on a full moon, on a high tide and all
the vegetation was wiped out. But there was always vegetation
growing up into the deck from underneath.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to point out that during our field
inspection, I specifically asked for that photograph to be
taken, and while there may have been vegetation under there, it
doesn't account for the fact that the area to the lest there as
we view it is relatively undisturbed. And there is a great deal
of damage here beneath the deck where the spacing is so close
that virtually 99% of the sunlight is blocked. And I would also
like to point out that in my tenure on this Board, which has not
been that long, we have not moved in the direction of approving
Board of Trustees 70 May 15, 2013
decks like this. We have made it concerted effort to move them
back or downsize them. And that's my feeling on the subject.
MR. HERRMANN: So did the Board have, so that John can consider
it, did the Board have some specific idea of, I mean, I think
the relocation part of it would seem fairly obvious to me. You
know, it would have to be slid back probably, you know, ten
feet, at least. But again, I mean, I don't want to lose fish
that have been caught, but when it was hectic in here and you
were looking at 30 of these a month, there were decks just this
size and this kind of location that have been approved this
year, for these structures that were legally pre-existing. But I
mean, I know what your point is. I don't I hear you. It's
just this was, I guess I should say unanticipated because I had
discussed this with John before we filed and I said, you know,
if you propose to rebuild this, this is what we may have to deal
with. And he said, oh, no, there is no way I'm going to
reconstruct that thing if I don't have to. And he said they
could just stabilize it. Bull you are here and you have to
across the bridge.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there an opportunity to do a little of both;
move the deck back and I'm thinking out loud here. Move the
deck back five feet and take the most seaward five feet off the
deck. That way we moved it back, essentially, ten feet.
MR. HERRMANN: I understand. Do you want me to come up with a
drawing and I can get it back to you or do you want to just, I
mean I could sketch something out.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We could do something now and just get a revised
plan.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is a consideration, going in this
direction. I think probably a portion of the failure occurred
when, for whatever reason, it developed a slope to the seaward
and was dumping a huge amount of rainwater or storm waters from
the bay that came up on top of the deck. You might want to
consider flow-thru for a portion of it that is over the bluff.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because it is south facing, so there should
have fairly good light penetration. Actually the more critical
area would be flow-thru for the part that is over immediately
the point of inflection of the bluff, so that you get light
penetration in the area that is most shaded and then it will be
fairly stable. But it might prevent the effect. If the boards
are tightly spaced, it's a big dock, it will dump large volumes
of water, even on fresh plantings.
MR. HERRMANN: Sure. So just following Dave's thought, you would
basically end up with aten-foot deep deck north to south,
shifted five feet landward so that what currently is that outer
ten feet of deck that hangs over the bluff would be gone.
Can you live with that?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think that would work. That's a good
compromise in that situation.
TRUSTEE KING: That gets a majority of it off the top.
Board of Trustees 71 May 15, 2013
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Makes it more consistent.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It would address the inconsistency.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments or concerns?
TRUSTEE KING: I think that's it. I think it's a good way to go.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing no additional comments, I'll make a
is there anyone else in the audience who wants to discuss
this? I don't see anybody.
(No response).
Hearing no one, I'll make 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 deck be
shortened by five feet and be moved five feet landward, and that
flow-thru decking materials be a consideration. I won't mandate
it, but be a consideration in the decking replacement going
forward to allow more light penetration for the bluff and in so
reconfiguring this deck it will bring the application into
consistency with the LWRP. And if we could have a confirming
line drawing submitted for the file on that. So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: I'll provide that. Thank you, for your
consideration in working with Mr. Montoya.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. No problem.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 18, En-Consultants on behalf of REVOCABLE
TRUST F/B/O ELLEN M. VIOLETT requests a Wetland Permit to
construct approximately 100 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead and
±5' vinyl return in-place of and approximately 6" higher than
existing timber bulkhead and return; remove and replace existing
3'x±22' stairway and landings as needed; construct 3'xt8' steps
to beach in-place of existing steps; backfill with approximately
25 cubic yards of clean sandy fill; and restore and replant with
native vegetation any disturbed portion of the adjacent
naturally vegetated embankment to be maintained as a non-turf
buffer. Located: 650 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent and
consistent. The consistency is, in the description, matches the
policy and intent of the Board. The inconsistency is involved in
the 3x22' stairway lacks a permit. There was no permit found for
that structure.
The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support the
application, questioning the fence around the property. They
recommended the bulkhead be re-aligned to match the adjacent
bulkheads and recommended a 20-foot non-turf buffer. And stairs,
removable, retractable, for access.
The Trustees in their field inspection noted that this
Board of Trustees 72 May 15, 2013
application is straightforward and was all good as per plans
submitted.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant. Based on Mike's comment, I don't have anything
else to add, unless you have any specific questions.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else to speak to this application?
(No response).
Any comments or questions?
TRUSTEE KING: What was the inconsistency?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It stated the proposed action to remove and
replace existing 3x20 foot stairway and landings is inconsistent
with policy 6.3. A permitforthe structure was not found.
MR. HERRMANN: Again, we have an old Van Tyle survey from the
'60's showing stairs down the bank from the '60's. So, again,
it would have been something that was constructed prior to your
jurisdiction and we are looking to permit it now.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion
to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted as it addresses the inconsistency stated by the LWRP
coordinator.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: 19, En-Consultants on behalf of MARILYN ANGELSON
requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 258 linear
feet of vinyl bulkhead in-place of existing timber bulkhead;
remove and replace existing ±52' timber return with ±68' vinyl
return; remove and replace fence along top of return; install
12.5'x14' removable metal steps to beach; and backfill with
approximately 100 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be trucked
in from an approved upland source. Located: 950 Park Avenue,
Mattituck.
This is found consistent with the LWRP, which is good news.
No access provided to the Conservation Advisory Council. It
should be noted that in future applications is restricted, it
should be incumbent upon applicant and/or expediter to arrange
for access by Conservation Advisory Council members.
I took a look at this. It's pretty straightforward. This is
at the end, comes off Park Avenue, comes down to the beach. The
whole road end was blown out. It funneled up in there and took
the whole road end out. This is a return here and bulkhead to be
replaced. It did a lot of damage there.
I didn't have any problems with it. It looks pretty
straightforward. Is there anybody here to comment on this, for
or against it?
Board of Trustees 73 May 15, 2013
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. It is very straightforward, as Jim described, it's an
inplace replacement of the existing bulkhead. This bulkhead
actually had been permitted previously by the Trustees under the
prior owner for a resheath below the lower wale. And it is, you
know, probably because of that, that it survived as well as it
did during Sandy. The part that didn't do so well, as Jim
described, is really the landward most northerly end of the
existing return. There is quite a bit of erosion at the road end
there, which you could see if you walk down Maratooka Road, it
would take you right to the project site without having to
actually get into the property.
They are proposing a 16-foot landward extension of that
return just to kind of seal up that gap down there, where the
storm surge and waves came in.
TRUSTEE KING: The town will have to do something in this
eventually, too, because we lost quite a bit of property.
MR. HERRMANN: There was a lot of pavement that was crumpled.
The road end is not in good shape but this is basically what
this homeowner can do with respect to their upland, so.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from anybody?
(No response).
Motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: There is a condition in there the disturbed area
will be re-vegetated and the whole area will maintained as a
non-turf buffer on the top of the bank, so it will all be
restored, non-turf.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll still second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 20, En-Consultants on behalf of JAMES S
KATHLEEN NEEFUS requests a Wetland Permit to construct
approximately 219 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in-place of and
approximately 6" higher than existing timber bulkhead and
construct ±12' northeasterly return if needed; reconstruct
4'xt20' stairway and landings down embankment and construct
4'x8' steps to beach in-place of existing steps; repair existing
18'x18' cabana; repair/replace existing ±g'x16' deck as needed;
and re-nourish storm eroded embankment with approximately 350
cubic yards of clean sand/loam fill to be replanted with native
vegetation and maintained as a 15'-20' wide non-turf buffer
adjacent to bulkhead. Located: 3680 Paradise Point Road, Southold.
This application was seen by the Conservation Advisory
Council. They resolved to support the application, though
recommends bulkhead should be no higher than the adjoining
Board of Trustees 74 May 15, 2013
bulkheads, and the staircase should be removable or retractable.
The LWRP coordinator found it to be consistent and inconsistent.
The inconsistency really has to do with the stairway and the
landings down the embankment, the repair to the cabana and
repair to the existing deck, not having a wetlands permit
previously. And points to the deck, the unpermitted deck is
seaward of the top of the bank and the bluff, and may not be a
permissible action to repair it.
The Board was out there, we have all seen it, and we really
had no problem with it as it was submitted. Is there anybody
here who would like to address this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant James Neefus. Again, another storm damage application.
It was reasonably straightforward, and after Bob's indication,
unless you have any other questions, I don't have anything to
add to prolong the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you propose to put a 20-foot wide non-turf
buffer adjacent to the bulkhead?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, we had indicated that it would be 15 to 20
feet wide because that was about the variation in the bank, so.
And this actually ties into the Sanford property to the south
which is the vacant lot which the Board approved last month.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What about the idea of having the stairs
retractable, since it came up.
MR. HERRMANN: You know, for some of these homeowners they like
to do that. Others feel they are not quite as sturdy and stable
and they like to build it wood coming down off the bulkhead. And
I think here you don't have a situation where high water is
always against this wall. This damage obviously occurred during
and avulsive storm event, so if the stairs are built anew and
built with timber, I really don't see it as a problem here. But
some of my clients are definitely moving in the direction of the
seasonally removable stairs. But they tend to be lightweight,
they are aluminum, and honestly some of my older clients don't
like them. I don't know how else to describe it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Not PC.
MR. HERRMANN: I know.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Now, this bulkhead is going to be about six
inches higher than the one that is existing, correct?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, we propose to go up six inches.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's pretty consistent with what we have been
doing as a Board, and bring the others up to that as we go along.
MR. HERRMANN: I tried, on all of these that I have done since
Sandy, that is what I've done. A lot of these are blowouts next
to newer walls and where the newer wall is slightly higher, we
are basically proposing to come up to match. I think we did the
same thing for Sanford, the Board approved going up six inches,
and that would match the elevation of the next Sanford bulkhead
down, which is a much newer vinyl bulkhead that survived the
storm with no problem.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's all I have. Anybody on the Board have any
Board of Trustees 75 May 15, 2013
questions or comments?
(No response).
Anybody in the audience?
(No response).
I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application,
noting that by approving the application we'll be bringing it
into consistency with LWRP. That's my motion. Do I have a
second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 21, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ANN
AMIAGA requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 80 linear
feet of deteriorated timber bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead in
same location as existing and raising elevation 6"; construct a
16 linear foot bulkhead return on west side of property;
reconstruct timber stairs; and remove two cedar trees. Located:
52332 County Road 48, Southold.
The Board did go out and looked at this. It was reviewed
under the LWRP. It was found to be inconsistent because the
structures described were not constructed pursuant to Southold
Town of Trustees review or permit.
It was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council. They
resolved to support with the condition upon the receipt of the
bulkhead construction plan. They didn't recommend raising the
height of the bulkhead. In the plans they wanted to raise the
height of the bulkhead approximately six inches.
Is there anybody here to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. The
proposed plan is to replace the bulkhead that is existing right
now. As we determined from Hurricane Sandy, the tides did come
up pretty high. We want it to be consistent with the Amiaga
property as with the following two applications, which is
Oliveira and Pazzanese, to have a consistent elevation across
the Board of six inches taller than the Amiaga property. I don't
see any reason why we couldn't raise it, just because of the
grades that are there and the heights there to the adjacent
properties. It is pretty low right now in correlation to the
house. And typically it's not been an issue in the past with
raising it only six inches. If it is an issue, we can discuss that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You saw what the weather was like last week when
we were there. So we have a problem with this.
MR. PATANJO: I think that was a couple of months ago, maybe.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We had a cold front come through that day.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't want to put the cart before the
Board of Trustees 76 May 15, 2013
horse because I'm holding the file that will be the next,
subsequent discussion, Oliveira, and I'm looking at the
inconsistency under the LWRP review indicating that no new
bulkheads are allowed on lots on the bays, and so there may be
height limitations or height on this as far as tie in or
discussion concerning meeting LWRP and possibly a low sill
bulkhead, may be a consideration. I don't want to complicate it
but I think it may, and Conservation Advisory Council comments
concerning it, that they may sort of back into each other.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let's stick to this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm raising this, it's a discussion of
bulkhead, right?
MR. PATANJO: I understand what you are saying about the adjacent
property because it's not bulkheaded right now. But this
property right now is bulkheaded with a timber structure
bulkhead. So we can all agree on that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MR. PATANJO: What we are looking to do is replace it with
something more substantial. We are looking to add a return of 16
foot return on the west end and put it back exactly where it is.
We'll give you aten-foot non-turf buffer, and it is really
remove and replace submission, with new vinyl bulkhead that will
hold up to the weather.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: With regard to the two cedar trees, you know, I
know when we were out there, obviously in a cold month, we
thought that those trees could be trimmed and possibly saved.
And it looked like they were trimmed down. Does the applicant
still feel the trees have to be removed?
MR. PATANJO: Yes. The applicant is here and I'm sure she would
agree with me that when it does get windy, they are pretty scary
to look at.
MS. AMIAGA: One is dead, it's brown.
MR. PATANJO: One is dead currently, due to the storm, and the
other is pretty scary for her.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Does anybody else have any comments from
the audience?
(No response).
Any comments from the Board?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Jeff Patanjo on behalf of Ann Amiaga and noting that with the,
recognizing that there had been a bulkhead pre-existing here,
that is simply being replaced, that would address the
inconsistency of the LWRP and bring it into consistency. That's
my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 77 May 15, 2013
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number 22, Jeffrey
Patanjo on behalf of SUSAN OLIVEIRA requests a Wetland Permit to
construct 134 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead and 4'x8' untreated
timber platform with 7'x3' stairs to beach. Located: 52532
County Road 48, Southold.
The project has been determined by the LWRP coordinator to
be inconsistent. New bulkheads on creeks and bays is prohibited
unless the operation involves construction of a low sill
bulkhead. The property action is located within a VE flood zone.
It is recommended that the Board evaluate the proposed the
bulkhead for flood control properties and in context with
heights of bulkheads of properties to the south.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not support the
application. Bulkhead unnecessary, design is flawed with
angular rather than linear construct. It needs anon-turf buffer
of 20 feet and should have same elevation as adjoining bulkhead.
No bulkhead construction plan.
The Trustees in looking at it, I believe we had some
questions about non-turf buffer and what kind of buffering is
proposed. And I guess we saw pink flags on this, it was this or
the neighboring property, we saw some pink flags that may have
been wetland determination. We were just curious what the flags
were.
TRUSTEE KING: That was the next one down.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's what I thought. Okay, that said, is
there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. The pink
flags was the Pazzanese property to the east. We had comments
from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
asking us to flag the wetlands and make revisions to the wetland
package. So that's being taken care of right now, along with an
additional survey.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what we thought they were.
MR. PATANJO: The reason, the justification I have for a bulkhead
on this property is due to the fact that we have the adjacent
property Amiaga we just discussed, and the property to the east,
Pazzanese, which is up next on the agenda, both have currently
bulkhead systems. We would like to connect the whole bulkhead
system, per se, to avoid any erosion to the adjacent properties.
There is some sort of a bluff there, as we can see in the
photos. There is a stairway there. It's well beyond the high
tide line and there is going to be no disruption of vegetation
and really no environmental impact other than protecting the
erosion and sedimentation of the bay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are there any additional questions? I have
one for the Board or Mr. Pantanjo in relation to low sill
bulkheads that were recommended here to answer the inconsistency
determination. Correct me if I'm wrong, I have only seen a
Board of Trustees 78 May 15, 2013
couple built, but it would seem that to straighten the line as
suggested by the Conservation Advisory Council and go with a low
sill bulkhead would put us in a position to destroy inter-tidal
wetlands. We can't perform in other words we have mutually
exclusive universes of what is being asked of us to do, which
actually don't answer or address any of the concerns with
damaged wetlands and also then leave the neighboring properties
with having to build more expensive returns on their properties.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you have a set of plans.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I guess I would ask if there is an opportunity
for a revetment here rather than a bulkhead. In other words
could we accomplish the same goal with a revetment.
MR. PATANJO: We are well beyond the vegetated wetland line for
this proposed bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KING: In my mind this is more of a retaining wall.
MR. PATANJO: Exactly. It's well beyond the line of wetlands.
TRUSTEE KING: You get right up against the toe
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's so far away from the wetland. The
definition of a bulkhead
MR. PATANJO: If you look at the proposed plan, you'll see this
is kicked back pretty far to the north.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right.
MR. PATANJO: It's really to protect, really for storms. The high
tide will never reach this. There is no vegetated wetlands
there. It's more less a retaining wall beyond the high tide line.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So actually the application, I mean the
description really should be amended to call this a retaining
wall for this particular structure.
MR. PATANJO: If you will, yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That would address the inconsistency.
TRUSTEE KING: A low sill bulkhead is not even feasible. Not at all.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: A retaining wall by our code is defined as a
bulkhead landward of the wetland boundary.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We don't have to change it. That's fine. Any
additional questions or comments?
(No response).
Anyone else from the public?
(No response).
Hearing no additional comments, 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 of Jeff Patanjo on behalf Susan Oliveira pursuant to
plans received and stamped in the Trustee office April 9th,
noting that the application will be brought into consistency by
virtue of the fact the construction is typically described as a
retaining wall and that alternatives of a low sill bulkhead or
other are impractical for this particular site and would lead to
Board of Trustees 79 May 15, 2013
damaging intertidal wetlands. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 23, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of GEOFFREY
PAZZANESE requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing timber
retaining wall and construct 84 linear foot vinyl bulkhead
in-place; and replace existing 3'x7' stairs to beach. Located:
400 Richmond Road East, Southold.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent, noting
that no new bulkheads are allowed in bays or creeks. The
Conservation Advisory Council voted to support application, All
in favor, unanimously.
During our inspection we noted the flagged stakes one
through four and further was the wetland Tine delineation which
we wanted clarified, and you already did that. We also suggested
a non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead which is shown on the
plan. Is anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. I think
we can agree this is the same exact situation as the Amiaga
property, for instance, which there is an existing bulkhead.
We'll replace what is there. The wetlands flags were identified
for the DEC application re-submission. And it is going to tie
into the bulkhead to the west, which is the previous application
Oliveira application, and it will tie into the bulkhead to the
east, which looks like James Sennet (sic). Same elevation across
the Board, same construction across the Board. This is also
beyond the high tide line. It's beyond the vegetated wetlands
line. So it's very similar to the last two.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to point out the location of wall
is inplace on the plans with the existing retaining wall. So
that in effect nullifies the inconsistency. So are there any
other questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: Do we have anon-turf buffer on that?
MR. PATANJO: It's not shown on the plan. I can identify it or I
can change the plans to amend it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there room for it? Above the retaining wall
there? There is really not much room. I know it's mostly gardens.
MR. PATANJO: My client does not like grass so we will have a
non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I know that. I knew him before he passed away.
MR. PATANJO: That's Geofs dad.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I knew him. I have been there I remember
when he was planting all the gardens.
MR. PAZZANESE: I'm doing that now.
MR. PATANJO: So the intent is to re-vegetate as it is.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no other comments or questions I make a
motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 80 May 15, 2013
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application
noting that it will address the inconsistency as stated by the
LWRP, and requesting aten-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: For the record, I liked your dad. I was sad when
I found out he passed away.
MR. PAZZANESE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 24, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of JOHN &
ROBIN IOVINO requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing
concrete retaining wall, timber bulkhead, floating dock & ramp;
and install a 164 linear foot vinyl bulkhead, and raising the
elevation 4'; a 6'x20' floating dock; 3'x14' aluminum ramp;
4'x4' upper and lower platforms with stairs; and provide 35
cubic yards of clean fill behind new bulkhead. Located: 180
Bayview Drive, East Marion.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent with the
LWRP, however is proposing aten-foot wide non-turf buffer. The
Conservation Advisory Council supports with the recommendation
that the bulkhead be no higher than the adjoining bulkheads so
the other neighbors will not be negatively affected. We do have
a letter from the Gardiner's Bay Homeowners Association
approving the request that they put forth.
The Board did go out. We all saw it. We were suggesting
gutters, leaders and drywells and to remove the drain pipe that
goes through the bulkhead. With that, is there anybody here who
would like to address this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. I think
the only comment that I needed to address would be the gutters
and drywells. My client has no objection to adding gutters and
drywells to contain all roof drainage, runoff, on the site. A
ten-foot non-turf buffer is pretty hard to accomplish.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It will be hard there.
MR. PATANJO: Because there is about eight feet to the house. So,
which will be, due to the raising of the bulkhead four foot,
we'll have a walkway and some plantings between the walkway and
the proposed bulkhead. So we will be able to obtain that. Down
along the south section of the property we can provide a
ten-foot non-turf buffer
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Your plans show you'll have aten-foot non-turf
buffer during portions of the project, that it can be done.
This was just the pictures you could see here of the drain pipe
we have going from the driveway right out over the
MR. PATANJO: We know it's there, we'll take care of it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Good. That's all I have. Does the Board have any
questions or concerns?
(No response).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
Board of Trustees 81 May 15, 2013
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted with the added requirement that the drain pipe that
was going from the driveway over to the bulkhead will be removed
and that the drainage be addressed in accordance with Southold
Code 268. That would include gutters, leaders and drywells.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number 25, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of MILDRED
DAVID requests a Wetland Permit to replace timber 4'x76'
catwalk; 3'x12' aluminum ramp; and 6'x20' floating dock; new
catwalk to have thru-flow decking over wetlands and remainder to
be untreated lumber. Located: 3825 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue.
This was found inconsistent with the LWRP. A permit was
issued in 1980 for the dock structure with a catwalk length of
36 feet, 12-foot ramp and 10.4 foot by eight-foot float. The
current proposal does not conform to permitted catwalk and dock
dimensions. The dock structure will extend into public water and
result in a net decrease to public access to public underwater
lands. The applicant enjoys access to public water via existing
permitted dock structure. Those are the LWRP comments.
Conservation Advisory Council, the project was not staked,
therefore no recommendation was made. Is there anyone here to
speak on behalf of or against this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. This
existing dock was there, obviously these were permitted in 1980.
It was destroyed during the hurricane, and the water depths
currently are pretty shallow due to the sabotation of Eugene's
Creek. The proposed plan extends out into the water body. There
is still more than sufficient room, if you could bring up an
aerial of any sort, for the channel and the waterway access
there. It's not going to impact with navigation of the
surrounding land owners or anybody that does have traffic
through there. The proposed dock is going to be in the same
position as the previous one, just extended out further. We are
going to provide the chocking system for the floating dock
itself to prevent it from being closer than 30 foot to mean low
water on the bottom of it, which is typical of what the New York
State DEC would like. We are going to provide that. Everything
will be untreated timbers for the decking system. We'll provide
open-grating over the wetlands area, and it is a typical 6'x20'
float with through-flow decking.
TRUSTEE KING: Do we have any idea how it grew of 36 feet to 70
something?
MR. PATANJO: I made it grow due to the water depth. That's the
only reason, is the water depth. If I go out 36 feet, I'll be
near those existing piles. I'll have 13 inches of water at mean
Board of Trustees 82 May 15, 2013
low water. I might as well not build the job. So if I go out to
the proposed, what is this, 76-foot Tong with the timber
floating dock and the ramp, I get out to at least 14 to 22
inches at low tide. And I do provide the chocks to keep it off
of the bottom. The client does not have a huge boat. It draws
around 12 inches, so it will still be off of the bottom.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you have that, Bob?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's this one here.
MR. PATANJO: That's the project, yes. You can see, it was very
short. The adjacent properties do extend out a little further.
So as far as navigational issues, it won't impact considerably.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: These shots are all in the winter, looks like
they tucked a float in here that might only
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is. I walked out on field inspection. I
walked out to the neighboring site, the pier line. It does
extend beyond the pier line
MR. PATANJO: There is a lot of mud there.
TRUSTEE KING: Can we try and make, we have been pretty
consistent with trying to maintain these pier lines; one jumps
out and then the other one needs to jump out.
MR. PATANJO: Can you zoom out a little more, maybe we can see
the overall width of the creek. It's pretty large. And due to
the water depth there will be no one coming up this close to the
pier. You have a thousand feet on the opposite side. It's huge.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That is not the issue. It's just in the code it
talks about establishing a pier line with neighbors docks. And
this extends out beyond it. I don't know if there is an
opportunity to pull it back a little bit?
MR. PATANJO: No.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No? None at all?
MR. PATANJO: It would not work due to the water depth. I don't
know how these adjacent properties are getting boats into their
docks. It's very muddy there. I set the stakes and I'm sure you
guys saw the stakes. It is afoot-and-a-half of mud.
TRUSTEE KING: It seems to grow and shrink over the time period
MR. PATANJO: The dock? Well there is nothing there now. A
couple of piles left.
TRUSTEE KING: What's the Board's pleasure on this? I'm a little
uncomfortable with it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I always feel that pier lines are somewhat
contextual to meeting reasonable water depth, so, you know, it's
certainly not getting a huge amount of depth on this by going
out a bit.
TRUSTEE KING: I get uncomfortable when 1 see a site that there
is nothing left, you know.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Part of the problem with this, it's not
created by this property, but some of the shoaling, I think, you
notice, may be a function of either Irene or Sandy. The
neighboring property to I guess the south, with the bulkheading
that it has there, has shot a large amount of Sandy material in
that direction and it appeared that was what that broad band of
Board of Trustees 83 May 15, 2013
light-colored sand that had covered all the Spartina and a lot
of that had filtered out into the water there. So it's tending
to shoal up a little more, and we don't have an alternative for
dredging and disturbing bottom. That's why I'm sort of inclined
to think, if it's a minimalist dock and you have the conditions
with the other neighbors sort of created that; the catwalk on
the one to the west is huge. Compared to other overall dock
structures, it's not as big as others, it's trying to get a
reasonable depth of just a foot or two.
MR. PATANJO: The only other way I can accept going shorter is to
allow dredging. And I can't speak for my client, if they want to
spend the money to dredge it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think dredging Trustee lands at this
point given the history of the navigational challenge, it's not
doable, I don't think.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there a way of mapping this out? I mean to
kind of show where it would be, that looks like it's fairly close.
TRUSTEE KING: That looks like it's fairly close to what it is in
2007. But we don't know where it is in relation to what is there today.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I didn't have a huge issue with it, knowing some
of the other things that were done in that area. Five-hundred
foot catwalk, I remember having conversations about that and I
thought that was a little too much, but.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Where do you stand with the DEC on this?
MR. PATANJO: Still waiting for review.
TRUSTEE KING: Does anyone want to make a motion?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments from anybody in the
audience?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Mildred David, and given the fact there are other docks in the
immediate area close to similar length, I don't feel it's a
hazard to navigation or it's a limited use of public access
here, so I would deem it to be consistent under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer,
aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee King, nay).
TRUSTEE KING: For the record, I'm voting nay on this one. I'm
uncomfortable with it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 26 Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc.,
on behalf of MATTITUCK PARK DISTRICT request a Wetland Permit to
construct 620' overall bulkheading (westerly 406' bulkhead
section with 18' return; easterly 138' bulkhead section with 58'
return); construct 12'W x 51'L± beach access ramp; construct 3'W
x 12'L beach access steps and landings; and perform grading
-
Board of Trustees 84 May 15, 2013
within portions of lands located landward of the proposed
bulkheading. Located: 11020 & 11280 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard,
Mattituck.
This was an application which we opened last month. It has
been reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent, asking
that the Board consider requiring the replanting of areas void
of vegetation landward of the new structures. The Conservation
Advisory Council resolved not to support this application. This
was a consistency review done on April 10, because this project
is deemed to failure as designed. The Conservation Advisory
Council recommends utilization of rip rap three to one ratio of
plantings along the entire western shoreline. Redesign proposed
ramp of parking lot and removable stairs.
Last month what we talked about seeing if there was an
opportunity for a combination of replacement of the old
retaining wall and then the use of a revetment going over to the
proposed ramp. And we met out there in the field to look at
this, and that brings us up to today.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicant Mattituck Park District. I would like to start
by just highlighting what I think the relevant area of the
concerns are. I think the first point as per your definition of
what is proposed here, are actually retaining walls and not
bulkheads because they are substantially landward of the wetland
boundary which in this case is the high water mark. My sense of
the primary concern here is really the risk of if a bulkhead
were or I should say retaining wall were constructed as
proposed, it might cause beach erosion. And so to address that
we downloaded a series of aerial photographs from 1994 to a year
ago. March, 2012. And they all depict the same set of basic
facts here, which is that the park district property is
protected on both sides by well-maintained groin that extends
out to below the low water mark. And it is that groin that
creates the fronting beach and holds the sand in its place. And
what these photographs depict is, if you start from maybe the
back and move forward, is that what we have over at least the
past 12 years I'm sorry, over the past 18 years, is we is
have a highly stable beach. And that beach is stable despite
the fact we have had for quite some time constructed a wood
retaining wall on the west side and of course the concrete
retaining wall that is adjacent to the parking area. And what's
happened here, essentially, is you had all the damage you see
there was a result of Hurricane Sandy, and it was created as a
result of a very unusual and very significant tidal surge.
So the purpose of the retaining walls as constructed are to
provide protection to the areas landward of the beach in the
event of significant tidal surges such that occurred with
Hurricane Sandy. Over the long time, they'll play, we believe,
no role whatsoever in the width of the beach because those
beaches, the beach is in fact protected by the retaining wall.
Board of Trustees 85 May 15, 2013
So under that circumstances, whether there is a revetment
constructed let's say adjacent to the one-story frame building,
or whether it's a vinyl retaining wall, will not play a role in
the width of the beach.
Now, we have also provided, as you know, an access ramp
leading from the general area where the parking lot area is to
the beach. It is sized to provide handicap access, also sized to
provide emergency access. It's my understanding there is no
concern relative to the ramp but I mention it because it is part
of the application. And so I guess the question is, is there a
reason that the retaining wall here would play a role in the
erosion of the beach, and I don't think there is information
that, or data, that supports that contention given the fact
these bulkheads, these retaining walls, rather, have been here
for quite some time. Including the concrete retaining wall which
is obviously closer to water's edge than the previously existing
creosote retaining wall that is in disrepair.
With me tonight is Joe Fischetti who designed the walls. He
can speak to the elevations which were marked in the field. We
are anxious to hear what feedback the Board may have on our
application as it stands.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: When we were out in the field, we did eyeball
down a line from the remains of the old structure looking down
toward, I'll call it the ramp area. And I thought when we
eyeballed there was an opportunity to move this proposed wall
landward a little bit.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what we were just talking about.
TRUSTEE KING: We were just talking about that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because when we eyeballed it, it looks like you
can move the whole structure a few feet farther landward to get
it a little farther away from normal mean high water.
MR. ANDERSON: You know, I'm not opposed to that. Our concern is
going to be that we want to integrate it with the groin on the
left side. So we want to connect to the landward reach of that groin.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: On the western side.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MR. ANDERSON: So whether it angles landward from that point, I
don't think is of event to us. The other question that is
somewhat up in the air, maybe Joe can speak to this, Mr.
Fischetti, is that the idea was that we would place the
retaining wall as close to the existing concrete wall on the
east side without the necessity of having to remove that
section. So I don't think, I don't know that there is an
opportunity do that unless the concrete retaining wall were to
be removed. But even in that case, what you are really talking
about doing is shortening the parking area. And I don't know if
that is feasible either. Or preferable, I should say.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think being in front of the concrete is an
issue. I think my idea is that whole thing should be moved
landward, the east and west run of the bulkhead, just move it
Board of Trustees 86 May 15, 2013
landward. As far as the groin down at the western end, I think
that ends at the bulkhead. The top of that groin is about even
with the top of the bulkhead.
MR. ANDERSON: That is correct.
TRUSTEE KING: That groin is supposed to have been built, when it
was permitted, as a low profile groin, and it was not.
MR. ANDERSON: That's awfully high for aloes-profile groin.
TRUSTEE KING: That's right. I remember reviewing and going over
it.
MR. FISCHETTI: Joe Fischetti. That actually ties up with the
adjacent property's bulkhead also.
MR. ANDERSON: So are we talking about rotating it landward or, I
need a little more guidance so I can prepare an amendment, if
that's what you wish.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I guess move it up and extend the groin
landward.
MR. ANDERSON: So would you be, are you talking about extending,
call it the landward terminus of the groin, let's say.
TRUSTEE KING: Extend that in to where you end the new bulkhead.
MR. ANDERSON: And so some distance, I guess we have to take a
measurement in the field for that. But somewhere between five
and ten feet? Is that what we are talking about?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Looks like a return is coming up here. It's hard
to see.
TRUSTEE KING: Maybe there was something there from years ago. I
remember going, when I went down there and saw it, it was kind
of disappointing. Because we had the same problem on the east
groin, and that had to be cut down.
MR. ANDERSON: That was cut down.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. We had a big brouhaha out there. DEC was out
there, I was out there, the contractor was out there. It was a
nightmare. And it was never as low as what was proposed.
MR. ANDERSON: I see what you are talking about. Right where it's
cut. Right where the arrow is.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So if there was an opportunity to move this
entire structure back approximately five to ten feet so that we
would be moving the terminal end of it on the western side in,
and on the eastern side it would end at about the start of the
ramp. That's going to get it awful close to that one-story
building and the concrete walk. I don't know if that's going to
bring it too close to that deck, covered porch.
MR. FISCHETTI: We need a return on the other end. So by going
five feet back would help us to keep that return there. I think
that's a reasonable request, and I think we can do that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I notice on the plan it appears there is a wood
fence here in front of the one-story frame building with covered
porch.
MR. FISCHETTI: I think that's gone.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, that's my question. Is that the old wooden
fence that is now gone, so there was no plan to replace that,
correct?
Board of Trustees 87 May 15, 2013
MR. FISCHETTI: I don't think so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, and as far as re-vegetating between the
buildings there and the structure, the proposed structure, is
there an opportunity to provide some re-vegetation there, because
there was vegetation that all somehow disappeared post-Sandy.
MR. ANDERSON: The answer to that is yes, and I would be happy to
take another look at it and prepare, what I would like to do is
prepare an actual plan to stabilize that area of vegetation as
well as areas landward of the retaining wall that we rebuild. It
would typically require aten-foot non-turf buffer. I don't see
that that would be unreasonable.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because I'm thinking some type of turf in there
to assist in the event of a storm when we do get wash over this
new structure here, any type of vegetation there will again help
protect the land going to those buildings. Because as I
understand it, this is, if not the primary, it's one of the
primary concerns that this structure is addressing is the safety
of those buildings in the event of another storm, or a storm.
MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. What I can suggest is that we can
go out and look, we can depart today with the understanding that
we'll extend, if needed, the landward terminus of the western
groin five feet, move the entire reach of the revetment, the
vinyl revetment, that is, five feet; preserve the return
adjacent to the ramp; and plant the areas landward of that in
beach grass all pursuant to a revised plan. And the only thing
I would suggest is if for some reason we can't do that, for some
physical reason on the site, we'll ask to vary that
subsequently. But I think if we wanted to conclude this matter
tonight, we could with that understanding.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only other item I noted is along the entire
structure is one set of proposed steps. I'm just wondering if
you wanted to add another set of proposed steps someplace around
in front of those two buildings. I know there is a ramp there.
But again, I'm just thinking we are now putting a structure with
nine foot of elevation there, and this is a park. I'm just
wondering if the one set of proposed steps is sufficient.
MR. ANDERSON: I think that's a good idea and I would add that to
the plan.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't know how the Board feels about that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Excellent idea. Also you have the lifeguard
stands and the beach access where you would probably make it
easier for lifeguards coming and going.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from anybody in the audience?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
I'll make a motion 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
Board of Trustees 88 May 15, 2013
Suffolk Environmental on behalf of Mattituck Park District
requesting a wetland permit to construct 620 feet overall of
retaining wall (westerly 406-foot bulkhead section with 18-foot
return; easterly 138-foot section of retaining wall with 58-foot
return), constructing a 12-foot wide by the five foot beach
access ramp; construct two sets of three foot by 12 foot beach
access steps and landing; perform grading within portions of the
land located landward of the proposed retaining wall, with the
condition that the retaining wall is going to be moved
approximately five foot landward and that Cape American beach
grass as well as other plantings will be planted behind the
retaining wall. And with all that it's found consistent under
the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 27, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
on behalf of MURRAY GAYLORD requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing 156' long bulkhead and installing''/a" PVC sheathing in
4'x3' sections along the landward face of the bulkhead; adding a
5"x6" follower opposite the existing 5"x6" wale on the top of
the bulkhead; covered by a 1' wide wooden cap; deposit t50 cubic
yards of clean sand fill behind the existing bulkhead; and the
installation of a 10' wide non-turf buffer landward of the
bulkhead vegetated with beach grass. Located: 765 Beachwood
Road, Mattituck.
The proposal has been determined to be inconsistent because
of a lack of Trustee permit. So it would be brought into
consistency by virtue of Board action. The Conservation Advisory
Council voted to support the project conditioned upon the use of
untreated materials and best practices and the installation of a
ten-foot non-turf buffer along the bay front and wetlands. And
the Trustees did not find any deficiencies with the application.
We looked at it in the field and met with the Mr. Anderson on
behalf of the applicant and discussed the project in the field.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of the
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental, for the
applicant. I only want to add that when the house was rebuilt,
the condition of that was that aten-foot non-turf buffer be
installed adjacent to the wetlands and also adjacent to this
bulkhead, which was impossible because of the erosion that
occurred through this bulkhead, we believe as a result of the
creek being dredged. So it all kind of works together, by
implementing this allows us to comply with the underlying permit
for the house. I'm told now that it's getting very difficult to
get beach grass and that the time to plant it, we are now passed
that window, so what we are talking about with this and probably
50 other projects that I have done, actual plantings in the
Board of Trustees 89 May 15, 2013
Fall. I don't know how to fix that. But that is the way this
stuff is looking right now. Demand of beach grass is great. I'll
say where we have used it, in other places, it's worked really
well. So I'm hoping everyone can just be patient because it may
take us to the Fall to actually plant the beach grass due to the
availability and biology of the plant.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Any other questions or concerns?
(No response).
Hearing none, any comments from the public?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve the
application as submitted and received in the Trustee office on
April 23rd, noting that by virtue of approving this application
as submitted it will be become consistent with the LWRP
coordinator. So moved.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfurll~y~submitted by,
O~
James F. King, esident
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED
/d io A~
SEP 2 4 1;13
Wp~~