HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-06/19/2013
James F. King, President QF SOplyo Town Hall Annex
Bob Ghosio, Jr., Vice-President 54375 Main Road
h P.O. Box 1179
Dave Bergen Southold, New York 11971-0959
John Bredemeyer G
• ~O Telephone (631) 765-1892
Michael J. Domino
CDUNT1, Fax (631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RECEIVED i-~~~
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD S Hrn
14
.J N
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold Town Clerk
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
5:30 PM
Present Were: Jim King, President
Robert Ghosio, Vice-President
Dave Bergen, Trustee
John Bredemeyer, Trustee
Mike Domino, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Clerk Typist
Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 at 5:30 PM
WORKSESSION: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 at 5:OOPM
TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to our June meeting.
We have four or five postponements tonight. I'll just go over them so there is
nobody here waiting for them to come up and they've been canceled.
Number three under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits, Environment
East, Inc., on behalf of SANDRA & FRANK ALLECIA requests a Wetland
Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for the existing 1 Y2 story t1,076sq. ft.
single-family dwelling; gravel driveway; 4'x24' on-grade wood walk in
Board of Trustees 2 June 19, 2013
side yard; 12'x25' wood deck in side yard; 104sq.ft. Stairs with wood walk in side
yard; 4'x21' raised deck in side yard; a 13'x15' covered deck and a 10'x24' deck
attached to seaward side of dwelling; 8'x54' wood walk with stairs from deck to
retaining wall; along northwest side yard a 78' long wood retaining wall varying
32" to 40" in height with an 8' landward return that attaches to wood deck and
planter; along southwest side of property a 38' long upper wood retaining wall
varying 32" to 40" in height, and a lower 40' long wood retaining wall varying 32"
to 40" in height; 4'4" wide and 7' long steps to beach; on southeast side of
property a 28' long upper wood retaining wall varying 32" to 40" in height, and a
35' long lower wood retaining wall varying 32" to 40" in height.
Located: 300 Harbor Lane, Orient, has been postponed.
On page eight, number seven, MARY & BRAD BURNHAM request a Wetland
Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct an approximately 300' long
seawall/rock revetment along West Harbor shoreline consisting of 2-4 ton
boulders placed in a bed of rock chips and backed with filter fabric.
Located: Peninsula Road, Fishers Island, has been postponed.
On page eight, number eight, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of
ORIENT WARF COMPANY, c/o JOHN TUTHILL requests a Wetland Permit
and a Coastal Erosion Permit to dredge roughly 2,150 cubic yards of material in
the area surrounding the Orient Yacht Club in order to maintain the navigability
of the harbor; dredged material to be placed in a drying container secured to the
wharf which will then be removed to an approved upland source. Located: 2110
Village Lane, Orient, has been postponed.
On page 13, number 27, Creative Environmental Consulting on behalf of ELENA
COLUMBO requests a Wetland Permit to move the existing dwelling and raise it
to town elevation code requirements; proposed construction of a 430 sq. 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, has been postponed.
And also on page 13, number 28, Mark K. Schwartz, Architect on behalf of 8925
BAY AVE., LLC c/o ANTHONY LOMANGINO requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a new tennis court at side yard of existing house; tennis court to be
partially cut into ground two feet; tennis court to have wall and fence; drainage
and drywells to be installed for tennis court. Located: 8925 Skunk Lane,
Cutchogue, has been postponed. We will not be addressing those tonight.
I would like to set the date for the next field inspection for Wednesday,
July 10th, at 8:00 in the morning.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Our next meeting, we want to have it again, the worksession at 5:00 and the
meeting to start at 5:30.
Board of Trustees 3 June 19, 2013
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
1. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for May 2013. A check for
$17,223.13 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds
that the following applications more fully described in Section VI Public Hearings
Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, June 19, 2013, are classified
as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not
subject to further review under SEQRA:
Margaret Hochstrasser - SCTM# 104-13-9
Laura Weil - SCTM# 26-1-20.1
Mary & Brad Burnham - SCTM# 10-4-13.6&13.9
Harold Wilmerding & Alex Wilmerding - SCTM# 9-9-3.1
Harrington Family Limited Partnership, c/o David Harrington - SCTM# 2-1-12
John Liegey - SCTM# 31-18-1
Sandra & Frank Allecia - SCTM# 27-4-5
Scott Kaufman - SCTM# 83-2-7.3
Orient Warf Company, c/o John Tuthill - SCTM# 24-2-28.1
Goose Neck Property Owners Association - SCTM# 76-3-15.1&27
Linda S. Sanford - SCTM# 81-3-27.1
Robert Castaldi - SCTM# 118-4-12
Edward Jurzenia - SCTM# 53-6-7
Kevin & Mary O'Connor - SCTM# 70-4-33
C&L Realty, Inc. - SCTM# 56-6-3.4
Ralph Carbone - SCTM# 1-2-5
Joan R. Chisholm - SCTM# 145-4-16
Ellen F. Emery 1999 Revocable Trust - 111-13-6
Joseph & Cathy DeCarle - SCTM# 139-1-3
Karmen & Gregory Dadourian - SCTM# 14-2-23
Goldman Family Irrevocable Trust, c/o Shannon Goldman - SCTM# 135-1-11
Nancy Bradley & Jeanine Murphy - SCTM# 103-13-5.4
WJI Holding Corp., c/o Walter Illigasch - SCTM# 56-6-7
Board of Trustees 4 June 19, 2013
Elena Columbo - SCTM# 53-5-p/o12.6
Lawrence & Jeanne Hall - SCTM# 135-3-33
Jeanine & Peter Warns - SCTM# 126-5-2.1
Thomas Gleason - SCTM# 110-8-34
Alfred Suesser - SCTM# 110-8-32.8
Ralph Vivinetto - SCTM# 70-4-17
Kevin Flaherty - SCTM# 115-11-12
Wilbur F. Osler, III - SCTM# 126-11-17
Alexander Perez - SCTM# 111-15-10
Lois T. Anderson Personal Residential Trust - SCTM# 70-4-45.5
Rochelle Byrne - 122-4-43
TRUSTEE KING: Before we go any further, we have Peter Young here
from our CAC, which is our Conservation Advisory Council. He's
sitting over there. Wayne Galante takes our Minutes. He is not
here. He will be coming later. So during the public hearing
section, if you do have comments to make, please come to the
microphone and identify yourself so we can get it on the record.
We have Lori Hulse is our legal advisor, she'll be coming later
on tonight also.
IV. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Under resolutions, administrative permits, what we
try and do is if they are simple and there is no controversy
about them, we lump them together and approve them all at once.
So I'm going to go through them and approve some of them in lump
form and some of them we have to do separately.
On page two: One, two and four; and on page three: Five, six,
seven and eight can be approved in one approval. They are listed
as follows:
Number one, KEVIN G. GEIGER requests an Administrative Permit for a Ten-
Year Maintenance Permit to hand cut the Common Reed (Phragmites australis)
to 12" in height by hand on an as needed basis. Located: 2350 Beebe Drive,
Cutchogue.
Number two, ROBERT J. BAILEY requests an Administrative Permit to install a
10'x13' storage shed on a gravel base with gutters to leaders to a drywell.
Located: 129 Inlet Lane, East Marion.
Number four, MISAK TERJANIAN requests an Administrative Permit to redirect
drainage pipe from the bluff into the existing drywell on the property. Located:
55255 County Road 48, Greenport.
Number five, McCarthy Management, Inc. on behalf of MARGARET HALLDEN
requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 25'x42.5' two-story single-family
dwelling with attached 4'x7' stoop. Located: 1625 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic.
Number six, Dru Associates, Inc. on behalf of BEIXEDON ESTATES
ASSOCIATION requests an Administrative Permit to remove approximately 20'
of undermined concrete road pad at terminus of Rogers Road; replace concrete
Board of Trustees 5 June 19, 2013
with gravel and road blend mix compacted and stabilized and construct knee-
wall at terminus; replenish lost sand seaward of knee-wall. Located: End of
Rogers Road, Beixedon Estates.
Number seven, En-Consultants on behalf of WILLIAM E. LEHMANN & ALICE
LEHMANN TRUST request an Administrative Permit to remove existing 10'x11'
sunroom and approximately 24'x34' deck; remove approximately 5'x16' deck on
west side of house; remove and replace existing 4'x13' porch on landward side
of house with 4'x6' stoop; construct a 10'x19.9' (199sq.ft.) at-grade masonry
patio on waterside of house to be accessed by two (2) 3'x3' stoops over patio.
Located: 730 Rabbit Lane, East Marion.
And number eight, En-Consultants on behalf of MARY BETH HENSON
requests an Administrative Permit to construct an in-ground swimming pool, hot
tub, planter and pool fence; install pool drywell and pool equipment; and remove
existing stone walls. Located: 3300 Sound Drive, Greenport.
TRUSTEE KING: I would make a motion to approve those.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number three, STEPHEN FEALY requests an Administrative
Permit to install a 6' high stockade fence along southern property line. Located:
1780 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck.
There are no issues with this, really. We just took one measurement, and the
fence was to start three feet landward of the split rail fence post down near the
wetlands and to extend 55 feet landward from that point. There was just a
matter of clarifying that. So I would make a motion to approve that, with that
condition.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS.
TRUSTEE KING: Under applications for extensions, transfers and administrative
amendments, we try and do the same thing. If they are simple and there are no
problems with them, we'll lump them together. So I would like to do numbers one
and two on page three. They are listed as follows:
JOANNE BURR requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7580, as
issued on June 22, 2011. Located: Peninsula Road, Fishers Island.
Number two, Garrett A. Strang, Architect on behalf of KENNETH HEIDT
requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7594, as issued on July 20,
2011, and Amended on November 16, 2011. Located: 8530 Great Peconic Bay
Boulevard, Laurel.
And on page four, we'll do three, five, six, eight, nine, ten, 12 and 13. Those are
listed as follows:
Board of Trustees 6 June 19, 2013
Number three, ART GRUNEISEL requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #495
from James W. Gallo to Art Gruneisel, as issue d on July 1, 1968. Located:
2875 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue.
Number five, EVELYN & JOHN BRAUN request a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#4323 from Richard K. Frerking to Evelyn & John Braun, as issued on May 26,
1994. Located: 680 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck.
Number six, LINDA S. SANFORD requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#81-3-27.1 from Herman Roseman to Linda S. Sanford, as issued on January
28, 1993. Located: 780 Private Road #17, Southold.
Number eight, Garrett A. Strang, Architect on behalf of CLUB 46 @ PORT OF
EGYPT requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7736A to
install a 6' high fence along a portion of east property line and approximately
120' in length. Located: 62300 Main Road, Southold.
Number nine, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On behalf of GARDINER'S
BAY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION requests an Administrative Amendment
to Wetland Permit #7035 to allow dredged spoil to be placed as beach
nourishment between the groins, above the high water line, and south-west of
inlet onto property of Thomas Aprea. Located: Gardiner's Bay Estates
Channel/Boat Basin, East Marion.
And number ten, Docko, Inc. on behalf of SUSANNA DOYLE requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #6289 to include the installation
of plastic grate "Thru-Flow" decking on ±38 linear feet of the existing pier.
Located: Peninsula Road, Fishers Island.
Number 12, En-Consultants on behalf of JANET T. SOUKUP LIFETIME TRUST
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #8100 to increase the
size of the proposed 8'x10' platform to a 10'x10' platform at top of stairs.
Located: 500 Birch Drive, South, Laurel.
And number 13, En-Consultants on behalf of VELJKO & STEPHANIE
KRSTULOVIC request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #457
to re-sheathe the landward side of approximately 18 linear feet of existing
timber bulkhead with vinyl sheathing and install +/-2 pilings on seaward face of
existing bulkhead; backfill with approximately 5 cubic yards clean sand to be
trucked in from an approved upland source; and re-sheathe seaward side of
approximately 178 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead below lower waler with
plastic sheathing. Located: 335 South Drive, Mattituck.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve those.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: On page four, number four, ROBERT SENA requests a
Transfer of Wetland Permit #5349 from Patricia Astarita to Robert Sena, as
issued on May 24, 2001. Located: 5655 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
I went out and looked at this and the only issue we had is while there was
a permitted beach but there, there is a septic system that leads the sewage
from the beach but straight down to I guess a septic system that is immediately
Board of Trustees 7 June 19, 2013
behind the bulkhead. So I would condition this transfer upon either removal of
the septic or installing a pump so the sewage is pumped up to the home septic
system.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number seven, CHRISTOPHER & MAIRI YOUNG request
an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit # 7671 to re-vegetate the
Non-Disturbance buffer area with six (6) white spruce trees and five (5)
American holly bushes. Located: 470 Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck.
The Trustees inspected the site on June 12th and noted
two-and-a-half inch caliper trees would be the minimum
acceptable to us, and a note that the non-disturbance area must
be filed with Suffolk County. However, in checking the file,
there is a permit, a declaration of covenant recorded in the
offices of Suffolk County is in the file. So that satisfies that
condition. And the Trustees wanted a minimum two-year
survivability on trees.
Are there any further comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess on the tree survivability we would
be requesting an annual inspection for two years, I guess, to
see that the trees all made it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: Are we doing a roll call vote on this one? Trustee
Domino?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bredemeyer?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bergen?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm going to vote nay on this. I feel there is not
enough restoration being done here. This was a non-disturbance
area. There were some oak trees there that were probably two to
two-and-a-half feet in diameter that were cut down. The owner
claimed it was all wind damage from the storm. The properties on
either side, I saw no trees down at all. I was just very
uncomfortable with this application, so I can't support it. I
don't think there is enough restoration being done. This was a
non-disturbance area. A swimming pool was permitted, and I think
some of the reason the trees were cut down was because of
shading of the pool or maybe leaves were going in the pool. So
I'm just very uncomfortable with this. I vote nay on this.
Trustee Ghosio?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aye.
Board of Trustees 8 June 19, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: Motion carries four to one.
(Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye.
Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee King, nay).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number eleven, En-Consultants on behalf of
WILLIAM MURPHY & KIMBERLY REECE requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit #7856 to raise two (2) feet higher
in elevation the proposed reconstructed one-story portion of
house; raise by one additional foot and add a step to the
proposed stone terrace; construct two (2) 3.5'x10.5' stoops
adjacent to the proposed screened porch; raise the two-story
portion of existing house two (2) feet higher in elevation with
the exception of the garage slab; reconstruct in-place and two
(2) feet higher in elevation the existing deck attached to the
two-story portion of house and construct 5'x6' steps to deck;
construct a 5'x7.5' stoop and 6.5'x7' stoop on the landward side
of dwelling; enlarge proposed hot tub to 8'x8' and relocate from
center to corner of proposed swimming pool; expand the on-grade
pool patio landward in lieu of stepping stones; reconfigure pool
fencing; and actively plant with native vegetation portions of
non-turf areas located nearest to swimming pool. Located: 1652
Bridge Lane, Cutchogue.
We had no problem with this except for we wanted to amend
the non-turf buffer that's located on this house, appears to be
to the northwest. And I see Mr. Herrmann is here. If you would
like to step up, while this is not a public hearing, I would
like to show you specifically what we are talking about so we
can have an adjustment in the plans made.
The reason for this is the corner of this house is
extremely close to the wetlands and so we wanted to just
increase slightly the non-turf buffer in that area.
If you could just step up here, Rob, so I can more
succinctly show you what we are talking about on the plan.
This corner of the house, as you can see, is only
approximately 25 feet from the wetlands. Actually, a little less
than that. So what we wanted to do, from this path here through
an area going around approximately like this. Make this all a
non-turf buffer. Because we are concerned that the slope of this
area slopes down to the water, and we wanted that to be non-turf
in there. It's just a slight increase in the non-turf buffer in
that corner.
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, for the
applicants. We discussed this, I think, during the original
hearing, and there is a really substantial amount of bluff being
added. In fact, since the original application, the DEC had
asked us, along with the introduction of that pool, to actually
Board of Trustees 9 June 19, 2013
actively plant all of these non-turf buffer areas, where that
was not part of the original plan.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, what I need to do at this point then,
because we are not allowed to take testimony, since this is not
a public hearing, is based on your recommendation, we'll
postpone this for a full wetland permit or administrative permit
that will have a hearing involved so we can get your comments on
the record, because unfortunately legal counsel has made it very
clear we cannot take testimony unless it's during a public hearing.
MR. HERRMANN: Do you have a specific distance here? I mean, you
just put a swath that basically covers
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, it was from this stone path going along that
area where the stone path covers here, to the corner of this
house and then over approximately like this.
MR. HERRMANN: Oh, well, that would probably be okay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is that roughly between the 12' and 5' contour
lines?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. It's tough to see, but there are contour
lines.
MR. HERRMANN: In other words, there is a path that provides
access here. So basically this area in here would be lawn. This
would be a non-turf buffer and the corner that you go around.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MR. HERRMANN: So all the access here would remain.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, I would say that's fine.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. So I would motion to approve
conditioned upon an amendment to the plans that are dated April
26, 2013.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If I could request a roll call vote on
number 14. 1 can't vote on this one.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He doesn't need revised plans, does he?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No.
TRUSTEE KING: Number 14, CHRISTOPHER SHOWALTER requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #8036 to install
3'x3'x3' Hesco Concertainers, double stacked for approximately
100' with two (2) 15' Hesco Concertainer returns; clean sand
fill to be placed inside of geotextile fabric encased in the
concertainers; backfill, re-grade and re-vegetate the disturbed
areas. Located: 1015 Orchard Lane, Southold.
There were no issues with this. It's just a tactical
matter. I would make a motion to approve.
Board of Trustees 10 June 19, 2013
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would like to record an abstention on
this. It has come to my attention Mr. Showalter is on the Ethics
Board. I have a pending request there for a little over a year.
They have not gotten back to me. I don't know if they have the
paperwork, so I don't want to enact a final approval on this, so
I'll abstain.
TRUSTEE KING: For the record, Trustee Bredemeyer abstains on
this.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(Trustee King, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye.
Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, abstains).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off our regular hearings
and go into our public hearing section.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TRUSTEE KING: As I said at the beginning, if you have testimony, please come
to the microphone and identify yourself so we do get it on the recording. And if
you can keep your comments limited to five minutes or less, if possible.
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number one, William Goggins, Esq. on behalf of
MARGARET HOCHSTRASSER requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit
#8096 to replace the existing ±100' long bulkhead inplace using vinyl sheathing.
Located: 2855 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
This is an amendment to an existing permit related to damage from
Sandy. The CAC resolved to support the application, with no stipulations. It's
found to be consistent with the LWRP. The Board didn't really have an issue
with this at all.
With that, I'll ask if there is anybody here to speak on behalf of this
application.
MR. GOGGINS: William Goggins, the Law Office of Goggins & Palumbo. We are
here to support the application. If you have any questions, I'm here.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As I said, I don't think there are any questions or any
issues with the Board, so being no other comments, I'll make a motion to close
this hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the amendment as applied
for.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
Board of Trustees 11 June 19, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number two, DKR Shores, Inc. on behalf of LAURA WEIL
requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #4349 and Coastal Erosion Permit
#4349/26-1-20.1 to reconstruct 12' of an existing 29' return; to backfill area that
was scoured out with ±75 cubic yards of clean sand trucked in from an upland
source; construct a 4'x3' set of "inset" beach access steps; to armor the return
and 27' of shoreline with toe armor consisting of 1-2 ton stone on filter fabric;
replant and restore area with Cape American beach grass plugs 18" on center.
Located: 2760 Village Lane, Orient.
This was found consistent with the LWRP. The CAC supports the
application using best management practices on the stair construction. We all
went out and looked at this and thought it was pretty straightforward. And I think
we discussed on that one side, rather than just stone, they could continue, they
could armor that with stone. It's an option that is available for them to do if they
so desire. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MS. RIGDON: Agena Rigdon, DKR Shores. What was the question about
additional bulkheading?
TRUSTEE KING: They wanted to extend that return with stone. It could be a
short bulkhead there, too.
MS. RIGDON: No, no, I applied, there is actually a timber return, see, where the
vinyl stops. There is 12 feet. It was uncovered during the storm. It actually is
there. It's timber return. We would just like to continue the vinyl for the additional
12 feet and then armor that in a crescent shape to restore the area that was
scoured out during the hurricane.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I had an opportunity to run into the neighbor there. It
was a question of whether you were interested in actually putting the bulkhead
instead of the stone revetment section. I think there might have been a
misunderstanding.
MS. RIGDON: Do you have a copy
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I did. There is an application certain. You show the
bulkhead, obviously, the replacement of the wooden bulkhead section, but the
armoring didn't show any bulkhead behind it, so it was a question of whether
you wanted to go with a stone armoring and a small section of bulkhead to
complete what is essentially a unit bulkhead. Maybe I misunderstood.
MS. RIGDON: Well, we are going to fill, the additional 12 feet will go landward.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Have a revetment.
MS. RIGDON: And then have a small revetment, a little bit bigger
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right. As on the plan. It was just a question
because almost the entirety of the property was already bulkheaded. Whether
or not you on behalf of the owners wanted to continue the same type of vinyl
bulkhead construction
MS. RIGDON: Instead of the stone?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Instead of the stone.
Board of Trustees 12 June 19, 2013
MS. RIGDON: DEC will never approve it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That was the question that had come up, whether
they would approve it. Because essentially it is almost in the form of a return,
the entirety of it.
MS. RIGDON: Understood. They prefer the stone.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments from anybody on this
application? For or against?
(No response).
Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve as submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. RIGDON: Thank you.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits, number one
En-Consultants on behalf of SCOTT KAUFMAN requests a Wetland Permit and
a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove existing damaged stairway and terrace
retaining walls; construct along eroding toe of bluff approximately 210 linear feet
of stone revetment, including angled westerly return, all consisting of
approximately 3 to 5 ton stone placed over 50 to 100 pound core stone and filter
cloth; restore bluff face using terrace retaining walls, approximately 600 cubic
yards of sand re-nourishment (including approximately 350 cubic yards to cover
proposed revetment), and native plantings; construct a t3' wide berm with ±50
cubic yards of sand/loam within 15' wide vegetated non-turf buffer to be
established adjacent to bluff crest to control storm-water runoff; and construct a
new 4'x±50' elevated bluff stairway with landings.
Located: 2050 Dignans Road, Cutchogue.
The Board did go out and looked at this. It was reviewed and found
consistent under the LWRP. It was reviewed by the CAC. The CAC supports the
application with the condition the amount of fill is certified. They noted the
project was not staked and the notice of hearing card was not posted as of June
12th. As I said, the Board did go out and looked at that.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicants. This is a property that you have actually been looking at with the
applicants for a number of years. With the application we have submitted photos
that date back to 2009 and also currently. And this is one that I had looked at
during a pre-application inspection with Jim King some number of months back,
after Hurricane Sandy. We did post the property on the 11th. The sign was put
Board of Trustees 13 June 19, 2013
at the foot of the driveway. The owners have been out there and have confirmed
the sign has remained in place. So I'm not sure what that's about.
But anyway, we had the plans prepared in conjunction with Butler Engineering.
We believe it to be consistent with what I had discussed with Jim out in the field
in terms of showing a revetment, similar to other structures that the Board has
approved in these kinds of situations. And the design is straightforward, it is
consistent with what the Board has seen at other similar sites that have
obviously experienced severe and avulsive erosion during the past few years.
So if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, how are they going to access this site, both for the
revetment and for the fill?
MR. HERRMANN: Probably it will come from Duck Pond Road. We've discussed
that. There is not a contractor yet who has been hired. Probably not surprising
to you. But once we get the project permitted and they can actually talk
seriously with a contractor, they would have to determine that. But that is the
way that O'Mara and some of those properties that are up a little bit to the east
were accessed. So you would really have to do the same thing here, unless the
work is undertaken at the same time as the neighbor to the east, who we
understand is also proposing some sort of work. I don't know if it's come before
your Board yet. I know from having met with staff from the DEC out there
that there is an application before the state for the adjacent property to the east.
So I don't know how that would ultimately be worked out, but hypothetically the
access would come through Duck Pond.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If it is going to come from Duck Pond Road there, of
course we would require you to talk to the Superintendent of Highways and you
would have to put up a performance bond to allow for that.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, the Kaufman's understand that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's just, and this gets into our second question. Obviously
there was a tremendous amount of erosion that has taken place, particularly
post-Sandy, as is depicted in the pictures that you have in the file here, that is
not really seen in this picture that's on the screen. But the application calls for
600-cubic yards of sand, and we observed that will be nowhere near the amount
of sand needed, depending upon the slope of elevation that you want to
maintain, the angle of the bluff.
MR. HERRMANN: We actually discussed, even prior to some of the additional
loss that seems to have continued there with every subsequent storm that's
occurred since the Fall. And unfortunately all of these kind of projects are a little
bit victimized by the fact that you get a survey done by a certain point in time,
the engineering plans, the design plans are based on that, and then it's a little
bit of a moving target.
One of the things that may be a little misleading here, though, is that a lot
of this erosion really is going on at the toe. So there is a substantial volume of
storm eroded area that will actually be occupied by the revetment itself. That
was something I discussed specifically with Jeff Butler. Because I had asked
him, I said it seems like this number is a little bit low, even
Board of Trustees 14 June 19, 2013
at the time. And he said that's why. That if you actually took the cubic yardage of
the stone material, that's where a lot of this material has been lost from.
I don't have any problem if the Board would be inclined to say raise that
number to a thousand or 1,200 yards. Obviously they are not going to use it if
they don't need it. But if there is a concern that maybe the design is undershot
on the fill, we'd be happy to raise the number just to keep it safe.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think that's a good idea, because in the description it
says approximately 350 yards is going to be used just to cover the proposed
revetment.
MR. HERRMANN: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So that leaves only about 250 yards. Which isn't a lot here.
And that got into the access question, that because of the height of this bluff I
think it would be very tough for a machine to throw it from down below. I'm
guessing they'll have to access some of this fill from the top, in some way,
shape or form.
MR. HERRMANN: Correct. There had been some discussion, depending on the
contractor used, possibly some of the material may be able to be barged in. You
know, that's a question for somebody with means, like Costello Marine,
somebody of that outfit. A smaller contractor might not be able to do it. But as I
said, they are not that far along in the process, so the only thing I would say, if
they are going to come through Duck Pond, obviously they have to go to the
town to get bonded. If there is some other plan, if it would be in conjunction with
the neighbor or whatever, we would obviously let you know that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: How would the Board feel about increasing the 600 cubic
yards to 1,600 cubic yards, knowing that if they don't need that much, obviously
it's not an issue.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a problem with it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No problem.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just kind of curious, why are they covering the revetment
with the sand?
MR. HERRMANN: Well, Jim, this goes back to, you know, some of the more
ideological conversations we had when we met at the site with respect to how
the DEC has viewed these kinds of projects over the years. There was a period
of time the vertical-faced bulkheads were approved pretty readily. Those went
strongly out of favor, in favor of the revetments, which has also of course been
your policy for as many years as I can remember, in these situations, for the
most part. And after having a certain amount of difficulty with the DEC on a
couple of these projects a number of years ago, eventually some of that tension
was relieved by proposing to cover the stone on an annual basis. The idea
being that once you harden the shoreline, to some extent you are eliminating
the feeding of the beach from material lost from the upland bluff. Some people
say, well, isn't this sacrificial sand. To an extent, it can be. But if the storm
season doesn't affect the toe of the bluff, it's not an issue. If it does affect it and
take the sand away, it does create a certain soft buffer to what is otherwise a
hard stabilization methodology, and that allows the DEC to look on these things
a little bit more favorably, because to an extent the homeowner is now almost
Board of Trustees 15 June 19, 2013
involuntarily providing some beach re-nourishment, where otherwise it would
just be a constant net loss to the sand system.
TRUSTEE KING: Do they require them to keep it covered?
MR. HERRMANN: That is what was required of the O'Mara structure up the
beach, and we approached this the same way. And in speaking with the analyst
from Marine Habitat Protection, that was viewed very favorably and consistently
with the other approval.
It's one of these issues, and I think the reality is we've probably seen with
some applications it gets covered and then gets lost and it may never be
covered again. But at least in theory it allows the homeowner to make the
attempt of trying to keep a natural profile, try to keep some harmony there
between the bluff and the beach, so. It's the same idea that's in your LWRP to
try to minimize the impacts of the hard stabilization as much as possible. It
almost becomes a thing while you are re-nourishing the entire bluff, you are kind
of dumping over the stone.
TRUSTEE KING: Just a question.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience who wishes to
comment for or against this application?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the wetland and coastal
erosion permit for Scott Kaufman as described, amending the fill to up to 1,600
cubic yards total, and also with the condition that should access be required
from the public road to this site, that an appropriate bond will be obtained from
the Southold Town Highway Department.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next item under Wetland & Coastal Erosion
Permits, number two, JOHN LIEGEY requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit for the replacement of the existing 6' high fence on east and
west sides of property; a 17" high railroad-tie wall from bulkhead to west corner
of house; 4'x6' platform with steps to ground from dwelling; remove existing and
construct a 30'x20' RCA base with beach stone topped pervious driveway in
new location; install 16 yards of screened top-soil for north facing lawn; install
five (5) sections of 6'x6' seasonal IPE wood rollout decking; reconstruct 40"x6'
stairs to beach off of bulkhead; remove prior deck and walkway; replace 16
yards of lost sand behind bulkhead; and for the existing 980 sq. ft. single floor
home with west facing entry stairs and 8'x6' platform; existing ±40' long wood
bulkhead; existing 6'x6' wood shed; existing 4' high x 40' long west facing picket
Board of Trustees 16 June 19, 2013
fence; east facing propane tank; and all landscaping. Located: 2395 Bay
Avenue, East Marion.
This application has been deemed both consistent and inconsistent under
the Town's LWRP. The inconsistency derives from the fact that most of the
structures here pre-exist permitting, and in order to put the new structures on
the property we encourage the applicant to get permits for all existing structures
within 100-feet jurisdiction under the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act and the
Town's Wetland Code. And there are no other comments concerning
inconsistency that relates to the actual structures themselves. It's
just merely that the applicant needs to secure permits. The Southold Town CAC
has recommended supporting the application with a 15-foot non-turf buffer. The
Trustees went to the site. We have no objection to what we saw there. The
application as submitted, the 15-foot non-turf buffer should be very easy to
maintain, as it is all entirely beach sand within the 15-feet up to the bulkhead.
At this point, is there anyone who wishes to speak on behalf of or against
this application?
(No response).
Hearing no such person here, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, with the condition that a 15-foot non-turf buffer is maintained.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, Docko, Inc. on behalf of HAROLD
WILMERDING & ALEX WILMERDING request a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to construct a 47 linear feet X 4ft wide fixed wood pile and timber
pier including 4 tie-off piles; an associated 3.5'x24' hinged ramp; a 8'x16' float;
and restraint pilings, all waterward of the apparent high water line. Located:
4997 Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency is
derived from the fact that section 4.1 requests to minimize loss of human life
from structures and flooding and erosion hazards. And that timber pilings and
other similar float less than 200 square feet are removed in the Fall of each
year. Also notes that if this is approved, that the pilings are treated CCA. The
CAC did not visit this site so there are no comments there.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. NIELSON: Yes. Keith Nielson, with Docko, Inc. I have prepared the
application documents before you tonight. And with respect to removal of the
float seasonally in order to minimize safety threats to the health and welfare of
surrounding properties and adjacent structures, the Wilmerding's are entirely
Board of Trustees 17 June 19, 2013
agreeable to that. It's not an uncommon practice, so they'll agree to that. I trust
that that resolves the inconsistency issue.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And noting that the pilings will be CCA treated.
MR. NIELSON: Yes. I have made necessary certifications and addressed the
construction materials in the application document including the size the types of
piles to be used and they will either be Greenheart piles or CCA treated
southern yellow pine. And all the other material specifications are mentioned in
the body of the application narrative. And I've made all the necessary
certifications in accordance with the regulations for this project. So I believe it is
consistent with the LWRP and consistent with similar projects that we've
prepared for your review on Fishers Island and other parts of the Town.
The slide you are looking at there is a photograph showing the marker
buoy for the floating dock. If you move the curser up and to the right, that's the
extent of the floating dock in its current position as shown in the application
drawings. The piles supported here in the walkway crosses over the large
boulder in the lower right-hand corner. There are currently markers out on the
site that show the location and the alignment of the stairway, the pier and the
end of the float. And the markers indicate the diminished length of the structure
that was agreed upon during the site visit on April 5th. I'd be happy to answer
any other questions from the Board.
TRUSTEE KING: Did we have any issues?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think there were any issues.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I would make a motion to
close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted,
noting the removal of the float in the Fall will address the inconsistency as noted
by the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. NIELSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number five, Docko, Inc. on behalf of HARRINGTON
FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, c/o DAVID HARRINGTON requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to reconstruct ±138LF of 5' wide
fixed wood pile and timber pier including four batter braced tie-off piles and
ladders waterward of the apparent high water line; relocate 4' wide stairs with a
new 5'x4' fixed landing and reconstruct an existing ±3.5'x ±34' wood access
ramp landward of the apparent high water line.
Located: Private Road on Clay Point Road, Fishers Island.
This is another application on Fishers Island. We did a site inspection
there, Jim did. The CAC did not make an inspection, therefore no
recommendation was made. The LWRP report finds this to be inconsistent with
Board of Trustees 18 June 19, 2013
the LWRP, noting that a portion of the proposed dock is in coastal erosion; all
development is prohibited in the near shore area; any allowable activities in this
area must include open-timber piles or other similar work supports with a top
surface area of less than 200-square feet to be removed in the Fall of each
year.
Is there anybody here who would like to address this application?
MR. NIELSON: Yes, on behalf of the Harrington Family and the Trust, I'm Keith
Nielson, with Docko, Inc., and I prepared the application documents before you
tonight. The intended structure here is, as you can see, a rebuild of a
deteriorated and substantially damaged pier. This project was previously
permitted several years ago, but the permit expired. And the proposed
reconstruction is to the same limits with lengths but a higher height than what
was previously permitted, in order to keep it out of the breaking waves
damage zone that we've seen recently in Hurricane Sandy. This area was
substantially shielded from Tropical Storm Irene because of its orientation in
West Harbor. The decking can be removable in order to satisfy concerns about
consistency with the LWRP. However, I believe that the structure, the way it is
designed at this point, would comply, because the first two-thirds of the pier are
elevated above the typical wave break zone and only the transitional ramp,
which you can see in the plan and profile in the application drawing, brings it
down to an elevation of six feet above mean low water. And so that area
constitutes less than 200-square feet of structure. We do have open
pile and timber support and framing for this. It will be heavily braced. I'm sure
you've seen some of the recent projects built by Glenmore Marine out on
Fishers Island. They are heavy-duty structures, they are designed and built to
withstand the forces that they are exposed to out there. Typical of which are
really in the upper left hand corner of all three of the three sister cottages docks
were all built by Glenmore and they have all withstood all of the recent storms
since they were built 12 years ago. I believe that this system is compliant with
all of your concerns.
TRUSTEE KING: Keith, is this shorter than the original structure?
MR. NIELSON: Yes, it is.
TRUSTEE KING: We talked about shortening it.
MR. NIELSON: We've shortened it. The application drawings you have in front of
you show the ten-foot reduction we had agreed upon at the site visit. And those
drawings were also coordinated to the DEC and the Army Corps of Engineers
so that all permits should reflect the same length.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you have the DEC permit yet?
MR. NIELSON: No. I did have a meeting with the Marine Habitat Protection
Bureau to make sure they were okay with the length and height, because there
is eel grass in the area, and they were satisfied with that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I was going to ask about the eel grass. I know there is eel
grass that is there. This does not seem to have any impact on that, though.
MR. NIELSON: I believe it will not have significant impact. The eel grass at best
was sparse below the dock structure. About 50 feet to the south, just beyond
the three boulders that are shown along the upper left corner of the photograph
Board of Trustees 19 June 19, 2013
is where the eel grass was densest, and we've stood well clear of that, and the
boat berthing area will be clear of that as well.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: To reiterate, this will be flow-thru decking?
MR. NIELSON: This was going to be heavy-duty wood decking. Non-CCA deck.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a question for the Board's consideration. If
we have hard decking over 200-square feet in the coastal erosion zone, can we
then mitigate by going to open-grate decking, which physically would not have
the coverage, all those gaps and spaces would allow for water to come through.
In other words, the notion of your building a dock as a permanent structure and
allowing water to flow through it, can that be deemed as meeting the
requirement of not going over the 200-square feet.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's an interesting question, because when you use the
flow-thru decking
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's not at risk of coming apart in a storm. When we
did the shellfish sampling on Monday, we went to Cosmenka's (sic) dock, down
on Skunk Lane, and he has a very grade of fiberglass reinforced open-decking
that was affixed with all stainless fastenings. And it looked like this stuff simply
would not move but would allow the water flow so you won't be putting all those
very hard boards into the seaway and all around the Sound, looking to puncture
plastic bulkheads or meeting up with a boat.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Exactly. What's your feeling on using flow-thru decking on
this instead of the wood?
MR. NIELSON: I would say if you would approve as either thru-flow decking or
removable decking, I think the owners will probably agree with one of those or
the other.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have been pretty consistent in using flow-thru decking
in places like this.
TRUSTEE KING: How about if we use the flow-thru on the wooden ramp and
out to the low water mark and then go to timber?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: On the actual deck path, on the top?
TRUSTEE KING: Out to here, flow-thru, then go to timber.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would also cover the area where the eel grass was
noted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Exactly. And if it will be removable, I guess any timber
would be removable. How does the rest of the Board feel about that?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm not entirely sure what exactly you mean. On the
access ramp down and out to mean low water.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. If this was all flow-thru
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right. And this would be the place that has most of
the wave action, where everything is piling in on the beach. I have no problem
with that. It looks pretty good, actually.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think it's a good idea.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it would help with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, having the flow-thru up to the mean low water and
then go out, the rest will be removable timber deck. How does that sound,
Keith?
Board of Trustees 20 June 19, 2013
MR. NIELSON: So we are talking about from shore line out to mean low water
as thru-flow.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MR. NIELSON: And from there out is removable timber?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
MR. NIELSON: Having not broached this with the owners, I'm a little reluctant to
commit them to it. Would, again, you consider the option of all wood deck
removable, or thru-flow, or a combination of those two? Because that would
cover your suggested approach and it would also cover complete removal of the
wood decking, if they prefer to go that way.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm not getting the feeling that that is the direction the
Board wants to go in.
MR. NIELSON: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would you like to postpone it until you have an opportunity
to talk to your client and see if they'll agree to what we are suggesting?
MR. NIELSON: I think I would feel better about that, if you don't mind.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
MR. NIELSON: So we'll go with thru-flow for the
TRUSTEE KING: For the ramp out to the low water mark. For the access ramp
and the dock out to the low water mark.
MR. NIELSON: Out to the low water mark, which is right there. And then from
there out will all be removable wood.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. NIELSON: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Or they could consider the option of flow-thru all the way
out, if they want that option. Then that would not have to be removed
seasonally.
MR. NIELSON: That's the part I have the problem with. Because the thru-flow,
although it's great in terms of allowing lighting through the decking and such,
the holes for the thru-flow decking are pre-drilled they are molded into the
thru-flow and repeated removal and installation of that, I'm afraid will destroy
the decking.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I wasn't under the impression we were going to ask you to
remove it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The thru-flow you are leaving in place. That would not
have to be seasonal. It would be permanent.
MR. NIELSON: Okay, let me take that back to the owners.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Let me ask you a question. This is a suggestion. We could
approve it for that and if they didn't like it, you could come back and amend. I'm
just looking as a timesaver for you.
MR. NIELSON: I'm good with that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Because I do think it's a pretty good option and chances
are they'll go for it, and rather than put it off a month or two
MR. NIELSON: I think it's a good option. I'm good with that. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or questions?
(No response).
Board of Trustees 21 June 19, 2013
I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the only
change being that the decking be flow-thru type decking, that way it will mitigate
the LWRP concerns and bring it into compliance with LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's flow-thru for the entire length.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number six, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of GOLDMAN
FAMILY IRREVOCABLE TRUST, c/o SHANNON GOLDMAN requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to repair the existing dwelling by
cutting pockets into existing foundation wall to support new girders; replace
supports to porch; as needed, remove and rebuild storm damaged masonry
foundation under existing dwelling and chimney; install new 12" concrete footing
full size and framing; remove part of decking as required to access under house
and replace when complete; repair existing deck supports; remove part of
existing front deck encroachment while retaining handicap access;
re-shingle roof. Located: 21995 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
This was found exempt from the LWRP. The CAC took no action on this
application because the site plan did not include a drainage plan; and the
location of the sanitary system. And the notice of hearing card was not posted
as of June 12th.
MS. MOORE: Personally, I posted it myself, and it was on the, there is a fence
there that was covering the dumpster, or whatever the garbage collection
system is, and it was right there. So maybe they didn't see it.
TRUSTEE KING: I believe we saw it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It was one of our first inspections.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicant and certainly in support
of the application. The property owners experienced damage due to the Sandy
storm and we provided for you Joe Fischetti plans, structural engineer plans,
with respect to the work he did to the existing foundation. The structure is going
to remain just as it is. It just needs support from under the house and the
masonry of the, in particular, the fireplace, that has been compromised due to
the wave action of the storm. The description I think is pretty self-explanatory.
I do have for the Board, for your files, a memorandum of law regarding pre-
existing structures and I would like to submit it to the Board for your
consideration. Hopefully we have no issues here. I think we met in the field and
we pointed out the structural supports that will be needed. So we are here to
answer any questions. And one of the family members is here, to make sure
everything is okay.
Board of Trustees 22 June 19, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: I think we did have one question. Where is the sanitary
system. We did question that.
MS. MOORE: Yes, it's in the front, in the upper part of the house. That's where
the sanitary system is. That is still functioning. That was not compromised
because of its location being upland, in a sense, on the landward side of the
house. And it was protected by a retaining wall that is actually right under the
house, so.
TRUSTEE KING: Does the Board have any questions?
(Negative response).
Anybody else in the audience for or against this application?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve the application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This brings us up to Wetland Permits, number one, John
Carway on behalf of GOOSE NECK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC. requests
a Wetland Permit for the following existing docks. On Lot 15.1: To repair or
replace two existing floating docks and ramps: Dock #1 consists of an as-built
5'x16' floating dock with an as-built 3'x24' ramp constructed with non-treated
decking materials; Dock #2 consists of a 4'x12' floating dock with a 30"x18'
ramp; to be reconstructed using non-treated decking materials; and docks to be
relocated ±5' as not to encroach onto neighboring properties. On Lot 27: To
repair or replace two existing floating docks and ramps: Dock #3 consists of one
5'x18' floating dock, one 5'x12' floating dock, and one 3'x16' ramp; each to be
reconstructed using untreated decking materials; Dock #4 consists of a 5'x16'
existing floating dock with a 2'x18' ramp. Located: 1080 & 420 Smith Drive
South, Southold.
REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AS OF 5/30/13: On Lot 15.1: To construct
a 5'x8' untreated wood platform leading to a 3'x24' untreated wood ramp; to a
4'x26' molded polyethelene floating dock with two (2) 4'x12' molded
polyethelene floating fingers, to create a "U" shaped docking facility. On Lot 27:
To construct a 5'x8' untreated wood platform leading to a 3'x24' untreated wood
ramp; to a 4'x26' molded polyethelene floating dock with two (2) 4'x12' molded
polyethelene floating fingers, one in center and one to the left of ramp; and for a
4'x14' molded polyethelene floating dock with one (1) 4'x12' molded
polyethelene floating finger to the right of the ramp.
This was an application that was opened last month, and some concerns
were brought up during that hearing. It was then postponed to this month. The
Board of Trustees 23 June 19, 2013
Trustees were able to get out and look at it on the 12th, during field inspections.
It's been reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. The CAC
supports the application but questions whether the total square footage of
floating dock exceeds the code and is the marina consistent with the code. The
CAC recommends a non-turf buffer between the sod area and the marina.
Now, there are several letters that have been submitted to us.
I'll stipulate they'll be entered into the record in their entirety, but I want to
highlight these letters. Again, bear with me, there are several of them. There is
one here dated stamped received in our office on June 11th. I do not see a date
on the letter itself, so I'm guessing it was on or about June 11th, from Denis
Rousseau and Syun-Ru Yeh. I'm not sure if they are here. And I apologize if I've
mispronounced that. They live at 970 Smith Drive South.
They are not able to attend the meeting here tonight. We are writing this
letter to express our objection to the proposed variance to the placement of the
new "U" shaped dock at the east marina. Again, I'll clarify that for everybody,
because there are two marinas involved here. So this is an objection to the east
marina, where it will be infringing on the neighbor's property. The amendment
that has been proposed to expand the capacity to accommodate ten vessels
four vessels in the 50-foot wide east marina and six vessels in the west marina
however the "U" shaped docking of the east marina is more appealing.
However, eight-foot wide vessels on both sides of the proposed 26'
dock that occupies 42' of shoreline in a 52' wide piece of property, leaving only
four feet to our property line and four feet to the Gitlin property, which is way
below the 15' rule. Referring to the appropriate section of chapter 275, which is
the wetland ordinance regarding docks. We believe the 15' rule in the town code
is meant to preserving the relaxing nature and good neighbor property of the
shoreline and should be respected.
We support the construction of a single four-foot wide dock in the center
of this 50' wide marina to accommodate two vessels, this way the dock will not
be congested with vessels and at least 15' off the property lines. Again, I'm
summarizing the letter.
There is then a letter from Walter Gitlin, 1180 Smith Drive South. And he
and his wife are the owners of the adjacent property. We enclose Mr. King's
letter dated June 15th, which we'll enter into the record in a second. In the years
prior to submission of the amended application, docks do not comply with
Chapter 275, quoting all docks including a vessel tied to the dock shall have a
minimum clearance of 15' of the seaward extension of any property line from
adjacent property parcels. The amended application presents the Trustees with
the opportunity to see the placement of the new docks fulfills the minimum
clearance requirement specified in number five. The amended application
proposes the placing of a 26' wide "U" shaped dock with four vessels on the 50'
wide shoreline. With vessels tied to the east and west side, the facility would fill
42' of shoreline, ignoring the 15' minimum clearance. This is in contrast with the
provisions of the 100' wide shoreline for the west marina with a placement of 48'
wide dock facility for six vessels, which would be approximately 64' wide,
providing an 18' clearance to the property lines. We support the suggestion of
Board of Trustees 24 June 19, 2013
the construction of a centrally placed four-foot wide dock attached to lot 15.1.
With a vessel on each side would conform exactly with the 15' clearance.
Historically, the association's docking facilities provided for four vessels in each
marina. This practice of providing space for eight vessels in total continues with
this modification. In our view it equitably resolves the infringement issue
and resulting overcrowding conditions created by the placement of four vessels
in a 50-foot wide structure.
And the letter Mr. Gitlin's letter is referring to from the Board of Trustees
dated June 15th, and again, I'm just summarizing in the letter. It was determined
that any repair or replacement of the unpermitted structures would require a
wetland permit in accordance with Chapter 275, however, please be advised it
has recently come to our attention the docks are infringing on the neighbors'
property and should be addressed as well. Sincerely yours, James King,
President of the Board of Trustees.
So those are the letters that are entered into the record.
TRUSTEE KING: I think that letter was from last year.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are absolutely right. That's dated June 15th, 2012.
Thank you, for that correction. That's the letter from James King.
So, again, we have two separate facilities here that we are talking about.
An east marina facility and a west marina facility. So is there anybody here to
speak for or against this application?
MR. CARWAY: Yes. John Carway. I'm here representing the Goose Neck
Property Owners Association. And I'm the applicant and I am certainly speaking
in favor of the application. While I'm here, I would like to turn over both the
affidavit of posting of the signs and the affidavit of mailing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, very much.
MR. CARWAY: And also, we noted, when we amended the application, the
complete amendment that we submitted, unfortunately was not able to be
included in the legal notice. It was compressed for the sake of publication. And
there was one section left over in which we addressed the infringement issue,
and I have copies of that for everybody. I don't know if everybody got copies. I
was informed it was just in the central file. So I do have copies for everybody.
And also a summary of that which I would like to address. On this, I just
summarized the portion regarding the actual request for the variance that we
had made in the last paragraph. It appears to me unless the Trustees
have some other issues, which I would be perfectly willing to address, but to
address the issue of the infringement issue.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just for clarification, we are on the east marina right now.
MR. CARWAY: Yes, we are on the east marina. And the wetland ordinance
Section 275 that has been referred to, it's actually section 275-11(c)(2)(a)(5),
and the full statement of that, only the first part has been referred to, does say
that all docks including any vessel tied to the dock shall have a minimum
clearance of 15' of the seaward extension of any property line from adjacent
properties. Then it says, so as not to interfere with the neighbors' access to
waters, unless the Trustees decide otherwise, for navigational or
Board of Trustees 25 June 19, 2013
other reasons. And we submit that is certainly at the discretion of the Trustees.
And this has not been mentioned in the objections that have come before you,
that certainly the Trustees do have the right to give a variance to this 15', 1
guess, for cause. And the reasons for our request is a variance is requested for
the following reasons: Number one, the area has historically been used to
accommodate four boats, for at least 40 years that I can personally attest to.
Two, the docks will and have historically been placed so as not to interfere with
access and navigation of any boat from the docks of the contiguous properties.
And the docks located on the contiguous properties are clearly of sufficient
distance, and I believe one is about 35 feet and the other is around 37 feet,
from the proposed docks so as to give the neighbors complete and spacious
access to the waters adjoining their properties. And three, the requested fingers
of the " Ll" are four-feet wide. They are only manufactured in two and four-foot
wide widths. While it would be possible to utilize two-foot wide fingers, this
would potentially be unsafe and unstable, in the opinion of the Connect The
Dock representative. Connect The Dock is the name of the commercial product
we are looking to put in.
I would like to address the other issue. Like I said, historically we've had
about four boats at the east marina. And at the west marina, which is 100 feet
wide, but it's really in a " Ll" shape configuration, and with a bulkhead on both
sides, and it was hoped and it was pointed out that we could possibly put in a
configuration of these docks, at least over time, that would accommodate some
additional boats, up to possibly six. Or at least five. We've only had really four.
At one point we did have five, and one of the neighbors objected and we moved
that dock over. But to move the other, one of the problems we have in that
marina is that the water close to the shore, because there is a drain from the
street that has allowed sand and other materials to leach out, that drain
directly into the creek, which I know nobody is happy with, but unfortunately
there are so many of them around in the town, it would be almost impossible to
address them, certainly at this time. But we contend that sand, as you can see
right around that, there were concrete slabs that were placed there with the help
of the Highway Department a number of years ago, there were slabs from the
old North Road that were put in, and that all slid into the water also. The point of
that is that there are also the water is relatively shallow in that area. And while
we are submitting plans for six docks, we are not 100% sure we'll be able to get
all those six berths into that area, and we know for sure, to be honest with the
Board, that right now we don't have the money to put all the plastic docks in
both marinas. So what we'd probably do is at least during the course of the time
that we have to get this rolling, in the two years we have for the length of the
permit, is we would look to perhaps, there is one very well constructed dock at
the east marina that we could move down to the west marina and then just
repair the one other dock so we could have a well-repaired and adequate, as
things go, for at least a short time until we get the rest of the money up to put
the whole thing in. But it's definitely our plan, which some of our members have
gone down, they've seen this system in action down in Bellmore, and
it's something that actually seems to be a doable project and it is financially
Board of Trustees 26 June 19, 2013
acceptable to us. We are a community of 50-some odd homes, and every one of
them have access to the so-called beach front property at the tip of the "U" that
Smith Drive North and South goes to, and the two marinas, that were deeded
from the developer to the association. And some people have various different
times when they prepared the deeds, various different lots have deeded access
to different parcels. Some have access to all, some have access just to the
beach, some to the one. But by virtue of membership in the association,
everyone has access. So we have essentially the rights to the aspirations to
have access for recreational purposes, on a limited basis, of 42-some odd
homes, against the objections of two neighbors. Which quite frankly I don't
see have made any substantive objections other than the fact they don't like it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, we'll determine that. What I would like to do,
because we do have people limit their comments to five minutes or less.
MR. CARWAY: Sorry. I shouldn't be nervous, but I am.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's okay. I understand. But just to divide this and make
it a little easier, for the west marina and the west marina is not the marina
where the 15' contention has been brought up. The west marina is the one
pictured here. I don't think the Board had any major issues with what is
proposed there. And if they do, I'll let them comment on it at some time. What I'd
like to do is move to the east marina
MR. CARWAY: While we are at the west marina, something that was
discovered and I'm sorry for taking your time.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's okay.
MR. CARWAY: Some years ago, a telephone pole was put in and a well was
dug and electric was brought to that. It hasn't been used for a number of years
because over the years, really, we didn't want to expend the money. But it was
suggested, and I don't know if I could do this verbally, that the presence of it be
included on the permit. So if we could do that verbally, I would appreciate that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just a quick question from the Board before we
move to the easterly. I'm sorry, I didn't gather, how many members currently
use that westerly marina?
MR. CARWAY: Right now there are only one or two that paid their dues lately.
The other one has been, as I say, in considerable disrepair. They have not been
able to put their boats in. We have a couple of people on a waiting list that are
waiting to be able to.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: With the east marina, one of the things the Trustees noted
when we were out there is, again, looking at the pier line of other docks, it
appears as though what is proposed at the east marina extended out beyond
the pier line of an adjoining dock, with a boat attached to it. We also took some
unscientific soundings out there with a pole and there was plenty of water there.
It's a relatively deep area. So what we have suggested, taking the tide into
consideration, is the ability to move that proposed dock landward approximately
12 feet. In doing so, we determined there is still plenty of depth there even at
low tide for a boat. That would also bring it into the pier line with the
Board of Trustees 27 June 19, 2013
adjoining dock and boat that's there. Because, again, we look at docks and
boat.
MR. CARWAY: In other words you would want us to use the other dock as a
thing, whatever that is, we didn't have too much of an opportunity to measure
exactly those days. So as not to put an undo measure of accomplishment on
the people that are going to put it in, would it be alright as long as it's in line with
the other dock?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: As long as it didn't extend beyond the pier line.
MR. CARWAY: We could do that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Now, as I said, I believe we have other people
that want to speak to this application. You had an idea?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. Ordinarily the Trustees are not in the position
to help plan docking facilities, but where pre-existing facilities exist we obviously
want to work with everyone and try to keep as many users that access the
waterfront doing that. The prefab dock sections at four-foot in width, it became
apparent to me that an initial thought that several of us had for you to change
configuration might be able to free up an additional four-feet of space by going
to an "L" configuration, particularly where there seems to be adequate water
depths. So if you had an "L" shaped dock you could at least accommodate three
vessels. One on the outer side figuring an "L" like this coming from the shore,
you can have a vessel on the seaward side of the "L," you could have a
vessel on the inner side of the "L" and possibly on the side of the "L" that would
comport more with our code. And since you do have room at the west marina, if
you have three vessels there, then you have the ability to have a fourth vessel
in the west marina and continue to accommodate your members and it would
put us in a better position to protect the side yard, the set off and the 15 feet.
But it would also allow for easier navigating in and around the "L," and
approaches on the side of the "L."
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Or a "T."
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And a "T," that would be the second part. You could
also have a "T" configuration. It could conceivably get four boats. And a "T"
because if you have a 50' yard width, you could have a 15' side yard setback
and have a 20' float and essentially boats of that size, which are essentially in
that low 20's, 18' to 20' range, you could have a boat on the outer side of the
"T." And that would be, arguably, the physical structure itself would not be
invading on the 15' side yard setback.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's an option to consider.
MR. CARWAY: This is Mr. Herzog, who is a member of our committee, and a
very knowledgeable one.
MR. HERZOG: I'm Joe Herzog, in support of the association. I want to say, you
are talking about going out. If you have two 20-22' boats facing each other at
the end of the "T"
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, no, it would be a single vessel on the outside of
the "T" and you would have to have on the ramp section going out, you have to
have a vessel on either side of the straight portion of the "T." You can only have
one vessel on that outer side.
Board of Trustees 28 June 19, 2013
1 think the understanding of the Board, ordinarily when you dock a vessel,
the length of the vessel approximates the length of the float or the fixed
structure.
MR. HERZOG: So if you have a "T"
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You can't have more than three vessels there.
MR. HERZOG: Two vessels between the land and the well.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right. And one on the outer side.
MR. HERZOG: So you would have 22 going out and you would have 42 going
across?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: 20 feet going across.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 20 feet going across, so you have 15 feet between
the extension to the side property lines.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So it could be three vessels there. What we are trying to
do here is between the two facilities you have is to accommodate approximately
the same number of vessels while, again, trying to comply with code, which has
the 15 foot setback.
MR. CARWAY: So my understanding, with an eight-foot beam, you'll have a 22'
boat, a four-foot float and an eight-foot beam; is that right?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: At the outer end of the "T"?
MR. CARWAY: Whether it be a 'T' or "L" I just want to make sure we are doing
this right when we get to the people we are proposing it to.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure.
MR. CARWAY: So we'll go out eight feet from shore, let's say. And then we'll
come across 12 feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: With an "L," yes.
MR. CARWAY: So you have one boat inside that, 22' in length; then we'd have a
four-foot dock; and then we'd have an eight-foot beam for the boat that would
run alongside the "L."
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
MR. CARWAY: So it would be 22 26 and 8, roughly 34 feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Roughly.
MR. CARWAY: And we'd have eight feet on each side.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think you're getting this.
TRUSTEE KING: It looks to me like you are trying to put ten pounds into a five
pound bag.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Precisely. It "T's" out like this. You have 15 feet, 15
feet and 20 feet here. You have a 20 foot vessel here, a vessel here and a
vessel here that extends to the side lines. (Indicating).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could just step back to the microphone. I apologize.
Again, without the stenographer, this is the only way we can do it, legally.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You understand that notion of the "T" is, the outer
portion of the "T," the "T" portion, will then be 15 feet from the neighbors.
MR. CARWAY: I can understand that. The only, one of the problems that I have
is in that creek, given the fact there is low water toward the shore, we have
some good depth out a little further, but trying to take a 22-foot boat and
Board of Trustees 29 June 19, 2013
navigate around and inside, and dock it, whereas now, we all just come straight
in, tie off and we get in and we get out.
And that was the, you know, to do this would make things very, very difficult for,
you know, I don't think that anybody, maybe a couple of people, but are not
really expert mariners.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could, I would like to now yield, I want to see if there
are other people in the audience who would like to comment on this application.
If you would please step up to the microphone and just start with
introducing yourself for the record, please.
MS. VERRECCHIO: Rosemary Verrecchio. I don't have a personal interest one
way or another, but I think to maybe add some clarity to this. If the Board could
discuss a building envelope within which docking could occur on both the west
side and the east side so that the folks who are interested could configure
something in the most, you've suggested a number of potentially optimal ways
of doing this. If you could give them a building envelope that the Board would be
willing to consent to, which would include not only the dockage going wide and
deep, but also the berth of the boats that would go alongside and in front of the
dockage so that they have a number, a footage, from one place to another that
they could kind of figure out what kind of boats do they have and how
long should the docks be. I think it might help them to maybe go back to the
drawing board and come up with their most optimal solution befitting a decision
that you guys and gals would approve.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: To somewhat answer that question, that's all carefully
prescribed and written in the code. And just to make it a little easier to
understand, you take the piece of property you have there; according to the
code there has to be 15' setback from either property line, for not just the dock
but for vessels, and as we said, not to go out beyond the pier line of the
adjoining dock that's there. If that helps you at all.
Now, is there somebody else that wanted to comment? I thought I saw
someone on this side of the room that wanted to comment. Yes, sir?
MR. GITLIN: My name is Walter Gitlin and I own the property on the east, the
adjoining property. And the suggestions you are making, I think are perfectly
reasonable and should be acceptable. It provides the required setback and
provides space for three boats. I don't know why there should be my
suggestion was for two boats. So I don't find any problem with having the third
boat, complying with 275.5. That's my two cents right there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, sir?
MR. COWAN: My name is Jim Cowan. I live at 290 Smith Drive North and I'm
on the boating commission of the association, although I'm not a boat owner. So
I have no personal beef here, so to speak. But I've owned my house since
1999. At that point in time there were eight boat slips for each marina. The
westerly, which you say has the hundred foot frontage, it does have that, but it's
in a U-shape, and because of the depth of the water and the erosion that has
occurred there, to try to get more than four boats in there is very difficult. So
actually with what you are proposing, we are going to lose at least one boat slip.
Board of Trustees 30 June 19, 2013
Instead of having four at the east marina, which we've had for 40-some odd
years, because of Sandy, now we are going to be penalized because of
the damage to the docks and trying to put things back in good shape. And
basically you are diminishing our property values by removing at least one boat
slip, that has value to all of us.
So I would like to speak in favor of our proposal. Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else who would like to speak for or
against this application?
(No response).
Any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to move forward with the westerly one and table
the easterly one and see some different plans.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm sort of agreeable with that. I would just like to
launch the notion that I've heard tonight there have been historically four boats
in the east and four in the west. So that net, if the community could meet the
requirements of the code and continue to have eight vessels, where it might be
three in the east and five in the west, we have not diminished property values
and I think there could be an accord, most of the neighbors to honor the
requirements of the setback as well as keeping the same number
of vessels. That way we shouldn't have issues in the community and hopefully
you can work amongst yourselves to come up with a plan that can
accommodate that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: For myself, knowing this has been like this for so many
years and having seen the information that Mr. Carway submitted, I really don't
the pier line is not broached on the easterly side. I think this stems from trying
to bring everything into compliance, but I don't see a huge problem with
broaching that 15-foot setback in this particular case. So, I mean, we could
maybe talk about the westerly and easterly in further discussion, but, frankly, I
don't have a problem with the east side either.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there are no other comments from the Board, I would
ask the applicant if he would like us to possibly move forward on lot 27, which is
the west marina, tonight, tabling the section of this dealing with lot 15.1, the east
marina, so that you could have further discussion amongst yourselves, taking
into consideration the comments you've heard tonight. Or we could table the
entire project.
MR. CARWAY: Certainly we would like you to move on the west marina, as long
as you have no objection to the plans that were submitted. As far as the east
marina, while I don't think any of us are happy with the decision to delay any
further the business of the east marina, because times a wasting, and the
summer is going, and people want to put their boats in. And if they can't put
their boats in, they are not going to pay their dues. and if they don't pay their
dues, we won't have the money to do these projects. So, that's why time is of
the essence. But the decision is yours, sir.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. What is the Board's feeling on this: I would like
to propose we move forward on the lot 27 part of this project and table the
discussion on lot 15.1.
Board of Trustees 31 June 19, 2013
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would second that.
TRUSTEE KING: I think that's the way to go.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would second that, too.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's not a motion, I'm just
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We've segregated things before.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sorry, we don't have legal counsel here. What I'm
trying to do is make sure we do this the appropriate and legal way. And we
closed part of this application and tabled another part of the application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Again, I know four of you folks want to table the east side.
Maybe I'm missing something here. We are not impinging navigation. We don't
have an environmental issue, as far as I know. It doesn't breach the pier line.
The only issue is whether or not it's within 15' to the neighboring property line.
Our code allows us to make that variance, if we see fit. You know, I'm sorry, I
don't want to get hung up on this, and I'm only one of five, but I really don't see
the issue.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to clarify, the only thing I would correct in your
comment, you said you didn't see it impinged on as far as the one-third rule,
and we did address it and the property owner agreed to moving it back 12 feet.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's fine. But I'm looking at an aerial that doesn't even
show me how it's impinging the pier line. And this is an old aerial.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you want to move a vote? if it's not lost, Bob, it
would be approved.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And if they want to pull it back, I still don't see an issue.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With respect to the indications I've just given, if you
want to move the vote on it, Bob. Your points are well taken. Those are factual
elements and may be put to a vote. If the motion is lost, it's lost to
reconsideration or the applicant's reapplying.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm more than happy to do it, if you would like me to move
on this.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I want to make it very clear here. What Trustee Ghosio is
offering to you is to move forward with the entire project as described, with a
slight amendment in lot 15.1 so that the dock is pulled in approximately 12 feet.
The structure is pulled in approximately 12 feet. But understand, if that motion
is denied, that means the entire application is denied. For both parcels.
MR. CARWAY: Right.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm trying to make the argument, I'm willing to move on this
and make a motion to approve, with the reduction in the length on the east side.
MR. CARWAY: We agreed to that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: But it could all be denied, based upon the vote.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Just a point of clarification, I didn't say I would vote against
it. I said I would vote for the other one. So you can't make an assumption as to
which way I'm going to vote.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm just saying he runs a risk. We haven't taken the vote as
yet.
Board of Trustees 32 June 19, 2013
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's right.
MR. CARWAY: In other words, I've got to roll the dice. I would go for that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. Just before I close the public hearing, does
anybody else have any other comments?
(No response).
Seeing none, if there are no other comments from the Board, I'll make a motion
to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, if you'd like to.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted,
with the exception that we reduce the length of the docks on lot 15.1 by 12 feet,
noting that this application has already been found to be consistent with the
LWRP. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Discussion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any discussion on the motion?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would like to note for the record that the factual
material placed into the hearing tonight indicates that there is no impingement
on the ability to move to the foreshore with vessels and docked vessels with the
existing configuration that has been there historically, and I would request the
motion does go down and is lost, without prejudice, for future application.
TRUSTEE KING: This new configuration, the depth
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's exactly as submitted, with a reduction of 12 foot to lot
15.1.
TRUSTEE KING:- I'm looking at what is the distance between those two docks
now.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have a picture of the distance here. I'm sorry, no, I don't
have that other dock.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is a motion that has been seconded. I would ask for
a roll call vote on this.
TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Domino?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I vote aye.
TRUSTEE KING: My concern is that east structure. It's 26' wide.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If you look at the aerials, I think that's longer than 26 now.
TRUSTEE KING: I would say it's narrower than what is existing now.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's narrower by at least three or four feet, based on
the old plot.
TRUSTEE KING: All right. Trustee Domino?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I vote aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bredemeyer?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bergen?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll vote aye. Trustee Ghosio?
Board of Trustees 33 June 19, 2013
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll vote aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Motion carries.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If we could just receive a new set of plans to reflect the
reduction of length of that one structure 15.1, please. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, under Wetland Permits,
number two, for JAMES & NANCY CLOUS requests a Wetland Permit to repair
existing 100' long bulkhead by replacing the 2'x12" cap boards along top of
bulkhead, and a ±15' long 4"x4" traverse beam; for the existing 20' return on
northerly side of property; replace existing 3'x±5'6" stairs to beach on each side
of pier; replace existing stairs from top of bulkhead to fixed pier; replace existing
pier with a 4'x40' fixed pier using thru-flow type decking materials; replace a
3'x20' ramp; and (2) 6'x20' floating docks with (4) 12" diameter pilings to secure
floats. Located: 3805 Bay Shore Road, Southold.
This application has been deemed to be both inconsistent and consistent
under the LWRP. The bulkhead is deemed to be consistent. The
recommendation on the dock structure, though, it is inconsistent for several
reasons: That it impacts the public lands, the size and character, the affect of
the transfer of the permit in relation to neighboring uses; the need for a dock
extension is unsubstantiated; vessel has not been identified; to
support such an extension, water depths of the terminus of the existing
configuration are shown at 2.66 feet with an additional extension of 18-feet
seaward water depths at the terminus should be 3.08 feet; further, the
expansion of the unpermitted structure located in the VE velocity flood zone that
experienced repetitive loss from storms does not further support the policies of
the LWRP. The CAC does not support this stating that a high energy area to
floating docks may be accessible would also need to be removable.
Also recommended a 15-foot non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead. The
Trustees have been to this site at least two, possibly three times during the
course of reviewing the application. The most recent inspection was to review
seven different permitting options that were submitted. I'll go through them in
some detail in a minute. And the last time we were at the site we felt a non-turf
buffer should be a condition of any permit. We were thinking in the range of ten
feet. The Trustees did review plans that would have addressed some of the
concerns, a plan modification that would have addressed some of the concerns
of the CAC. And the LWRP coordinator in that plan was offered that
shortened the dock and would have only one 6x20' float, which is in compliance
with the current dock standards. That brings us up to date with the file.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. BONTJE: My name is Michael Bontje, I'm President of D. Lang Associates,
and I'm here on behalf of the Clouses. Basically again, just to reiterate a little bit
from last time, the dock and bulkhead have been in existence for many, many
decades. The bulkhead definitely from 1954, the dock from either'54 or'71. It
was in very active use by the Clouses and neighbors and friends for an
extended period of time right up to Hurricane Sandy. So kind of the only reason
we are before you is because the fixed portion of the dock was destroyed in
Board of Trustees 34 June 19, 2013
Sandy. The floaters had been removed seasonally, so they are still there. And
the ramp was destroyed as a result of Hurricane Sandy. It was not a
result of negligence or lack of use. Anyway, you've received a couple of
additional options, Plans B and C that were just described. I won't go any further
into them, but I just want to note, on both options a ten-foot non-turf buffer was
added. I guess Plan B is for 95' total length, which is five-foot shorter than what
was proposed. That is a single float alternative. Plan C is 90' total with two floats
proposed. And at this point I was wondering if you had any further comments.
I'm here to correct that. The ramp was put away seasonally but will be rebuilt
during in the application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The concerns of the LWRP coordinator concerning
the VE zone, I'm not sure that goes to dock structures, the FEMA code, but
there is a consideration because of the high energy and the fact we are finding
the flow-thru decking is survivable in storms, and then it would address the
issue of not having to remove decking or have that get ripped out and go into a
sea wave; that the flow-thru decking seems like a very viable alternative.
I don't know if you were here for some discussion we held earlier about
Fishers Island
MR. BONTJE: Yes, we actually have proposed that and the Clouses had, well
they didn't originally, but in their revision back in April, they said they will go with
thru-flow. I've had this discussion with them, too, and you are right, it's a much
better high energy system.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So you would be prepared to put the flow-thru
decking out over the catwalk.
MR. BONTJE: For the fixed portion, definitely, yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The 95 and 96 feet, the new drawings, that was
pulled in because we requested at the original inspection to come in about ten
feet.
MR. BONTJE: Yes. And Plan C is actually a ten-foot, but has two floats.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, but because of the current code restrictions, I
don't think the Board would be able to consider that, because of the 6x20' float
limitation in the code.
MR. BONTJE: Again, we could extend the fixed portion, again, considering the
idea of using thru-flow on the fixed portion to get to 90 feet. And I think you are
right on the VE zone, I don't believe that applies to dock structures, per se. I
think that refers more to habitable structures.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I can say with absolute certainty that's not what we
do, but as a waterfront property owner who lives in a high energy zone myself,
I'm not thinking that's one of the things.
MR. BONTJE: I've never seen it applied to a dock.
TRUSTEE KING: Jay, what was the length of the original structure?
MR. BONTJE: It's 80 feet, total.
TRUSTEE KING: What's proposed now?
MR. BONTJE: 95 and 90.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 96, 1 think it comes out to.
MR. BONTJE: 96. There is a little bit of overlap for the land, too.
Board of Trustees 35 June 19, 2013
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, that's Plan B is 96?
MR. BONTJE: Plan B is 96, yes. And Plan C is 90. As we were saying, Plan C, if
necessary, we could modify to be 90 feet but with an extra fixed dock, instead
two floats, to have one.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: When you had applied for two floats was that
because historically you had two floats there?
MR. BONTJE: Yes, I believe so. And actually we've noted it's an easier
configuration to deal with watercraft when you have a floating dock as opposed
to a fixed pier. Historically, there were two, and they were both used.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess the question for some of us is can this still
be shortened a little more and keep the water depth that the LWRP coordinator
felt, seemed to feel it could be shortened a bit.
MR. BONTJE: Well, part of what happens, too, is as you come in, the DEC has
that two-and-a-half foot requirement underneath floating docks, so the inside toe
of that would be I think 28" or something less.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 29" at the beginning of the float. I see. That's two-
and-a-half there that you need at the beginning of the float.
MR. BONTJE: And it's a fairly shallow slope going out. It's not like you really
need to add the extra ten feet or so to make sure you have that water.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That beach is fairly moveable, too. Some of that
beach ended up in peoples' backyards after Tropical Storm Sandy. So you want
to install a dock, and for the sake of several feet you couldn't use
MR. BONTJE: And again, in internal discussions with the Clouses we were
talking about that and that's one of the reasons they went with thru-flow pretty
much immediately without the Trustees even asking for it. Because it's been my
experience, too, over 33 years, you know, I have not yet seen one thru-flow
dock that I know of that has even a hair out of place, you know, from Hurricane
Sandy. Whereas the wood docks got torn up pretty well. So, I think, what's
interesting it's more of an economic reason. We were doing it more for
environmental reasons but this gives us more of an economic reason to
recommend the thru-flow.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was this bulkhead previously permitted?
MR. BONTJE: No, it was not. It is included on the CO and the survey in the CO.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's just a suggestion that I'm going to make. I don't want to
lose the bulkhead out in the discussion of the dock here. I would just suggest a
Wetland Permit for the bulkhead, rather than just repairing it, for the bulkhead
itself, that way the entire structure is permitted in and you can do repairs
according to the code without a problem.
MR. BONTJE: That would be an improvement, actually. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now back to the dock. For myself, personally, I appreciate
the fact the applicant has considered out comments from last month and for
myself going out approximately 12 feet additional space is not that huge, as
proposed in Plan B. So, myself, I would be in favor of Plan B here, because that
would contain one 6x20 float, which would match code. That's just my own
feeling.
Board of Trustees 36 June 19, 2013
MR. BONTJE: One of the things I should mention, procedurally, since Lori is not
here this evening. Last time we held the hearing open because of the LWRP, so
at some point we'll need to procedurally close that as well. I mean, obviously, if
there is not public comment.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further comments from members of the Board?
(No response).
Hearing none, is there anyone else who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
(No response).
Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would like to make a motion to approve this
application with the stipulation it be built as per Plan B, which does include the
open-grate decking, and also to include a ten-foot non-turf buffer as submitted.
And whereas the applicant has modified the structure to include the flow-thru
decking and to reduce the number of floats from two to one to bring it into
conformity with the existing code provisions, and has requested a Wetland
Permit for the bulkhead as well, which is covered by this application, that I
would move the application has then met the consistency reviews of
the LWRP coordinator and would move to approve it as thusly submitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: Roll call vote on this. Trustee Domino?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bredemeyer?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bergen?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm going to vote nay. I can't support this. Trustee Ghosio?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Motion carries, four to one.
(Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee
Domino, aye. Trustee King, nay).
MR. BONTJE: Thank you, for your time and efforts.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number three, Richard Petrowski on behalf of RICHARD
ANTONIELLO requests a Wetland Permit to re-vegetate the buffer area using
60-6' Eastern Red Cedars, 60-24"Bay Berry, and 5,000 dune grass plugs.
Located: 2404 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck.
The Trustees inspected this site on June 12th and suggested
modifications in creating a pond and a berm along the road, with plantings. The
LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent, noting that the proposed
restoration and these comments apply to a planting plan submitted in May.
The proposed restoration does not accomplish restoration of wetlands, the
Board of Trustees 37 June 19, 2013
spacing and placement of the cedars and bayberries establish a buffer rather
than an attempt to re-vegetate the wetland. That was based on
the plan submitted May 13th. We've received new plans on June 19th, which I'll
now pass to the other members of the Board to look at. While we are doing that,
the CAC voted to support this application, with no comment.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. PETROWSKI: Richard Petrowski to answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How big is the pond going to be, roughly?
MR. PETROWSKI: 50x75. The copies didn't come out as well as the original.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm okay with that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think it's a good plan, given the site and the
situation there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think it's a pretty good restoration, considering the
damage that was done.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application?
(No response).
Any further comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: I think we need to put a timeframe on it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's a good idea.
TRUSTEE KING: When do you plan on doing the plantings?
MR. PETROWSKI: As soon as possible. The only thing is I'm a little worried
about, with the heat of the summer coming up, survivability. So I might have to
do some stuff in the Fall.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you want to give him four months? That gives him to
the end of October.
TRUSTEE KING: That's plenty of time. We need to talk about that sprinkler
system a little bit, too. I don't mind having the sprinkler system in there while
the new plantings are there. Then I think the sprinkler system should come out.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And let it naturalize.
MR. PETROWSKI: After the one season. I don't have a problem capping it off.
As far as removing it, removing the pipes, I think it will do a little more damage
TRUSTEE KING: Cap it off so it's not functional. And let it stay in while the stuff
is trying to take hold.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close
this application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application with the
addition of the following: The planting will be done within four months and the
sprinkler system will be capped after one season. And plantings according to
the plans submitted June 19th, which will address the consideration of the LWRP
coordinator.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we should schedule to look at this in November for a
compliance inspection.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's a good idea.
Board of Trustees 38 June 19, 2013
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm willing to add that to the motion. November compliance
inspection.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number five, LINDA S. SANFORD requests a Wetland
Permit for repairs and re-leveling of existing 8'x10' steps to a 6'x13' landing with
6'x7' stairs to beach; and repair the existing 9'x6' shed. Located: 780 Private
Road #17, Southold.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent as it does not comply
with Trustee permit conditions. The CAC voted to support this application with
the condition the stairs be retractable. The Trustees, in fact I visited this site on
June 10th and noted it appeared the shed had already been repaired and
everything else was okay.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Just a clarification. We did skip number four and went to
number five, Linda Sanford, correct?
TRUSTEE KING: Correct.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So we'll go back to number four after this one.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, sir, if you would introduce yourself for the record,
please.
MR. BERTANI: My name is John Bertani, and the only thing I want to clarify, the
only thing repaired on the shed is I put the doors back on. They were hanging
off. That's the only repair done to the shed from the storm. I just put the doors
back on. Because they were keeping lawn stuff, you know, beach chairs and
stuff like that in there.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else to speak to this application?
(No response).
Any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: We looked at it. I don't think there were any issues with it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: No, none at all. I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted,
noting that by giving it a permit, it will address the inconsistency.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Going back to number four, Number four, JOSEPH J.
D'ANGELO requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 3'x15' brick and concrete
paver pathway leading to a 5'x4' platform; 3.5'x4' steps; 4'x20' catwalk; 4'x12'
ramp; and 5'x16' floating dock; and to replace the floating dock and anchor piles
inplace; and to cover the existing treated decking with untreated lumber.
Located: 490 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck.
Board of Trustees 39 June 19, 2013
We have all seen this. The Board has been out there to take a look at it.
The CAC voted to support the application with the condition that the use of
acceptable materials be done, and that would include removal of the non-
conforming materials, and re-vegetate the bank and comply with the one-third
rule. The LWRP coordinator has found it to be inconsistent with the LWRP
noting that the structures were not constructed pursuant to Town of Southold
Board of Trustees or permit. But in the event the action is approved, it is
recommended the Board require a vegetated buffer landward of the tidal
wetland boundary. And it notes it is existing vegetation.
Is there anyone here who would like to address this application?
MR. GOGGINS: Yes. William Goggins on behalf of the applicant, Fr. Joseph
D'Angelo.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do we have a letter?
MR. GOGGINS: Sorry, no, actually I was just retained last week and I did not
submit a letter. I have not put in a notice of appearance of behalf of Fr.
D'Angelo.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If the owner is here, we would have to have him give you
permission.
MR. GOGGINS: He's here.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We just need to make sure you would like Mr. Goggins to
represent you in the hearing.
FR. D'ANGELO: Yes. Rev. Joe D'Angelo giving permission to Mr. Goggins
permission to speak on my behalf.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you, very much. I think when we went out and we
saw this, I think the feeling is it projects too far out into the creek. As you can
see in the picture, it doesn't leave very much room on the outside of the "T."
MR. GOGGINS: I can see that. That picture was taken at low tide. By way of
history and ownership of the property, that land under the water there is owned
by the applicant. You have a survey that is part of the packet, and the survey
shows the canal. It's called the canal on the survey. It's a survey from 1994
which shows the ramp and the floating dock back in 1994, and as you can see,
the property lines go beyond, almost to the other side, where you can see those
trees. So he is the owner of the land under the water, which gives him certain
rights. In addition, this is a pre-existing, non-conforming use. It's
been there since prior to 1978. We had done some research and we found the
structure was there in 1984; it was there in 1978, according to the aerial views;
it was not there in 1962. So it is a pre-existing use. It has been there. As to the
one-third rule and its projection into the canal, the upland property owner, up the
canal, it's so low there that the water is not navigable. So there are no issues
regarding navigability of upland owners because there is no navigation there.
So we are not blocking anyone and it has not blocked anyone since prior to
1978. The facility has been there, there's never been a problem, there have
never been complaints. There have been no issues by the
neighbors. It's always been there. And when Fr. Joe inherited this property, it
was there. Again, in 1994. Also, I'm not sure if you saw, but I have pictures, I'll
give to the Board. This photograph shows out towards the bay. This gives you a
Board of Trustees 40 June 19, 2013
whole view in that direction. This picture was taken from the ramp. It's easier to
see in black and white, rather than in color. This is a view from the center of the
floating dock. In the second photograph you can see it's the upland view from
the center of the dock. And you can see a tree traversing over the canal. That
tree extends not only the dock, but extends beyond where Fr. D'Angelo keeps
his boat. And I have a third picture which shows the view from the waterside
edge of the dock. Again, Father has a 17-foot boat with I think a four-and-a-half
foot beam. That does not extend beyond the extension of that tree. And
the tree has two branches. It has a lower branch and I think a couple of higher
branches. So you can't even see the rowboats from the upland owner. The
upland owner has these little rowboats because that is all they can navigate in
that creek there. And that upland owner used to have, I guess a mooring up
further in the Maratooka Pond there. So when I met with Fr. D'Angelo, we went
down and took a look at the location, and there is the suggestion to get rid of the
dock and the ramp and then just put stairs down at the stationary part of the
dock. And there is no water there. It's impossible I think Mr. Bergen was there.
There is no water there at low tide. The boat would be sitting on the marsh.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just a correction to that. This hearing was open last month
and I understand you were not here for the discussion.
MR. GOGGINS: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we suggested was a catwalk and a "T" at the end of
the catwalk so that the structure did extend far enough to obtain depth for the
boat. That would pull the whole structure in so it would not exceed the one-third
rule. I just wanted to clarify that.
MR. GOGGINS: I appreciate that. But even that, the boat would be sitting on
marsh at low tide, if that was the alternative. And that's why Fr. D'Angelo hired
me, to look into this. It's a unique situation. I know it's not a normal situation
where the upland owner has no navigational rights. Because that's what we're
talking about, when we talk about the one-third rule, you are talking about the
ability of boats upland to come past. And there is no issue to that in this case.
He's basically the last property that actually has the depth in a dock that's pre-
existing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we're looking at in the discussion up here is the
survey that was submitted, dated 1994, and what it appears to show is the
catwalk going straight with a float at the end of the catwalk. There is no ramp
there, which means the float was closer to the shoreline.
MR. GOGGINS: I believe it says with ramp.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Maybe we're misunderstanding what is on the survey
here. So that's what the discussion is going on up here.
MR. GOGGINS: It almost looks like there are horizontal lines at the beginning,
then there is something written, it says "wood" something. I'm not sure if that's
wood ramp or
TRUSTEE KING: It says "wood dock."
MR. GOGGINS: Maybe if we get a clearer survey. This was done in 1994. Fr.
D'Angelo is a Catholic priest in North Merrick, at Sacred Heart Church. I would
Board of Trustees 41 June 19, 2013
believe he would be honest when he tells the Board it existed in 1994 when he
inherited the place and when this survey was made.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Based on the old aerials, as far as I can tell, it comports to
what is shown in the pictures that you've brought up here.
MR. GOGGINS: And the picture on the screen, you see there is not ramp there.
what they would do is take the ramp out in the winter to keep it from getting
damaged. And before Hurricane Sandy came, he had no time to get the ramp
out so that the ramp was damaged as well as the float.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The only other dock going upstream here would be this
one.
MR. GOGGINS: And those are small rowboats. That's the only type of vessel.
Because it's so shallow, it only draws a foot of water and those are the only kind
of boats that can get by.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In fact, they are in the picture, too.
MR. GOGGINS: They are. And that owner has no objection to the application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: Is there any DEC permit on this or anything?
MR. GOGGINS: No, sir.
TRUSTEE KING: Are they going to investigate getting a permit from DEC for it?
MR. GOGGINS: I will, if it's required.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think they'll approve a float in that shallow water.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The shallowness and I'm not sure the Army Corps,
regardless of the underlying ownership of lands underwater, I don't think the
Army Corps will be particularly I don't know. It's a tough one.
MR. GOGGINS: Do they have jurisdiction to structures prior to 1978?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. Navigable waters is a notion of the waters not
they are not enclosed and they are contiguous with the coastal waters of the
United States, Army Corps would have jurisdiction. The owners could fight it,
but they would claim jurisdiction to start with.
MR. GOGGINS: I understand. It's a tough situation. It's very unique.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I don't believe we should infer that the one-third rule is for
navigation of streams. It works both ways. And with regard to the tree, is this
part of the application?
MR. GOGGINS: That tree is on the applicant's property. You could see in the
aerials, too, the tree extends beyond.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have a terrible problem with it. I understand at high
tide there isn't a substantial difference between the width at high tide and low
tide. From the looks of things, it looks like those little rowboats can still get
around. I don't know.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm in an 1-don't-know-state myself.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I respectfully disagree. I think the one-third rule in kayaks
and rowboats shouldn't have to go around the structure. The suggestion we
made the last time I think addresses the situation.
MR. GOGGINS: The kayaks and rowboats can still go both ways.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For myself, I would tend to agree with the latter part of
what Trustee Domino just said. I think we offered an alternative last time that
Board of Trustees 42 June 19, 2013
could work, that the catwalk going to a fixed "T." We've done this with other
locations in creeks that are very similar to this, where they are very narrow, very
shallow. So that type of adjustment is something we've done before with other
applications and it would be consistent with past practice. So, for myself, I would
like to see a catwalk going to a fixed "T" that way he's able to have a boat and
he is able to navigate through there and it would meet code.
MR. GOGGINS: At the same length?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, it would pull it back so it would not exceed the one-
third rule. Remember, the one-third rule isn't just the dock, it's the vessel. That's
just my opinion.
MR. GOGGINS: I know that. He won't be able to keep a boat there, and then his
property value decreases substantially because he has waterfront property he
can't have a boat in front of. And that's what he inherited from his parents in
1994.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: From what I'm gathering from my colleagues up here, they
would like to see this come back and be reduced in length. Bring the "T" down,
basically eliminating the ramp and putting the "T" up against the existing
catwalk. That would take care of the one-third rule and
MR. GOGGINS: So removing the ramp and the float.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And making the "T" at the end of the dock.
TRUSTEE KING: Even if you extended the catwalk a couple of feet, it would still
be way inside of what it is now.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That would bring it back. If you extended it another couple
of feet, that brings it back 15 feet from where it currently is. And if he ends with
a 4x12 "T," I think that's probably where this is going.
MR. GOGGINS: Your suggestion is we reduce the ramp by 15 feet and attach
that float at that point.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I can move it as is, because I don't necessarily have an
objection myself. I would like to see it shortened a little bit, but if I move it, I don't
think it will be approved. I'm giving you an opportunity to reduce it.
MR. GOGGINS: All right. We'll think about it. But 1 know the area, I know you
cannot possibly keep a boat there, even if it's pulled back 15 feet. So with all
due respect, if you disapprove it, we'll take it to the next level. Because it takes
away his riparian rights to keep a boat there. And it is pre-existing. It's been
going on for years and years and years. And to take that away from him, I think
it's unreasonable.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there any movement towards the shore you would find
acceptable?
MR. GOGGINS: The only thing I can think of is I go down and take a look
exactly at how much water his boat will draw and find out where that location is
and let you know what it is. And we'll get it as close to the shore as possible and
see if that meets the Board's approval.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Would the Board consider letting him do that?
(Affirmative response).
MR. GOGGINS: Okay, thank you.
Board of Trustees 43 June 19, 2013
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, then I'll make a motion to table this application to
give the applicant a chance to review reducing the length.
MR. GOGGINS: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number six, ROBERT CASTALDI requests a Wetland
Permit to replace existing ±100 foot long bulkhead and return using vinyl
sheathing; replace existing 8'x12' shed; and install an approximately 10' wide
splash pad. Located: 8525 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be inconsistent
because the structures described were not originally constructed pursuant to
Trustee permit. And the CAC supports the application with the condition of a
15-foot non-turf buffer. I did go out and looked at this.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
(No response).
Okay, the only thing I noted on here is he had on the original application is a
landing and a set of access steps to the beach, he hasn't included in the
application here himself. So if he was here, I would ask him if he wants to
include that. But since he's not here, we can't do that.
Are there any other comments from the Board? Besides that, it was a
straightforward application.
TRUSTEE KING: Where does the CAC want to see a non-turf buffer?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The CAC just said their request for a non-turf buffer. I'm
assuming they are talking up at the top of the bluff. And a ten-foot non-turf
buffer already is there on the top of the bluff. Which I did observe in the original
application.
So, not hearing any other comments, I'll make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Robert
Castaldi as described, noting that with obtaining a permit, it would now be
brought into consistency under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, EDWARD JURZENIA requests a Wetland
Permit to repair the existing ±75' long bulkhead; replace approximately 15' of
bulkhead sheathing using untreated lumber; replace ±75' of bulkhead cap,
walers and stringers; install 3.5' wide aluminum retractable steps to beach; add
approximately 120 cubic yards of lost fill, and approximately 50 cubic yards of
lost topsoil. Located: 3165 Bayshore Road, Greenport.
Board of Trustees 44 June 19, 2013
This was found inconsistent with the LWRP. It was not constructed it
was probably constructed before a permit was required. And he also
recommends we require a ten-foot landscape buffer upland at the top of bluff.
There is really no bluff there. It's a bulkhead. The CAC supports the application
with the condition of a 25-foot non-turf buffer. The application should include an
as-built site plan depicting the location of the non-turf buffer.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of or against this application?
MS. JURZENIA: Yes. I'm Darlene Duffy-Jurzenia.
TRUSTEE KING: In our field notes we have a five-foot non-turf buffer. We could
increase it to ten. I think 25 is way too much for that small piece of property.
MR. YOUNG: I think the reason we went with 25 is to match the next door
neighbor.
TRUSTEE KING: The next door neighbor on the other side, yes.
MS. JURZENIA: 25 would be the whole thing, where I'd have no lawn. I'd only
have ten-feet of grass. Because it's 35 feet from the house to the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It would be less to mow.
MS. JURZENIA: It's hard to walk on rocks though, you know.
TRUSTEE KING: Stay with the five-foot buffer?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what we have on both sides of this property. It would
be consistent with what we've done there in the past.
TRUSTEE KING: Five is more in line with the neighbors. I don't think we had any
other issues with it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We did offer a suggestion that there be a permit for the
entire bulkhead.
MS. JURZENIA: I'll do that.
TRUSTEE KING: So it's not just for repairs, it's for the bulkhead itself, so you
now have a permitted structure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then you could replace the entire structure, if you wanted
to, or parts that you wanted to.
MS. JURZENIA: How do I do that? Do I do that with you or the DEC or both.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's separate. It would be both.
TRUSTEE KING: Did you get a general permit from the DEC on that? You
should have.
MS. JURZENIA: I didn't even talk to the DEC. I came to your office and they
gave me an application. That's all I did.
TRUSTEE KING: That will fit that general permit, I believe.
MS. JURZENIA: I have proof it's been there before 1964. 1 think it's been there
since the 30's, but I can only prove it to '64 forward.
TRUSTEE KING: Well the DEC, if it was pre '77 or '78, they have been giving
these general permits to replace the existing structure. It's not a long, drawn out
thing. It's very simple.
MS. JURZENIA: Okay. So if they give it to me to replace the whole structure, do
I have to come back to you to do that?
TRUSTEE KING: No, because we are going to do a Wetland Permit for that
bulkhead.
Board of Trustees 45 June 19, 2013
MS. JURZENIA: Okay. Because actually this morning my husband had the
brainy idea we should replace the whole bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KING: It would be the best thing to do, really.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only other addition I again, similar to what we had
earlier this night, you had here add approximately 120 cubic yards and you
could see in this picture there is a lot of fill missing. So I would just suggest
upping that amount to probably, I would suggest 250 cubic yards. And again, if
you don't use it, that's okay. But at least you've upped it to an amount that is
more realistic.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit for the
existing bulkhead, and it can be replaced, inplace, with a five-foot buffer
landward of the bulkhead. And 250 cubic yards can be brought in for backfill.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: I need revised plans showing the buffer.
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number eight, KEVIN & MARY O'CONNOR
requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct a 10'x10' wooden platform leading to
a 4'x10' fixed ramp to a 6'x20' floating dock. Located: 105 Hill Road, Southold.
This project has been deemed consistent with the Town's LWRP. The
CAC supported the application with the condition of a 20-foot non-turf buffer and
open-grate platform. The Trustees went to the site. We measured it up, as you
can see by the photograph. I don't believe we had a problem with the proposal,
excepting that we did make the recommendation that a flow-thru decking be
employed in the catwalk and in the 10x10 platform leading to the dock, that way
it would provide protection for the entire wetland.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of the application?
MR. O'CONNOR: Kevin O'Connor. It's my home, I'm in support of the
application. With respect to the flow-thru decking I was told I could potentially
use mahogany. We'll use wide spacing and it is off the ground.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't know how the Board feels about that, but
ordinarily we don't see platforms of 10x10 right in the wetland area.
MR. O'CONNOR: If I shrunk the platform down, would that be okay?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't know how the other members feel, but
ordinarily the four-foot wide catwalks and the benefit of the flow-thru grate is to
encourage wetlands in active wetland areas.
MR. O'CONNOR: Is there a size of that platform that is acceptable?
Board of Trustees 46 June 19, 2013
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't know how the Board feels. If that platform
was a little more upland of where the active marsh range was, if they went to
flow-thru decking for the remainder, I don't know how the Board feels about that,
if it's wide board.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As I recall, I don't have a picture, the platform was
almost
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The platform was almost up to the lawn and we felt
possibly covering the whole thing with flow-thru, because you would not want to
have a break. The platform was almost in the lawn area.
MR. O'CONNOR: And again, if the size of the platform were shrunk
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I didn't really have a problem with the size of it. I think the
flow-thru going through the tidal area will probably be very conducive even to
trying to bring back some of that grass.
MR. O'CONNOR: I re-vegetated that a few years ago.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: 1 have to recuse myself from this application, I'm related to
the contractor.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any other questions?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't really have a huge issue with the platform but I do think
we should see flow-thru in the vegetated areas.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So I guess that platform, he could use mahogany but flow-
thru on the ramp.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That sounds like the emergent consensus. Is there
anyone else here who would like to speak to this application?
(No response).
It's pretty straightforward. Would you be willing to put the flow-thru decking, in
other words, mahogany for the 10x10 platform and then the flow-thru decking
out
MR. O'CONNOR: If that's what I need to get approved, yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing no further comments or concerns, I'll make
a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application based
on the drawing received into the Trustee office on May 28th, subject to the
condition of the 10x10' platform made with wide-space mahogany decking, and
that the catwalk be decked in flow-thru deck material. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(Trustee King, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee
Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, recused).
TRUSTEE KING: We'll take a ten-minute break and restart at 20
after eight with number nine, Suffolk Environmental on behalf of
Lois T. Anderson Personal Residential Trust.
Board of Trustees 47 June 19, 2013
(After a short recess, these proceedings continue as follows).
(The Board stenographer is now present).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of
LOIS T. ANDERSON PERSONAL RESIDENTIAL TRUST requests a Wetland
Permit to re-nourish a section of the beach within the southeastern section of
property by depositing, grading, and grooming 100± cubic yards of clean sand
obtained from an approved upland location; and a sand berm that will measure
±18' wide (max) x ±135' long and will be planted with Cape American
beach grass on 1' o/c. Located: 2515 Calves Neck Road, Southold.
The LWRP coordinator found it to be consistent. The
Conservation Advisory Council voted not to support the
application, stating that the plan was insufficient in detail
and the impact of neighboring properties. The Trustees visited
this site on June 12th and noted the area was staked in
accordance with the plans. It looked like a good project and
fairly straightforward.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
for the applicant. There are a couple of things I just want to
say for today. Number one, what you saw there was a loss of
property resulting from Hurricane Sandy. What we are not doing
is what was done by the neighboring property, that was at that
time owned by John Cramer, which was to install a line of rip
rap. All we are trying to do, seeking to do, was to replace the
sand by reasonable estimate made in the field. That's what the
application is, and vegetated with beach grass, which you'll
notice on the adjoining bulkhead, was very, very successful.
What we have since learned, however, is that the sand and fill
cost money, and the sand that was lost is actually now
underneath the dock. So we are going to be looking to file an
application for dredging and use that, dig out the sugar sand
that came from this beach which is now under the dock and put it
back where it came. We would not obviously be dredging until the
winter anyway, so that leaves me in a position where I'm here
really to get your feedback on it. But our preference would
really be to combine this with the dredging project, to just to
scoop some of that sand and put it back from where it came,
which is kind of like what we did on Jim Richter's property a
few doors down. Which you may recall.
So my real question is if you have no problem with the area,
our substitution would be to actually to use that as our spoil site.
However it seems to me I have to modify the application in any event,
to permit the dredging.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: There is a note your application says the sand
is to come from an upland source.
Board of Trustees 48 June 19, 2013
MR. ANDERSON: Correct, but I think we are really looking at a
dredging project. Because that's where the sand ended up. I did
not know that at time we made the application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: How do you want to do it?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It sounds like we table this and give you the
opportunity to resubmit.
MR. ANDERSON: That's what I think I would like. It's no hardship
on our part because we would not do the work, we are looking at now
doing it next spring. Dredging winter into spring. We can't
plant beach grass now anyway. And by the time, our dredging
window will likely be somewhere after October 15th, which means
we'll lose the Fall planting season anyway.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It seems the best way to go.
TRUSTEE KING: To table this. When do you want to re-apply? I
would not wait too long.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, I would say, let's, I'll get you an
application in a couple of weeks. If we hear it in August, that
would be fine.
TRUSTEE KING: That's fine.
MR. ANDERSON: It's no imposition to us, really.
TRUSTEE KING: What I'm trying to get at is if you ask us to
table this and it goes on for six months, you lose it. It's too
long a time period. So do this in August, that's fine.
MR. ANDERSON: The August meeting, that's fine.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. And I have no objection to
re-advertising.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to
table this application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number ten, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc., on behalf of ROCHELLE BYRNE requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a fixed elevated catwalk (4'x28'); and elevated
platform (4'x12') along the shoreline. Located: 360 North Riley
Avenue (ROW off Ole Jule Lane), Mattituck.
This is for a wetland permit to construct a catwalk on an
elevated platform on the right-of-way off Ole Jule Lane. I know
that we all met out there, including Mr. Anderson, and one of
the ideas that came up was to actually create a basin there.
MR. ANDERSON: That is correct.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Did you get a chance to speak to your client
about that?
Board of Trustees 49 June 19, 2013
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, we spoke and we have prepared plans which I'm
here tonight to present.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I should note that this was a hearing, as I
remember, we tabled this, right?
MR. ANDERSON: That's right. The hearing was opened two months
ago, maybe three months ago. It was delayed one month because of
the, we couldn't get it inspected, and then we had it inspected
for this month, so. At that inspection there was discussion of
creating a slip indented into this small access parcel that the
client owns. So I took that advice and prepared a set of plans
consistent with that, which I have now handed up. And basically
what we are talk about doing is creating, we have a parcel size
that has, which is a 50x30' lot. The 30 feet is its width and
the 50 feet is its length, half of which extends into and
underneath the dug channel. Or the dug canal that was created
when the properties were subdivided. So the bulkhead slip that
we created measures 11 feet in width and is 20 feet deep, which
is adequate for the size of boat that it would be designed to
accommodate. This eliminates any navigational issues in this
channel, which is very, very narrow, and it fulfills the
objective of the clients, and is consistent with your
suggestion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll just pull up a picture for everybody. Just
to reiterate, going back to the original application, the LWRP
coordinator did find this to be consistent with the LWRP. There
is a letter in here that we received on June 17th, from a Bill
O'Connell, from 550 Krause Road in Mattituck. It's a fairly long
letter. His concerns basically boiled down to ten different
items, including: Violation of the one-third rule; placement of
this will impact his ability to navigate; dock placement forces
me out of the channel into shallow water; with all the docks
occupied, there would be no way for a boater to safely navigate
the creek. Suffice to say this is not in support of the
application. He recommends a remedy to decrease the extension of
the dock into the creek by a minimum of three additional feet
and have the creek dredged. I think that is interesting because
our idea to make a basin addresses all of these issues. Every
one of them. So I think it's probably, it's a really good idea
in the field, and I like it. Now that I have seen the plans.
You have a really neat computer.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's really good. Is there anybody else here who
would like to address this application?
MR. KRUDOP: My name is Robert Krudop, I own the property
directly to the, the neighboring property, between O'Connell
that sent the letter in and Mike and Michele.
Board of Trustees 50 June 19, 2013
I'm actually very much in favor of your boat basin. It
solves all your problems. I love the idea. It's incredible.
Every single one of those pieces were designed to give people
access to the water when the subdivision was made. It gives
everybody the opportunity to have a boat basin and to solve the
problem for the lack of navigable water. I would like to join
with them, I talked to Bruce before, in actually putting one on the
neighboring property, maybe even join them up and make it easier
for everybody. It would cut of the cost in half and it would
bring the project down and be less detrimental. It would be one
time in, one time out, and it's clear and done. I'm firmly
behind their permit, and maybe they can just modify it if we can
get together and do that. Otherwise each one can go independently
from one another as well. It's a great idea. 100% for it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: After heaping such praise on the idea I do find
myself compelled to make note that the idea was Trustee King's,
who deserves all the credit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a question. It's a great plan. I
think it's a great idea. What are the possibilities of a low
sill bulkhead with flow-thru decking that would allow marsh on
this. I don't know the practicality of it entirely. I know Jim
and some others are more familiar. I'm thinking because the
head of the creek, well dissolved oxygen, you'll dredge a creek,
that would provide possibly some shoalers where you have some
more oxygenation and maybe a broader walk around there would not
necessarily have to go with American beach grass, I don't know,
in other words have the low sill bulkhead and then have an
area there that would have Spartina flourishing and then have a
flow-thru over that.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, my thought of that is if you are talking
about doing a low sill bulkhead, what you are in effect
advocating for is two bulkheads, a double row of bulkheads.
Because you would not have this lot is only
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's too restricted.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. So that's a problem. The other part of it
too is it leaves me no room for any kind of backing system. And
I don't think I can really impinge upon adjacent properties with
this, with lay logs and so forth.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm forgetting, how many foot lot is this?
MR. ANDERSON: It's shown on the final page, you can see the
backing system. And one of the things we were careful to do is
to make sure that the backing system does not cross the property line.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: We usually like to put them as far away from the
bulkhead as possible. Like if we were in Nassau Point, most of
the backing systems are like ten, 12, 15 feet from the bulkhead.
Board of Trustees 51 June 19, 2013
Because it makes the bulkhead stronger. Here is less of a
concern because there is no wave action. There is no energy in
the water. That's why it was designed the way it was.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: One question. Excellent plans, but I don't see
the width of the escarpment, the top, the dimension there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's 30 inches.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: No, not the walk around.
MR. ANDERSON: I don't understand. Can you point
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Where the vegetation is.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes, right here. Just the width of that.
MR. ANDERSON: Oh, that width is approximately four feet. Four to
five feet.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It looks like it might be four on one side and
five on the other.
MR. ANDERSON: That's right, because there is a small clump of
Spartina on the other side. So we didn't center a lot. We moved
it slightly east, I guess.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions from the Board?
(No response).
Any other questions from the audience?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion we approve the
application subject to the changes that have been presented to
us on the new plans dated June 19th, 2013, showing an 11x20'
boat basin being built in lieu of the dock extending out into
the creek. And certainly noting again that this is consistent
with LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KING: Number eleven, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf
of KARMEN & GREGORY DADOURIAN request a Wetland Permit to
construct a single family dwelling (62'x70') with covered porch
and garage; install a 40'x16' in-ground swimming pool; install
new sanitary system; maintain a 30' Non-Disturbance buffer and
hand-clear a beach access path through buffer; a row of staked
hay bales with silt fencing to be installed prior to construction and
maintained along the landward edge of the 30' Non-Disturbance buffer.
Located: 695 Petty's Drive, Orient.
This was found consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation
Board of Trustees 52 June 19, 2013
Advisory Council voted to support the application. I believe
this is exactly the same as the previously approved.
MS. MOORE: Yes, the permit expired, so that's why a new
application was submitted. Otherwise it's the identical
application with the same conditions that the Board previously
imposed.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had any questions, because it's
exactly the same as what we have approved.
(Attorney for the Board, Lori Hulse, is now present).
We have a 30 foot non-disturbance buffer, hay bales during
construction. This was the original plan.
MS. MOORE: I took the language from the previous permit but this
one gave you the dimensions of the pool that had previously been
approved in accordance with the plans, so. It's identical.
TRUSTEE KING: Pat, what I would like to do, this is the original
plan, I would like to duplicate this on this new plan. Because I
had marked out the non-disturbance area and everything. So I'll
draw that on exactly as it was.
MS. MOORE: Sure, if you want to use the same plan and just put
another approved print on it, it's up to you.
TRUSTEE KING: I can mark it up now. We'll staple a copy of the
original one to it, all right?
MS. MOORE: That's fine. Not a problem. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else to speak for or against this
application?
(No response).
Any Board comments?
(No response).
If there are none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
it's been submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 12, Garrett A. Strang, Architect on
behalf of C&L REALTY, INC., requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing ±117' x ±29' south-side building and to replace a
48'x29' section of the building; and to repair or replace
existing concrete ramp, walkway and ±5' deck.
Located: 61600 Route 25, Southold.
Board of Trustees 53 June 19, 2013
The Board did go out and looked at this. This was reviewed
under the LWRP and found to be exempt. The Conservation Advisory
Council supports the application with the condition of the
management plan for the storm water runoff and notice of hearing
card was not posed, and the work had already started. Like I
said, we did go down and looked at this.
Is there anybody here to speak to this application?
MS. STEPNOWSKI: Catherine Stepnowski representing the applicant.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We just had a couple of questions for you.
Where is the septic located to this building?
MS. STEPNOWSKI: That is in the center, closest to the two-story
section of the original hotel.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's in the parking lot there?
MS. STEPNOWSKI: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The gravel area.
MS. STEPNOWSKI: Yes. And when you were saying earlier, we had
not started anything on this particular building. We had not
done anything to repair from the storm. The family had not done
anything.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was an observation made by the Conservation
Advisory Council. So the septic, this looks like it had been
what had been the previous use of this building?
MS. STEPNOWSKI: It was previously the scallop shop for the Mars
family. And it's a freezer section closest to the water, which
became storage, boat storage, items. Then there is a large
plywood door which used to be, I believe, an overhead door. It's
before my time. But we made it swing-out doors so we can store a
boat inside. The original use of the north side of the building
is freezer and cooler storage for the production of, excuse me,
the packaging and opening of the scallops. There's cement walls
up the inside of the building to the second level. It's sheathed
on the outside to look like the shingle siding, but it is
actually a cement structure with a wood second story.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The rip rap in front of the building, was there
any plans to do anything with that?
MS. STEPNOWSKI: Well, it's cost prohibitive right now. I don't
think we can do anything. But there is a concrete bulkhead just
before that. The rip rap is there because the original Mars
family had a boat launch area there that prior to '84, '83, my
parents purchased the property. When it was in disuse and
started to be covered with silt is now that Spartina grass
growing over the top of what was the original boat launch area
for that property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. We didn't have any issues. We were
going to include gutters, leaders and drywells because we
noticed they were not on the plans. So that will be a condition
Board of Trustees 54 June 19, 2013
we'll put on this to comply with Chapter 236.
MS. STEPNOWSKI: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience who wanted
to speak for or against this application?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
C&L Realty with the stipulation that gutters, leaders and
drywells are included on the building to comply with storm water
runoff code, and noting it's found exempt under LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number 13, J.M.O.
Environmental Consulting on behalf of RALPH CARBONE requests a
Wetland Permit to remove t15' of existing dwelling, cantilevered
porches attached to dwelling, covered deck facing northeast, and
front porch; construct a new 8.6'x21.6' front porch; a 6'x20'
side entry porch; construct a stair tower; construct a screened
porch on easterly side of dwelling; construct wrap-around open
decks with stairs; construct a 13.6'x17' deck over roof of great
room; construct a dormer on northeast side; and construct an
outdoor shower. Located: East End Road, Fishers Island.
This particular project is on Fishers Island. It previously
had a Trustee permit for the some of the rip rap construction,
as well as the neighboring property. I don't think we had a
problem with this. We conducted a review in the office based on
the submission. Basically this is a strategic coastal retreat of
a building, of a house that got severely damaged by Tropical
Storm Sandy and these removals and new construction is really
just working with the forces of nature and bringing structures
back, away from the waterfront. The project has been determined
to be consistent with the Local Waterfront Revitalization
Problem. The Conservation Advisory Council has not been able to
get to Fishers Island, understandably, and therefore there was
no recommendation.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
recommendation?
(No response).
Hearing none, anyone on the Board, any additional concerns?
Board of Trustees 55 June 19, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: No. It needs to be done. I saw it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing no additional comments or concerns,
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, subject to the requirement that the
project meets the requirements of Chapter 236 for gutters,
leaders and drywells.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 14, OLDE South Development on behalf of
JOAN R. CHISHOLM requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
existing ±50' retaining wall; install Hesco Barriers for 100 linear feet on
south and east sides of property butting up to adjacent property's
bulkhead; fill proposed area to level 6' grade and install a 15' wide
non-turf buffer area; Hesco Barriers to meet height of adjacent bulkhead
and filled with sand, gravel and natural stone; install a 3'x6' landing with 3'
wide stairs to beach; remove and replace existing 23'x13' back
deck attached to dwelling. Located: 200 McDonald Crossing, Laurel.
The Trustee notes for this includes planting a buffer with
American beach grass. The Conservation Advisory Council
resolved to support the application with a condition that the
stairs are retractable and the specific location of coastal
barriers is identified on the plan. The LWRP coordinator has
found this to be consistent with LWRP.
Is there anybody here who would like to address this application?
MR. HOWELL: Chris Howell, for OLDE South.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The drawings I have show a 15-foot non-turf
buffer, 3x3x15 Hesco baskets, correct?
MR. HOWELL: Yes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What do you plan on using on the non-turf
buffer?
MR. HOWELL: American beach grass.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aside from that, it's pretty straightforward.
TRUSTEE KING: Just on the elevation there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In the area that you have the proposed fill, I
see on your plans shows approximately 250 yards. Is that
consistent with what you think will be there?
MR. HOWELL: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Does that bring that grade up even with the
return, the long return to the west?
MR. HOWELL: The existing bulkhead, yes. It will bring it to six
Board of Trustees 56 June 19, 2013
foot. One foot of the baskets are 3x3, so there will be one
foot of penetration. But will be level there and then 250 yards
will bring us to grade.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. The Conservation Advisory Council does
suggest retractable stairs. Are these retractable or removable
MR. HOWELL: No, not on the drawing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What do you think, do we need retractable there?
TRUSTEE KING: It really is not that I think it's a good idea
to pull them up in the winter time, but to say it has to be, I
don't know.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How about making those stairs retractable for
the winter?
MR. HOWELL: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: I basically would leave it up to the property
owner. I heard lots of times they lose the stairs in the winter.
That's the whole idea of making it retractable. If you are not
using them, pull them on up on land.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If he's willing to do it, I'll make a it part of
the application. Any other comments or questions?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I have to recuse myself, I'm related to the
agent.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In that case I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application
with the one stipulation that the stairs be retractable so they
can be brought up, moved up, in the winter time. Do I have a
second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(Trustee King, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye.
Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, recused).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 15, Amy Martin on behalf of NANCY BRADLEY
& JEANINE MURPHY request a Wetland Permit to construct 36'x7'
deep covered porch onto existing dwelling; remove existing
living/attic space and construct new 766 sq. ft. second floor area
with balcony; removal of existing waterside deck and construct
new ±27'x5.5' deep addition to dwelling with new 312 sq. ft.
attached deck; new sanitary system installed landward of
dwelling; the installation of gutters to leaders to drywells on
dwelling. Located: 550 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The
Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this application
Board of Trustees 57 June 19, 2013
with the condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer. The Board
visited the site on the 12th and found it to be okay and a
straightforward application.
Is there anybody here to speak to this application?
MS. MARTIN: Amy Martin of Fairweather & Brown for Nancy Bradley
and Jeanine Murphy. Basically, this is another one of those
re-dos. You passed it in 2006. They were unable to do the
project. It's a little smaller now as far as what they are doing
to the house, except for the street side porch. Everything else
is, has been re-approved by the DEC made it from a permit
into a non-jurisdiction issue. They don't want to see us again.
They said change the house as much as you want, stay away from
us. And the Health Department re-approved a new permit. It's the
same exact application. We have all drywells and drainage
calculations on the plans. It will be better for the environment
than it is now when we are done.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Duly noted. Would you address the issue of the
non-turf buffer?
MS. MARTIN: We can put that on the plan. That would be no
problem. There is phragmites there but we'll add another 15
feet. We'll do what you need.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments?
(No response).
Questions from the Board?
(No response).
Anyone else?
(No response).
Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as submitted, noting that the applicant will provide a 15-foot
non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number 16, Joseph Michael Gratzer on behalf of WJI
HOLDING CORP., c/o WALTER ILLIGASCH requests a Wetland Permit
for repairs to the existing restaurant; remove the existing 1,215 sq. ft. wood
deck on southerly and easterly side, and construct in its place a new raised
concrete platform with steps to grade and railings with no increase in size;
replace handrail on existing handicap ramp; and replace existing outdoor
walk-in-freezer box inplace. Located: 400 Old Main Road, Southold.
Board of Trustees 58 June 19, 2013
This was found to be exempt from the LWRP. The Conservation
Advisory Council resolved to support the application with the
condition of a detailed drainage plan and sanitary system plan.
The recommendation is for repairs to the building and not a
demolition. This is the old Pepi's Restaurant. We all went out
and looked at it.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
(No response).
It got beat up pretty good in the storm. They want to repair it.
Out front there will be no more deck. It will just be a patio,
and the storage container there on the left-hand side of the
picture is a walk-in cooler and freezer. It was completely
shifted around. It looks like they'll tuck it back against the
building where it was. So if there are no comments, any Board
comments?
I don't think any of us had any comments.
MS. STEPNOWSKI: Catherine Stepnowski. I'm happy that my neighbor
is going to be able to put himself back together, and he did
sustain tremendous damage. I would just hope that during the
time of this construction that earlier I was heard and approved
for Port of Egypt to put up a fence because when we first put in
the application, he had not cleaned up, and I was worried about
people, in their curiosity, going over there and getting hurt.
So I had approval for the fence, however I hope that my neighbor
does everything that they can, while they are fixing things up,
to create the correct buffer so that the curious people and
children who are frequenting the marina don't wander over there
and in any way get harmed while they are putting themselves back
together. And that's kind of along the waterfront side on that
southerly side, and also from where their walk-in cooler is
toward where we have a rack where there are some kayaks. So if
they could just do that, it would be fantastic. And I'm very
happy that they are going to be back together and be a vital
part of the waterfront.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): That will be fenced out again.
MS. STEPNOSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Do we need to address the sanitary system?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's pre-existing in compliance. They are
not changing the size of the building. It's already been approved.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from anybody?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 59 June 19, 2013
I'll make a motion to approve the application and make sure
there is adequate drainage for roof runoff into drywells, to
conform with our drainage code. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Chris Mohr on behalf of LAWRENCE & JEANNE HALL
requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 71' long x t45 high cement
bulkhead with stairs and to repair a 17' section on the left side and replace six
(6) 7'x1' cement steps; and to replace existing 8'x20" cement platform at top of
steps. Located: 575 Mill Creek Drive, Southold.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be
inconsistent because the structures described were not
constructed pursuant to Trustee permit, and recommending a
landscape buffer landward of the concrete wall. The Conservation
Advisory Council supported the application with the condition of
a ten-foot non-turf buffer. It alluded to the Trustees did go
out and looked at this and we also had in our notes we wanted to
see a buffer included.
Is there anybody here to speak with regard to this application?
(No response).
Nobody is here. Okay. We wanted to condition this to include the
8x20' platform at the top of the steps and a five-foot non-turf
buffer to match the existing, on the right side, to match the
existing non-turf buffer that is on the left side currently.
This really is a retaining wall rather than a bulkhead. I know
they described it as an inkind bulkhead repair but it's really a
concrete retaining wall.
Are there any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we need to see a little more detailed set
of plans.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, it's the same as we had.
TRUSTEE KING: No, these are new.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: These are new. I apologize. Okay. I have a
motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Chris Mohr on behalf of Lawrence and Jeanne Hall, with the
inclusion of a contiguous five-foot non-turf buffer along the
entire length of the top of the retaining wall, and that this
Board of Trustees 60 June 19, 2013
permit will include the 8x20' platform at the top of the stairs.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number 18, County Marine
on behalf of ALEXANDER PEREZ requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a ±100 linear foot long and ±6' high bulkhead using
vinyl sheathing approximately 10' landward from existing in
order to tie into adjacent bulkheads; replace approximately 200
cubic yards of lost fill and re-vegetate using native plantings.
Located: 7025 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
The application has been determined to be consistent under
the town's LWRP program. The LWRP coordinator did however
recommend that if the action is to be approved by the Trustees,
we may wish to have clarification of planting methods. Species
and planting methods for the bluff restoration owing to the very
steep angle. Those comments are also in keeping with the
Conservation Advisory Council report where they are supporting
the application, however noting it is already under
construction, and that they are recommending an engineered bluff
stabilization plan and to align the bulkhead with the southerly
property owner's bulkhead. Also there is a concern about runoff
from the northeast corner of the house. The Trustees, on field
inspection, felt that more fill would be necessary for this
project, as noted on the other projects this evening, of 200
cubic yards. And there was a question about what was meant in
the application submission with respect to a retaining wall. It
seems that the project is a standard navy-type bulkhead out of
vinyl. So there is a question there we'll have to address. And
lastly, the Trustees felt that it would be sufficient to have a
buffer from the top of the bluff to the bulkhead as far as
vegetative stabilization.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. GOGGINS: William Goggins, from the Law Office of Goggins &
Palumbo, on behalf of the applicant.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess to start out with, there was a
little confusion that the talk about the vinyl sheath bulkhead
approximately ten feet from the existing, in order to tie into
adjacent bulkheads. We see this structure going in there and we
seem to think that's what was being applied for. And we don't
see another bulkhead there that it could be landward from an
existing, unless there is, we are misunderstanding.
MR. GOGGINS: The existing bulkhead that was wiped out by the
Board of Trustees 61 June 19, 2013
storm, the contractor was doing the bulkhead to the north,
Blakey, and they just continued to extend it down without the
permit. So there was a bulkhead that was seaward about ten feet.
TRUSTEE KING: But that's gone now.
MR. GOGGINS: That's gone.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So what you are saying is we don't see it
but there may have been a bulkhead to tie in to what we see to
the right-hand side of the picture?
MR. GOGGINS: According to the survey, the bulkhead was further
east.
TRUSTEE KING: This looks like it was there already. It looks
like remnants.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I see what you are looking at. It seems
broken, like broken off sheathing.
TRUSTEE KING: I understand now.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I see in the diagram, it's consistent
with the diagram in the file. Here is probably what you see, in
relation to that. The damaged bulkhead is removed.
TRUSTEE KING: It would have been clearer for us if it said
"previous bulkhead" or "old bulkhead." Not "existing."
MR. GOGGINS: If I could take a look at what you are looking at
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I see. What you are saying, it continued from
here, straight across, and that this is actually gone. All
right, I see what you are doing now. Okay.
MR. GOGGINS: I mean, I had a new survey done, it was not
available at the time of the application, which shows where the
old one was, and he extended it, and I'm not sure how you want
to end it at the other side, whether you want a 45 degree angle
or keep it 90 degree.
TRUSTEE KING: It should just go straight into the other return.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Otherwise you'll end up with an area where it
scours out. I get it.
TRUSTEE KING: Unless he wants to angle it out a little bit, from
the original.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The plan is straight across.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It might help in deflecting
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bill, so as we look at the southern terminal of
this bulkhead, on your plans, or on the plans, it shows it comes
in and is 90 degrees, it comes in straight, so it creates a 90
degree. If there is an opportunity there to angle it out to
create less of a degree so when the waves get in there and maybe
the waves deflect off an angle rather than directly into a
corner, which is going to cause tremendous scouring.
MR. GOGGINS: When I had the new survey done, I put in a 45
degree angle. It's just that it's a very big angle.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's just not on the plans we have here.
Board of Trustees 62 June 19, 2013
MR. GOGGINS: I had them, they were not completed until a couple
of days ago. So I anticipated the scouring, so I put a 45 degree
angle there so it would accomplish your goal.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Then on these new plans, because I had
noticed previously there was a set of stairs going down to the
beach, but on the new plans you eliminate the landing and
stairs, so there will not be any landing or stairs going down to
the beach?
MR. GOGGINS: I think there will be stairs. I think they
neglected to put that into the plan. I think they want stairs
down to the beach.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would you like us to include a set of stairs to
the beach in the permit?
MR. GOGGINS: Yes, I would, thank you. I have more copies. Is one
copy enough?
TRUSTEE KING: Of the surrey?
MR. GOGGINS: Do you need more?
MS. CANTRELL: We need two copies of the survey.
MR. GOGGINS: Here is three of them.
TRUSTEE KING: The other bulkhead is already out that far. I
don't have an issue with it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yeah, on both sides.
TRUSTEE KING: It's even with the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are there any other questions or concerns?
(No response).
Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
(No response).
Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application with the stipulation that we, for the sake of
clarity, we amend the language to remove the term "ten-foot
landward from existing," because there is no longer that
existing bulkhead. So we simply remove that so it's an
application for 100' linear feet long bulkhead. And that it
is constructed according to a set of plans submitted which is
stamped received June 19th, which permits a completion of the
bulkhead construction now in progress to include an approximate
45 degree angle to match the neighboring bulkhead to the south,
and that a new set of plans or overlay on the set of plans, of
Nate Corwin dated August it's an old set of plans. Excuse
me, updated June 11th, 2013. That a set of access stairs to the
Board of Trustees 63 June 19, 2013
beach be incorporated on to this survey and that the survey also
include species and plant list and planting plan for the bluff
stabilization as requested by the LWRP coordinator and the
Conservation Advisory Council. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. GOGGINS: Thank you. Have a good night.
TRUSTEE KING: Planting plan or just a list of plants?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A list of plants would be fine. Just a list
of plants.
TRUSTEE KING: A list of plants.
MR. GOGGINS: Any specific plants that the Board is interested
in?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We don't need a full floral plan. I
think it was just a concern of the Conservation Advisory Council
and LWRP coordinator that we list what would be there, that
would be survivable in that area. Just a list of plants.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: 19, DKR Shores, Inc. on behalf of JEANINE &
PETER WARNS requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct existing
3.5'x24' stairs with walk; and existing 3.5'x7' beach access
stairs. Located: 8740 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
runs from the fact that the structures were built without
Trustee permit. It also suggested that if we approve this
application that we add a ten-foot wide buffer landward from the
top of the bluff. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to
support this application suggesting a 15-foot non-turf buffer.
The Trustees visited the site on the 16th. That would be Trustee
Jim King and myself. And we found it to be straightforward and
okay.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MS. RIGDON: Agena Rigdon, DKR Shores. Does the Board have any
questions?
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't have any issues with it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this
application?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Non-turf buffer?
MS. RIGDON: Mr. Warns actually already applied for his own
emergency bulkhead permit. I could employ to him to vegetate the
bluff and restore it, if the Board so wishes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I think the question, the suggestion, is from
the top of the bluff landward. Your plans show
MS. RIGDON: Oh, landward. I'm not sure if that's entirely
necessary. I definitely recommend restoring the bluff and
Board of Trustees 64 June 19, 2013
stabilizing it with fabric and Cape American beach grass, and
maybe some Rosa Rugosa.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anybody else here to speak to this
application?
(No response).
Would the Trustees be comfortable with a ten-foot non-turf buffer?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sure, if that's what you are recommending.
What was the inconsistency drawing from?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Constructed without a permit.
TRUSTEE KING: I can't see the property in my head. Why do we
keep pushing for these on the top of the bluff? I mean the
whole bluff
TRUSTEE DOMINO: To show the bluff vegetated.
MS. RIGDON: The whole bluff is gone. It has to be vegetated.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I make a make to
close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, noting that the permit will address the inconsistency
as noted by the coordinator.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. RIGDON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What I'll do is open up number 20 and 21 at the
same time, seeing as how they are basically identical and right
next door to each other, and basically a continuation of the
same project.
Number 20 is Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf
of THOMAS GLEASON requests a Wetland Permit to add one large
rock on top row of existing 132' revetment raising top elevation
3.0'; install stone filled reno mattresses landward of
revetment; fill existing eroded area with clean trucked-in fill
(approximately 350 cubic yards); re-grade area and re-vegetate
with Cape American beach grass and native plantings. Located:
5115 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk.
Number 21, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of
ALFRED SUESSER requests a Wetland Permit to add one large rock
to top row of existing 198' revetment raising top elevation
3.0'; install stone filled reno mattresses landward of
revetment; fill existing eroded area with clean trucked-in fill
(approximately 200 cubic yards); re-grade area and re-vegetate
with Cape American beach grass and native plantings; repair
Board of Trustees 65 June 19, 2013
existing stairway down bank as needed in-place. Located; 5055
New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk.
The Board went out and saw both of these, as you can see in
the picture. We saw, it was just a basic straightforward
project. We didn't have any objections out in the field. The
LWRP coordinator finds these to be consistent with the LWRP. And
the Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with
the condition that the existing non-turf buffer is maintained.
That is the same on both applications. One is suggesting that
the, on the Suesser one, that the condition of a ten-foot
non-turf buffer along the landward side of the top of the bluff,
and on the Gleason it supports the application with the
condition that the existing non-turf buffer is maintained.
Okay, is there anybody here who would like to address this
application?
MR. COSTELLO: My name is John A. Costello, Costello Marine
Contracting, and we are the agents for both applications, Mr.
Gleason and Mr. Suesser. And the concern about maintaining the
buffer is certainly a we are attempting to put reno mats in
there and rocks in containers that will be buried above and
beyond the rock revetment and covered with sand. So we are
hoping that the non-turf buffer and the growth of the vegetation
will be doing exactly what is recommended by the Conservation
Advisory Council.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Very good. Are there any other questions from
the Board, or comments from the gallery?
(No response).
Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing on number
20 and 21.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the applications
as submitted noting that the non-turf buffers shall be
maintained.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. COSTELLO: Thank you, gentlemen.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 22, Carl Governale on behalf of RALPH
VIVINETTO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x75' fixed
catwalk, a 4'x12' hinged ramp; and a 6'x20' floating dock with two
(2) 6" diameter mooring piles. Located: 2595 Wells Avenue, Southold.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be
inconsistent: The dock structure may exceed the one-third width
Board of Trustees 66 June 19, 2013
of the creek; dimensions of the vessels are not shown; the dock
structure will extend into public water and result in a net
decrease of public access of the underwater lands. In the event
the sanction is approved it is recommended a non-disturbance
buffer be established landward of the wetland line. The
Conservation Advisory Council supports the application and
recommends proposed location of docking facility is relocated to
the center of the property to the east to gain deeper water and
shorten the length of the dock and recommend a ten-foot non-turf
buffer and the sprinkler system and root drainage plan should be
noted on the site plan.
MR. VIVINETTO: I am Ralph Vivinetto. I removed the sprinkler
system and I put down all the wood chips in the area.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. I was about to ask if there is
anybody here to speak on behalf of this application. But that's
okay.
MR. VIVINETTO: Sorry, I have been waiting too long.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's been a long night. I understand. Now, while
we were out in the field, we had measured off a 35-foot
non-disturbance buffer from the wetlands boundary, which, I know
you were there and saw it, and we had also recommended moving
the catwalk north to align it with the house entrance and the
seaward stake. This would, it looked like would result in a
straighter structure, which means less length to the structure,
and it just seemed like a better location. It wasn't going
through the Baccharus that were there.
MR. VIVINETTO: All I'm interested in is getting to deeper water,
that's all. Whatever the deeper water is, I'm okay with that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. This way the terminal end of the dock
still is exactly as submitted on the application, which shows
just over three feet of water there.
Now, the question was for the fixed catwalk, if we could
use flow-thru grating for the material from the start of that
catwalk at least through to the mean low water mark. That will
allow vegetation to grow underneath. And as I mentioned, the
35-foot non-disturbance buffer. Now please understand,
non-disturbance means just that. I know you said you already
removed the irrigation and put wood chips in, that's fine. Just
let it naturalize. We will allow a four-foot path through that
non-disturbance buffer to get to the start of your dock.
MR. VIVINETTO: Good.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience who wants
to comment on this application?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
Board of Trustees 67 June 19, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: Just to maintain scale on that, right?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yep. Actually, when we looked out there, it's a
little bit, it does maintain the pier line. It definitely did
not go out beyond the pier line.
If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close
this hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Ralph Vivinetto as submitted, with the following conditions: For
the construction of the dock, flow-thru grating will be used at
the landward end of the catwalk to the mean high water mark;
that there will be a 35-foot non-disturbance buffer from the
wetland boundary landward; we will allow a four-foot path to the
dock that can be maintained with wood chips or similar material.
MR. VIVINETTO: Yes, I put them down already, the wood chips.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And that the dock can be relocated, the start of
the dock, the catwalk, I should say, will be relocated to the
north. And a new set of plans will be submitted to show the new
location of the dock as well as the material changes.
MR. VIVINETTO: The north would be the right side, facing the
water?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The left. Facing to the water to the left.
That's my motion. And that the plans will have to show this
35-foot non-disturbance buffer.
MR. VIVINETTO: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number 23, Carl Governale on behalf of KEVIN
FLAHERTY requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing
concrete bulkhead and returns, and replace it in-place with a
104' vinyl bulkhead raised 6" higher than existing with two (2)
10' returns; rebuild existing 4' wide steps to beach; and existing
wood groins to remain. Located: 1250 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck.
This was found inconsistent with the LWRP. The structures
were not constructed pursuant to a Southold Town review of
Chapter 275 permit. It is recommend the Board require a
ten-foot buffer. Proposed by the applicant's plan to be planted
with native plants. The Conservation Advisory Council supports
application with the condition of a 20-foot non-turf buffer.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MS. FLAHERTY: I'm just the co-owner, property owner, Paula
Board of Trustees 68 June 19, 2013
Flaherty.
TRUSTEE KING: I went out and looked at this myself. It was
pretty straightforward. One of the questions I have, this is it
here, it will be a replacement pile. It's pretty
straightforward. But the only thing I would like to see, it was
requested on the plans and in the description, to raise it six
inches higher. That's not a problem. The returns are no problem.
What I'm looking for is the existing wood groins to remain. I
would strongly recommend these groins be removed. One is
basically not even functional, and they are right in the
vegetated wetlands area. This is not an idea where we need
groins to maintain a beach. They should be taken out. They
really serve no purpose at all, and that area would get a little
more growth if they were taken out. Just remove those. They
really serve no purpose. Other than that, it was fine. And I
think the ten-foot non-turf buffer can be planted up with native
species, American beach grass or just as long as it's not some
exotic, stuff like that. That's what I saw. Are there any other
comments?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was there anything else you wanted to say,
ma'am?
MS. FLAHERTY: No. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with
a ten-foot non-turf buffer to be planted with native species,
and the two wood, they are actually groins, are to be removed.
The existing wood walls, they are to be removed.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number 24, Lark & Folts,
Esqs, on behalf of WILBUR F. OSLER, III requests a Wetland
Permit to build a 4' wide extension along the seaward side of
the existing enclosed porch attached to dwelling. Located: 8070
Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
This project has been termed to be consistent under the
LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council supported the
application with the condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer and
a drainage plan. Trustee King and Trustee Domino did the
inspection on this job. The Trustee inspection revealed that the
Board of Trustees 69 June 19, 2013
eave drop area around the house is constructed so it should be
able to handle the runoff, so that they felt it would not
necessarily need a separate full drainage plan, based on the
sandy soils there. But there was a question concerning the fact
that this may need a Zoning Board a review by the Building
Department for the possibility of needing Zoning Board approval,
because the proposed construction is within 75 feet of a
bulkhead, and the town zoning requirements in most cases require
ZBA approval where it's behind a bulkhead. So that question was
raised by the Trustees King and Domino during their field inspection.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR LARK: Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York, for the
applicant. As to your question, Mr. Bredemeyer, the application
already has a Zoning Board of Appeals. It's attached to the
application.
TRUSTEE KING: We missed it, then.
MR. LARK: Also, because how we got here, went to the building
inspector to do it, because back in December 18, 2002, you gave
approval for this. But it was mixed in with a bunch of other
stuff. And when I showed it to the building inspector, he said
that's fine. But you didn't do it, two years, the laws have
changed, you've got to go back. I said, you're kidding. He said
yes. So he said, everything complies, he said. I am ready to
issue the permit, but you have to get a Trustees permit because
the law has changed, especially since I think'04 and '05. So,
he said I just don't want to go on that one because that's when
they put in the timber retaining wall and stuff like that. This
was all included. Mr. Osler put in all of that stuff, but he
never built the addition and then when he did go to do it, just
as you pointed out, Mr. Bredemeyer, he had to get a variance, in
I think is '04 and '05, and then his wife became ill and
subsequently died, so he never got around to doing it. Now he is
and so here we are. But I can hand up to you a copy of a letter
of your resolution of December 19th, 2002, just so you have it
for the record. Because I was kind of surprised he said no. Two
years you didn't build it, you got to go back.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I see the ZBA decision here dated for
February of 2004.
MR. LARK: And that runs with the land, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That ran with the land. It was for the
entirety of the house, of the size, the additional four feet is
what you are applying for.
MR. LARK: Right. That has not changed. He scaled down because
of the loss of his wife, not building all the stuff on the
second floor, that big bedroom he was going to put up top. He's
Board of Trustees 70 June 19, 2013
not going to do that. But the porch extension he feels is
necessary. Because the existing one is just too cramped.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes
to speak to this application?
(No response).
Hearing none, Board comments?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application as submitted, noting that the onsite, noting it has
a prior approval of Zoning Board of Appeals, and the onsite
drainage is consistent with not needing separate drywells at
this time. So moved.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 25, Lark & Folts, Esq., on behalf of
ELLEN F. EMERY 1999 REVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 98' upper retaining wall with two (2) 3'
returns using vinyl sheathing; construct a +/-98' mid-bluff wood
retaining wall with two (2) +/-3' returns; add approximately 600
cubic yards of clean fill to re-establish the entire bluff area;
construct a platform at top of bluff leading to 4' wide bluff
stairs and a 10x10' observation platform along the mid-bluff
retaining wall; re-vegetate all disturbed bluff areas using
native plantings. Located: 5925 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent, provided
that the Board consider the following conditions: Number one,
require the plans and erosion control be certified by a licensed
engineer. Number two, that the species Russian Olive be omitted
from the replanting plan. Which I did not find in there.
The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this
application, however the contemplated amount of clean fill is in
excess of certification. The Trustees visited the site on the
12th, noting that the non-turf buffer seaward of the fence must
be re-established, and remove the sod that is currently there,
and to be natural plantings, gravel, or something else in
compliance with the non-turf buffer. And no mowing of that area;
that is the area seaward of the fence.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. LARK: Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York. At the
outset, I want to hand up the last card. It just came in
Board of Trustees 71 June 19, 2013
today's mail. So now we have all of it in there. I'll hand that
to Elizabeth. The next thing I want to give you is, Ellen Emery,
who will speak to you in a moment, does not spend a lot of time
there, and she had instructed the gardener to not mow anything
seaward of the fence. And due to language problems with his
workers in Spanish, it's been mowed. So we put that formal
letter in to him, the landscaper, so that would not happen
anymore. So I wanted to get that, because she was just, when she
came out afterwards, because there has been so much upsetness
with the Storm Sandy, and you have seen the bluff.
Now, one thing I think you should have for your record, you
really do need it, and I'll hand them up here, is a series of photographs
which I had taken. Exhibit One is in Spring of 2010. It's an
aerial of and I put red lines on either side of the property.
Exhibit Two is done on October 9, 2011. It will be dramatic,
these photos, as you see them. Then in December of 2012, because
we all know, Sandy had taken place, there is two photos. And
you have seen some of them in the other Sandy application you
gave her. But what is really catastrophic, these were taken not
last Sunday but the Sunday before, on 6/9, and there is three of
them. So you can put them in perspective. All taken on 6/9. And
I'm told by the contractor who was there today, and he'll be
here to speak to you, is that with the heavy rains that we had
in the last, as you all know, last couple of days, it's even let
loose more. And we almost have total devastation. And this has
almost taken on the nature of an emergency permit to get
something there to stop it. They'll explain from an engineering
point of view his plan and what they propose to do to do it.
Now, one of the interesting things of it is, they have much more
experience than I have. The zoysia grass that is growing there,
especially north of the gate and the stairwell, is the only
thing holding the top of the bluff, is the zoysia grass. And
because the roots are some 12, 15 inches deep, and it's holding
it. If that was to go, they are afraid the whole bluff would go.
And furthermore, the existing stairs that you see there that are
there today, is holding the center portion. And on the Krupski
side, which is to the south, that all is starting to let loose
and erode down the hill. And so when the contractor Sea Coast,
who is here to talk to you in a couple of minutes, put together
this plan, you'll see on it, and it will be supervised by a
professional engineer, in fact the engineer is here tonight,
because they are very worried if something doesn't get done, the
top of the bluff will be compromised and therefore we are
ravaging toward the house.
To give a little bit of an explanation from a layman's point of
view, is what happened when Sandy hit, on October, what is it, 29th,
Board of Trustees 72 June 19, 2013
2012, it came over the bulkhead that was there. It turned out that the
retaining wall did not go the width of the property 100 feet. It was
something like 40, 50 feet or something like that. The water got in behind
it, breached it and then acted as a battering ram and then
actually the bulkhead got blown out by the retaining wall with
the tides coming in and out the way they were, and just
decimated it. You saw those photos in the earlier application
she had to come in and make the repair.
Now, the other thing that has happened that we did not know
about, all that fill that you see on the existing between the
bulkhead and the new retaining wall which was just completed
last week, guess where it came from. The top of the hill. That's
where it all came from. That's where it resided. But prior to
getting that bulkhead completed, it was going out into the bay,
in droves. And there is a serious what happened, they're
theorizing, is when the water got in after Sandy and breached,
and we had the nor'easter and some storms since then, it went
into the hill underneath, subterranean, and then when the tide
coming in and out all the time, it created a void, so that the
top, the whole center portion and top of the bluff became very
unstable and settled and just gradually fell to the point where
you see it is now. And when he tells me that I was not there.
I was only there about a week ago. When he tells me today when
he went there, there is even more erosion at the top and he
says, you know, we've got to do something pretty quick. The
neighbor was consulted, Mr. Krupski, because his property is
also starting, he's got some permits and stuff to do things, and
the only what you see there very pretty. It's all weeds. But
underneath it's starting to loosen and leave, and so he's happy
that we got the retaining wall in and he's looking forward to us
getting the other retaining walls. And he's going to, I
understand, seriously consider not only repairing his bulkhead,
which he'll have to come back here for permits, but he's also
seriously considering putting in retaining walls as proposed by
the engineer.
So Mrs. Emery then went out, and she wants to say
something, went out, and we ended up, that's who did the
bulkhead, and what you see now, and the retaining wall, Sea
Coast Construction, and she then retained them to come up with a
plan to save the rest of the bluff because it's, as you can see,
it's decimated. And this now puts her house in jeopardy, and she
is very much concerned. Ellen, do you want to say something?
MS. EMERY: Good evening. My name is Ellen Emery and I own the
property located at 5925 Nassau Point Road in Cutchogue.
The property is held in a trust set up in 1999. 1 am the
trustee and as such have a fiduciary responsibility to the
Board of Trustees 73 June 19, 2013
remainders that are charities such as the Salvation Army and the
Fresh Air Fund. When I first saw the destruction of the property
from Superstorm Sandy, I basically wanted to cry. I simply did
not know what to do. And it would be like putting Humpty Dumpty
back together again. And I'm not saying that as a joke. I'm
saying that as a statement of fact. Luckily, I had several
friends and neighbors who recommended Christopher Gentry of Sea
Coast Construction, which turned out to be the best choice I
could make. His experience and background made him the perfect
fit for the job. I figured any company that was hired to
stabilize the slurry wall of the World Trade Center after 9-11
can't be all bad.
My goal is to save the property and the house. I would like
to reassure the Board that this work is not for cosmetic
purposes but rather for preservation of property. Not only mine
but I'm told my neighbor's as well. And I have spoken to John
Krupski about this.
I hope the Board agrees with our plan, which is one of land
stewardship and responsible property and fiduciary management.
Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
MR. LARK: I have a question, Mr. Domino, on the fill. Chris, do
you want to speak to him about
I didn't get your comment. So we can get it straightened
out.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It wasn't my question. It was the LWRP
coordinator's, conditioning his consistency, that the erosion
control methods be certified by a licensed engineer.
MR. LARK: Okay, I thought you said something about the amount of
fill.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That was noted by the Conservation Advisory
Council. They questioned the amount of fill.
MR. LARK: Because in the application, I think he estimated
six-hundred. It could very well be double that, with what has
happened recently. That's just a figure, and they are not going
to know until they get in. And as he explained, once it gets in
and stabilizes, then we can consider the plantings. And the
fact you don't want Russian Olive, that's fine, because they'll
talk to you, they are in Never Never Land in doing this thing.
Because they are working strictly with air, and that's why he's
proposing 20 foot, those 20-foot eight inch pilings down there.
He said I have to get down really deep otherwise, and I'll put
the vinyl clad, even though I don't do it on retaining walls,
I'll do it here because I just need all the support I can get.
If you have any questions, they are right here, both of
them, the engineer and the contractor.
Board of Trustees 74 June 19, 2013
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I think some of us were questioning just exactly
how you'll put this 20-foot of pilings down in the, essentially
in an unstable bluff.
MR. LARK: There you go. I asked the same question.
MR. GENTRY: Christopher Gentry, Sea Coast Construction.
Basically we have one wall in. You guys have the same photos,
and women. We have one, the bulkhead, we'll call that wall
number one. Wall number two is a timber wall. Wall number three
will be a timber wall with eight inch, 25-foot piles. But what
will go in first is a helical system, a screw pile into the
earth. An anchor. So ultimately what I have to do is on the
north end set an anchor, set another anchor, set a cable across,
drive these screw piles in. They are just big screws. They are
earth-retaining piles. Pull them in, do a load test on them, and
then we'll drive the piles in front of them, the soldier piles,
which you guys see on the regular retaining walls, and the earth
anchor and soldier piles will hold the wall together in the
slope.
Because the reason for the helical piles is we have what is
called a slip plane here. There is a tremendous slip plane.
And in simple terms, that is just a real active, loose soil. And
it's been agitated by the storm. She had a major void in the
bulkhead, and we have it stabilized now. But what happens in the
water, when the water gets under it, the hydrostatic pressure
comes in, it washes it out. It's like when you were a kid, you
built a sand castle, it would wash away. What you get on these
tall structures is you get what is called piping. The water goes
in, you can't see where it will effect. It gets wet underneath
and pipes and it shifts the earth in the slip plane. That's why
we are having erosion on the bluff here like this. So the
helicals have to be put in and ten-ton capacity, I have been
having dialogue with the engineer about it, ten-ton capacity on
each helical pile. And I think it's 100 feet divided by six. So
we'll have 160 tons of pressure, surcharge pressure with them,
then the piles will be in the ground. So this will be locked in.
And what it is with the helicals, they'll be beyond the slip
plane, if you guys can understand it. Like say the slip plane is
12 feet deep. Imagine the bluff of the wall being 12 feet deep,
we'll probably end up going in to capacitate at ten tons
probably 30 to 40 foot with these piles. And they are none
intrusive. There is no vibration, there is no shifting of earth,
no jetting. It's a very high tech, but you have to know, I'm a
licensed installer for a couple of different manufacturers, but
we have been doing them about 15 years. They are real good,
especially in this situation. Of course what it is, is imagine
walking up this thing and trying to put everything in place.
Board of Trustees 75 June 19, 2013
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you, for your answer. I think you have
answered my question.
MR. GENTRY: And then the top wall will be a standard bulkhead,
navy wall style, like wall number one, navy wall, but obviously
lower, and vinyl sheathing up there.
TRUSTEE KING: I get the impression the man knows what he's
talking about.
MR. GENTRY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And speaking for myself, I would like to see the
operation when it gets going
MR. GENTRY: We video it. We have a couple of websites. I'll
give you the links, all right?
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Just one suggestion, you probably
heard already tonight, to increase the amount of cubic yards of
fill. I would rather see, you know, I figure there is higher
than what is needed than lower. You probably heard this already
with other applications tonight. I would recommend putting in
there 1,200 cubic yards. If you don't use it, that's great. But
it's there if you need it.
MR. LARK: It will take probably at least that much. Especially
with what has happened in the last two weeks even.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, being familiar with that side of Nassau
Point, I'm thinking 1,200.
TRUSTEE KING: Do we need to put a number on it? Why don't we
just say enough fill to reestablish the bluff?
MR. LARK: We don't want to put any more than we have to, for
sure.
TRUSTEE KING: Just enough to re-establish the bluff.
MR. LARK: We'll have to bring in a conveyor belt.
TRUSTEE KING: Rather than a specific number.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Access for this will be from up top?
MR. LARK: Yes. With a conveyor belt.
MR. GENTRY: Yes. The backfill will be from up top. Right now
we have, we have a 16,000-pound track Caterpillar down on grade
right now. We'll be using that to assist and drive the helicals.
That machine will come up the bluff, and that machine and a
portable helical head will be used to drive the helicals. That
machine and then another size, probably the next size up, 22,
28,000 pound machine will be used from the top, which will come
in from the land, and then all the fill will be brought in in
the front yard and tele-belted with a tele-belt truck, which is
150 foot long on an 18-wheel tractor trailer. And what it does,
if you are loading my left shoulder here, call this zero, that's
120 feet, and we are able to load from here, and we can track
and remove the yardage and we just dump it off the edge of the
Board of Trustees 76 June 19, 2013
bluff. And what it is, once the wall is in place, you can move
the boom on the belt. It's a great tool, you know. And that is,
because we can't propose to do it, bring it up the beach or
bring barges in or anything like that. So that's how I laid this
out. And all the math works. I measured the driveway, we
measured it going, I thought about going over the house, I
didn't want to. But I can get the tele-belt in to the south side
of the house, the property, facing the house to the right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Next to Krupski's, between the Krupski property.
MR. GENTRY: Yes. Between Krupski's. And he has been a
cooperative neighbor. I have been able to walk over there. He
has been helpful. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments?
Questions from the Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion
to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on a second.
MR. KRUPSKI: I'm John Krupski, 6025-6125 Nassau Point Road, and
I have been out there. I already have a permit, emergency permit
for Coastal to work on my bulkhead. And we'll be doing that
soon. And in conjunction with this. However, I also have a
permit where we are filling in the top of my bluff, and I have
noticed when I was out there two weeks ago also, it settled a
little. But not as much as on, I guess the north side of Emery's
property. So I'm totally in favor of what they are proposing. I
have gone over the design and everything. And I'll be working
with them also. And probably have to adjust my permit for my
bluff to also extend a retaining wall across my property. So
that's all I have to say. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion
to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as submitted, with a change regarding the fill, that we won't
put a finite number on it. The amount of fill that will be
necessary to reestablish the bluff area. I'm caught up with the
language here. You can use as much fill as needed to reestablish
the bluff.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What about the buffer up on top, the
recommendations that we had.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We noted, noting that there is a letter in the
file now regarding the mowing.
Board of Trustees 77 June 19, 2013
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think the motion needs to include what was
recommended as far as the removal of the sod from up there, and
maintenance of a non-turf buffer.
MR. LARK: I don't think, to be honest
MS. HULSE: Wait a second, Mr. Lark, there is a motion here.
TRUSTEE KING: I think now with that letter in the file, they
know what is going on. If we go out there again and it's still
being mowed, there will be a violation issued, that's all.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's in their own self-interest.
TRUSTEE KING: They can stop mowing it. They made an official
record of it. It's in the record now. Just leave it alone.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That was my feeling. I made a motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number 26, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of JOSEPH &
CATHY DeCARLE request a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 84
linear feet of bulkhead and 16 linear feet of return with new
vinyl bulkhead and return in same location; remove and replace
5'x64' timber pier in same location; remove and replace 32"x16'
long ramp to existing floating dock with new aluminum ramp;
remove existing 5'x27' floating dock and 4'x4' floating ramp
support dock and replace with new a 6'x20' floating dock and
4'x4' floating ramp support dock in same location. Located: 1085
Westview Drive, Mattituck.
This was found not consistent with the LWRP because the
dock was configured differently than as specified in the wetland
permit. A 32" by 16' long ramp was not approved in the original
permit. And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to
support the application as it was submitted. I'm looking if
there was another permit on this.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of or
against this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. The
project is nothing more than remove and replace a storm damaged
bulkhead and pier and walk sorry, the ramp and the float.
We'll decrease the size of the float from 27x5' wide to a 6x20,
to conform with Town Code, and remove and replace existing.
TRUSTEE KING: Now, the existing float was 5x24.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: 6x24.
MR. PATANJO: I have 5x27.
TRUSTEE KING: I know. You have a different tape measure than I
have, I guess.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We had 6x24, Jim.
Board of Trustees 78 June 19, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: I wrote down five. I don't know why.
MS. MOORE: So three people have different measurements. I'm
shrinking it from all of those to 6x20.
TRUSTEE KING: The ramp is two-and-a-half feet by 12. 1 mean,
6x12 ramp float. The float that supports the ramp now is 6x12. 1
think you have 4x4?
MS. MOORE: I have a 4x4 platform. Which is just a ramp extension
to the pod range.
TRUSTEE KING: We were down in Mattituck Creek before on these.
Because it really exceeds the size of a float that is permitted.
If you add that to it. We did a couple of other ones, instead of
that being a separate float, we just did a two foot bump out on
the end of the float, 2x4 bump out on the float itself. And
that gives you plenty of room for the ramp, on the movement.
MS. MOORE: I'm okay with that.
TRUSTEE KING: And it reduces that little bit of overage. But I
understand the reason, because when you get the ramp coming down
on the float that way, you don't have much room.
MR. PATANJO: Exactly.
TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was pretty straightforward. Mike and
I looked at this on Sunday.
MS. MOORE: The only addition is the extension of the 16 foot
return, which is evidence when you go out there, it's needed.
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't have an issue with that. Anybody else?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion any other Board comments?
(No response).
See what I mean about the float? Instead of a separate 4x4
float, you just do a little bump out on the float itself. So
it's just a two foot piece coming out, 2x4. It's actually part
of the float. It's a better way of going.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion, if there are no other
comments, to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a copy of the original permit. I
remember going out there a couple of years ago. There is
probably another file somewhere.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is it under a different name?
MR. PATANJO: They just purchased the house.
TRUSTEE KING: They did? Because when I went out, there was a
very elderly gentleman there
MR. PATANJO: It's a different gentleman.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Jim, you're correct. It was 5x24.
Board of Trustees 79 June 19, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: All right, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with
the one modification that instead of separate 4x4 floats, in the
end of the ramp, it will be part of the 6x20 float and will be
four feet long and two feet wide.
MR. PATANJO: One complete package, 6x20 with a 4x2 off
TRUSTEE KING: With a 4x2 offset to support the ramp.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: The inconsistency was from an original permit
because the ramp size was different. So this is going to become
consistent when it's all together. And that's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I seconded.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
You have the ten-foot non-turf buffer behind it. Can we see new
plans showing that little change in the float?
MR. PATANJO: Yes, sir.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. PATANJO: Thank you. Good night.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
Imes F. King, P nt
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED 0
t)' a5 .
JAN 2//3 2014
5 ',~olr7 7o Clerk