HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-07/17/2013 James F. King, President o~aOF SOUr~ol Town Hall Annex
Bob Ghosio, Jr., Vice-President ~ ~ 54375 Main Road
,,yy,~ P.O. Box 1179
Dave Bergen # T Southold, New York 11971-0959
John Bredemeyer G Q
• ~O Telephone (631) 766-1892
Michael J. Domino O Fax (631) 765-6641
~y~OUNTY,~~
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RE~Etti'Eiy,
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
OC~1`8 ~~a'~`~5
Sou old lbwn ertc
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
5:30 PM
Present Were: Jim King, President
Robert Ghosio, Vice-President
Dave Bergen, Trustee
John Bredemeyer, Trustee
Mike Domino, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Clerk Typist
Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, August 14, 2013, at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, August 21, 2013, at 5:30 PM
WORKSESSION: 5:00 PM
TRUSTEE KING: Welcome to our July meeting. Before we get going, we have some
postponements. On page six, we have number five GABRIEL SCIBELLI requests an
Amendment to Wetland Permit #6534 to extend the existing west return 60' landward.
Located: 450 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold, is postponed.
Page eight, number five, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of ORIENT
WHARF COMPANY, c/o JOHN TUTHILL requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to dredge roughly 2,150 cubic yards of material in the area surrounding
the Orient Yacht Club in order to maintain the navigability of the harbor; dredged
material to be placed in a drying container secured to the wharf which will then be
removed to an approved upland source. Located: 2110 Village Lane, Orient, has been
postponed.
Board of Trustees 2 July 17, 2013
Number six on page eight, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of NICHOLAS YUELYS
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for the as-built 30.5'x26.2'
cement block wall; reinforcement of existing damaged piles under dwelling; and for the
existing single family 30.5'x26.2' dwelling with a 19.3'x9.5' landward extension and
existing wood decks. Located: 56005 County Road 48, Southold, has been postponed.
Page ten, number 13, 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, has been postponed.
And on page 11, all those on page eleven have been postponed, 14,15, 16, 17 and 18.
They are listed as follows:
Michael Kimack on behalf of PAUL GROBEN requests a Wetland Permit to replace in
the same location a 4'x50' fixed dock; a 3'x28' fixed ramp; a 3'x12' removable aluminum
ramp; and a 4'x16' floating dock secured by two sets of 8"-9" diameter mooring pilings;
decking to be Thru-Flow and railings to be a composite material. Located: 3705 Wells
Road, Peconic.
Number 15, DANIEL S. MELHADO requests a Wetland Permit to install a 4'x9' fixed
ramp using Thru-Flow decking, leading to a 4'x9' hinged ramp with railing using
Thru-Flow decking, to a 6'x18' floating dock using composite decking; and to remove
five (5) dead trees. Located: 820 Smith Drive South, Southold.
Number 16, KEVIN KELLY requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 34"x8' fixed
catwalk with a handrail and to repair it by replacing the decking with thru-flow planks;
replace the existing ramp with a 32"x10' aluminum ramp with handrails; replace the
existing floating dock with a 4'6"x16'4" floating dock with three (3) 28" high posts on
seaward side; float to be secured by two (2) existing 3" diameter aluminum pole pilings;
and remove a dead double oak tree. Located: 730 Smith Drive South, Southold.
Number 17. Gerard E. Meyer, Architect on behalf of SHAMGAR CAPITAL, LLC, c/o
DANIEL BUTTAFUOCO requests a Wetland Permit to construct additions and
alterations to existing two-story single family dwelling of a 119.4' x 120.8' addition at the
north-east corner; cone-story 125.33' x 127.33' addition at the north-west corner to
expand the garage; a proposed 112' x 119' one-story roofed-over porch on westerly
side; remove existing easterly wood deck and construct atwo-level 8' to 12' deep by
65.42' long open porch; remove existing and construct new second story and new
third-story attic/living area; install new 3' deep footings and foundations around the
perimeter of the proposed additions; remove existing sanitary system and install new
sanitary system further landward; the installation of gutters to leaders to drywells on the
dwelling; and to reconfigure the existing driveway and add drainage for runoff. Located:
1165 Kimberly Lane, Southold.
And number 18, Creative Environmental Consulting on behalf of ELENA COLOMBO
requests a Wetland Permit to move the existing dwelling and raise it to town elevation
code requirements; proposed construction of a 430sq.ft. deck and steps on the seaward
side of dwelling; construct a 5'x14' addition to dwelling on landward side; construct a
15'x20' deck with steps on northwest corner of dwelling; construct 15'x10' deck with
steps on northeast corner of dwelling; relocate sanitary system beyond 100' landward of
seawall; all gutters and leaders to be connected to new drywells on dwelling; install
approximately 350 cubic yards of sandy loam; and re-vegetate disturbed and renovated
areas. Located: Unit #C-3, Sage Boulevard, Greenport.
Those have all been postponed. So we won't be addressing those tonight.
I would like to set the next field inspection for August 14th, at eight o'clock in the
morning.
Board of Trustees 3 July 17, 2013
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Our next meeting will be Wednesday, August 21st.
We have been starting the meetings at 5:30. Do you want to stay at 5:30?
(Board members respond in the affirmative).
So we'll start at 5:30, with the work session at five o'clock.
And there is a Town Father's Day, Wednesday, August 7th, on
Fishers Island. I know I'm going. I don't know how many of the
rest of the Board is going.
(Board members respond in the affirmative).
So I guess we'll all be going to Fishers Island. We'll do
inspections over there that same day.
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for June 2013. A check for
$10,600.65 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
il. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the
following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, July 17, 2013, are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
SEQRA:
They are listed as follows:
June G. Weiland -SCTM# 111-13-11
James & Janet D'Addario -SCTM# 126-5-4
Thomas J. Aprea, Jr. -SCTM# 37-7-9.1
Brian DeBroff -SCTM# 10-9-14
Gabriel Scibelli -SCTM# 90-2-15
Amanda J.T. & Richard E. Riegel -SCTM# 6-1-18
Fehim & Sevgi Uyanik -SCTM# 44-1-4
Nicholas Yuelys -SCTM# 44-1-19
Kevin Kelly -SCTM# 76-3-22.1
Daniel S. Melhado -SCTM# 76-3-21.3
Marshall Frost -SCTM# 110-7-11.3
Arnold Barton -SCTM# 111-9-13
David Turner -SCTM# 80-1-47.1
Albert & Barbara Reibling -SCTM# 57-2-32
Michael Mantikas -SCTM# 37-6-3.5
Paul Groben -SCTM# 86-2-13
Shamgar Capital, LLC, Go Daniel Buttafuoco -SCTM# 70-13-20.7
Paul DeMartino -SCTM# 53-6-22
David & Elizabeth Ross -SCTM# 123-8-24.1
Board of Trustees 4 July 17, 2013
Patricia Gilchrist-Mancino -SCTM# 117-10-15
9820 Nassau Point, LLC -SCTM# 118-6-10
Robert A. Potdevin -SCTM# 128-4-23
Frederick J. Wallerius -SCTM# 128-4-24
Edward J. Boyd -SCTM# 81-3-9
TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a motion to approve those?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Number one, Michael Macrina, Architect on behalf
of KEN & WENDY KMETZ requests an Administrative Permit to
construct a t3' high concrete retaining wall around existing
patio; add approximately 30 cubic yards of fill around patio
wall; and add approximately 170 cubic yards of fill for proposed
new driveway with a new drywell for runoff. Located:
504 Conklin Road, Mattituck.
We went out there. We did pre-submission on this a few
months ago, if I remember right. They want to put a retaining
wall around where they have some flooding in the yard, new
driveway with drainage. I believe it's an asphalt driveway with
a drywell. The only thing I noticed there, they have the roof
runoff piped into the neighboring wetlands to the north, and it
should be really going into drywells. So I think we should make
that part of this application that they take that roof runoff
and direct it into drywells rather than into neighboring
wetlands. With that being one of the conditions, I would
recommend approval of it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: The next, number two, Michael Kimack on behalf of
NANCY S. TALCOTT 8~ ELAINE N. ABELSON requests an Administrative
Permit to rebuild a 4' wide and approximately 270' long path to
the beach with sand; remove stumps, fallen trees and dead or
dying limbs 8 branches throughout the properties. Located: 2335
& 2545 Arrowhead Lane, Peconic.
This is another one we looked at. It was found I think I
skipped over things. This was found consistent with the LWRP. I
guess it was administrative so the Conservation Advisory Council
didn't look at it.
Before I forget, we do have Wayne Galante here taking the
Minutes, so when we get into the public hearings section please
come up to the microphone if you have any testimony and identify yourself,
and if your name is difficult, spell it out so Wayne can get it
on the record correctly.
Board of Trustees 5 July 17, 2013
We also have John Stein here from the Conservation Advisory
Council. They go out and give us many of the same recommendations
we do and give us their recommendation on the project.
Number two, this is on Arrowhead Lane in Peconic. This was found
consistent and inconsistent. I think there was some concern
about clearing trees and everything on the property. My only
concern was the way the description is read, you read it, the
path is existing there. I don't know what they'll do to improve
it. It's already there. At the end it says "clear limbs and
branches that are dying throughout the property." I think it
kind of leaves it pretty open-ended. I think I would rather see
something more specific.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think I mentioned in the field maybe we
can get them to ribbon the trees they want to do work on, or
ribbon limbs they want to take down and have one of the
Trustees in the area take a look at the property. It was awfully
broad language.
TRUSTEE KING: And we really don't know what they want to do with
the path.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, depending on how you read that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And it's plural, "properties."
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right.
TRUSTEE KING: Maybe we should table this and contact the owner
and have him mark the trees that they want to remove, and we can
go out and look at it at the next field inspection. Does that
sound reasonable?
(Affirmative response).
TRUSTEE KING: So I'll make that recommendation. I'll make that motion,
table this application and we'll see if we can get the trees marked that they
want to remove and we'll go out and take another look.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number three, MARION LAKE RESTORATION COMMITTEE
requests an Administrative Permit for aTen-Year Maintenance
Permit to hand-cut the Common Reed (Phragmites australis) to
no less than 12" in height by and on an as needed basis
surrounding Marion Lake. Located: Bay Avenue, East Marion.
This is a continuation of a project that they started out
there a few years ago and they finally were able to restore the
lake and take it back from the phragmites. Currently they do
have some infiltration of some phragmites coming back,
particularly after the storm. They want to have aten-year
maintenance permit. As part of the permit and as part of the
project to begin with, we had allowed a program that included
wicking. And I just want to add, give them the ability to be
able to wick as needed as well and add that to this. So they can
either hand cut or use the wicking method, depending on which is
more appropriate. And if everybody is all right with that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sure.
Board of Trustees 6 July 17, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: Is that your motion?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, I make the motion to approve with the
addition of allowing them to be able to use the wicking method
they have done in their restoration.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number four, Morris Cesspool Service on behalf of
ANNE 8~ ROBERT PISCIONERI requests an Administrative Permit to
add an overflow cesspool landward of existing cesspool. Located:
21925 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
I don't think there were any issues with it. I would make a
motion to approve that also.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE KING: Under applications for extensions, transfers and administrative
amendments. We have gone through all these, what we try and do to move things along
if we can lump things together and approve them all at once, I don't think there are any
here we had any problems with. So it's one through seven on page three, eight through
14 on page four and number 15 on page five, I would make a motion to approve those
as submitted. They are listed as follows:
Number one, Garrett A. Strang, Architect on behalf of THOMAS MALONEY requests a
One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7599, as issued on July 20, 2011. Located:
1475 Smith Drive North, Southold.
Number two, William W. Archer on behalf of KIMOGENOR POINT COMPANY requests
a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7607, as issued on August 24, 2011.
Located: 50 Jackson Street, New Suffolk.
Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of JOSEPH OCCHIPINTI request aOne-Year
Extension to Wetland Permit #7588 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7588C, as issued on
July 20, 2011. Located: 1250 Sound Drive, Greenport.
Number four, JOHN BETSCH requests aOne-Year Extension to Administrative Permit
#7598A, as issued on July 20, 2011. Located: 2325 North Sea Drive, Southold.
Number five, Docko, Inc., on behalf of MARGARET ROBBINS CHARPENTIER
requests aOne-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7375 and Coastal Erosion Permit
#7375C, as issued on August 18, 2010, and Amended on August 24, 2011. Located:
East End Road, Fishers Island.
Number six, Garrett A. Strang, Architect on behalf of MARTIN 8 ELIZABETH O'REILLY
requests the Last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7382, as issued on August
18, 2010. Located: 1420 Truman's Path, East Marion.
Number seven, Garrett A. Strang, Architect on behalf of MARTIN & ELIZABETH
O'REILLY requests the Last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7383, as issued
on August 18, 2010. Located: 1420 Truman's Path, East Marion.
Number eight, Morgan D. Wheelock on behalf of JAMES BAILEY requests the Last
One-Year Extension to Administrative Permit #7370A, as issued on August 18, 2010,
and Amended on May 18, 2011. Located: Private Road, off East End Road, Fishers
Board of Trustees 7 July 17, 2013
Island.
Number nine, SOUNDVIEW AVE., LLC requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #7672
and Coastal Erosion Permit #7672C from Arthur & Audrey Ueland to Soundview Ave.,
LLC, as issued on October 19, 2011. Located: 20845 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
Number ten, LYLE & KATHLEEN GIRANDOLA request a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#8002 from Jane C. Stark to Lyle & Kathleen Girandola, as issued on January 23, 2013.
Located: 3040 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
Number eleven, RALPH PANELLA requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit #6666 to add additional 20 to 50 pound core stone on top of existing core stone;
and reposition some of the core stone that was pushed landward by storm back in-place.
Located: 40 Takaposha Road, Southold.
Number 12, JOHN 8 EMILY BREESE request an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit #7200 to add Dark Sky compliant path lighting, a 30 Amp. Power outlet,
and water service to the west side of the existing fixed dock. Located: 3689 Pine Neck
Road, Southold.
Number 13, En-Consultants on behalf of LEWIS TOPPER requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit #7961 to construct a 3.5'x4' wood platform and 3.5'x8'
steps to beach. Located: 3605 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck.
Number 14, En-Consultants on behalf of LEWIS TOPPER & MARGARET
SAVERCOOL requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7962 to
construct a 3.5'x4' wood platform and 3.5'x8' steps to beach. Located: 120 Terry Path,
Mattituck.
Number 15. Docko, Inc., on behalf of HAROLD WILMERDING S ALEX WILMERDING
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #8203 and Coastal Erosion
Permit #8203C to include utilities and kayak racks on the proposed 4'x47' fixed pier; the
proposed 8'x16' float to include a kayak boarding step; construct two (2) sets of 4' wide
timber stairs with a 4'x6.5' landing at the top and a 4'x4' middle landing landward of the
apparent high water line. Located: 4997 Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: We have a change from a previously approved
application, number 16, Amend Resolution dated March 20, 2013,
to read as follows:
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees APPROVES the
application of GARY GUJA to construct and install new private
pleasure boat dock as follows: All lumber to be untreated
materials-tropical greenheart; 4'x12' on-ramp to a 4'x44'
catwalk a minimum 4' above grade of wetlands (ramped) to 3'x15'
float ramp to a 6'x20' float with two (2) 8" secure piles.
Located: 372 North Drive, Mattituck.
This was applied for, we approved it on the condition of
the original permit, which this reading is. And the other
description was a little different, so we had to change the
resolution to match the original permit description. That's all
this is. So that's my motion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 8 July 17, 2013
VI. RESOLUTIONS -OTHER:
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under Part VI, Resolutions, the Trustees are asked by Suffolk
County Department of Public Works who does the dredging in Southold Town to
establish a priority list. This is the same directive goes to Riverhead, East Hampton,
Shelter Island and Southampton. And Suffolk County DPW requests the feedback from
the towns during the month of July. So we have a resolution here that reads:
WHEREAS the Board of Trustees are requested by the County to provide a priority list
for Dredging Projects within the borders of the Town of Southold, and,
WHEREAS the Board has made its annual review of the creeks and ponds in the Town
and now makes the following recommendations,
BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Southold's 2013/2014 Dredging Priority list and
spoils placement to be provided to the Suffolk County Department of Public Works shall
be as follows:
1. Budd Pond with material placed on adjacent barrier island
2. Corey Creek with material placed to the east
3. Deep Hole Creek with material placed to the east
4. Richmond Creek with material plated to the west of the end of Indian Neck Lane
5. Brushes Creek with material placed to the east
6. Goose Creek with material placed to the west of Southold Yacht Club
7. Cedar Creek with material placed to the east
8. Little Creek with material placed to the south
9. Gull Pond with material placed on Klipp Park Beach
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I so move this resolution.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to go off our regular meeting to the public
hearings section.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under Amendments, number one, Patricia C. Moore, Esq.,
on behalf of JUNE G. WETLAND requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #8017 for
proposed terracing and re-vegetation including erosion jute stapled to bluff; coirlogs at
base of bluff and coirlogs placed on bluff staked with Oft. hardwood stakes. Located:
6485 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
This was reviewed under LWRP and found to be consistent. The Conservation
Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of a ten-foot non-turf
vegetated buffer landward top side of the top of the bluff. I did go out and looked at this.
This was a bulkhead replacement as well as retaining wall replacement. And they
experienced a lot of erosion at this site, so now they are looking at re-vegetation.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is nobody here. I had no problem with the
project as described. If there had been somebody here regarding
Board of Trustees 9 July 17, 2013
this application, I was going to recommend them to make sure
with their use of coir log they use sufficient length stakes to
stake the coir logs, because there was another project not far
from this one where coir logs were put on the bluff and staked
and they fell down during a rainstorm and everything went down
to the bottom of the hill. But I had no problem with this one.
And actually the bluff will have existing vegetation. I know the
Conservation Advisory Council had recommended aten-foot
non-turf buffer at the top of the bluff. How does the Board feel
about requesting anon-turf buffer at the top of this bluff?
TRUSTEE KING: Was it being mowed?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, it is being mowed and maintained right now.
I would feel comfortable with alive-foot non-turf buffer at the
top of the bluff.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't see any other comments from the
audience. I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Patricia Moore on behalf of June Weiland with the condition of a
five-foot non-turf buffer that will not be mowed at the top of
the bluff. And recognize that it was found consistent under the
LWRP. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number two under Amendments, Patricia C. Moore,
Esq., on behalf of JAMES 8 JANET D'ADDARIO requests a Transfer
of Wetland Permit #4995 from George Christmann, Jr., to James &
Janet D'Addario, as issued on January 22, 1999; and an Amendment
to Wetland Permit #4995 to extend the existing bulkhead 19" to
adjacent bulkhead; and for the two (2) existing 98' long
retaining walls located at the bottom of the bank and at the top
of the bank landward of the bulkhead. Located: 8860 Great
Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
This has been found to be consistent by the LWRP
coordinator. I'm not seeing any suggestions or recommendations.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not make any
recommendation because a member observed a possible Wetland Code
violation. The house is being demolished and a large number of
trees were removed. This is an amendment to an application that
we had approved in April of this year which included demolishing
of the residence. So our field notes mention that the retaining
walls are not there. Is there anybody here who would like to
speak on behalf of this application?
(No response).
Any comments from the Board?
(No response).
Board of Trustees 10 July 17, 2013
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No problems, right?
(Negative response).
At this point I 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
described.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number three, THOMAS J. APREA, JR., requests an
Amendment to Wetland Permit #6884 to replace in-place existing
75' long and 62' long bulkheads inside boat slip. Located: 500
Beach Court, East Marion.
I believe it was found exempt from the LWRP. The
Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection,
therefore no recommendation was made. We are all pretty familiar
with this property. I think the only thing we would like to see
is some drainage provided in that area landward of the
bulkheads. I think a lot of the area is paved, if I remember.
This is all paved here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It is.
TRUSTEE KING: So maybe down toward the end they could put a
drywell in to catch the runoff from the driveway.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Maybe within the last ten feet.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: French drain and drywell?
TRUSTEE KING: It's asphalt. Just a drywell to collect it. Is
there anybody here to speak to behalf of or against this
application?
(No response).
Any Board comments?
(No response).
I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve the application with a stipulation
they provide drainage for the asphalt drive, probably down near
the end of it, with a drywell, so it doesn't go over the
bulkhead and into the water. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, Docko, Inc., on behalf of
BRIAN DeBROFF requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7890 and
Coastal Erosion Permit #7890C to remove the existing +/-58
linear foot mortared stone seawall and replace it in-place using
Board of Trustees 11 July 17, 2013
larger stone; and install a 10' wide non-turf buffer landward of
the seawall. Located: 271 Gloaming Extension, Fishers Island.
The Board had originally granted a permit last August in
response to an inspection during Town Father's Day, and we
reviewed this application. I don't think we had a problem. It
was found consistent under LWRP. The Conservation Advisory
Council was unable to make an inspection at this time. They were
not able to get to Fishers Island. Is there anyone here who
wishes to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. NIELSON: My name is Keith Nielson, I prepared the
application documents for the DeBroff family. If you have any
questions, I would be happy to answer them. I do have the green
card and photographic record of posting, et cetera, to complete
the record.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any questions, Board members?
(Negative response).
We did a review during the work session, I don't think we had
any problem with this. This is basically an inkind replacement
using larger material.
Hearing no questions, I make a motion to close the hearing in
this matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve the
application of Docko on behalf of Brian DeBroff as submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND 8 COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Wetland and coastal erosion permits, number one,
Environment East, Inc., on behalf of SANDRA & FRANK ALLECIA
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for the
existing 1'/z story t1,076sq.ft. single-family dwelling; gravel
driveway; 4'x24' on-grade wood walk in side yard; 12'x25' wood
deck in side yard; 104sq.ft. stairs with wood walk in side yard;
4'x21' raised deck in side yard; a 13'x15' covered deck and a
10'x24' deck attached to seaward side of dwelling; 8'x54'
wood walk with stairs from deck to retaining wall; along
northwest side yard a 78' long wood retaining wall varying 32"
to 40" in height with an 8' landward return that attaches
to wood deck and planter; along southwest side of property a 38'
long upper wood retaining wall varying 32" to 40" in height, and
a lower 40' long wood retaining wall varying 32" to 40" in
height; 4'4" wide and 7' long steps to beach; on southeast side
of property a 28' long upper wood retaining wall varying 32" to
40" in height, and a 35' long lower wood retaining wall varying
32" to 40" in height. Located: 300 Harbor Lane, Orient.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
Board of Trustees 12 July 17, 2013
deals with the potential for personal and property damage during
storm surge. And structures located within these areas have the
potential to suffer high, repeatable, grave loss, impose a hazard
to life and property during storm surge events. It recommends
that if the Board recognizes this application, they request a
non-turf buffer. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to
support this application.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Peter Stoutenburgh, Environment East. We were
asked by the owners to file proper permits, applications. We
have filed permits here 25 years ago, and three different ones,
I guess, over a period of seven or eight years where we did work
on the house. We used the survey at the time that the owners had
gotten when they bought the house, which I think was in 1983.
I'm here to answer any questions or relay any messages.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have a quandary.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It was mentioned during the field inspection,
the Trustees noted that the toe of the retaining wall should be
armored.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Sorry?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The Trustees during the field inspection noted
that the you should armor the toe of the retaining wall with
seven-hundred to thousand-pound stones.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Essentially, that suggestion, which came
about, that's simply our observation, is an alternative to
compelling removal of the structure, because as a hard structure
within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, Coastal Erosion Hazard
Code is rather specific that only an erosion protection device
is permitted that compels construction to a 30-year standard, or
with a maintenance program. The problem with the 6x6, I believe
6x6 timbers there, they are typical of what we saw floating down
the bay during Tropical Storm Sandy and doing a lot of damage to
plastic bulkheads that we have approved. So without this
structure being upgraded to have a 30-year standard, I mean, you
could alter it if you wanted to seek the services of a competent
licensed professional engineer and then upgrade it in another
fashion, but the Board's feeling was the most straightforward
and simplest way to upgrade it would be to incorporate a rock
revetment wall in front of it, and that way create a unit
structure, that way the timbers would be part of a unit
structure that would then have a 30-year lifespan. Otherwise,
the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act doesn't allow replacement of hard
structure within the Coastal Erosion Zone unless it is an
erosion protection device. So that was the quandary we have. I
guess you could go back to seek the services of an engineer to
meet the 30-year standard and bring a request within those
lines.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: I was not involved with any landscape work
here. And that wall, although it looks like it has been
replaced, but there was not a wall like that when we were there
Board of Trustees 13 July 17, 2013
25 years ago. So if you give me that in writing, I can relay
that to the owners.
TRUSTEE KING: We can make it a condition of the approval.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We can make it condition of the approval
that it be armored with stone, otherwise we have to table the
application to have the owners get back to us if they have an
alternative to that. We can condition it or you could bring back
to the owners the notion it would have to meet a 30-year standard.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Can you condition it with that as an option or
that it would meet the 30-year standard?
I would go to one of the contractors
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't know how we would do that. That's
just a code provision. You need to have a plan specific.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: So if you would do it with that condition,
that if the stones are part of the condition that has been
accepted as a permit.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Put a time limit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe we could do that. Of course
they'll have to get a DEC permit as well for putting stone in
front.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What do you think, six months?
TRUSTEE KING: I think that's good.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: How do we word that?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Do you want me to go back to the I mean it
doesn't sound to me like the customer has any choice.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There are not many options. There are not
many options.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We could table it and you could discuss it with
the owners and come back with a different proposal. Including
the stones.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: I don't have a better proposal myself, I can't
think of, if there were an engineer or something, that would be a
better solution.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That would address the inconsistency that
the LWRP coordinator has. By a permit condition
TRUSTEE KING: By armoring that wall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: (Continuing) by armoring the wall would
address the concerns that the project is inconsistent with the
rules and regulations of the coastal zone.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Do you understand?
MR. STOUTENBURGH: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are there any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just have one comment. I know the Conservation
Advisory Council had recommended, or it was either the
Conservation Advisory Council or LWRP, anon-turf buffer, and I
just want to note you can see in the picture there is a non-turf
buffer already there. So I'm not sure
MR. STOUTENBURGH: That was there 30 years ago.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I think that recommendation came I believe
under the LWRP coordinator's review has been addressed and is
currently being addressed. I just wanted to put that on the
Board of Trustees 14 July 17, 2013
record.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Good point.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments from the Board?
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 with the addition of the requirement that within the
six-month time limit the toe of the bulkhead be armored with
seven-hundred to one-thousand pound boulders in order to address
the inconsistencies that are pointed out by the LWRP coordinator.
MR. STOUTENBURGH: I don't mean to interrupt you but does that
allow with a heavy load, with bulkheading and marine
contractors, time to get a DEC permit and get the work done?
It seems a little tight to me.
TRUSTEE KING: Well, they have been doing a pretty good job
lately. It doesn't take as long as it used to take with the DEC.
But if it comes to the point you need an extension of time, we
could do that. If it gets held up in the DEC process we can
extend the timeframe.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With documentation, that you've made the
documentation or the contractor can't get there because it's
stretched out with the review.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And this is subject to submission of revised
plans.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's the motion?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number two, Docko, Inc., on behalf of AMANDA J.T.
8~ RICHARD E. RIEGEL requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to construct 80t linear feet of 5' wide fixed
wood pile and timber pier with water and electric utilities; and
a 25t linear foot x 6' wide "L" including two (2) new and three
(3) replacement tie-off piles, waterward of the apparent high
water line; construct 5' wide stairs to the beach; re-cap an
existing stone wharf with concrete, 30t cubic yards over 750±
square feet at and landward of apparent high water line.
Located: 3651 Crescent Avenue, Fishers Island.
This was found consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation
Advisory Council did not make an inspection, therefore no
recommendation was made.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MR. NIELSON: Yes, I'm here to speak on behalf of this
application. My name is Keith Nielson, I'm a professional
engineer registered in New York and prepared the application documents
Board of Trustees 15 July 17, 2013
before you tonight on behalf of Riegel family.
The structure you have out there at Mantauket Avenue (sic), in
this case, was the old Fishers Island Terminal Pier and Wharf
facility. It's shown very lightly as a skeleton structure in the
background of this drawing, and we are tucking an "L" shaped
fixed wood pile and timber pier into the recess of the existing
structure. There is eel grass in the area and so we have been
sensitive to the eel grass location by our pier configuration as
well as providing alternative tie off points for prevailing
conditions, whether they be southwest, northwest or northeast
winds and waves. I believe all of this is consistent with the
regulatory policies of the town as well as the state. Our
applications have addressed all of the necessary LWRP coastal
zones and environmental considerations and we've made the
necessary certifications in the application documents.
In addition, I have the green cards that have been received
plus the photographic evidence of the postings for the record.
One last point. Late last week, we were called, as you were, by
the Fishers Island Utility Company noting a concern about the
electrical cable that provides power from Groton Long Point
over in Connecticut. I had spoken with Groton Utilities and
Fishers Island Utility Company and it appears that the cable is
approximately 200 feet to the west of this property, running
almost parallel to the dock facility off to, it runs between the
two dumplings and then turns north-northeast and runs to Groton
Long Point. We had received some coordination from Fishers
Island Utilities, and while they don't know exactly the
alignment, I did speak with the diver from Shoreline Diving
Services, who did the last maintenance on this cable two years
ago, and he confirms that the cable does run straight from the
substation to between the dumplings. I don't believe there will
be an issue on this. But what we can do is, before construction
starts, we can get Jay Kane Drilling and Diving Services out
there. He can locate the cable in daylight, it's about
four-hundred feet out from shore, and we can verify the alignment
and then I believe that we can proceed with the project.
One other thing I would like to point out, this dock was
built and was operating in the late'50's, and both cables, one
was installed in 1967 and one in 1989, both cables were
installed subsequent to the installation of this pier. So my
feeling is we are not going to have a problem, that we can
resolve it with the diver at the time of construction. I would
be happy to answer any questions you all may have.
TRUSTEE KING: That was the only question I had. There was quite
a bit of correspondence in the file. I know you had talked to
MR. NIELSON: I spoke with Mr.
TRUSTEE KING: I know you talked to him and I didn't want to hold
this up. I think your suggestion makes sense, to move forward,
but no construction is to start until we verify where that cable is.
MR. NIELSON: Thank you. I have a copy of a letter that I've
written to Mr. Feinman as of today. You'll get an official copy
Board of Trustees 16 July 17, 2013
through the mail but I brought in a copy to hand in for you tonight.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? Any other comments?
Board comments?
Negative response).
Being none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve the application with the
stipulation that no construction is to start until we have
verified the location, the exact location of the underground
cable, so there is no disruption. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. NIELSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number three, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf
of FEHIM 8 SEVGI UYANIK request a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to construct alterations to the existing
45.3'x24.6' two-story dwelling including roof pitch; construct a
one-story 55'x46' addition to existing dwelling with a 10'x33'
patio on grade; cut back existing 440sq.ft. Patio adjacent to
top of bluff/bank and reduced in size to 200sq.ft.; install new
sanitary system in front yard more than 100' from bulkhead;
drywells in conformity with drainage code; a line of staked hay
bales installed along top of bluff/bank prior to and during
construction. Located: 54875 County Road 48, Southold.
This has been found to be inconsistent from the LWRP
coordinator on July 9, 2013. He does make a note as well that
the coastal erosion hazard line is located more landward than
the line submitted on the plan prepared by Chorno Associates and
recommends we clarify the location. He finds it to be
inconsistent with the LWRP because it does not minimize
potential loss and damage by locating development structure away
from flooding and erosion hazards. The proposed use as
residential is not therefore a water dependent use. He suggests
moving the site farther away from the coastal erosion hazard
line, since the lot is 430 feet deep.
That being said, Conservation Advisory Council resolved to
support the application with no other comments. I'll note that
the Board, when they went out on their field inspection, didn't
have any comments either, and it should be noted on June 20,
2013, just a couple of weeks prior to this LWRP determination,
the Zoning Board of Appeals, noting that it was inconsistent
with LWRP, noted that on May 2, the applicant amended the
application and submitted a new survey dated May 13, 2013,
showing an increased distance from the top of the bluff of 32
feet to the nearest corner, beyond grade patio, and an
additional ten feet to closest above grade construction and
based on that information, determined that the proposed action
Board of Trustees 17 July 17, 2013
is consistent with LWRP. So the Zoning Board found it to be
consistent, therefore I would suggest that we also find it
consistent, because the survey we have is also dated 5/13 of
2013.
Furthermore, upon taking a look at the coastal erosion
hazard line on the survey, as well as the site plan by Chorno,
the survey is by Peconic Surveyors and dated October 29, 1991, I
have a hard time seeing where there is much of a difference. So
I don't really know how to address that. I don't think there is
any consistency in the coastal erosion hazard line on these plans.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That may be a function of which map you
procure, because of the thickness, there is a thickness issue.
MS. MOORE: Or he misread, there are several lines on this map,
so he may have accidentally read a different line. I don't know.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Perhaps. I find it to be the same thing. That
being said, is there anybody here who would like to speak for or
against this application?
MS. MOORE: Nobody is against the application. Honestly, I don't
really have to say anything because you pretty much identified
all the issues, including the fact that the Zoning Board
approved this. And we did make it more conforming, consistent
with LWRP. So, thank you, I'm glad you put that all on the
record and I won't say anything more, unless somebody has
something to object to.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Does anybody else have any comments on this
application?
(No response).
Anybody from the Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I make a motion to approve the application as
submitted noting that the ZBA and the Trustees do find it to be
consistent with the changes that were made and are present on
the site plan from May 15th, 2013.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, MARY & BRAD BURNHAM
request a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to
construct an approximately 300' long seawall/rock revetment
along West Harbor shoreline consisting of 2-4 ton boulders
placed in a bed of rock chips and backed with filter fabric.
Located: Peninsula Road, Fishers Island.
This project is determined to be consistent with LWRP. The
Conservation Advisory Council was unable to make an inspection
on Fishers Island. It does not have a recommendation. Trustees
Domino, Bredemeyer and King did apre-submission review of this
Board of Trustees 18 July 17, 2013
project in April. The plans that have been submitted comply with
the conditions we saw there. The toe of the bank there was
undercut from Tropical Storm Sandy. It's a standard revetment
construction with approximately, I think minimum offour-hundred
pound stone in the usual configuration. Pretty straightforward.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
(No response).
Any comments from the Board?
(No response).
Concerns?
TRUSTEE KING: It was severely eroded three years ago and
severely undercut.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was severely undercut. You could walk
underneath this with the tree roots exposed. Additional comments?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve the
application of Mary and Brad Burnham as submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under Wetland Permits, number one, MARSHALL
FROST requests a Wetland Permit to replace the existing 1100'
long bulkhead using vinyl sheathing, and raising it 2' higher
than existing; replace the existing 17' easterly return;
construct a 10' westerly return; replace existing 3' wide stairs
to beach; backfill disturbed area with approximately 100 cubic
yards of beach sand; remove one (1) oak tree to allow for the
bulkhead construction; and for the existing 3' high fence along
top of bank. Located: 435 West Road, Cutchogue.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be
consistent. And the Conservation Advisory Council supports the
application with the condition the beach stairs are retractable,
and recommends corners of the bulkhead to be redesigned because
the existing design could compound the problem.
So just before we start, I would ask the representative
from the Conservation Advisory Council if they could help me
understand this sentence "recommends the corners of the bulkhead
are redesigned because the existing design could compound the
problem."
MR. STEIN: Yes, Dave, that was one gentleman out of seven of us
against it. We voted that it doesn't have to be angled back.
Our only major concern is the possibility to have the stairs
retractable. That's all.
Board of Trustees 19 July 17, 2013
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So his concern was the possibility of a problem
in the corner where there is a 90 degree corner there.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, very much. Is there anybody here to
speak on behalf of the application?
MR. FROST: Yes. I'm Marshall Frost. I don't know if you want me
to say anything. If I could ask the gentleman what a retractable stair is.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, what we found, a lot of people are doing
now are seasonal but retractable stairs, because the permanent
stairs are just getting destroyed in our winter storms. So what
a lot of people now are doing are just putting in seasonal
retractable stairs that most can simply be pulled up in the
winter time, leaving the support structures there to attach to
in the spring.
MR. FROST: Well, the good news is the stairs that are there made
it through Sandy and Irene. It's the bulkhead that didn't. The
bad news is that I'm not quite sure how to do it that would
satisfy people, because we actually at one point tried that and
they washed away. But I'm happy to speak with the gentleman to
see if he has a better idea on how to do it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's just an option for you to consider.
MR. FROST: I don't have a problem with the option. I'm just not
quite sure how to satisfy it practically.
TRUSTEE KING: Some people have gone to aluminum steps and hinge
them at the bulkhead and they simply pull them up over during
the winter and then pull them back down. That's one of the ways
they do it.
MR. FROST: I'd be happy to think about it. If you saw what
washed up on the beach during Sandy, the aluminum stairs never
would have made it either.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, we had no questions regarding the design of
this at all. So I don't have any questions. Do any Board members
have any questions regarding this application?
(No response).
Anybody else in the audience wish to comment on this
application?
(No response).
If not, I'll make a motion to the close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Marshall Frost for his wetland permit as described at 435 West
Road, noting that this was found consistent under LWRP.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Good set of plans
MR. FROST: Thank you.
Board of Trustees 20 July 17, 2013
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, Swim King Pools on behalf of ARNOLD
BARYON requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 20'x40'
in-ground pool with a 5' wide walkway around the pool using
permeable pavers. Located: 5295 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
This has been found inconsistent under the LWRP because the
setback from the proposed, from top of bluff, indicates the pool
is less than 50 feet from the top of the bluff. The Conservation
Advisory Council tabled the application because the project was
not staked as of July 10th. It had gotten staked that day. This
was one where probably the Conservation Advisory Council
representative got there before us, it was not staked. Then it
was staked before us. So. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf
of this application?
MS. MILNER: I'm Eve Milner from Swim King pools. I was the one
that submitted the documents and paperwork for this application.
I staked the pool on that day, so I guess I missed them. Are
there any questions?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. When we were out in the field, we had the
same concern as was noted under the LWRP of the normal setback
under code from top of bluff is 50 foot. And this was closer
than 50 foot. So I know we had had a discussion out there in
the field to see if you would you and the applicant would
consider a slight modification to the direction of the pool,
maybe downsizing the pool slightly. So I don't know if you had
the opportunity to talk about this with your client.
MS. MILNER: We did. I spoke with Arnold Barton, the homeowner,
and we have no problem changing the size of the pool so that
it's smaller, and angling it in a direction so that it is
farther away from that retaining wall.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you have a possible set of plans here tonight
to show us?
MS. MILNER: I do. I have surveys showing it was originally a
proposed 20x40 pool. And I have two sets. I have either 16x36
pool, that is 45 feet, and it's angled. Then I also have, well,
I'll show you what this looks like.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would be great.
MS. MILNER: (Handing).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's all the same one you just handed up, right?
MS. MILNER: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So the one you just handed up, for the record,
shows, looks like approximately a 45 foot setback from the top
of the bluff to a 16x36 pool that is approximately ten feet from
the house. And you said you have another option for us also to
look at?
MS. MILNER: The other option was actually 40 feet and that is
thatone is the farthest away. But we are willing to even
change it from that. I mean that was a substantial change from
the original.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, this one you presented to us.
MS. MILNER: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I notice you really tucked it in closer to the
Board of Trustees 21 July 17, 2013
house. It's actually, one corner is equivalent with the deck,
the corner of the deck.
MS. MILNER: Right. It used to go past that. Now it's
completely over.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. And you downsized it
MS. MILNER: It was 20x40, now it's 16x36.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So that creates 45 feet from top of bluff.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm just questioning whether the 16x36 as shown
is to scale.
MS. MILNER: Yes, that's to 30 scale. I don't have a scale with
me, but somebody does over there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's 30 scale. Because 45 would be an
inch-and-a-half. As measured, that's an inch and a half.
MS. MILNER: And that actually, if you look at that retaining
wall, there is one bump out. That's like the closest section.
Then it goes farther. It actually goes farther away. But that's
the closest.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's from the retaining wall. We are
interested in the top of the bluff, where you have the metal
fence along the wall is. And that is, as I recall, that is more
top of bluff. The retaining wall is.
MS. MILNER: Yes, that's what I mean, that bump out sorry, not
the retaining wall. The bump out at the farthest point at the
closest point, 45 feet, but then it kind of, that metal fence
along the bluff goes out.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup. Is there anybody else in the audience that
you wanted to speak for or against this application?
(No response).
Any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Drywell for the backwash?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
MS. MILNER: Actually, there is, I'm just going to point out,
there is drywells already on the property. I mean there is
three. Then in the front, there is also like a Scupper drain in
the driveway as well. So I don't know if that's going to
TRUSTEE BERGEN: On the plan you have here, stamped June 20, it just shows two
disposal drywells. So we would want the condition that the overflow would go to a
drywell.
MS. MILNER: Okay, no problem.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would suggest it not be one of the three that
run near the bluff.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: On the landward side of the pool.
MS. MILNER: On the landward side of that house.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second the motion to close the hearing
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Board of Trustees 22 July 17, 2013
Swim King pools on behalf of Arnold Barton with the condition
that the pool be modified from what was applied for to a 16x36
pool as shown on the plans stamped received July 17th, 2013, and
with the condition that the backwash from the pool will be sent
to a drywell landward of the pool. That would bring it into
consistency under the LWRP. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number three, DAVID TURNER requests a Wetland
Permit to replace the existing 60' long by 6' high bulkhead
in-place using vinyl sheathing; two (2) side returns to remain
in-place; replace existing 3' wide stairs with handrails to
bulkhead; add 24 cubic feet of clean sand fill at bulkhead; a
10' wide non-turf buffer to be installed along the landward edge
of the bulkhead; one tree to be removed; install approximately
300sq.ft. on-grade patio using loose laid tiles; demolish
existing residence down to foundation; repair existing
foundation and construct an approximately 2,800 square foot
dwelling; demolish existing garage and construct a 26'x24'
garage; three (3) drywells to be installed for roof rain
water; construct new crushed stone driveway; replace existing
septic system landward of residence; and demolish existing shed.
Located: 640 West Shore Drive, Southold.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The
Conservation Advisory Council voted unanimously to support this
application. During field inspection on July 10th, the Trustees
noted that the project should be moved landward. Is there
anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. TURNER: I am. Dave Turner.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are there any comments you would like to add
into the record?
MR. TURNER: You stated it in a nutshell. If you have any
questions, I would be glad to answer them.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions from the Board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think you noted in there, the question is
could this structure be moved landward, further landward.
MR. TURNER: Do you want my reaction to that?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes.
MR. TURNER: In other words, it's a small lot. It's only
approximately 60x190 feet. It has a lot of trees in the back. We
really could not move it, if we moved it more landward we would
not have room for the septic system that we want to put, which
will be toward the street.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The ZBA did not deny it.
MR. TURNER: And it aligns with the other buildings.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As it currently exists and your new
construction, it's in line with the other houses?
MR. TURNER: Correct.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I was there but I can't recall what I saw.
Board of Trustees 23 July 17, 2013
MR. TURNER: The houses are all pretty much lined up. The house
next to me is exactly in line with it. There is another house
that sits back a little bit but it has a wooden porch that
aligns with the edge of mine. And in fact there are a couple of
houses that are even closer to the water: I could point can I
point it out?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure.
MR. TURNER: This is the subject property here. He sticks further
out. He has a wooden deck that covers grade up to here
(indicating). This gentleman whose bulkhead is in line with
mine, sticks out further than mine. And if you would go, I don't
know how far you can go. If you go up here, you see these houses
here are almost sitting on top of the bulkhead. See how close
they are? (Indicating). If we would move it further in we would
not really have room to put a garage and septic system. And
these guys are sitting right on it, within 30 feet of the
bulkhead. So I'm proposing just to leave it, not to move this
further either way, just put it on top of the existing
footprint. Also I have state approval for that. I don't know if
that means anything. DEC approval.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You know, I guess my question is, it's a very
deep lot. And when we looked at it, the house that at the lower
part of the picture, I guess would be toward the south, what you
are saying is the deck is out further, but actually your house
projects out much further than the structure of the house does
there. And so
MR. TURNER: This house.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. But that's what we look at. We look at
neighbor's house. We don't go through the neighborhood and try
looking down at all the houses.
MR. TURNER: This house here sticks out further than mine. I
would be knocking all these trees down if I had to move it back.
And I need space for the septic system, I think it has to be ten
feet off foundation. You have two leeching and room for a third
leeching for expansion. I would literally be taking all the
trees down. And it would
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, I respectively disagree. I think there is
plenty of room in there for septic without taking a lot of trees
down. But I'm just one member of the Board. Feel free to step
back to the microphone.
TRUSTEE KING: What's the square footage of the current structure
now?
MR. TURNER: The current structure is a two-story structure,
about 1,800 square feet. I'm putting aone-story structure there
and put, if you look at could I go back up there?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure.
MR. TURNER: I'm going to take this down to its foundation, fix
the foundation in front and put aone-story structure here, and
behind here to like asplit-level, two-story structure, with the
bedrooms in it. This would be the living area and the bedrooms
back here. Where this tree is coming down, we'll have a garage here.
Board of Trustees 24 July 17, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: So you are adding on to the landward side of the
house.
MR. TURNER: That's right. Which is in the plan.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments from the audience?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number four, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ALBERT
8 BARBARA REIBLING requests a Wetland Permit to remove and
replace 151 linear feet of existing bulkhead with new vinyl
bulkhead; replace 30 cubic yards of clean fill; replace existing
27'x9' deck and 4'x8' stairs to beach. Located: 75 Island View
Lane, Greenport.
The LWRP found this to be consistent with the LWRP. The
Conservation Advisory Council has voted to support the
application with the condition that the beach stairs be
retractable. The Board was out there and our field notes say
that it's okay to raise the top of the bulkhead up 12 inches. Is
there anybody here who would like to address this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant, Mr. and
Mrs. Reibling. Do you have any objections to retractable stairs?
MRS. REIBLING: No.
MR. PATANJO: My client has no objection to retractable stairs
and other than to remove and replace what is existing there now,
it's a straightforward application with the addition of a
ten-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All the remnants will be removed that we see in
the picture, of the old bulkhead?
MR. PATANJO: Typically they don't remove them. Back in the day
of the DEC allowing you to go 18 inches out, you used to cut it
down two feet and go 18 inches forward of that. These days we
need to remove forward the forward bulkhead and put it in line
with the existing faces. Um, it will be an added cost to the
client if they do have to remove all of that. And this
particular application, you can see the remnants. On many other
applications that have been removed and replaced, you don't see
that. I'm sure all these other applications that come in here,
there is three, four bulkheads behind it. It will be buried and
will be encapsulated with vinyl bulkheading so it will never be
seen again.
TRUSTEE KING: I would suggest cutting it to grade.
Board of Trustees 25 July 17, 2013
MR. PATANJO: We could cut it to grade. But removing it is a
huge, added expense.
TRUSTEE KING: Because a lot of that will be disturbed anyway
when you put the deadmen in with the ties.
MR. PATANJO: Exactly. Some will come out with deadmen, and
others will be cut back to grade.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any other questions or comments from
the Board?
(No response).
Seems all right. Retractable stairs. 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 stairs be retractable.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. PATANJO: Revised plans?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think we can put in retractable stairs.
TRUSTEE KING: Number five, Eileen Santora on behalf of MICHAEL
MANTIKAS requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing
dwelling and using the same footprint construct a new
56'8"x26'5" dwelling and foundation; remove old septic system
and install new landward of dwelling; and add gutters to leaders
to drywells on dwelling to contain roof runoff. Located: 80
South Lane, East Marion.
This is to demolish a dwelling. This was found exempt from
the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
the application. New sanitary system, remove old according to
Suffolk County Health Department, install new driveway. Is there
anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application?
MS. SANTORA: I am. Eileen Santora. I'm here to speak for the
application.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it was pretty straightforward. Idon't
think we had any issues with it. I don't know there were any
problems.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: On the plans, is there a silt fence or hay bale
line?
TRUSTEE KING: That's a good idea. I think that's what we would
like to see during construction.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's a wise idea. Given the lay of the
land.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from anybody?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve the application with the
Board of Trustees 26 July 17, 2013
stipulation we put a line of hay bales and a silt fence five
feet landward of the top of the bank, so that gives you enough
room to work, okay?
MS. SANTORA: Sure. You can see we straightened it because we
are going to put a new foundation in, we did straighten it out
so you have a better side yard on both sides for fire vehicles.
TRUSTEE KING: That's my motion, to approve with the hay bale and
silt fence along the top of the bluff.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. SANTORA: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number six, Amy Martin on behalf of PAUL
DeMARTINO requests a Wetland Permit to reframe existing porch
for installation of windows; second-floor addition to existing
dwelling; raise dwelling to flood plain regulations; install new
septic system. Located: 4205 Bay Shore Road, Greenport.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be
consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the
application with a drainage plan is provided, hay bales are
installed throughout construction and aten-foot non-turf
buffer. There is a set of hay bales on the plans. Is there
anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MS. MARTIN: Amy Martin, Fairweather Design Associates for the
applicant Paul DeMartino. There is no turf on this property on
the seaward side. It's all beach rock. We were just to the point
where they finally got scheduled to lift this house and realized
the application, which you approved two years ago, had expired.
And it's exactly the same, except in two years I realize the
original application was for a screen portion porch on the water
side and now they want to make it more of a seasonal use porch
with windows. So the other application didn't mention that it
was one of those old fashioned sort of stapled on sheet rolling
screen and we would have had to refrained it for the screens, but
now we have to reframe the wall for the windows. That's the only
change. There is a drainage system on the plan. It's a whole new
septic system landward. We are basically really improving it and
lifting it up to the flood plain regulations. So it's basically
exactly what you approved two years ago, we are not changing the
footprint in any way, shape or form. That's about it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In the language of the permit number 7488,
granted February 16, 2011, it says water side of the house is
left in its natural state with no further landscaping. So you
have no problem including that language in the new permit.
MS. MARTIN: No problem. The only thing there will be is stairs
because of the change of the height of the house.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience who wanted
to speak for or against this application?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
Board of Trustees 27 July 17, 2013
(No response).
If not, 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
Paul DiMartino at 4205 Bayshore Road, with the condition that
the water side of the house is left in its natural state with no
further landscaping. It has been found consistent under the
LWRP. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. MARTIN: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number seven,
En-Consultants on behalf of DAVID 8~ ELIZABETH ROSS request a
Wetland Permit to install approximately 135 linear feet of 1-2
ton stone armor over t1001b. Core stone and filter cloth along
toe of and atop existing buried steel bulkhead; and restore
eroded berm area landward thereof with approximately 400 cubic
yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source and
re-vegetated with Cape American beach grass planted 12"-18" on
center. Located: 170 Park Avenue Ext., Mattituck.
The project has been determined to be consistent with the
LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
with the suggestion that the returns are extended along the east
and west ends. The Trustees inspected the site on the 10th and
felt it was fairly straightforward erosion protection
application where there was severe post-Sandy erosion in the
area. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application.
MR. HERRMANN: Good evening. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on
behalf of the applicant. This was one similar to a few we had
where I had originally been contacted by the owners before Sandy
and they had wanted to pursue something similar to the project
we put before you in order to preserve the nicely vegetated berm
they had after completion of the house. Then the storm came. The
only upside to that is we were then able to provide both
pre-storm and post storm photos to the Board so you could see
what the final result is supposed to look like. It's a
straightforward application that will basically cap that old
steel bulkhead that peeks it's head up now on the beach and it
will enable them to restore and maintain and stabilize to
whatever extent possible the vegetated berm once it's put back.
In response to your only comment the Conservation Advisory
Council had about the returns, the shape of the bulkhead and
really the project is already kind of shaped with these angled
returns. I talked with David Ross and his wife about that. There
really is not a practical way to extend them anymore. They
Board of Trustees 28 July 17, 2013
really kind of wing out on angles. They meet up with the
property lines. So we think what we have designed here is
really, you know, the maximum reasonable, or minimum, whichever
way you want to look at it, extent of the project.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the proposal follows the line. You could
see the return from the steel. It doesn't appear to leave too
much in the way of options unless they were concerned about
loss, I think the Conservation Advisory Council is concerned
about just looking out for the applicant, that they don't use
soil on the lateral side of that.
MR. HERRMANN: By the time you get up, especially on the east
side, you are almost landward of the house at that point, so we
are trying not to encapsulate the whole property, but just
really just provide a stabilization toe at the edge of the berm.
TRUSTEE KING: Rob, do you have any idea when that bulkhead was
built?
MR. HERRMANN: They had mentioned it had been done many, many,
many decades ago. It was one of their grandfathers or something
built it back. I don't know if it was the 30's or 40's.
TRUSTEE KING: I was just curious what the beach elevation was at
that time. It almost looks like the beach was much lower at that
time.
MR. HERRMANN: It may have been, maybe after'38 or something
like that where there has been a beach elevation build up. That
whole strip down there seems to keep getting narrower. But you
are right. But we have to presume that bulkhead had a more and
opposed face at some point. Unless somebody chopped the top of
it off. But I don't think that's the case. There is a lot of
that steel sheet-work down there.
TRUSTEE KING: To me it's a menace.
MR. HERRMANN: Well, this will cap it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. We had noted when we were down there, Rob,
that presently the gutters and downspouts from the house on the
seaward side of the house go to the beach. Or they don't go to
the land. They don't go to any type of drywalls. Our guess was
because this was a recently done house they probably were
drywalls there and maybe disappeared in Sandy or whatever. But
as part of this project we would like to see, get those
reconnected to drywalls.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It appeared at least when we looked at it
the gutters and leaders were missing on the front but they had a
large coil of corrugated type of connecting material they use to
put them in the ground. The tides may have literally taken the
downspouts off.
MR. HERRMANN: I assume that drainage would have been part of
your prior residential permit.
TRUSTEE KING: I think there is a picture in there somewhere that
shows.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would just ask as part of this project they
please address that.
Board of Trustees 29 July 17, 2013
MR. HERRMANN: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve the
application as submitted noting that it is consistent with LWRP,
with the request that the drywell is, assuming it's in
existence, that the leaders and downspouts in front of the house
be tied into the existing drywell system of the house. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number eight, En-Consultants on behalf of
PATRICIA GILCHRIST-MANCINO requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 1102 linear foot vinyl bulkhead return along the
easterly property line; remove existing concrete rubble from
property and backfill return with approximately 50 cubic yards
of clean sand to be trucked in from an approved upland source;
re-set any temporarily relocated concrete rubble located in
adjacent roadway against seaward face of return; and remove and
replace landscape walls and columns associated with driveway and
parking area as needed. Located: 15 Fourth Street, New Suffolk.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent, just
noting that the backfilled area is planted with native
vegetation to help stabilize the area. The Conservation Advisory
Council does not support the application, noting that public
access has been denied; there is an open electrical wire within
the lawn area; and recommended that the property owner and town
submit a joint application to realign the end of the road.
There is a letter in support of the application from the
neighbor to the west. The neighbor being William C. Goggins. On
field inspection, which was July 10th, no special notes from the
Trustees. Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant. The Board will likely remember that we had
requested and you granted an onsite field inspection for this
property before we designed and submitted the applications. We
had discussed a few different alternatives and ultimately
decided that, I think we decided, that what we had proposed is
probably the most efficient and effective way for the property
owners to stabilize their property line along that road end. One
thing that I noticed, and I'm not sure whether it was there or
not, was that split-rail fence that we would like to add to the
application if the Board would oblige us just to allow that to
remain. That is located inside the property line.
I would respectively disagree with the contention that the
Board of Trustees 30 July 17, 2013
project would somehow deny public access. Public access is
gained through the road end, and the bulkhead on the front side
is where it is. And the return would be proposed on the landward
side of the concrete mess, which, respectively, is the town's
mess, and entirely on the applicant's property. So I'm not
really sure what else they could do.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments or questions from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: My only thoughts, I wish we could do something
with the town and have the return put on this side of the
concrete just to clean that whole place up. Probably wouldn't
live long enough to see it approved. But it would be a nice
project if the town could work with the applicant and put the
return in on that rather than put it where the sand bags are,
put it on the other side to the east.
MR. HERRMANN: That was one of the things we had discussed in the
field inspection, and if it were that easy, that your Board
could somehow just grant that through your Wetlands Permit, I'm
sure the owners would be happy to do it. But I have a feeling
there would be many, many months of applications, Town Board,
Planning Board, and it would really just --and also if there is
some question of public access, I could imagine that only
that contention being raised perhaps more formally if the
proposal were to encapsulate part of the public right-of-way. So
that may just be a hornets nest that the applicants don't want
to step into. I mentioned it to them. I suggested they confer
with counsel and perhaps have counsel speak with someone in the
town so perhaps that could be done. We might end up back here
at some point to modify, but I think they are anxious to get
this done before the next hurricane season, so we respectively
ask the Board approve the application as we submitted it.
TRUSTEE KING: Public Works has a project designed for that road
now. They'll put some drainage in and get rid of some of that
rubble, and I think part of that bulkhead will all be changed
around. I wish we could coordinate something. But I think the
timeframe, it won't work.
MR. HERRMANN: But I'll speak to Joe. Obviously he's conferring
with Bill Goggins, so maybe Bill can look around. I don't know.
TRUSTEE KING: That's all I have to say.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: My comments would be the same as yours, Jim.
This is a perfect opportunity to, if there is a lot line change
that would be required for the town to provide additional
property to the property owner and to move this bulkhead out
beyond the rip rap. But I agree that could take months and
months and months. And that would not be fair to the applicant.
MS. RODGERS: My name is Cornelia Rodgers, I'm the property owner
contiguous to the north of the Mancino property. I have lived
there for 33 years and I'll tell you a little story about the
rubble. The rubble was put there by Andrew Goodale and his two
sons in I believe 1964. They took it from their basement. They
wanted a new basement floor. So they broke up the old basement
floor and threw it out there. It's extremely dangerous. It's,
Board of Trustees 31 July 17, 2013
you can't walk on it, and therefore there is no beach access at
that place. That's what it looks like.
TRUSTEE KING: When did you say this was done?
MS. RODGERS: About 1964, I believe. Because I have lived there
since 1980, and it was long before. What happened in Sandy, is
that the end of the road disappeared, as you can see in the
picture that was there. Those, I believe the Mancino's added
those white things. Am I right about that?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes.
MS. MANCINO: The white bags?
MS. RODGERS: No, the pipes. If you see where the steps are,
those steps are long gone. I don't know when this picture was
taken but they are not there anymore. All of that rubble has
fallen down in that direction since, well during Sandy, I guess.
What I'm concerned about is that the end of the road now has
disappeared. It's not there. And who knows where the property
line is. What does the town own and what do the Mancino's own?
I have no idea. But somebody should make a map that says that. I
don't even know if all of that rubble is on Mr. Mancino's
property. Or is it on town property? Or what?
TRUSTEE KING: I think it's on town property. There is a survey.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Would you like to see the survey?
MS. RODGERS: Sure. I'd love to see it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Maybe that can answer the question for you. This
is their property, the property line. The rubble is over here.
So that would be town. The rubble is on town property.
MS. RODGERS: Well, the rubble is all along here. That's town
property?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes. This line, that's their property line.
MS. RODGERS: Okay. So that would mean then that the rubble
cannot be removed by the Mancino's?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct, if it's on town property.
MS. RODGERS: So they can remove it long enough to work behind it
and then have to put the rubble back?
TRUSTEE KING: No, they have to work behind it without disturbing that.
MS. RODGERS: That's not what it says here.
MR. HERRMANN: Well, what we have included in the plans is just a
provision that as they are installing the returns, that any
rubble that would be disturbed would simply be reset. What you
see on the survey, which Mike was pointing out, and why we asked
the surveyor to very, very carefully delineate the extent of the
rubble, really in the spirit of the speaker's question, is
because probably the most landward inland side of that rubble
that is on the Mancino's property will be removed. And then the
return will be placed just along the inside, you know, his
inside of his property. But I think the reality is that I'm sure
that some of that material will get bounced around as they are
working in there. So basically what we indicated is just that
any part of that that is disturbed would just be setback where
it is. And I can't detail for you exactly to what extent that
will happen but basically we have to get the return in on the
Board of Trustees 32 July 17, 2013
property owner's property, then leave it as much as they found
it as they can. I mean, it would be great if the town could come
down and say hey, while you are doing that, we'll scoop a bunch
of that up and take it out. But again, that really can't be the
applicant's responsibility because it's public property.
MS. RODGERS: Well, what has fallen down there below where you
see the square bit of concrete, the rocks that have fallen down
from underneath, came from further to the left. I don't have the
language, sorry, to say it properly.
TRUSTEE KING: It would be to the west. That's all right.
MS. RODGERS: But the thing is, for those of us that live on
Fourth Street, we now have no beach. We can't get there. Even if
we get there, we can't get around the end of the Mancino's
property to walk along the beach. And that's illegal, to my
understanding. That's an important point. But what it says here
in the letter that came to me is existing concrete rubble to be
temporarily removed and replaced. Why would we want to have that
back? Look at that. It just doesn't make any sense.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's not theirs to take away.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's not legal for them to take it away. It's
not on their property.
MS. RODGERS: But it's legal for the town to take it away.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Correct. And as Trustee King pointed out before,
there are plans, it's in the works, that the town will do
something, but exactly when, we don't know.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: A suggestion I might have is it would be
probably a project of the Department of Public Works of the
town, either them or Highway, would be doing this work down here.
TRUSTEE KING: Public Works.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. So I would suggest if you want to,
you could contact the supervisor's office, and ask the
supervisor to please step in and assist with this so that the
Department of Public Works could include in their project
addressing your concerns. Because it's not on their property.
They can't do it. But the town certainly could.
MS. RODGERS: Could the consultant address the issue of beach
access, please?
MS. HULSE: He's not required to do that, ma'am
MS. RODGERS: Why not?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: He's not. The beach access meaning from the end
of the road there?
MS. RODGERS: No, meaning around the corner of the Mancino's
property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: According to the survey, that's their property.
That's what we just looked at. If you would like to look at it
again. The survey, their property line goes to that existing
bulkhead out there.
MS. RODGERS: Is that not illegal?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's not.
MS. RODGERS: What about the littoral rights of the community or
whatever?
Board of Trustees 33 July 17, 2013
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, it's a balance we constantly deal with.
You know, what the solution that you might be suggesting, and I
don't want to put words in your mouth, would actually be take
the bulkhead away and take property away from the private
property owner so that the public would have access along that
area. And
MS. RODGERS: You don't have to take property away to put up a
set of stairs. If you are taking the beach away you are
nor taking beach away.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Nature took the beach away.
MS. RODGERS: It hadn't changed that much. That didn't change in
Sandy. Before Sandy there was no way of getting around that
bulkhead, which was granted recently, either. So.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: As I see these plans, you could not get access
to any stairs that might be put anywhere on the bulkhead on the
seaward side or on the easterly side. It would not be public
access because it's to private property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What you are suggesting, and correct me if I'm
wrong, but what you are suggesting is the applicant put a set of
stairs so the public could go up the stairs, walk along the
private property
MS. RODGERS: Well, insofar as the concrete is private property,
yes. Walk along the concrete and back down to the beach, since
the beach is blocked off.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm confused. I was thinking the bay front, not
where the concrete is.
MS. RODGERS: If you walk along the concrete, as we used to be
able to do, at the end you could jump down on to the beach. But
that was all you could do. Now if you are saying the concrete is
private property, then I guess nobody can walk there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, the concrete belongs to the town.
MS. RODGERS: The concrete belongs to the town
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, it's on town property, sorry.
MS. RODGERS: If the concrete is on town property, the public
should be able to walk there in order to access the beach.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And again, I think that would be accomplished,
what you are asking about, if that concrete was removed, and
that again goes back to the suggestion to bring this to the
attention of the supervisor so they could include it with this
project. As long as they are going to be down there doing the
project, let's do it right.
MS. RODGERS: Part of what Mrs. Mancino, part of what they want
is to keep the concrete to protect their lawn. And I
understand that. But the can I go up and point to what I'm
trying to talk about. I'm not talking about the rubble. I'm
talking about this surface, which used to be a walkable surface
along the top there. Outside of his fence. So therefore on town
property. You used to be able to walk here, descend to the
beach, cross, well, this is new, this was granted a couple of
years ago, but you used to be able to walk here along the beach,
which you should be able to do. So I have no objection to having
Board of Trustees 34 July 17, 2013
concrete. I would love to have the rubble go away. But I don't
know, maybe I'm not maybe making myself clear.
MR. HERRMANN: Dave, if I could interject. I think the confusion
here is where the property line is and where the property line
is not. Basically, if I understand correctly, the complaint is
beach access is precluded by a big pile of dangerous concrete
rubble. But it's not the applicant's concrete rubble. It's just
MS. RODGERS: But the applicant will have to put it back.
MR. HERRMANN: Let me try and explain it for the purpose of
clarity. If they could magically beam in a return right along
the property line, that's what they would do. But the reality is
as they are penetrating that area, there may be some disturbance
to the rubble, and all we are saying in the application is if
some of that concrete were to spill out and cover more of the
beach that it currently doesn't cover as part of the project and
as a courtesy to you and the town and common sense, they'll pull
it back up against the return. That's the extent of how the
proposal relates to the concrete rubble. There is no desire for
them to have some possession or control of the rubble. We are
just saying there is a mess that is there, we are not going to
make it any worse.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They have to go under the assumption that the
town wants could keep the mess. That's what he's saying is going
on here.
MR. HERRMANN: Correct. And if the town comes and cleans it up,
wonderful. It has nothing to do with us.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We could write a memo as well.
MS. RODGERS: I would be happy to go and talk to the supervisor
but, I mean, I'm just, I'm just a neighbor. And I don't know
anything about anything. So if somebody can send a memo to the
supervisor and say it truly makes sense to combine these two
projects and couldn't we get together, that would be really useful.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's my suggestion you and your neighbors also
write a letter.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In other words, we'll do that, but also if a
letter comes in from the neighbors also would give extra support
to the suggestion.
MS. RODGERS: Which neighbors would that be?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any of the neighbors down there; yourself or
others want to join in on that, by all means. The more voices to
have, the better.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We understand your concerns but we are
constrained to deal with the application that is before us and
that is private property and it doesn't address the issue you
are correctly pointing out.
MS. RODGERS: Well, thank you, for hearing me out all the way to
the end.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments or questions, I make
a motion to close this hearing
Board of Trustees 35 July 17, 2013
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
MS. RODGERS: May I ask one more question? Are the white bags
staying or going?
MR. HERRMANN: They'll go. That was a temporary stabilization
measure that was permitted after the storm. They'll be removed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have a motion and second to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, noting that the fence as shown on the plans submitted
June 20th, 2013, the fence remain.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number nine, En-Consultants on behalf of 9820
NASSAU POINT, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to restore and
stabilize storm eroded embankment by excavating and removing
vertical sheer/lip at top of embankment and re-grade to shift
top of embankment landward and re-establish more stable angle of
repose; use approximately 30 cubic yards of resultant material
together with approximately 30 cubic yards of clean sand trucked
in from an approved upland source to re-nourish face of
embankment; install between two (2) to four (4) wood terrace
retaining walls to stabilize re-nourishment; and re-vegetate
embankment with native plantings, such as Cape American beach
grass, switchgrass, Virginia rose, and/or Northern bayberry.
Located: 9820 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent with the
LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application with the condition of a 20-foot non-turf buffer and
recommends a return along the southeast corner of the property.
Our Board was out there and saw this as a needed and pretty
straightforward application. Is there anybody here who would
like to address this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants. This is pretty
straightforward. We are not going with a more substantial
proposal for armor or something like that here because, after
speaking with the owners, this has not been a chronic long-term
erosion problem, but one of these properties that just got
really hit during Sandy, and so we are basically just trying to
restore and re-nourish the condition of the vegetated bank that
had existed prior to the storm. We will lose probably about ten
feet of we have eight foot and variable, but probably around
eight to ten feet of embankment on the top, because they'll cut
that back to achieve a more stable angle of repose. So the only
thing I would ask regarding the non-turf buffer is if that could
limited to ten foot or something like that because we are
already Bluffing off about ten feet at the top as part of the
restoration project.
Board of Trustees 36 July 17, 2013
It's not really the type of project that would be conducive
to a return in the traditional sense because although we are
terracing all the way to the toe, these are just really terrace
walls. It's not a substantial engineered structure where you
would cut back into the bank with a return. So that's why that
is not shown.
Again, these are, the terrace walls themselves, these are
really, as the Board is familiar, typically on the Sound, these
horizontal boards that are attached to these pipes that go
vertically into the bank, and really just provide a platform for
the re-nourishment material and vegetation to become established
and stable.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, that will change the angle of declination
to a real nice slope.
MR. HERRMANN: You should be able to see in the second sheet of
our plans how we have drawn, based on the survey, the existing
top of the bank, and how that will be sort of sliced back, and
that material just really be reclaimed as part of the fill, so
that also limits to a certain extent the volume of fill to
be brought it in because part of that will be obtained from the
excavation at the top. It's pretty straightforward. Ican't
promise they'll never be back, but for the time being they are
just really trying to go with the minimal approach necessary to
restore the storm damage.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think a ten-foot non-turf buffer would
probably be sufficient. Is there anybody else here from the
audience who want to speak to this application?
(No response).
Any comments or questions from the Board?
(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
with the addition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer at the top of
the bank.
MR. HERRMANN: Bob, that's from the top of the finished bank.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Do you want a revised plan for that or will you
just indicate it on the permit?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Probably just indicate it.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll put it on.
MR. HERRMANN: It's up to you. As long as it ends up on the
approved plans and the language of the permit. And they'll
probably ask for a covenant, so
TRUSTEE KING: Good to go.
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
Board of Trustees 37 July 17, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: Number ten, DKR Shores, Inc., on behalf of ROBERT
A. POTDEVIN requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct in-place
the existing 103' navy bulkhead using vinyl sheathing; install
two (2) 10' vinyl returns; reconstruct as necessary the existing
3.5'x17' stairs, associated 10'x10' platform, 6'x6' platform,
and 5'x7' platform; construct new 4'x4' platform with 3.5'x14'
beach access steps; add 50 cubic yards of clean sand from an
upland source to disturbed areas, and restore area by planting
native species. Located: 4250 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
This was found consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation
Advisory Council supports the application with the following
conditions: A well written bluff stabilization plan,
retractable beach stairs, installation of drywells to contain
roof runoff, and installation of a three-foot non-turf
vegetation, vegetated buffer. Is there anyone here to speak on
behalf of or against this application?
MS. RIGDON: Agena Rigdon, DKR Shores, here for the Potdevin's.
Any questions?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, I don't think we had any problems. From
the top of the bank down was pretty much native or natural
vegetation already, that was effectively anon-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE KING: The only comment we made in the field inspection
was no mowing seaward of the top of the bluff. They have been
mowing down partially down off the top of the bluff. What they
should do is back that up and leave a little buffer on the top
that is not mowed. It's just hurting themselves.
MS. RIGDON: I'll let them know.
TRUSTEE KING: Other than that, I didn't have any issues with it.
Anybody else? Any other comments?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with
the stipulation there shall be no mowing around the top of the
bluff, leave a little buffer there on the top.
MS. RIGDON: Yes, sir.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 11, DKR Shores, Inc., on behalf of
FREDERICK J. WALLERIUS requests a Wetland Permit
to reconstruct in-place the existing 104' navy bulkhead
utilizing vinyl sheathing; install two (2) 10' vinyl returns;
reconstruct existing 3.5'x5' walk, 3.5'x18' stairs, 3.5'x8'
walk; install a new 4'x4' platform with 3.5'x14' beach access
steps; and add 50 cubic yards of clean sand and restore bluff
with native plantings. Located: 4230 Great Peconic Bay
Boulevard, Laurel.
Board of Trustees 38 July 17, 2013
This property is contiguous to the property that we just
had a hearing on. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to
be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to
support the application with following conditions: Well written
bluff stabilization plan, retractable beach stairs, installation
of drywells to contain roof runoff and installation of a
three-foot non-turf vegetated buffer. Is there anybody here to
speak to this application?
MS. RIGDON: Agena Rigdon, DKR Shores.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: As you've heard us tonight with others, I don't
know if your client would give any consideration to retractable
beach stairs. It's just a suggestion
MS. RIGDON: I think it's a 14-foot run to get to the beach. I
think it's kind of impractical for two elderly people to do that
at this point.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: To retract them? Even aluminum ones?
MS. RIGDON: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Like I said, it's a suggestion we have been
giving post-Sandy because so many stairs have disappeared during
Sandy and if they had been retractable maybe they would still
have them.
MS. RIGDON: I was saying maybe have them perpendicular with the
bulkhead so they don't jut out as far.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We also, in looking at this, we noticed there
was mowing on the seaward side of the top of the bluff. So
again, not to mow that area, and that would also create this
three-foot vegetate the buffer that the Conservation Advisory
Council had asked for.
MS. RIGDON: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was there anybody else in the audience that
wanted to speak for or against this application?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
DKR Shores as described at 4250 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard,
noting it was found consistent under the LWRP, and with the
condition that there will be no further mowing seaward of the
top of the bluff.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, number 12, DKR Shores, Inc.,
on behalf of EDWARD J. BOYD requests a Wetland Permit to
repair/reconstruct in-place 3'x24' stairs with platform to
bulkhead; reconstruct a 7'x13' platform; reconstruct a set of
Board of Trustees 39 July 17, 2013
3'x7' beach access steps; reconstruct a 15' timber return
using vinyl; fill disturbed area with 25 cubic yards of clean
sand trucked in from an upland source; and for the existing
±140' long bulkhead. Located: 3380 Paradise Point Road, Southold.
The application has been determined to be exempt under the
LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council supported the
application with the recommendation that the beach stairs are
retractable and be constructed with untreated materials. The
Trustees generally thought it was a very straightforward
application, but there was concern about the cantilevered deck
which is, I guess the remains of it, I think we see in the
picture, which goes out over the beach. Is there anyone here who
wishes to speak on behalf of this application.
MS. RIGDON: Once again, Agena Rigdon, DKR Shores.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Again, I guess it would be a recommendation
to consider the seasonal, retractable stairs, in this case, I
guess it might be doable if the owners were so inclined. With
respect to the cantilevered deck, we generally encourage beach
owners to bring them back and have the deck areas, have them
behind the existing bulkhead. Just, you know, for purposes of
allowing beach access for people moving along the beach more
easily and also the fact with increased frequency they are
getting destroyed here during the course of storms.
MS. RIGDON: Understood. The platform actually with the provided
survey has existed since 1971 when Van Tuyl was still in
business. It was hurricane damage, no fault of Mr. Boyd
whatsoever. It was pre-existing. He would like to put back
exactly what was there. The piles are still existing. I don't
think he would have a problem with non-treated lumber for the
treads and the decking.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is a survey from 1971.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any thought to the possibility, I see the
applicant, the owner, I see him here. The framing would actually
make a rather handy kayak rest.
MR. BOYD: I don't have a kayak. I have lived here since
1958. The platform was there when my parents bought the house
then. I just want to put it back the way it has been. It's
simple as that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Understood. And our concerns are really also
go to fact we don't want, we want the owners to get the
enjoyment out of them and not have them blown away. Any
additional thoughts?
TRUSTEE KING: 1 would like to see it behind the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we have been pretty consistent with
these platforms going behind the bulkhead. Not out in front of
the, in the public area. I just, you know, I understand it was
there and it was destroyed, but if it's going to be replaced, I
think it should be back behind the bulkhead. I'm also concerned
if it's a 1971 survey, that doesn't show, the survey does not
depict the property line along the waterfront here. So I'm not
sure where the property line actually is. It depicted the other
Board of Trustees 40 July 17, 2013
three parts of the property. But it doesn't depict the front there.
MS. RIGDON: I could check the deeds, meets and bounds. It most
likely runs along the bulkhead.
MR. BOYD: There is a tie line to the high water mark.
MS. RIGDON: It's a tie line to the file map, to the high water
mark.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It has been the Board's policy where
structures have become non-functional is to try to tuck them
back into the landform and thereby we are still allowing the use
but we are trying to get it out of the littoral zone. Any
additional comments?
MS. RIGDON: The piles are still existing. We could actually
re-use them. Mr. Boyd would still like to put back what was
there before the hurricane.
MR. BOYD: You gentlemen made the inspection there last week, and
you see that the bank is fairly steep and extends down almost to
the edge of the bulkhead. In order to put a platform on the
landward side of the bulkhead would require disturbing the
existing bank. It is something I certainly don't want to do
because I'm very cognizant of the fragility of that bank. I
don't want to mess with that at all. We are talking about a
platform here that I believe is seven feet wide. I hardly think
that interferes with anyone's ability to transverse the area.
And the platform is high enough, even at high tide, someone can
walk underneath the platform if they wish. I don't think I'm
obstructing any transit of the area by neighboring people. The
stairs that we are going to put in from the platform down to the
beach itself will be parallel to the bulkhead, which will
further protect them from any damage and will not intrude out in
the water direction whatsoever.
TRUSTEE KING: How about split the difference and make the
platform extend out past the bulkhead the width of the stairs.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have done that.
MR. BOYD: Gentlemen, I understand what you are saying but I am
then getting into the expense of removing those piles and
setting new piles down there, which is certainly something I
would certainly like to avoid. If I may also, if you look along
the beach, you'll find there are other platforms that would
extend waterside of the bulkhead lines.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So the construction is 3x7, what you are
requesting here is a 3x7 beach access. So we are talking about a
as a compromise to allow a platform out three feet cantilevered
and the rest of it inside the bulkhead. Which would still
require removal of those pilings.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The seaward most piles.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: They are out farther, yes.
MR. BOYD: That's the seven feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So it would require the removal of those. So
that would be a compromise.
TRUSTEE KING: If you cantilever it, you would not need piles.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You would not need piles if it's
Board of Trustees 41 July 17, 2013
cantilevered.
MR. BOYD: That's true. But then I have to disturb my bank in
order to put the
MS. RIGDON: It's not the safest construction, in the past, I have
viewed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's not according to plans. It's certainly
three feet.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: You could fit three feet here, and four foot out
there.
TRUSTEE KING: That's my suggestion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What do you want to do, pull it back and cantilever it?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Pull it back and cantilever it, right.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is seven foot. He'll have to change the slope of this. This is
cantilevered and have that supported. It's workable.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm just asking, devil's advocate. What do we do
with the existing piles?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They would have to be removed.
MS. RIGDON: That request would entail all the piles being
removed and new piles being set, disturbance behind the
bulkhead, footings being poured, vegetation being disturbed and
extra expense to Mr. Boyd.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It would not require setting new piles, because
it will be cantilevered.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MS. RIGDON: I understand the construction method, but it's not
the safest, in my experience, attaching it to the bulkhead. And
they would have to disturb behind the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I can tell you it's done all over town. All
along the bays. All over town it's done. So, and it's done
safely. So I would disagree it's not safe. It's done all over town.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we covered a broad range of
alternatives. I'm ready to move.
MR. BOYD: Gentlemen, we are arguing over three feet. If you go
back to the picture, the aerial picture, I think you'll see that
the, there we go, there is really a rather considerable amount
of beach there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, any additional comments?
(No response).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Does the code allow us to allow it?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it addresses it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think there is anything in the code
that addresses it either.
TRUSTEE KING: It's just we have seen so many of these things
damaged. Basically everybody has been moving them landward a little bit.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The code would address it in the fact that he
doesn't own that property.
MS. RIGDON: He does own that property. It goes out to the tie line.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We don't know for sure.
MR. BOYD: I know for sure.
MS. RIGDON: It's a filed map.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If it's a filed map and he has ownership of it.
Board of Trustees 42 July 17, 2013
MS. RIGDON: He owns that land, part of that beach.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's something I would like to see, something I
would like to know.
MS. RIGDON: A simple tax map would prove that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: A survey. A recent survey.
MS. RIGDON: And that will cost an additional $2,000. If not
more, actually. The property is huge.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: To be honest, just for myself, I'm not
comfortable with allowing the pilings and structure out that far
on to the beach. I think we have reached a good compromise here
with three foot cantilevered and four foot behind it. And that's
my feeling, so.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I agree.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further discussion?
(No response).
I make a motion to we close this hearing, hearing no further
discussion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Having heard the comments of the Trustees, I
think the motion would be lost if we try to approve this
application as submitted. I'm inclined to move the application,
to approve it, but without the deck, and stipulate the removal
of the pilings and then give the opportunity for the applicant
to consider re-applying for an amendment to a deck of similar
structure and similar size that they can come back in and re-apply.
MS. RIGDON: I'm not sure what you mean.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on, the public hearing is closed. I would
ask we try to rephrase that a little better, because that was,
to me, that was difficult to understand your motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I'll make a motion to approve the
application with the stipulation that there not be, with the
denial component that the 7x13 foot platform and that the
stipulation that the piles be removed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. That I understand. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would second that motion.
MS. RIGDON: Could you go over that one more time. Denial of the
platform itself?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have a motion and second, we can reread it
afterwards.
TRUSTEE KING: I wish we could put the language in to modify it.
The platform. We can take a vote on the motion on the table now.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's fair.
TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Domino?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: This is for complete removal of the structure.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I understand. Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bredemeyer?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Aye.
Board of Trustees 43 July 17, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bergen?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll vote no.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll vote no also.
TRUSTEE KING: Motion carries.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We are denying without prejudice, so you can
resubmit it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are denying the deck portion without
prejudice, so you can resubmit it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's a good point.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: With an amended survey, too.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE KING: Motion to adjourn. Second?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Resp'e`c'tfully submitted by,
4 0~
James F. King, President
Board of Trustees
RE EIVED
d' ~ ~~~~5
OCT 8 2013
Q~
So~
awn Clerk