HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-08/21/2013 James F. King, President ~aOF S~VryO Town Hall Annex
Bob Ghosio, Jr., Vice-President l~ 54375 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Dave Bergen ~ ~ Southold, New York 11971-0959
John Bredemeyer G Q
• ~O Telephone (631) 765-1892
Michael J. Domino ~ Fax (631) 765-6641
~'`OOUM'I
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RECEIVED
OCT~I`1~13 e-a~•~IS
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Q
Sou old Town Cle
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
5:30 PM
Present Were: Jim King, President
Robert Ghosio, Vice-President
Dave Bergen, Trustee
John Bredemeyer, Trustee
Michael Domino, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Clerk Typist
Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 at 5:30 PM
WORKSESSION: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 at 5:00 PM
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of March 20, 2013.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
TRUSTEE KING: Hello everyone, welcome to our August meeting. The first item
on the agenda is to set the next field inspection for September 11th at eight
o'clock in the morning.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
Board of Trustees 2 August 21, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
The next meeting is September 18th, at 6:00, with the
worksession at 5:30. Why don't we stay with the five o'clock
worksession and the 5:30 meeting. It's kind of working pretty
good. We'll make that a permanent time now instead of starting
at 6:00, so we don't have to keep changing it. So it's 5:00 and 5:30.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve the Minutes of March 20th.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of
March 20, 2013.
TRUSTEE KING: Second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: We have a few postponements here, on page seven,
number five Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of
ORIENT WARF COMPANY, clo 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.
And number six, 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.
And at end of the agenda, page 12, numbers 19 through 22
have been postponed. We will not be addressing those tonight.
Number 19, EDWARD VOLINI requests a Wetland Permit to
repair/replace the existing +/-100' long bulkhead using vinyl
sheathing; construct an 8' return to southern side of bulkhead;
repair/replace existing wood platform with stairs to beach;
re-level existing 10'x12' beach house with 5'x7' deck and 3'
wide stairs. Located: 8625 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
Number 20, 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'
Board of Trustees 3 August 21, 2013
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.
Number 21, Michael Kimack on behalf of DAVID WEILD requests a
Wetland Permit to replace an approximately 2,OOOsq.ft. eroded
area, approximately 2-3 feet in depth with hand placed
clean sand; slope new edge to an approximate 45 degree angle and
hand-stack stones and sand fill; plant flat area with Spartina
patens 6"-9" on center; and sloped area with Spartina alterniflora
between stones. Located: 10450 New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue.
Number 22, 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.
We have Jack McGreevey here from the Conservation
Advisory Council. And we have Wayne Galante here, he takes the
Minutes for us. So when we get to the public hearings section,
if you do have testimony, please come up to the microphone and
identify yourself. If your last name is a little difficult to
spell, please spell it so he can get it on the record correctly.
We also have, down at the end, Lori Hulse is our legal advisor.
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for July 2013. A check for
$12,350.29 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for
review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby
finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VII
Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday,
August 21, 2013, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA
Board of Trustees 4 August 21, 2013
Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
SEORA:
TRUSTEE KING: They are listed as follows.
Philip & Jennifer Stanton -SCTM# 64-1-29
Lyle & Kathleen Girandola -SCTM# 128-6-10
James Bailey -SCTM# 12-2-6.15
Peter Baccile -SCTM# 9-3-11
Joe Licciardi & Catharine Pino -SCTM# 38-2-31
Mary DeMartino Qualified Personal Residential Trust -SCTM# 26-2-26
Elizabeth R. Clancy -SCTM# 57-1-33
Martha Kennelly -SCTM# 123-4-2
Arthur Torell -SCTM# 33-2-10&11
Daniel S. Melhado -SCTM# 76-3-21.3
Driftwood Family Farms, Inc. -SCTM# 19-1-18.3 & 20-3-1.2
Ray & Joyce Vastola -SCTM# 70-4-15.1
Joe Sbarra -SCTM# 113-8-5
Edward Volini -SCTM# 118-4-13
David Weild -SCTM# 116-6-5
Orient Whart Company, Inc. -SCTM# 24-2-28.1
Edgewater II, LLC -SCTM# 40-1-20.2
Oliver Frankel -SCTM# 14-2-1.9
Ilse Trombone -SCTM# 118-6-5.1
Salt Air Farm -SCTM# 109-5-23.3
Wickham Farmland LLC -SCTM# 110-8-32.9 & 110-1-1.4
Latham Family Farm -SCTM# 19-1-7.6
Terry Family Farm -SCTM# 20-3-3.2&3
TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a motion for that resolution?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Under Resolutions and Administrative permits,
Trustee Bergen looked at this one, Mark Boeckman on behalf of
NICK de CROISSET requests an Administrative Permit to
replace the existing sanitary system in-place. Located: 20 Third
Street, New Suffolk.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number two, Frank Uellendahl, RA, on behalf of
Board of Trustees 5 August 21, 2013
GRAHAM WILLOUGHBY requests an Administrative Permit to
reconstruct the existing mudroom and bathroom area which will
increase the footprint of the existing dwelling by 27 square
feet. Located: 65490 Route 25, Breezy Shores Cottage #13,
Greenport.
We had no problems with that either. I'll make a motion to
approve that also.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number three, 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 & branches throughout the properties. Located: 2335 & 2545
Arrowhead Lane, Peconic.
We were all out there and looked at it. It's been reviewed
as being consistent and inconsistent under the LW RP. And the
inconsistency part of it is that there be no clearing of the
hatched areas seaward of the top of the bank on the property.
And they indicate it here on the survey. We had one area out on
the seaward side in front of the house that apparently had been,
a lot of the trees had been trimmed. It's supposed to be from
hurricane damage. I'm not so sure. I'm not sure what we'll do
with that one yet. The other area is a small area just off the
bath. I think there is a tree blown down there and they want to
remove and some odds and ends. That was the issues.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we were pretty specific out in the field
with what is here marked as photo area two, that that was going
to be limited so it would not include any Baccharus in there,
because there was a lot of Baccharus in there and we did not
want that trimmed.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll have to be very selective. I think maybe if
we approve this as its been submitted, at least set a date to go
back out after the work is done and see what was done to see if
it conforms to what we wanted done.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Absolutely. Or set an extra inspection and
have a Trustee or member of the Board meet them out there.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't know how to handle it. They are asking for
quite a few things to do here. If it's done properly, I don't
think there is any issue with it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I have a problem with term "remove stumps,"
because it's not specific and could entail excavation. I think
it should be removed from this.
TRUSTEE KING: We can specify to be no stump removal, just cut to
Board of Trustees 6 August 21, 2013
grade. If a tree is to be removed, just cut it to grade.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That would be satisfactory.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other suggestions?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think an extra inspection with one of the
Trustee members to coordinate a review on the site when they
have the contractors there, maybe a walk up so it defines what
will be allowed or not. Certainly we also have a large tree
blown down, a couple of broken trees low to the ground. But the
terms are a little vague. I think we should try to tie it down,
whether it's a Trustee or constable.
TRUSTEE KING: And the area in front of the house where we
thought there was a possible violation, I would recommend us
sending the bay constable back out there. He said he didn't see
it. I don't know if he was in the same area we have been talking
about. Maybe we'll send him back out, if he still feels there is
no violation, that's fine. But if there is a violation, we'll
hold this permit until the violation is cleared up. Can we do
that, Lori?
MS. HULSE: Sure can.
TRUSTEE KING: So that would be my recommendation on this. As far
as the inconsistency, there is to be no clearing in that area,
it's just what is already down is to be removed. And that will
take care of the finding. There is to be no clearing. It's
strictly remove what has been already taken down.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: 1 agree with what Trustee Bredemeyer said in
that as a condition of approval tonight, that a Trustee would
meet the contractor out there and go over specifically the trees
or brush to be removed with the contractor, and it would be
subject to inspection afterwards to make sure that the debris
removal didn't go farther than what was discussed there in the field.
TRUSTEE KING: That sounds fair. All right, I'll make a motion to
approve this application with the stipulation that before the
work is to be done, the office is to be notified so a Trustee
can go out and go over it with the contractor, and we'll send
the bay constable back out to look at the section in front of
the house to determine whether or not he thinks it's a
violation. If it is a violation, we need to clear up the
violation before this permit is issued. If there is no
violation, the permit will be issued in the normal time it takes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And include to address the inconsistency, no
additional clearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Correct, there is to be no clearing there. It's
just removal of what has already been taken down.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And that will bring it into consistency.
TRUSTEE KING: That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
Board of Trustees 7 August 21, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONSITRANSFERSIADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE KING: Under Applications for Extensions, Transfers and
Administrative Amendments, what we try to do rather than go
through each one individually, as a time saver, we lump these
together. If they are all simple, usually most of these we
review in the office because there is no controversy with them.
We lump them together and approve them. So what I would like to
do is do that tonight. And we'll do number one through number
15. These are all very simple minor changes. One was a requested
small downsizing because of a DEC problem. I think I would make
that motion to approve one through 15.
They are listed as follows:
Number one, THOMAS & BARBARA BALL requests aOne-Year Extension
to Wetland Permit #7654, as issued on September 21, 2011.
Located: 1890 Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold.
Number two, BRUNO & ALMA ILIBASSI requests aOne-Year Extension
to Wetland Permit #7653, as issued on September 21, 2011.
Located: 1728 Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold.
Number three, WILLIAM 8 DOLORES KREITSEK request the Last
One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7420, as issued on October
20, 2010. Located: 2455 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck.
Number four, CHERYL HANSEN requests the Last One-Year Extension
to Wetland Permit #7389, as issued on September 22, 2010.
Located: 405 Williamsburg Drive, Southold.
Number five, DAVID FUHRMANN requests a Transfer of Wetland
Permit #875 from Joseph P. Ulrich to David Fuhrmann, as issued
on April 2, 1973. Located: 2345 Mill Creek Drive, Southold.
Number six, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of KEITH RADICH
AND BARBARA RADICH requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #7740
from Seven Cats Investments LLC to Keith Radich and Barbara
Radich, as issued on February 22, 2012. Located: 2870 Henry's
Lane, Peconic.
Number seven, RICHARD BREN requests an Administrative Amendment
to Administrative Permit #7110A to repair existing +/-4' wide steps from
buffer beds to catwalk path. Located: 430 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue.
Number eight, PAUL DOMBROWSKI requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit #7994 and Coastal Erosion Permit
#7994C to install a 12' bulkhead return and a 3' wide by 7-
step long removable set of stairs to beach. Located: 50 Rabbit
Lane, East Marion.
Number nine, JOHN LUSCHER requests an Administrative Amendment
Board of Trustees 8 August 21, 2013
to Wetland Permit #8051 and Coastal Erosion Permit #8051 C to
install a +/-30" wide removable stairway from bulkhead to the
beach. Located: 110 Rabbit Lane, East Marion.
Number ten, Docko, Inc. on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND FERRY
DISTRICT requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#7490 to add two (2) fender piles on the inside of the middle
dolphin on the main ramp at the ferry slip. Located: Silver Eel
Cove, Fishers Island.
Number eleven, Docko, Inc. on behalf of U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY PLUM ISLAND ANIMAL DISEASE CENTER
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7913 to cover
125 linear feet of steel sheet pile bulkhead with tiebacks, an
anchor system; back fill of 25 cubic yards over +/-150 square
feet; and concrete ramp resurfacing of 25 cubic yards of cast
concrete over +/-500 square feet. Located: Ferry Terminal at
Plum Island.
Number 12, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of ERIN &
MATTHEW CONNINGHAM request an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit #7941 to reduce the length of the dock structure
by constructing a 4'x16' fixed catwalk with a 4'x20' fixed "T"
section at the offshore end. Located: 2980 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck.
Number 13, WILLIAM EDWARDS requests an Administrative Amendment
to Administrative Permit #7945A to extend the 18' return an
additional 12' landward. Located: 1600 Park Avenue, Mattituck.
Number 14, THOMAS LEWICK requests an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit 5014 to reinstall the seasonal dock that consists
of a 4'x4' platform to a 4'x20' ramp leading to a level 4'x56'
fixed dock. Located: 1315 North Parish Drive, Southold.
Number 15, En-Consultants on behalf of JANET T. SOUKUP LIFETIME
TRUST requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#8100 to include an approximately 3'x14' wood walk on grade
between the approved stairway and steps to beach. Located: 500
Birch Drive South, Laurel.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: And number 16, Fairweather & Brown Associates on
behalf of VASILIOS FRANGOS requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#7388 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7388C, as issued on September
22, 2010; the Last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7388
and Coastal Erosion Permit #7388C, as issued on September 22,
2010; and an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7388
and Coastal Erosion Permit #7388C to replace the existing 809
square foot decking on the seaward side of the dwelling.
Located: 55755 County Road 48, Greenport.
Board of Trustees 9 August 21, 2013
This is for a transfer of Wetland Permit, and it is also to
replace the existing 809 square foot decking on the seaward side
of the dwelling. I would like to make a motion to approve the
permit. But the permit did not include that deck. So we are not
approving to replace the existing deck. That will have to be
addressed in a separate issue, because in Coastal Erosion, it has
disappeared because of storm damage, simply does not exist, so I
don't think we can just blanket approve replacing that deck. I
don't think it can be done. So I want to take that out of this
transfer. It will be simply transferring permit #7388-C and
#7388. It does not include the deck rebuilding.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Could we, as an alternative, amend 7388-C to
replace an existing deck to be no greater than 200-square feet,
that way it meets code?
TRUSTEE KING: It's not part of that permit. When the permit was
issued, there was nothing on there about the deck. It was
strictly bulkhead replacement.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, I understand.
TRUSTEE KING: And there is also a last window extension to that
same permit which is no problem. So I'll make a motion to
approve the One-Year extension and the transfer of that permit
and take out replacing the 809 square foot decking. That is not
part of this transfer.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: Can we just remove that from that part of the
application?
MS. HULSE: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I seconded.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. MOORINGS:
TRUSTEE KING: Under Moorings, CHARLES SALICE requests a Mooring
Permit in Little Creek fora 21 foot boat, replacing Mooring
#61. Access: Private.
I don't think there were any issues with that, really. I'll
make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: And number two, JULIANE K. TOMISER requests an
Onshore/Offshore Stake Permit in Little Creek for a
Board of Trustees 10 August 21, 2013
boat no larger than 18 feet off private property. Located: 2875
Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue, motion to approve that also.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off our regular meeting
and into our public hearings.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE KING: Like I said at the beginning, please, if you have any
testimony or comments to make, please come to the microphone
and identify yourself, and limit it to five minutes or less. I don't see anybody
here tonight that usually gets too carried away.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Under amendments, number one, Costello
Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of PHILIP & JENNIFER STANTON requests
an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7727 for the existing gate at landward end of
dock; existing tackle box and bench on dock; and for the existing 5' wide decking
on the 14' fixed dock extension. Located: 845 Maple Lane, Southold.
They are coming in for an amendment to a permit looking for an existing gate
at the end of the dock and a tackle box and bench that we saw there. They are
just trying to do a little straightening out of the permit based upon what was built.
When we were out in the field we saw it. We didn't find any real environmental
issues with the slight deviation from the permit plans. What they did, I think, as I
remember, they extended the catwalk on the dock, the walkway on the dock, out
to the end of and included the width of the pilings so that it actually increased the
width of the structure. So aside from that there was no real difference. It came in
as inconsistent under the LWRP because it was not built to our original permit,
but seeing we didn't have any environmental issues, I think we can find that
consistent. Is there anybody here who would like to speak for or against this
application?
(No response).
Seeing none, I would make amotion --any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: It was a minor thing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted noting the changes were not substantial enough to deem
it inconsistent with the LWRP. The actual bottom of the
structure was fine, so we can find it consistent.
Board of Trustees 11 August 21, 2013
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number two, GABRIEL SCIBELLI requests an
Amendment to Wetland Permit #6534 to extend the existing west
return 60' landward at ground level. Located: 450 Cedar Point
Drive East, Southold.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The
Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application. The Trustees on their inspection actually, I did
the inspection, on the 9th of August, asked for more information
regarding the type of material to be used on the return, since
vinyl sheathing was noted on the plans submitted June 20th,
2013. Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. SCIBELLI: Good evening, Gabe Scibelli. How are you. I met
with the DEC. I have non-jurisdiction there already, but it was
suggested, originally when I asked Mr. Fox to draw up a plan to
extend this inland, I just told him I wanted to put some sort of
retaining wall under the ground because, unfortunately, my
neighbor is not maintaining his property and it will be another
problem in another storm. And he showed me the vinyl sheathing. It
was not my intention to have vinyl sheathing. I wanted to put
some sort of concrete block. It was suggested I speak to the
DEC. I met with the DEC in Stony Brook, July 26th. They have no
problem with concrete blocks. I also am not probably going to go
60 feet, I'm probably going to go 50 feet back. I just made the
application for 60 feet, but after going over with one or two
contractors, 60 feet is excessive. So that's basically, those
are basically the two changes I have. I want to put in new
concrete block which is 2x2x6 foot; and this is going to be all
inland, not on the water side. I think Mr. Domino, when I met
you, understands what I'm talking about. I'm more worried
eventually what happens to my two neighbors as their jetties
were eroded and they didn't maintain their property, and it
ripped their backyards out, after Irene and Sandy, if we have
one or two more storms, I could see that affecting me. So I just
want to put this wall down and put grass and dirt back over it.
And hopefully I'll never see the wall again. Hopefully. So
basically we'll go 50 feet instead of 60 feet, and I have a copy
of another set of plans showing what the concrete block will
look like, if you want. I have a few copies for you.
TRUSTEE KING: Can I make a suggestion?
I would leave it 60 feet so if you need to go that far you
already have the permit to do it.
MR. SCIBELLI: All right. Do you want to see these?
Board of Trustees 12 August 21, 2013
I have few copies of what this will look like.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what you applied for
MR. SCIBELLI: We'll keep it that way, that's fine.
TRUSTEE KING: It's all on the landward side. I don't have any
issue with it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this
application?
(No response).
Any further questions from the Board?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing none, I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application,
noting however that we are approving so that it conforms to the
plans submitted tonight, so as per the plans stamped received
August 21st, 2013.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. SCIBELLI: Thank you. I also want to mention the few times I
visited your office, I want to thank Amanda and Elizabeth. They
were very helpful.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you, we appreciate that.
MR. SCIBELLI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number three, LYLE 8 KATHLEEN GIRANDOLA request an
Amendment to Wetland Permit #8002 to move the proposed upper
retaining wall further landward for a total of +/-15 feet from
existing lower bulkhead to be in alignment with neighbor's to
the west; raise the height of the proposed retaining wall 1'-2';
and cap the lower bulkhead with grate-style capping.
Located: 3040 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
I went out and looked at it. 1 didn't have any issues with
this. Just build the retaining wall further landward than what
they had planned. Not a great change. It was found consistent
with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council supports
application with the condition that the stairs to the beach are
retractable. I know it's a good idea. If people want to accept,
it's their choice to make. I don't think we can mandate
retractable steps. What's the Board's feeling on this?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody here to speak to the
application tonight?
(No response).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In this particular spot, I think you are probably okay.
Board of Trustees 13 August 21, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: Some folks are going to these aluminum steps that
just kind of fold back, which is good. A lot of these are fixed
wooden steps down.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I know the Girandola's. I'll mention that to
them as an alternative.
TRUSTEE KING: Any comments from anybody?
(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 as
submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number one, JMO Environmental Consulting on
behalf of JAMES BAILEY requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to re-stabilize shoreline by removing existing
rocks located landward of existing concrete blocks and
stockpiling them for reuse; upright those concrete blocks which
have rolled over and align them; landward of the concrete blocks
install a 2"-4" thick layer of crushed stone, install geotextile
filter fabric and replace rocks and adding additional rocks as
needed to provide a tightly grouped mass; in the area seaward of
the concrete blocks excavate a 10' area to 5' in depth, install
geotextile filter fabric, install a 4" thick crushed stone
filter layer and install an armored layer riprap revetment
utilizing a minimum of 3' diameter rocks; in the areas where
there are no concrete blocks remove and stockpile existing
rocks, excavate a 12' area to 5' in depth, install geotextile
filter fabric, install a 2"-4" crushed stone filter layer;
install armor layer riprap revetment utilizing a minimum of 3'
diameter rocks with a 2:1 slope and install topsoil at the top
of the slope as needed; in the western portion of the property
install one row of 2-5 ton rocks at the toe of the existing
slope and toe-in rocks to existing grade. Located: 474
Wilderness Point Road, Fishers Island.
This was this is application for property over on Fishers
Island. A number of us, while the Board was over there a couple
of weeks ago, a number of us did see this application. Field
notes show we did not have any issues with the work that needed
to be done there. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make
Board of Trustees 14 August 21, 2013
an inspection so there is no report from the Conservation Advisory
Council. And it's been found to be consistent with the LWRP. Is
there anybody here who would like to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. JUST: Good evening, Glenn Just, JMO Consulting, if there are
any questions from the Board or the public.
A little, brief history, those concrete blocks were
actually poured by the Army or Navy back in the '40's and they
poured them right on the beach. You can see when they rolled off
that there were pebbles on the bottom. And with Storm Irene and
Storm Sandy, that eventually just rolled over. But they have
been in place for 50, 60 years.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I was wondering where they came from. It was as
though they were actually put there.
MR. JUST: Yes. The adjacent properties, the Davidson's, the same
thing has happened.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It makes sense and it needs to be done, so,
again, we didn't have any issues there. Are there any comments
or questions from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: One question, where will they stockpile the
existing rocks, is the question I have.
MR. JUST: On the east side of the property there was a garden
there that shows on the plans. There is does the plan show
where there is a maintenance or an entry, on the east side.
TRUSTEE KING: The reason I'm bringing it up, we looked at
another site there on the island, it's a disaster where they
stored stuff, and we were kind of unhappy what we saw there.
MR. JUST: If I'm correct, I think it's I think on the east side
of the plan is an access road where they'll be coming in with
machinery where there is room for storage.
TRUSTEE KING: As long as they are not doing it on the seaward
side.
MR. JUST: No, it was, it would be on the upland and they'll
create a little access road on the east side of the property and
come down the beach, and what they'll do is work backwards, as
they work off, they'll fill in the access road as they back off.
TRUSTEE KING: Just as long as we are clear on that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
Board of Trustees 15 August 21, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number two, Docko, Inc., on behalf of PETER
BACCILE requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit
for the placement of +/-75 cubic yards of stone backfill behind
an existing line of armor stone over an area of +/-1,500 square
feet and above the apparent high tide line by using mechanical
and manual methods. Located: Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island.
This was found to be consistent with the LWRP. And the
Conservation Advisory Council looked at it, they support the
application with the condition to save all the existing trees
they can during the process. Is there anyone here to speak on
behalf of or against this application?
MR. NIELSEN: Keith Nielson on behalf of Peter Baccile, to speak
on behalf of the applicant. I'm a professional engineer
registered in the State of New York and I prepared the
application documents before you tonight, which include all of
the necessary certifications and compliance information required
by the regulations. I also have the green cards that we have
received in response to our certified mailings, and photographs
of the posters in position for this project.
The project is relatively straightforward. It will be done
for the most part by manual labor bringing stones of six to 12
inches down the bank and depositing them behind the eroded line
of armor stone along the shore, back to the eroded bank, or the
uniform gradient between the top of the armor storm stone and
the top of the bank. In accordance with our discussions at the
site when we were reviewing the project area from the dock,
there are a couple of trees that are in very close proximity and
may in the long run fall over, however they will be left in
place. All natural materials will be left in place, and the
stone will be kept clear of the tidal wetlands vegetation that
exists just to the north of the dock, about 30 to 60 feet north.
All the flagging was out there for your inspection during our
site visit on the 7th, and I believe we have complied with all
of the not only the word but the intentions of your regulations,
and we sure appreciate your approval on this.
TRUSTEE KING: Our field notes also recommended attempt to
preserve the trees that you possibly can keep.
MR. NIELSON: We certainly will.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone else to speak on behalf of or
against this application?
Board comments?
(No response).
It's pretty straight forward. Do we have any issues?
Board of Trustees 16 August 21, 2013
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, it was straightforward.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
it has been submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. NIELSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc. on behalf of JOE LICCIARDI 8~ CATHARINE PING requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to improve an
existing 106' long rock revetment with the addition of a core
stone base under the revetment; a 6' wide non-turf buffer along
the top of the revetment; and a set of 4' wide beach access
stairs from the top of the bluff, over the revetment, and down
to the beach. Located: 50 Cleaves Point Road, East Marion.
The Board did go out and looked at this. It was reviewed
and found to be consistent under the LWRP. The Conservation
Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of
a 12-foot non-turf buffer and to align the rock revetment to the
adjacent property to the east.
We have one E-mail that was received on August 19th from a
Fr. John Elder. I'll submit that we'll enter this in its
entirety into the record. Just to summarize here, I'm the owner
of 130 Cleaves Point Road, East Marion. I strongly support
the permit request to improve the existing 106-foot long rock
revetment with the addition of core stone base under the
revetment; asix-foot wide non-turf buffer and four-foot wide
beach stairs. My property will be better protected from storms
and hurricanes. Thank you, Fr. John Elder.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of the application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
for the applicant. As you know, we filed plans and also met you
at the site. The problem here is the existing revetment didn't
stand up to the storm. It appeared to us there was no footing
underneath, so when the Hurricane Sandy hit the rocks,
essentially overtopped the rocks and the rocks slid down. So the
plan is to disassemble this and create a base, then reassemble
it essentially in its place, lining up with the bulkhead to the
east. We would then backfill behind it and then we would create
a six-foot non-turf buffer just as you see to the bulkhead to
the east. That, too, should line up. I'm here to answer any
Board of Trustees 17 August 21, 2013
questions you may have.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Jack, would the Conservation Advisory
Council, they are asking if the rock revetments align, be
adjacent to the property to the east, which is that neighboring
bulkhead. You heard what the applicant has said here tonight.
Also, I'm not sure if you move it out further, you are probably
going to be outside of their property. Do you follow what I'm
saying? In other words if we move this out further seaward, to
the eastern end, it could be encroaching on public domain land.
So I think
MR. ANDERSON: The object is to hold the seaward toe at the high
water mark.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So 1 think what they submitted here will keep
the project on their property, while addressing the concern of
trying to make sure there is not a scouring out there. In other
words we don't have that great an offset between the toe of the
revetment and that bulkhead to create a problem there. I think
this design will eliminate that.
MR. MCGREEVEY: That was the concern of the Conservation Advisory
Council. I didn't inspect the property, but that was their concem.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: They have included six-foot non-turf buffer and
the Conservation Advisory Council is asking fora 12-foot
non-turf buffer. What's the feeling of the applicant with regard
to that non-turf buffer?
MR. ANDERSON: We put it in simply to match the property next
door. We think it makes sense and it would be a consistent
layout. That was the thinking behind it.
TRUSTEE KING: There's not a lot of room there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And as Trustee King just said, there is not a
lot of room between the beach shed and the proposed action. We
had also asked that the CEHA line be placed on the plans,
because we believe this is within the coastal erosion area. In
other words coastal erosion goes down a little further to the
west, so we want to make sure that line's in the plans. t don't
see it here on the survey or the set of plans.
MR. ANDERSON: We can add that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would be great. Are there any other
comments from the Board or anyone in the audience regarding this
application?
(No response).
Any comments from the Trustees?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 18 August 21, 2013
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Suffolk Environmental Consulting at 50 Cleaves Point Road in
East Marion, with the only condition being that a new set of
plans be submitted that has the coastal erosion hazard line
depicted on it. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application is number 16. It lies
between three and four. It's very fitting that I got this. Our
hard working office staff was having a day like me also.
Anyhow, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of OLIVER
FRANKEL requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit
to restore the bluff face via cut-and-fill with the inclusion of
400+ cubic yards of additional fill obtained from an approved
upland source; install a 10' tall, 20' wide, 190' long rock
revetment along the toe of the bluff; and construct 4' wide
beach access stairs with associated top 4'x5' platform, 4'x4'
upper platform, 4'x5' middle platform, and 4'x13.25' lowest/main
platform. Located: 29821 Main Road, Orient.
The application has been deemed to be consistent with the
LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
with the recommendation that any future construction or
development on the property should occur landward of the 32-foot
contour line. The Board of Trustees pertormed a field inspection
and the concerns were that the stakes as placed we thought
indicated that the placement of the revetment was not into the
toe of the bluff at the time. We indicated that to Suffolk
Environmental Consulting, who was present during the course of
the inspection. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicant. First of all, 1 thank you for meeting me out
at the site so we could go over this. The way it was laid out
was that the revetment was to lineup with the revetment next
door. Obviously what occurred here is a lot of land was lost,
and there was discussion, as you know, to push that up against
the existing eroded bottom of the slope, which of course would
put it landward of the revetment next door. We also discussed
maybe we can kind of curve it in and connect it. And that was
the discussion we had. I then relayed that to Joe Fischetti who
designed the revetment, and Mr. Fischetti is here today. And I
think what is important, we should start, is let Mr. Fischetti
speak as to what the design rationale is, because that may
affect how we place this type of structure line on the beach. So
Board of Trustees 19 August 21, 2013
I'll tum it over to him and see if there are any questions you
may have.
MR.FISCHETTI: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Board. Designing a revetment is not stacking stones on filter
cloth. What we need to follow when we design a revetment,
especially one as critical as this on The Sound, is we follow US
Army Corps of Engineer standards. Some of those standards also
point out problem critical areas. We start out with the
requirement of having the revetment to be at a one on two slope,
which is two feet out, one foot up, which is standard. If you
need more stability they would want three on one. But this is
important to start with a one on two revetment slope. The two
critical areas in designing a revetment, especially on The
Sound, are the toe and the overtopping of the revetment. I was
here in 1991 when we had the perfect storm and I actually flew
the DEC head at that time, which was out, and what we found was
many of the areas which were revetments and bulkheads that were
built were overtopped. And the key here on this revetment is
protection and this is not the one I want. (Indicating) is a
splash pad, and the splash pad moves the line of the slope from
the end of the revetment back. That allows wave action from
interfering and killing the toe of the slope at this point.
You'll see that next door. If you went next door, the revetment
that is there, the slope was right here, and what happened, it
rode up that revetment and it washed out and the face of that
bluff came down. If you look at it. So by moving back a splash
pad, that does two things. It protects the back side of this
revetment, it protects the toe of the slope and actually I have
other designs to protect this with other hardening. But we
talked about it and it came out of this design. And the other
thing to protection was the toe of the slope on here. We are at
six foot elevation on there. So these bottom stones and these
bottom stones could conceivably be washed out in a storm that
was low tide. So this revetment basically starts with a one on
two slope, a splash pad and an angle of repose of 37 degrees.
I'm not making these up. These are standard stuff here. When I
did this, and I gave it to my client and told her that I was
going to take 20 feet of her property, she flipped out. Because
if you look at the designs, I have cut that property back almost
20 feet.
TRUSTEE KING: You have to.
MR. FISCHETTI: And I told her, either I take it on you or nature
takes it. And she understood that. So what I'm saying here is by
you pushing that revetment back from that six-foot contour line
is taking more property away from her and it's pushing that
whole thing back. I have taken 20 feet away. And I think by you
Board of Trustees 20 August 21, 2013
it does not help anyone by moving it back. It is where the
bluff was before Hurricane Sandy, and we are keeping that line
there. So what I'm asking for is keep the six-foot contour to
start the slope at that point. What that does also is gives me a
pretty good cut and fill to use some of that back here. We may
end up having excess by cutting more into the slope that just
goes back. So I would request that you look at my design and
that it is the best design for this property at this point in time.
TRUSTEE KING: I understand what you are saying, in order to get
the splash pad in, you have to the start that revetment further
seaward. As long as you can convince the DEC of that, I don't
have a big issue with it. Because that's the problem, every time
we go out, I've seen this before time and time again with the
DEC, they want that tucked right against the toe of the bluff.
MR. FISCHETTI: I have to design the way I have to design. If I
don't design it that way, then my client will come to me after a
storm and say why didn't you do this or why did you take all
this property away.
TRUSTEE KING: I personally don't have an issue with this. I
understand your argument. Just understand where I'm coming from
on it. I just seen so many of these, people have to come back to
us to amend their permit.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have been advocating for things like this for
a number of years now. It's the right thing to do. I don't have
any problem with it either. I hope you can get it through.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mr. Fischetti, could you help me understand. I
understand your argument, and the plans are excellent. If you
look westward of cross-section D, D Prime there, you have
revetment return as required.
MR. FISCHETTI: We don't have anybody adjacent to us, so there is
no way of protecting that unless we have some type of return.
And I actually spoke to that neighbor last week who was thinking
about doing a revetment.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: You would really prefer to follow the six-foot
contour line.
MR. FISCHETTI: Yes, I told him that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Couldn't that be done with a return, in other
words rounding it off; so it violates the principal thing you put
forth.
MR. FISCHETTI: I have no other choice. There is nothing else for
me to do. What do you suggest I do there? There is nothing to
do except return that and try to carry that, that's why we
designed those gabions. Those gabions may even come down along
that side and try to protect that side. We may do things in the
field to try to protect that side. There is no way to protect
that side.
Board of Trustees 21 August 21, 2013
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I guess what I'm asking, a return like that, so
it compromises it a little bit.
MR. FISCHETTI: You are saying not to do a return, just to leave
it straight? I mean, I don't know how
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The curve return.
MR. FISCHETTI: It's a short curve return.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think the question is, is it, from an
engineering perspective, is it better for the return to go
straight along the bottom and then come in 90 degrees? In other
words return to come up 90 degrees at the property line, or you
have it as a curve there rather than a 90 degree. And is that
going to, from an engineering perspective and wave energy
management, is that better or worse?
MR. FISCHETTI: I really don't know at this point. It's very
difficult to try to make 90 degree turns, but you can.
MR. ANDERSON: I was just going to say, as a practical matter it
will be curved. Because you have a slope. It's not like a
bulkhead where you have a flat portion and you bring that return
right back at 90 degrees and just bury it into the side of the
bluff. So just as a practical matter it has to sort of curve in
there and it has to be sloped as well. The rocks would never be
stacked vertically in a return.
MR. FISCHETTI: It's kind of a field condition.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, any additional questions? Anyone else
have any questions on it? It's pretty straightforward. Actually
this is one of the very few projects that I recall seeing a true
angle of repose carried through the whole project. Because I
lived through the '91 storm that you flew over. I remember that.
MR. ANDERSON: Clients don't like that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Fortunately this landowner has the luxury of
having the property ahead of it being developed to build it right.
Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close
the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: f'll make a motion to approve the
application as submitted, seeing it has been deemed to be
consistent with the LWRP, and we had a lengthy explanation as to
the engineering functionality with the applicant and with his engineer.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
Board of Trustees 22 August 21, 2013
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of MARY
DeMARTINO QUALIFIED PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST requests
a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to re-sheathe the
landward side of approximately 142 linear feet of existing timber
bulkhead with vinyl sheathing; re-sheathe landward side of
existing +/-18' easterly timber return with vinyl sheathing and
extend vinyl sheathing approximately 10' landward (north);
install "sister pilings" on seaward side of existing bulkhead
and return; backfill and renourish storm eroded areas landward
of return with approximately 50 cubic yards of clean sand to be
trucked in from an approved upland source; and replant disturbed
portions of +/-15' wide vegetated slope with native vegetation.
Located: 1500 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
Conservation Advisory Council voted to support the application.
The Trustees field inspection on the 14th of August notes that
it's okay as submitted. It's fairly straightforward. Is there
anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. It is a straightforward application. If the Board
doesn't have any questions and finds it acceptable as submitted,
that sounds good to me.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are there any questions or comments from the
Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this
application?
(No response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
WETLAND PERMITS
TRUSTEE KING: Under Wetland Permits, number one, MARTHA KENNELLY
requests a Wetland Permit for the existing fixed 42"x33' dock;
existing 36"x10' ramp; existing 10'x11' float; and for the
existing +/-47.25' low bulkhead. Located: 2000 Deep Hole Drive,
Mattituck.
Board of Trustees 23 August 21, 2013
This was found inconsistent with the LWRP. I guess there
was no permit on it originally, that's why it was found
inconsistent. It just says comply with Trustees regulations and
recommendations as set forth. The CAC did not make an
inspection, therefore no recommendation was made by the
Conservation Advisory Council. We all went out and looked at
this. This is an older dock. I think they are selling the
property, probably, and they are trying to get everything
permitted. The dock would conform to today's standards. If
anything, it's a little smaller than what is needed. I don't
think we had any issues with it. It just needs a permit.
Everything is exactly what has been submitted on the plans. I
didn't have any problem with this at all. Is there anyone here
to speak on behalf of or against this application?
(No response).
Any Board comments?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KING: They have a little 10x10 float at the end. I
didn't have any issues. Being no other comments, I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number two, ARTHUR TORELL requests a Wetland
Permit to excavate and pour a foundation for asingle-family,
two-story modular dwelling and garage; backfill and grade
property for pervious driveway, parking, and underground utility
lines; gutters to leaders to drywells installed for roof runoff;
install a sanitary system; remove trees necessary for proposed
construction; establish a 25' wide Non-Disturbance Buffer
landward of the edge of the wetlands; install asplit-rail
fence; and install a line of staked hay bales with silt fencing
prior to construction. Located: 365 Westwood Lane, Greenport.
Those of us on the Board are familiar with this property in
the sense that it has been permitted and back and forth for, I
don't know, seven, eight years or more. I remember looking at it
on the Conservation Advisory Council and that was more than
eight years ago. So, in any case, this is an application for a
house being built close to a freshwater wetland in Greenport. We
did issue the permit. We established a 25-foot wide
non-disturbance buffer. I know the permit is still valid, based
Board of Trustees 24 August 21, 2013
on what I found here. I did the inspection. I'm not seeing any
CAC comments here. The LWRP finds this particular application
consistent with the LWRP. The old Zoning Board of Appeals
determination from 2008 is being included in the file. The issue
here is they decided to instead of building astick-built home,
the owner decided to do a modular home. And the site had been
cleared originally in 2011 for the home. And now it's been
again, in 2013, to accommodate this modular home. They did go
and they actually did pour the foundation. The foundation is
existing. The trees had already been cut down. When I was there,
I did note that there was a hay bale line and a silt fence that
was originally put there, but it's fallen apart and we really
ought to ask that they put a new hay bale line and silt fence
up. There was debris in the non-disturbance buffer close to the
wetland. I would suggest they remove the debris and realign the
buffer zone.
The only other questions I had, which I would like to see
if we could get them put on these new set of plans, is where is
the fence going that they talked about. 1 don't see it on the
plans. I also don't see any septic or drywells. Nor where the
driveway is. Now, these are items that were on the original
plans that don't seeming to on the new set of plans. I'll
double check.
TRUSTEE KING: The house location is the same, right?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The house location is the same. The foundation
is a little bit different to accommodate the modular. It's a
little wider on the one side. But it doesn't encroach any closer
to the boundaries that we set for the wetland line. I do see
some drywells. Sorry, it's a different set of plans than I
originally looked at. Okay, they must have added
They added the leaching pools and drywells and the pervious
driveway. They are on the plans now. Good to go. The plans I
looked at didn't have these. But they are there now. All right,
good.
Aside from that, everything else stays the same. So that's
my comments. Is there anybody here who would like to speak to
this application?
MR. TORELL: My name is Arthur Torell, I'm the owner of the
property. I was there today with the builder and I did notice, I
noticed for some time, the hay bales have pretty much melted
down. It was suggested today that we grade or somewhat grade
that back side of the house next to the wetlands in order to get
in there and add another 150 hay bales. Fresh hay bales. So
that could be done rather shortly. Other than that, the house is
ordered, the foundation is there. Everything is ready to have a
house placed on the foundation. The building Department approved
Board of Trustees 25 August 21, 2013
the tar and for me to go ahead and backfill.
TRUSTEE KING: Where is the fence going?
MR. TORELL: The fence would be along the edge. The fence would
replace the hay bales. That would be the DEC wetlands boundary.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have anon-disturbance buffer there that is
on that so from the hay bales forward is actually a
non-disturbance buffer. So the fence will be on the boundary of
the non-disturbance buffer?
MR. TORELL: Yes, where the silt fence is, basically.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Very good. Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: It's been a long haul, huh?
MR. TORELL: Yes, it has been.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any other comments?
(No response).
Any questions from the Board?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application
noting that the fence will be going on the same spot as the hay
bale line, and that there will be a new set of hay bales and
silt fence put up and any debris in the non-disturbance area
will be removed.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. TORELL: Thank you, for your time and interest.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, 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.
The Board did go out and looked at this property. It was
found consistent under the LWRP, and the Conservation Advisory
Council resolved to support the application. Is there anybody
here to speak to this application?
MR. KELLY: Kevin Kelly, I'm the applicant. If you have any
questions.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We went out and looked at it. Thank you, for
Board of Trustees 26 August 21, 2013
staking it. Our only concern was the one-third rule. More
specifically, in the Town Code it states a dock and vessel can't
be, encroach more than one-third into the waterway. I see in
your plans that you estimated that waterway to be approximately
50 foot wide. So the dock, the only condition we put on this is
the dock and vessel could not exceed the one-third width. Aside
from that
MR. KELLY: I'll only use it for kayaks, so that won't be a
problem.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You're only using it for kayaks?
MR. KELLY: Right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. Besides that, it seemed like a
straightforward application.
MR. KELLY: I want to also add my appreciation to Lori and
Elizabeth for their help in getting me through this.
MS. CANTRELL: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience that
wanted to comment on this application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just one question for the applicant, for the
existing catwalk, if you would be willing to make that out of,
instead of a wood frame, excuse me, the deck, being planks,
would you be willing to make that a grated material so the
sunlight could get through and promote growth underneath it?
MR. KELLY: On the gangway or
TRUSTEE BERGEN: On the catwalk.
MR. KELLY: I think I proposed on the catwalk, it had existing
wooden frame. I proposed to change those to thru-flow planks.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I apologize. I was looking at something else
here. I apologize.
MR. KELLY: I think I put the wrong size planks. They don't make
the size I proposed. Whatever the newest one is, I would use.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. Hearing no other comments from
the Board, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Kevin Kelly as has been deemed consistent under the LWRP with
the only condition being that the dock and the vessel won't
exceed the one-third rule across the waterway.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number four, DANIEL S.
Board of Trustees 27 August 21, 2013
MELHADO requests a Wetland Permit to install a 4'xg' fixed ramp
using Thru-Flow decking, leading to a 4'xg' 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.
This property is a neighbor of the applicant of the
preceding application. The Trustees had been to this site
several times, including a staking of the site and also meeting
with the applicant to determine that it would conform to the
Town Code not permitting boat and dock to exceed the one-third
rule as previously mentioned. The Conservation Advisory Council
had voted to support the application, and the project is deemed
to be consistent under the LWRP. Other than concerns that
ultimately the final construction would not exceed the one-third
rule, I don't believe the Board had any questions, unless I
stand corrected. It's pretty straightforward.
MR. MELHADO: Daniel Melhado. I have one amendment, if I can.
The floating dock 6x18, if I could increase that to 6x20.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 6x20 is the standard allowable in the Town
Code, unless any Board members had any strong feeling, I don't
think that kind of amendment would be a problem.
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else wish to speak to this
application?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application with the minor amendment requested by the applicant
that it have a 6x20' floating dock and that the structure upon
completion with the vessel tied to it does not exceed more than
one-third the way across the creek, and that the applicant just
kindly give us an amended drawing on the 6x20 or, Jim, do you
want to just sign off on the 6x20?
TRUSTEE KING: Sure, that's a standard size.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I move to approve with not exceeding the
one-third foot rule and allowing the 6x20 float.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number five, Gerard E. Meyer, Architect on
behalf of SHAMGAR CAPITAL, LLC, c/o DANIEL BUTTAFUOCO requests a
Wetland Permit to construct additions and alterations to
Board of Trustees 28 August 21, 2013
existing two-story single family dwelling of a ±19.4' x 120.8'
addition at the north-east corner; aone-story 125.33' x 127.33'
addition at the north-west corner to expand the garage; a
proposed 112' x ±19' one-story roofed-over porch on westerly
side; remove existing easterly wood deck and construct a
two-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 instal?ation 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.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The
Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance with one condition,
that the third story livable area of 283.5 square feet will not
are further enlarged or expanded and will not contain any
bedroom, bathroom, dining or kitchen space.
The second point, that the dwelling shall have a fire
system. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this
application. The Trustees visited this site on two occasions,
most recently on the 14th of August. And the conditions noted at
the time, I'll read directly from this report. Discuss whether
this is a tear down. Is there anyone here to speak to this
application?
MR. MEYER: Yes. Gerard Meyer, architect, on behalf of Shamgar
Capital and Daniel Buttafuoco.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any intentions of tearing this down
MR. MEYER: It's a substantial renovation. We are trying to save
as much of the existing house as possible, which is a good
portion of the first floor and the foundation work. But it is
being expanded to the westerly side and easterly side, and the
second floor is being ripped off completely. So it's a
substantial renovation and alteration.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I guess the question is, is it a tear down. So
would you categorize this as a substantial renovation but not a
tear down?
MR. MEYER: Correct. We are trying to work around the existing
structure. We are keeping the first floor deck and many of the
ground floor walls, especially at the perimeter of what
currently exists. So it's not really a tear down.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question I have. I think this is for legal
counsel. I know we asked the architect if it's a tear down. But
should we have the Building Department review this to determine
whether or not it's a tear down or not by the town's definition?
Because there is an opportunity, if it's a tear down, to move
Board of Trustees 29 August 21, 2013
this back so it's in line with the neighboring properties, which
would meet Trustee Town Code.
MS. HULSE: Apparently they already issued a disapproval. So the
ZBA made the decision that they made. Whatever that says. It's
whatever is permitted at this point. I'm assuming they have
addressed that issue in their decision.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is the ZBA decision in the file?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes, it is. I read, as I read it, it was
granted. Those were the conditions. 57' bulkhead setback as
applied for.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What did it measure when we were out there?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We don't have a measurement. We had asked
previously that it be staked. (Perusing). It's not found in the file.
Is there anyone else here to speak to this application?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: My only concern is, is this going to be a tear
down. And if this turns into a tear down as determined by the
Building Department, that, just so the applicant knows, it's
going to have to come back to us.
MR. MEYER: Again, there was no real official determination on
that but I met with the building officials about this project,
all through leading up to the Zoning Board of Appeals approval,
and we had always talked about it being a substantial renovation
and alteration but not a tear down. Those words were never
really brought up. It's just a substantial alteration.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just for full disclosure, when we were there in
the field, a gentleman approached us who told us he was Daniel
Buttafuoco. I didn't see any ID or anything. He said he already
approached the town about donating the house to the town, as in
he was destroying the house, so donating it to the town. I don't
know if that he meant to the fire department or to whoever.
That's what raises the issue forme. When the owner indicates to
us in the field this will be removed, this structure, and you as
the architect are saying no, it's not going to be removed, I
just want to make sure from our perspective that if it becomes a
tear down that the applicant understands everything stops and
you have to come back. Because again, as I talked about, the
code says if it is a tear down, there is an opportunity to move
it back. I just want to make sure it's on the record.
MR. MEYER: Okay. It's awake-up call for me.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments or questions from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing no further discussion, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
Board of Trustees 30 August 21, 2013
submitted with the understanding that should this become a tear
down, the applicant understands that it will have to come back
to this Board and re-initiate the process.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. MEYER: Thank you, all, very much.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number six, Samuels & Steelman Architects on
behalf of RAY 8~ JOYCE VASTOLA requests a Wetland Permit to
remove existing second-floor and construct new second-floor over
existing first-floor; replace all existing windows and doors on
first floor; replace siding; construct new entry porch and walk
way; construct new 287sq.ft. screen porch over existing north
deck with new concrete footings; replace existing 395sq.ft.
decking and railings at existing deck structure at both decks;
install new automatic awning over main deck; remove existing
exterior stair at north side of house; construct 1,600sq.ft. of
new stone terraces on concrete slab with frost and retaining
walls; add approximately 420 cubic yards fill as required to
minimize slope and level grade at terraces; new 20'x40'
gunite pool and pool equipment; new free standing spa; new guard
railings and pool enclosure fencing; new 3'x40' wood catwalk
along landward edge of bulkhead; new drywells for roof run-off
and pool backwash; abandon existing sanitary system and
construct new landward of dwelling; new underground gas and
electric line to dwelling; remove existing driveway and
relocated to northern edge of property; remove two trees
as required for pool; install a 15' wide landscaped non-turf
buffer along the landward side of the bulkhead; and install a
line of staked hay bales with silt fencing prior to and during
construction. Located: 2795 Wells Avenue, Southold.
This is a permit application to remove a second floor and
construct a new second floor addition. The whole Board was out
there. We really didn't have any issues. The only thing we were
asking is they move the goose fence landward of the non-turf
buffer. You can see, it's kind of hard to see on this unless I
pull it in, but there is a goose fence along the bulkhead. Once
the non-turf buffer is established we would ask that the goose
fence be put on the landward side of the buffer. We have a
letter of non-jurisdiction from the DEC. The LWRP coordinator
has found this to be consistent with the LWRP. And the ZBA did
issue a findings of determination. Just so we note it, full
mechanicals will be placed in a sound deadening enclosure,
drywell filter de-watering will be installed and a 15-foot
non-turf buffer be established. Which is what they called for in
Board of Trustees 31 August 21, 2013
the application. Is there anybody here who would like to speak
on behalf of this application?
MS. STEELMAN: Nancy Steelman, Samuels & Steelman Architects.
Primarily I'm here to answer any questions, but we'll address
the fence right off. That is planned to be removed completely
and we will not be using that again.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All right, good. I don't remember there being
any other issues. Everything was addressed on the plans as we
would normally see them. Sometimes I make the suggestion,
something you might want to consider or the applicant might want
to consider is using a saltwater pool instead of I see they
are shaking their head yes. We find that to be a little more
environmentally friendly out here on the water.
MS. STEELMAN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Aside from that, any questions from the Board?
Jack?
MR. MCGREEVEY: I might have missed it, Bob, but did you read the
CAC's recommendation regarding drainage from the pool?
I didn't catch it, if you did.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, because I didn't see it.
MS. STEELMAN: It's on our plan.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I found it. They buried it in the back. The CAC
resolved to support the application with the condition that the
pool backwash is directed into the drywells and additional
drywells to contain the runoff from the structures and patio
areas; and that the project requires an adequately engineered
drainage plan and the project was not staked on their visit. I'm
pretty sure that's all addressed in the plans, all the drywells
and stuff.
MR. MCGREEVEY: I didn't do the inspection but based on the three
gentlemen that did from the Conservation Advisory Council, they
all agreed, in their opinion, they would recommend, as you
stated, that any overflow from that pool should be retained on
the property within to some kind of catch basin.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's here, right on the plan. I'm looking at it.
MS. STEELMAN: It's on the plan. And it was one of the ZBA
requirements also.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Sorry about this. But the information that the
Conservation Advisory Council is getting in some situations
doesn't seem to match up with the full description of the
applications. I have noticed that on several occasions. So that
might have been addressed in the more detailed that you people
receive, but what we receive didn't give that amount of information.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm being assured you have the same plan
that I have.
MR. MCGREEVEY: (Perusing). Okay, it's on there. But what we
Board of Trustees 32 August 21, 2013
received and the people observed at the location, that's why
that recommendation was made. Based on what we have to go on.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do me a favor and bring your packet in so we can
review it with the folks in the office to make sure. Because we
believe you do have the same set of plans that we have. If you
would not mind. That may, way we can at least see.
MR. MCGREEVEY: I'll get back to you on that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Good. Aside from that, it looks like they are
working with a saltwater pool.
MR. MCGREEVEY: We are all in agreement then that will be
followed, the drainage.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's in there.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Good. I'll let my people know.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or questions from the Board?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven, Young & Young on behalf of
DRIFTWOOD FAMILY FARMS, INC., requests a Wetland Permit for a
(10) Ten Year Maintenance and Repair Permit to excavate
approximately 38,000 cubic yards of material for creating a new
approximately 1.96 acre pond; excavating to remove trash from
the old farm operation dump; constructing three new 12
inch culverts with tide gates, repair breach in earthen dike;
and repair and restoration of existing earthen dikes. Located:
34600 & 34920 Route 25, Orient.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be exempt.
And consistent. The consistency dealing with the establishment
of a 1.96 acre pond, because the area was farmed in the past.
And the Conservation Advisory Council supports the application
using best management practices.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. MEZYNIESKI: Steve Mezynieski, owner of Driftwood Farms. I
just hope you guys would be able to approve this. Hurricane
Irene came through the earthen dikes and did a lot of damage.
But then Hurricane Sandy came through and completely devastated
the whole back end of the farm. We lost all of our privet
hedge, lost about a quarter million dollars worth of crops. We
Board of Trustees 33 August 21, 2013
spent the past five months trying to get the soils and
everything back in operation, and we have gotten everything
replanted, but if we do not get these dikes repaired in time we
would be throwing everything back into the water again this Fall
if we have another storm.
This was worked on very closely with Rob Marsh from the DEC
and Young & Young put a very big plan to repair the whole 7,000
feet of dikes and get this operation also so we don't have
flooding of salt water contamination every time we have a storm.
There are five other farms that are in the same situation as
myself. I'm the only farm that has opted to, we are paying for
this all out of our own pocket. We are not taking any government
funds or anything to repair this. I really appreciate if you
guys could review this and hopefully approve it because we can't
afford another loss like we've had.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This new pond, I'm assuming it's an irrigation
pond, is that replacing a pond that got destroyed or is it just
the creation of an entirely new pond?
MR. MEZYNIESKI: There were two kettle holes there and it's an
old dump area.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought I remembered that being out in the
field a couple of years ago.
MR. MEZYNIESKI: And Rob Marsh from DEC and Young & Young and
myself came up with the idea why don't we utilize this area and
create a new wetland area, to enhance wildlife, use an
irrigation pond and also, we need all the material to actually
repair the dikes. Instead of having a thousand trucks driving up
the roads in Southold, let's utilize the material that is on
site. And it will be better suitable because it's heavy material.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So the purpose of the culvert is in the event of
a severe storm, to channel water in the appropriate direction to
protect the property.
MR. MEZYNIESKI: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else who wants to speak for or
against this application?
(No response).
If not, any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think it's a good idea.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just curious, on the land that got flooded,
how long does it take for that to recover so can you grow on it?
Doesn't it get saturated with salt?
MR. MEZYNIESKI: They are saying probably about three years. We
have one section in the back, every time it gets dry, it's
completely white because the salt keeps coming to the surface. So
we keep pitching it in, and it's completely white.
TRUTEE KING: We've seen that on some of the other farms.
Board of Trustees 34 August 21, 2013
MR. MEZYNIESKI: We are trying to get the salt out of there. We
replanted as much of the fields as we possibly can. The big
problem we have now is a few sections of dikes, every time we
get a storm tide, salt water comes in. One thing that is not on
here is the vegetation, the dead trees will be removed in order
to build this in accordance with NRCS and the plans that you
have here. But I mean that is a requirement.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: One thing I could emphasize having gone to
the meeting with the DEC, which they had the inter-agency
meeting, is that it was to clearly establish aten-year
maintenance and the requirement that woody and shrubby material
be kept off these dikes so they are in a state of perpetual
maintenance, which of course is to everyone's betterment. It
increases the likelihood that trees won't lodge and be lost in a
storm. And as a near lifelong resident of Orient I can
appreciate that the dike system not only provides protection for
agricultural lands but also protects Orient itself. And with
respect to this particular project, it's an improvement because
of the heavy disturbance to that particular area where they got
old farm equipment has been scoured and the plant types are
really not that beneficial, so the pond creation and the
wildlife possibilities there will be a positive. Other than a
few extra deer that we don't need hanging out.
MR. MEZYNIESKI: We have plenty of those.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hearing no other comments, I'll make a motion to
close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Young & Young on behalf of Driftwood Family Farms as described.
Noting it is both exempt and consistent under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If the Board has no objection, I would open
the hearing in the matter of the next four applications on the
part of LK McLean Associates for projects that mirror the one
that was just described for Driftwood Farms. This is visa vie LK
McLean on behalf of Salt Air Farm, number eight; LK McLean on
behalf of Wickham Farmland LLC, number nine; LK McLean on behalf
of Latham Family Farm, number ten; and LK McLean on behalf of
the Terry Family Farm, number eleven. They are listed as
follows:
L.K. McLean Associates, PC on behalf of SALT AIR FARM requests a
Board of Trustees 35 August 21, 2013
Wetland Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to remove
woody vegetation along the unaffected sections of the berms
while removing existing vegetation along the areas to
be rehabilitated; the dikes will be enhanced or strengthened by
the use of geosynthetic grids and erosion control materials;
native vegetation will be added to provide erosion and sediment
control; placement of any supplemental fill required in areas
that were subject to settlement; establish a material staging
area and clearly defined access roadways to repair the
approximately 2,317 linear feet of damaged levee sections of an
existing approximately 3,091 linear foot dike; all construction
shall be performed in accordance with NRCS's (USDA) dike
construction standards and specifications. Located: 3280 New
Suffolk Road, Cutchogue.
Number nine, L.K. McLean Associates, PC on behalf of WICKHAM
FARMLAND LLC requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten (10) Year
Maintenance Permit to remove woody vegetation along the
unaffected sections of the berms while removing existing
vegetation along the areas to be rehabilitated; the dikes will
be enhanced or strengthened by the use of geosynthetic grids and
erosion control materials; native vegetation will be added to
provide erosion and sediment control; placement of any
supplemental fill required in areas that were subject to
settlement; establish a material staging area and clearly
defined access roadways to repair the approximately 1,530 linear
feet of damaged levee sections of an existing approximately
3,010 linear foot dike; all construction shall be performed in
accordance with NRCS's (USDA) dike construction standards and
specifications. Located: 4787 New Suffolk Road, Cutchogue.
Number ten, L.K. McLean Associates, PC on behalf of LATHAM
FAMILY FARM requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten (10) Year
Maintenance Permit to remove woody vegetation along the
unaffected sections of the berms while removing existing
vegetation along the areas to be rehabilitated; the dikes will
be enhanced or strengthened by the use of geosynthetic grids and
erosion control materials; native vegetation will be added to
provide erosion and sediment control; placement of any
supplemental fill required in areas that were subject to
settlement; establish a material staging area and clearly
defined access roadways to repair the approximately 1,340 linear
feet of damaged levee sections of an existing approximately
2,000 linear foot dike; all construction shall be performed in
accordance with NRCS's (USDA) dike construction standards and
specifications. Located: 29830 Route 25, Orient.
And number eleven, L.K. McLean Associates, PC on behalf of TERRY
FAMILY FARM requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten (10) Year
Board of Trustees 36 August 21, 2013
Maintenance Permit to remove woody vegetation along the
unaffected sections of the berms while removing existing
vegetation along the areas to be rehabilitated; the dikes will
be enhanced or strengthened by the use of geosynthetic
grids and erosion control materials; native vegetation will be
added to provide erosion and sediment control; placement of any
supplemental fill required in areas that were subject to
settlement; establish a material staging area and clearly
defined access roadways to repair the approximately 850 linear
feet of damaged levee sections of an existing approximately 850
linear foot dike; all construction shall be performed in
accordance with NRCS's (USDA) dike construction standards and
specifications. Located: 35870 Route 25, Orient.
These projects are supported by the NRCS and USDA, with
funding from the USDA. They were previewed with pre-submission
inspections by members of the Trustees as well as an
inter-agency meeting at the DEC, and plans have been submitted
according with the NRCS guidelines from the USDA. All the
projects have been deemed to be exempt under the LWRP, all have
the support of the Conservation Advisory Council with the
recommendation of best management practices be employed. If
there is no objection, I'll open the hearing on the group.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
these applications?
MR. TERRY: My name is Fred Terry. If you have any questions, I
would be happy to answer them. I just feel they need to be fixed,
because like Steve said, if we get another storm it will just
ruin more farmland. I could tell, I planted com on some of the
property that was flooded and you can tell right where the
flooding started and where it ends. It's going to take probably
two or three years before the soil gets back to where we can use
it, as it happened in 'S2, I remember, when my dad farmed. So
we don't want it flooded again because if it floods again it
will be another three years.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What is interesting, I did notice on one of
these properties that planted, I believe, young apple trees, and
they all got emerged in the salt water. They are all budding
this year. I mean all the leaves sprouted and they seem to be
doing all right. It's very odd. Maybe because it's a fruit
rather than a traditional vegetable.
MR. TERRY: Certain crops can take lot of salt and certain crops
can't.
MR. MEZYNIESKI: It also depends on how long the salt was
submerged. Some areas it came in and went right back out.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: These were there for a while. The salt water was
Board of Trustees 37 August 21, 2013
there for about a day. Anyhow
MR. MCGREEVEY: Jim, can I raise a question. With the
applications that we are talking about right now, are these
gentlemen taking into consideration the reality of rising sea
levels, to meet the further catastrophes with these storms, will
be greater and more often. I hope they are taking that into
consideration.
TRUSTEE KING: We have a gentleman right here than can answer any
questions you may have, Jack.
MR. DWYER: My name is Chris Dwyer from LK McLean Associates. To
your point, yes, we are mitigating these berms, enhancing them.
They'll be reinforced and have two feet of freeboard above the
flood plain elevation, so they'll have a width that is proper or
adequate enough for them to maintain these berms, remove the
woody vegetation, and it will be an engineered berm, so you'll
have geosynthetics, anchor mats, a lot of erosion control on top
of the plantings. And so it will be better. That I can assure you.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Because it is a big initial investment, and if
it's not done upfront the right way, it's a waste of money.
MR. DWYER: We have our application into the DEC, Army Corps,
under Nationwide Permit, Department of State, and we are just
waiting to hear back from them as well. That's with respect to
the maintenance, the ten-year maintenance.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any questions?
TRUSTEE KING: I would like us to be wnsistent with what the DEC
plans are so we are all on the same page.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I agree. My comments that I made, being a
year long, life-long resident of Orient, I personally witnessed
a lot of material moving around between Irene and Sandy and saw
the damage, particularly at Latham Farm, where they had just
rebuilt the one dike and had a total loss. So it was, it makes a
lot of sense and it's great that the NRCS is able to support
these projects, and also will have derivative benefits for fish
and wildlife in the area. It used to be that the diking system
which went around Broad Meadow to the east on Narrow River,
actually contributed to the Long Island 2008 study, had our
fresh water budget contingent on the diking, so it was actually
part of the calculations made in Orient as part of the fresh
water budget. So I think the dike repairs also probably help and
balance the mount of fresh water being recharged into the water
table in addition to obvious benefits to agriculture and fish
and wildlife. Any additional comments?
(No response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearings of these four applications.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 38 August 21, 2013
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to approve these applications
as submitted, noting that aten-year maintenance permit to
remove woody vegetation along both the areas to be
rehabilitated, but also the unaffected sections and that these
permit terms should be consistent with other agency permits so
that if need be we would have to have the applicant come back to
pertorm amendments so that way going forward under the
maintenance agreements that the bay constable and the
Conservation officers and others that may be called upon to
review activities will all have the same set of specifications
and understand the rights and obligations of the landowners
going forward. So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 12, Robert Barratt on behalf of EDGEWATER
11, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' wide set of bluff stairs
to beach with associated 4'x4' platform.
Located: 63735 County Road 48, Greenport.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC
voted to support the application with the condition that
measures be taken for erosion mitigation. The Trustees visited
the site with Mr. Barratt on August 14th, and the only condition
noted was that the materials used recommended flow-thru
grating with minimum CCA for structural elements. Is there
anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. BARRATT: I'm Robert Barratt and I'm here to answer any questions
you may have.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you, sir. Any questions or comments from
the Board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Seemed like a very straightforward application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It does. Anyone else in the audience wish to
speak to this application?
(No response).
Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, with flow-thru grating.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. BARRATT: Thank you, gentlemen.
Board of Trustees 39 August 21, 2013
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 13, En-Consultants on behalf of ELIZABETH
R. CLANCY requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately
120 linear feet of vinyl retaining wall landward of tidal
wetlands boundary and backfill with approximately 25 cubic yards
of clean sand/loam fill to be trucked in from an upland source;
and construct +/-4'x2' steps to beach. Located: 1150 Blue Marlin Drive,
Greenport.
This is an application for 120 linear feet of vinyl
retaining wall in Greenport. The Board did visit this the other
day. We do have a couple questions. Before we get to that, it's
been found to be consistent with the LWRP. And the CAC resolved
not to support the application because the retaining wall is
tantamount to a bulkhead. A less obtrusive structure should be
made in line with neighboring properties and anon-turf buffer
was not depicted on the plan, and mowing is occurring up on the
phragmites.
Our field notes indicate that we had a couple questions and
they were mainly what is the purpose we didn't really see a
need there. It really was not an issue of erosion, so we
thought perhaps a row of stone at the foot of the hill and a
four-foot path to the beach would be more likely. With that, is
there anybody here who would like to address the application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
the applicant Elizabeth Clancy.
This is a site that is located between two bulkheads, one
of which was recently permitted to be reconstructed, and that is
to the west, which is vinyl bulkhead. This property was hit
extremely hard during Hurricane Sandy. We actually met with the
DEC out here in January and this design that is laid out is
ultimately the recommendation of the DEC. We were out there with
George Hamarth, Chris Arston, Eric Star and Alexa Fournier. The
photos that were submitted with the application are I think a
little more telling than the way the site like now as a lot of
phragmites have come back in quite heavily. What is interesting
about this site, in speaking about the lawn, the lawn used to be
farther seaward. The marsh used to be farther seaward. And what
has happened is the marsh has eroded, the lawn has eroded, and
the property again was severely hit during Sandy. So what we are
ultimately proposing, and again in concert with the design idea
with the DEC, is similar to what the Board approved up in the
Calves Neck area for John Kramer probably about a year or so
ago. The idea here is rather than putting something down at the
toe, which would effectively be placing structure within the
intertidal area and seaward of the tidal wetlands, thus
constituting fill of the wetlands, the state wants something
landward of the tidal wetlands boundary. So the idea here is to
Board of Trustees 40 August 21, 2013
put in a retaining wall, similar to Kramer, it would be largely
buried. The elevation will be around six-and-a-half, the top of
which would be about the same as landward end of the return on
the recently constructed bulkhead to the west. So that in
effect if we didn't continue to have this kind of erosive action
from these types of high impact storms, we would not be really
doing anything to change the existing condition. The wetlands
that remained would be afforded the opportunity to continue to
serve as a natural protective feature against erosion and flood
damage. There is a swath of phragmites that would exist between
the tidal wetlands boundary and the edge of the existing lawn
where we are proposing a retaining wall. So if all of that was
able to resist further erosion then really it becomes just a
contingency plan. If all of that material were to continue to
erode, if the marsh area was totally lost, if the upper edge of
the high marsh that is represented by the Baccharus shrubs that
are there and there are some Bayberry shrubs behind them, along
with the phragmites, were completely lost, then the retaining
wall would only then become really an interactive structure, but
would be literally the last line of defense for this property.
It's a difficult situation because there are two pre-existing
bulkheads on either side of this piece. So we have one of these
situations where this is, from the shorelines to the east and
west, this is the one unprotected spot in the middle. So in a
storm like Sandy it becomes the focal point for all of the wave
energy and all of the flooding, which is exactly what we saw
after Sandy.
Again, with respect to the comment that you are not sure
you see a need, again, 1 think unfortunately just due to the lag
of all the volume of applications after Sandy waiting for
surveys, et cetera, now all the phragmites has popped up in full
growth, it sure looks a lot nicer now than it did in January.
But again, the photos that we submitted with the application
were taken much earlier in the growing season and he you can see
really how that seaward edge of the marshes has been eroding.
There is basically black grass almost to the edge of the surtace
waters, which should not be the case. That wetland species
should really be closer to the upper edge of the marsh. So you
don't really have any true intertidal marsh left here. You only
have the high marsh that is between really that eroded toe and
the Baccharus, which was flagged up higher, which you probably
now can't even see.
So that was the purpose of the design, that was the
conversation with the state, and that is the intention here is
to really try to do something that is as least intrusive as
possible. Something down at the seaward toe will not be approved
Board of Trustees 41 August 21, 2013
by the state, I can tell you that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any comments or questions from the
Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess I can appreciate the comparisons
with that of the John Kramer property, seeing the whole
evolution of that from the point in time where the DEC would not
allow for the reestablishment of barrier beach in front of Town
and Jockey Creeks, going back to this is the late '80s early
'90s, except maybe in that case I think the properties, Kramer's
and others, seem to be jutting out more, where this property
seems, albeit the last property between two bulkheads, it seems
to be benefitting somewhat in its relative position between the
two bulkheads.
MR. HERRMANN: Jay, I know what you mean, but I think in general
that's almost, in a passive condition maybe, as long as you are
not in a severe storm. Um, but the context behind all of these
applications are really the storm scenario where you have
basically the one open floodgate between the two walls that the
water comes shooting right up into that property. You know,
obviously I don't go into the background, the original
conversation here was can I build a bulkhead, can I tie into the
corners of the two bulkheads on either side. And that would
entail basically filling that entire area, removing all the
Baccharus and whatever vegetation is there and creating, you
know, basically like a lawn, maybe with anon-turf buffer, but,
so what. You basically would be removing that one last little
bit of shoreline. And some people would argue to that, so what.
If you are between two bulkheads, what are you looking to save.
I think that's why the DEC begrudgingly here was willing to
approve something as a contingency plan but not something that
would be interactive down along the high water line, because
basically that's where the high water is coming right up to the
edge of that toe there. It's basically at that toe. We actually
had a lot of trouble figuring out what vegetation was what down
near the water. Again, I assume you have the photos. But these
are the shots that I'm talking about.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yeah, in January it was a little hard. Almost
looked like lawn.
MR. HERRMANN: Right. That's what we were trying to figure out
with the DEC. And I thought this might be the Juncus gerardii,
the black grass that you usually see in kind of the upper end of
the marsh, all the way down here. But of course if the marsh
used to come out farther, that would make sense. Chris Arfsten
was wondering if this was actually lawn; like lawn that used to
be part of the lawn up here, that was now down here. I didn't
think so because I wouldn't think that even under a different
Board of Trustees 42 August 21, 2013
condition it would be able to sustain the flooding. Even a
regular turf lawn would go pretty quick. The idea when we went
out was put the wall up here along the edge of the lawn,
basically leaving this entire natural shoreline condition as it
is. But if this was all eventually lost, then she would have the
backing wall back here. And that was the purpose of the
comparison to Kramer, because he had the stone toe. But then if
you remember, we proposed the retaining wall up kind of landward
of the bank, similar to just peeking out above grade.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess the question why not some rip rap or
material that would incorporate wave attenuation. You seem to
speak for the DEC, I'm not so sure that we know, why not an
alternative with rip rap or something that would attenuate the
waves in the vicinity of the toe and judicious pruning of the
phragmites to around 12 inches would then foster the growth of
the black grass and more Baccharus.
MR. HERRMANN: Because you can see, Jay, where the high water
line is up here. And the tidal wetland boundary is back here,
between here and the lawn. So if you put any kind of, if you put
stone at that toe at any kind of elevation that it would
actually attenuate wave energy, you would in effect fill the
marsh area behind it. And that was why they I mean I don't
mean to suggest that I'm speaking for the DEC, but when we met
with them in January, with four of them, that was, I'm basically
paraphrasing the conversation.
TRUSTEE KING: I wish we would have been privy to that meeting.
It would be a lot easier on us.
MR. HERRMANN: Actually, this Board generally has been more
receptive to these attempts by homeowners to stem the erosion in
what I call the easy situation like this, where you have the one
unprotected piece in between two substantial bulkheads. So this
just ended up being one of those meetings like I would have with
you every once in a while after the storms where a bunch of
people came out and just, you know, we were between Shelter
Island and Riverhead and here. 1 mean, given what we are
proposing, I actually, honestly, really did not anticipate any
sort of resistance from this Board because the project is really
a non-event, unless that entire area was completely eroded. I
mean if that area there sustains itself for the next 50 years,
this retaining wall project would have in effect been a waste of
money by the homeowner, because it would not actually do
anything.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, I'm looking at the plans and looking at the
limit of disturbance backfill into the existing lawn. In order
to construct this retaining wall, bulkhead, whatever you want to
call it, it will require a great deal of excavation, right?
Board of Trustees 43 August 21, 2013
MR. HERRMANN: Well, there is not excavation to put in the tie
rods.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And a lot of the vegetation will be disturbed
during the excavation and construction.
MR. HERRMANN: Not really. The wall is going where the seaward
edge of the lawn is, so all the excavation would be behind that.
And again, that's the point. If we put stone or some structure
down here, it would absolutely require disturbance of the area
behind it. But the retaining wall is actually going well
landward of the wetlands boundary. And the retaining wall
versus bulkhead, it's worth noting for the record, this is not
like a game of labeling semantics. If a structure is completely
landward of the intertidal area and landward of the wetlands and
is not designed to interface with the water, it's not a
bulkhead, it's a retaining wall.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I'm not going to argue with you on that. I
agree with you.
MR. HERRMANN: 1 know, just for the record with some of the CAC
comments.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: My problem, and I'm just speaking for myself,
not for the Board, this is a poster child example of the one of
the proposed changes to 275 this Board put forward to the Town
Board where you have a situation where you have bulkheads, in
this case to the east, bulkhead to the west, and you have this
area here where this Board recommended in these situations that
a new bulkhead could be allowed to be constructed continuous
with the others, or contiguous with the others, and I feel
that's the way to go. Unfortunately the Town Board did not
approve that. So it's now got you and others facing this
situation that you so accurately describe when storm events
happen, the shoreline that has this same characteristics, the
property owner in the middle will take it on the chin. And I,
for myself, I think it's a shame that we have to go through all
this when it's such a simple solution that this Board proposed
that got turned down by the Town Board.
TRUSTEE KING: This was what the Town Board was disapproving,
things like that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. But if that was allowed, this would be
so much simpler and easier.
TRUSTEE KING: The DEC may not have allowed that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We can't
MR. HERRMANN: Well, the issue with it is as long as there is
some I'll back up a second. This is not like we are on The
Sound or, you know, in a situation where there is absolutely no
wetland vegetation. There is some wetland vegetation that is
there. So a traditional bulkhead proposal that somebody would
Board of Trustees 44 August 21, 2013
have just gone ahead with 25 years ago would actually fill, in
effect, that wetland area. So purely from the erosion control,
property owner's perspective, what Dave just described, is kind
of a no-brainer way to go here. Which is why I said before, what
are you saving by going through all this, that swath of
phragmites and four or five Baccharus bushes, which in the grand
scheme of wetlands preservation in Southold won't make a bit of
a difference one way or the other, but it's the way the state
regulations are written, and that is a presumptively incompatible
activity. So this becomes the backup plan to forego the bulkhead
out in the intertidal area and go with a retaining wall up on
the upland side.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't necessarily have a problem with what you
are doing. I really don't. But 1 do have a question about there
is no mention of a non-turf buffer behind it. And it is not a
lawn area, so.
MR. HERRMANN: This was so tight to the house, I didn't really
know, I figured we would leave that conversation to now.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It looks like we can put one in there. Based on
the pictures I'm looking at. I know you'll be up in the lawn
area, but by virtue of the fact you are building this retaining
wall it almost gives us a line to use, a wetland line, so. We
would like to probably see at least afive-foot non-turf buffer
behind that.
MR. HERRMANN: And I advised them that would be the case, so I
think that is not really an issue for debate.
MR. MCGREEVEY: If the Board goes along with a retaining wall,
it's a big if, does it tie in with the bulkheads to the east and
west so it doesn't jeopardize their properties?
TRUSTEE KING: It ties into their returns.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Do they have returns?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, because this retaining wall is going quite a
bit landward of the bulkheads on either side.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any other comments or questions?
TRUSTEE KING: The only thing we were up against on that is the
code says no new retaining walls or bulkheads unless you can
prove excessive erosion. That was one of the flies in the
ointment.
MR. MCGREEVEY: But if you do nothing, Jim, you still have a
problem. You know, you got a big problem.
TRUSTEE KING: I was just bringing that out. That's what we were
looking at.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 1 think the pictures were submitted from earlier
on in the year
TRUSTEE KING: Because when you looked at it and we looked at it,
it looks a lot different.
Board of Trustees 45 August 21, 2013
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. And to further that, and I can send this to
your file, I have pictures from the Fall before there was
anything green. I took these pictures when I went back out the
second time and could actually start to make sense of what some
of the shrubs were and some of the vegetation was. So I used
these photos. But really, I could provide for your file shots
from even closer to the period after the storm.
TRUSTEE KING: That would be helpful.
MR. HERRMANN: Because this looked like a wasteland. But I posted
the property, I went out and saw this seven foot phragmites and
I thought, oh, boy. And it's not the only site. I mean, 1 have
been to a couple of other properties that we have not been into
you yet, where it was the same thing, where after the storm
there is this, everything just looked like a bomb hit it, and
now there is phragmites and vines and everything, and everything
just looks wonderful.
MS. HULSE: Here the code reads that retaining walls are not
permitted unless excessive erosion can be demonstrated.
TRUSTEE KING: That's what I said. I don't have a huge issue with it
because it's so far landward.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's almost like a landscaping retaining wall.
TRUSTEE KING: And you can't tell from when we were out there,
but there has been a lot of erosion there since the storm.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm just questioning, there is still the
hard structure there with the wave energy coming in in the
future with hard storms, any discussion about gabions or Hesco
baskets or something, because that would be buried in with less
disturbance than going with anavy-style retaining wall.
MR. HERRMANN: I don't, again, not to try to speak for the state,
Jay, but I don't think they see it that way. I think they see a
structure which under the state regulations is located in what
is defined as the adjacent area, that is the area that is
landward of the wetlands. It's a much different level for their
permitting than something that is in the intertidal zone.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They are looking at it on a map and I'm
looking at it functionally.
MR. HERRMANN: Right. I understand. If you could put, you know,
like we have done on a lot of these completely sandy beach front
projects with no bulkheads around them, the toe armors that have
an elevation of two to four feet above the beach, I think you
could do that here. But it's the vegetation that changes the
game a little bit.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 1 suspect by the time this is done, a year or two
later you won't even know it's there.
MR. HERRMANN: That's the idea. That's the hope, anyway.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions?
Board of Trustees 46 August 21, 2013
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application
with the stipulation there be a five-foot non-turf buffer behind
the retaining wall.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Nay.
(Trustee King, aye. Trustee Ghosio, Aye. Trustee Bergen, aye.
Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, nay).
MR. HERRMANN: Do you want revised plans, Bob?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, please.
TRUSTEE KING: For the record, Jay voted nay.
TRUSTEE KING: Number 14, En-Consultants on behalf of ORIENT
WHARF COMPANY, INC., requests a Wetland Permit for the long-term
maintenance and repair of all existing facilities, including an
approximately 30'-40' wide solid filled pier/wharf; an
approximately 28.5'x70.4' frame building/clubhouse (with sheds &
shower) situated on an approximately 40'-60' x 118' timber deck;
a +/-6'x102' floating dock extending +/-118' seaward of
bulkheaded whart and accessed by a 2.5' wide ramp with a
terminal +/-6'x60' floating dock and (8) 4'x20'
finger floats; a +/-6'x101' floating dock extending +/-116'
seaward of bulkheaded wharf and accessed by a 2.5' wide ramp
with (4) 4'x20' finger floats; an +/-8'x112' fixed timber
pier with a +/-3'x32' terminal fixed "L" accessed by a 4' wide
ramp with associated wave curtain and (5) 6'x20' floats accessed
by (4) 2.5' wide ramps; a +/-10'x32' fixed pier accessed by a
8.5' wide ramp and associated 5'x84' and 20'x100' floats
accessed by (2) 3'-5' wide ramps; and a +/-10'x90' fixed pier
with associated wave curtain and 4'x37', 4'x35' and 3'x35'
finger piers accessed by steps, all in their present locations
and configurations, wherein such maintenance and repair will
include the seasonal removal and replacement of all floating
docks and ramps; the removal and replacement of mooring pilings
as needed; and the maintenance and repair of fixed docks, finger
piers, and associated wave curtains where new sheathing will be
untreated and set no lower than 2 feet above the bottom and
covered with untreated wood facing as needed, including the
periodic replacement or repair of same-kind structural elements
or protective coatings which do not change the size, design, or
function of functioning structures. Located: 2110 Village Lane,
Orient.
Board of Trustees 47 August 21, 2013
I believe this was found consistent with the LWRP. It was.
The CAC resolved to support the application using best
management practices and provisions are made for containment of
storm water runoff along the walk. Is there anyone here to speak
on behalf of or against this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. This is basically an application to put a time stamp
on the conditions at the marina and make part of a permit what
the marina has been doing for a hundred years with respect to
the replacement of the seasonal floats and all. The project that
that is described in part in here, that they would plan to do
the soonest, would be the replacement of the wave curtain. Jim,
what you have, because I realize we did not note it in the
project description, what do you have in the way of plans?
Is it just the survey from Ehlers?
TRUSTEE KING: Basically just the survey.
MR. HERRMANN: Does the survey from Ehlers include the cross
views of the
TRUSTEE KING: Finger floats and floating dock with finger floats
on the left-hand side?
MR. HERRMANN: Yup, you got it. I was looking at the version of
the map that didn't have that and I just wanted to make sure you
had it. So you had the right thing.
MR. HERRMANN: That's all I have, unless the Board has any
questions.
TRUSTEE KING: The building has been deleted from that
description.
MR. HERRMANN: Correct.
TRUSTEE KING: I think that was the only issue there was some
concern about.
MR. HERRMANN: No, there is no work intended on any of the
out-of-water facilities, so to keep it simple
TRUSTEE KING: Do we know exactly how long this pier has been
here? I know it's been a long time.
MR. HERRMANN: It was built about 1830.
TRUSTEE KING: Were there ever any thoughts to make that an
historical site and get that registered somehow?
MR. DUELL: Linton Duell. 1 think it's part of the historic
reservation area, just because of the age of it. But it's the
pier is the old portion, not the building. Part of the building
was removed in 1938 by the hurricane.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When was the original built, do you know?
MR. DUELL: They reconfigured the dock a number of times, because there was
a commercial dock, in the last, when it came through it was marina.
Before that it was a potato grating area and a shipping area. Back in the 30 's
they'd drive the trucks down and unload the potatoes at the site where the
Board of Trustees 48 August 21, 2013
present building is, grate them and then ship them off to the other markets. This
area, especially in Orient, was a lot of shipment of produce to Cuba.
TRUSTEE KING: A lot of history there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Almost like the Crab Shack, when we had the Crab
Shack come in, it was one of the reasons
MR. DUELL: The crab shack was over in the creek.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, but you could never do that today. So we
issued the permit knowing and noting that it was an historical
building, so.
MR. DUELL: There used to be a bridge from the creek by that
shack across that water so people could walk out to the beach.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak against this
application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think there were any issues with this.
It's just kind of legitimizing everything that is there. It's
been there for so long. If there are no other comments, I'll
make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you, all.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number 15, Suffolk
Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of ILSE TROMBONE
requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing bulkhead
in-place and add two 10' returns to each end for a total length
of +/-185'7"; reconstruct existing +/-35'6" long retaining wall
in-place; for the existing 10'x10' beach house with 10'x10' deck
area on top that extends to an existing 13'x22' patio on top of
retaining wall, an existing 16'x12' platform that the beach
house sits on with a 6 square foot platform abutting the deck
with 4'x7'6" stairs to beach, and existing 2'x11'2" stairs from
upper deck to lower deck to remain. Located: 9180 Nassau Point
Road, Cutchogue.
The application has been determined to be consistent with
LWRP. The CAC supports the application with a request for
condition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer and that the beach
stairs be retractable. The Trustees visited the site. I don't
believe we had any concerns with the application. The only
concern with the inspection was that we would consider
conditioning the beach house as not habitable space, just to be
Board of Trustees 49 August 21, 2013
used for beach storage. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak
on behalf of this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicant Mrs. Trombone. As there doesn't appear to be
any issues there is probably nothing for me to add except that
the structure there certainly would not be habitable space. If
you were to apply that. It never has been, it never will be.
What I understand is the Trombone's bought this property in
exactly that condition back in the 70's. And in going through
your own records, to my knowledge, no application of any sort
has ever been filed with the town. So this simply is just
replacing the bulkhead that was destroyed, actually the
retaining walls that were destroyed by Hurricane Sandy. So
that's not a habitable structure in any event. That would be my
only comment. I did ask Joe Fischetti to be here if there was
any questions relating to the design of the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If we condition the area between the
retaining wall and bulkhead as non-turf buffer, would that be
acceptable.
MR. ANDERSON: That would be fine.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional questions or concerns?
MR. MCGREEVEY: The CAC's ongoing is going to recommend
retractable staircases leading down to the beach here on out.
Based on the amount of staircases being swept away even in
lesser storms causing navigable hazard, so it is a
recommendation we will be making on a continuous basis and we
would like the Trustees to address it and to mediate this and
further recommend if it is something worthwhile.
TRUSTEE KING: Is the CAC recommending the stairs be withdrawn
when not in use? If they are here for the weekend, they put the
stairs down to the beach and when they leave, they have to pull
them back up?
MR. MCGREEVEY: Even lightweight aluminum that could be easily
retractable on hinges. That's an engineering project. We are not
mentioning how to do it, just the intent, because these wood
staircases are being swept away and causing problems.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jack, I hear what you are saying and I would
support that we recommend that to any applicant that wmes in. I
think it would be a lot of discussion as to whether or not we
want to make that a requirement under the code. But I think your
point has merit to it and I think it is something we should
recommend to everybody who comes in who has stairs to the beach
from a bulkhead in a high wave energy area, along the bay or
Sound. It makes sense.
MR. MCGREEVEY: A lot of applicants, it is a great expense for
them to replace, but the damage being done to people that might
Board of Trustees 50 August 21, 2013
be hurt by it, it is a great expense. So that was a
consideration by the CAC.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just thinking about some of these bulkheads
where you have a platform and stairs down to the beach and
parallel to the bulkhead, how do you make those retractable?
MR. ANDERSON: I was going to suggest, we do that quite bit along
Peconic Bay Boulevard where you often have either a very small
beach or high water comes right up against the bulkhead. That's
obviously the best way to go. Here, this was, this bulkhead was
very, very old. This is an old creosote bulkhead. I don't know
even know when it was built. That's number one. Number two, the
property faces west, so really the other side of the point, the
east-facing point, our experience got the real damage because
the storm came out of the east. You had all that fetch there. So
I don't know this would be a good poster child for that in any
event.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I can tell you from personal knowledge of this
property, because the bulkhead is so far back, even Irene, which
Irene really hit the west side of Nassau Point hard, but even
because this bulkhead is so far back, even Irene didn't greatly
impact this bulkhead. That's why.
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 this
application as submitted with the stipulation that the boathouse is to
be used for storage purposes only and not as habitation, and with
the requirement of a non-turt buffer between the retaining wall and the
bulkhead and with the recommendation that the stairs be considered
retractable or temporary in nature.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How wide a buffer?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just the area between the retaining wall and
and bulkhead.
MR. ANDERSON: Do you require any plan changes from me?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: We could just mark that area as buffer area,
non-turf vegetation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Second?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 51 August 21, 2013
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, all, very much. Good night.
TRUSTEE KING: Number 16, Joshua Horton on behalf of JOE SBARRA
requests a Wetland Permit to construct two (2) sets of steps
with handrail connected by a 5'x8' platform with handrail from
the upland bank to the foot of a proposed 4'x50' catwalk using
6" diameter piles and two (2) 8" diameter piles at seaward
terminus of catwalk; a 3'x26' ramp with handrail; a 6'x20'
floating dock with two (2) 8" diameter end piles to hold the
floating dock in place. Located: 3200 Cox Neck Road, Mattituck.
This was found to be consistent with the LWRP. The CAC
supports the application with the condition the dock does not
extend beyond one-third the width of the creek. Is there anyone
here to speak on behalf of or against this application?
MR. NORTON: Joshua Horton, 210 Fifth Street, Greenport, New
York, and here to answer any questions.
TRUSTEE KING: Josh, we went out there and looked at it. The
Board had the feeling there could be a better location rather
than what is on the plans here to we didn't see any method to
get from the top of the bank to the initial set of stairs.
That's a real steep incline there.
MR. NORTON: Agreed. To that point, to a couple points, first
being repositioning the catwalk on the property. That certainly
is, from our perspective, not met with any opposition, and we
are more than happy to do that. And as far as the second point,
the stairs as submitted in this plan were submitted as such with
the applicant, Mr. Sbarra, envisioning not having steps or
perhaps another point placing stone, terraced stone on the way
down to the first section.
TRUSTEE KING: As this was set up, it's really heavily vegetated
and there will have to be some tree removal to do this. We would
rather you move further to the east where there is almost a
straight shot right down, where it can be just a straight
stairway down to the catwalk.
MR. NORTON: Certainly. And that stairway would be much less
invasive and much less destructive to the bluff.
TRUSTEE KING: I think what we need to do is go out and take
another look and re-stake it. Maybe we can meet you at the
site and hammer it out, and get the drawing on the survey
MR. NORTON: I think to that point, on the steps, in the context
of relocating it to the area you are speaking of, I generally
understand, I think the steps could also start a bit higher up
in that particular area, still greatly reducing the amount of
construction that would take place.
TRUSTEE KING: We would like to see as little disturbance of the
bluff as can be.
Board of Trustees 52 August 21, 2013
MR. NORTON: Agreed.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't know when this house was built. We would
probably have to look into it. I don't know if there are any
non-turf buffers established or non-disturbance buffers. I don't
know. The house has been there quite a while. I think it was
foreclosed on and a lot of different
MR. NORTON: Mr. Sbarra is the foreclosing entity.
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to table this.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He's the person that is taking it over or?
MR. NORTON: Right. He was the financing of the project.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll go out there and take another look at a
different location to put this catwalk. I would like to table
this to next month, we'll go out and meet you there. We can work
it out, I think. When we get there we'll know what we are
talking about.
MR. NORTON: Okay, will do. I'll schedule that through the
office, whatever works for you.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we can do a little better design on it.
MR. NORTON: Great. As far as the catwalk itself
TRUSTEE KING: That, I don't think will be a huge issue. There is
room there. I know it doesn't go more than a third way across
the creek. I'm familiar with the creek
MR. NORTON: I figured you might be. And the actual catwalk
itself stops at the mean low water.
TRUSTEE KING: All right.
MR. NORTON: We included the thru-flow grated deck as well.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to table this to next month.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. NORTON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 17, 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' flexed ramp; a 3'x12' removable aluminum
ramp; and a 4'x16' floating dock secured by two sets of
8"-g" diameter mooring pilings; decking to be Thru-Flow and railings to
be a composite material. Located: 3705 Wells Road, Peconic.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be exempt, as this is
deemed to be a minor action which includes the rebuilding or
replacement or reconstruction of a structure that was previously
permitted. This CAC voted to support this application. The
Trustees visited the site on August 14th and as a condition noted that
there should be six-inch pilings through the wetland area and eight-inch
in the creek. Other than that they found it to be straightforward.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
Board of Trustees 53 August 21, 2013
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, for the applicant. Would you
require an amendment to the drawing for the six inches through
the wetland, or just indicate that on the permit?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would be comfortable noting it on the permit.
TRUSTEE KING: We can just mark it on the plans. I'll just make a
notation six-inch piles and designate it. I'll do that.
MR. KIMACK: We talked about that on the site plan.
I guess I'm the last man standing here.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments from the Board
(No response).
Anything else?
(No response).
Hearing none, I make motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application
noting that there will be six-inch pilings used through the
wetland area and eight-inch in the creek.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KIMACK: Thank you, gentlemen, have a good evening.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
ames F. King, P esident
Board of Trustees
RE E VED
a'.~ ~
OCT 1 8 2013
5
t~n CI