HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-12/11/2013
James F. King, President ho~~~F SO(/jyOlo Town Hall Annex
Bob Ghosio, Jr., Vice-President 54375 Main Road
Y P.O. Box 1179
Dave Bergen T # Southold, New York 11971-0959
John Bredemeyer
Michael J. Domino 7 ~O Telephone (631) 765-1892
OUNTV , Fax (631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED t
.L7 /7 /?1
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES FEB 22 4 ?014
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Sguthold Town Clerk
Minutes
Wednesday, December 11, 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, January 15, 2014, at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, January 22, 2014, at 5:30 PM
WORKSESSION: January 22, 2014, at 5:00 PM
APPROVE MINUTES: October 16, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone, welcome to our December
meeting, our last one in 2013. There will be some changes. This
was an election year, and Mr. Ghosio here has been elected to
the Town Board, so he won't be with us next year. We have a new
Trustee that's been elected, but he's not here tonight. And Dave
Bergen will not be with us. He did not get re-elected, sadly.
Dave has been a very, very ambitious member of this Board and
does a lot of work. He'll be missed sorely, believe me. I've had
the pleasure of working with both of you guys. It's been a
Board of Trustees 2 December 11, 2013
pleasure working with you. I'm not much for speeches, but this
Board has done a lot in the past four years and I'll be sorry to
see you go.
We'll just move on and do the best we can.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And for myself, I just want to tell everybody up
here how great it's been to work with this Board. It's been an
honor, it really has, for me to serve the people of Southold. I
think this Board has accomplished a lot in the last eight years
and I'm sorry for the circumstances under which I'm stepping
away here. But I do want to acknowledge the assistance of
everybody up here and the job that everybody has done, as well
as Peggy Dickerson and John Holzapfel and Jill Doherty, who also
sat up here over the last eight years while I was here. Like I
said, it's been an honor.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm going to miss this. Seven years is a long
time, and I'm glad to be moving up to the Town Board to be able
to continue in that capacity. This has been a learning
experience. I've worked for a lot of professionals in my young
life and I do appreciate all the work we've done together. I
think we've made a lot of progress as a Board in the last seven
years that I've been here. And I remember meetings that were
held to 1:00 in the morning. And we've done a whole lot better.
It's been a pleasure to work with all of you folks.
TRUSTEE KING: Wayne Galante is not here yet. He is our
stenographer. He takes the notes. John Stein is here from the
CAC. That's the Conservation Advisory Council.
We have a number of postponements, we might as well go through
them now so nobody is sitting here waiting for something to come up
that we are not going to be looking at.
On page three, number three, DKR Shores, Inc., on behalf of
JEANINE $ PETER WARNS requests an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit #8218 for the as-built 12'x15' (varying width)
stone patio; as-built 4'x10' shed under existing covered deck;
as-built plus/minus 4'x10' on-grade deck in front of shed; and
for the plus/minus 40 linear feet of two (2) as-built retaining
walls. Located: 8740 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, has
been postponed.
On page four, number five, Fairweather & Brown on behalf of
VASILIOS FRANGOS requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7388
and Coastal Erosion Permit #7388C to replace the 809 square foot
decking on the seaward side of the dwelling. Located: 55755
County Road 48, Southold, has been postponed.
Number six, THOMAS J. APREA requests an Amendment to
Wetland Permit #8085 and Coastal Erosion Permit #8085C to place
approximately 300 feet of barrier cloth and approximately one
foot in diameter rocks in front of and on top of existing
bulkhead; for the as-built capstones on top of existing
redi-rock seawall; seawall is 54" above wooden bulkhead to top
Board of Trustees 3 December 11, 2013
of capstone; for the existing accent lighting along seaward side
of bulkhead; install aluminum stairs to beach; and for the
as-built plus/minus 2,000 cubic yards of fill landward of
seawall. Located: 500 Beach Court, East Marion, has been
postponed.
On page seven, number eight, Lehnert Construction on behalf
of NASSAU POINT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland
Permit for the as-built 17'6" vinyl bulkhead connected to adjacent properties; and
for the as-built four-foot wide x six-foot long beach access stairs.
Located: End of Bayview Road off Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, has
been postponed.
Page seven, number nine, Geoffrey Freeman, Architect on
behalf of CHARLOTTE RAIBLE & WAYNE WEISS requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a two-car garage addition connecting the two
existing dwellings; raising portions of the roof to enlarge loft
area; construct an 18'x35' addition to dwelling on southerly
side; reconstruct and expand existing second-story deck;
construct an approximate 2,274 square foot inground pool with
paver patio with fire pit area; install four-foot high pool
fencing; the installation of drywells and a pool backwash
drywell; and a line of staked hay bales with silt fencing to be
installed prior to and during construction. Located: 625 East
Side Avenue, Mattituck, has been postponed.
Page seven, number ten, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc., on behalf of JOAN SHANNON requests a Wetland Permit to
reconstruct the existing 69' long timber retaining wall with 12'
return using vinyl sheathing; repair existing 12' wide x 67'
long lower decking landward of the retaining wall; repair
existing 6'x8' beach shower; re-vegetate all uncovered ground
seaward of the bluff crest with Cape American beach grass except
for an eight-foot wide access way to the bulkhead. Located: 7080
Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel, has been postponed.
Page seven, number eleven, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on
behalf of J. MILTON HUTSON, requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 4'x70' low-profile fixed dock using Thru-Flow
decking; a 2.5'x14' seasonal ramp; and a 6'x20' seasonal float
with two (2) stops to keep float off bottom. Located: 1395
Sleepy Hollow Lane, Southold, has been postponed.
Page seven, number 12, Michael Kimack on behalf of DAVID
WEILD requests a Wetland Permit to replace an approximately
2,000 square foot eroded area, approximately 2-3 feet in depth
with hand placed clean sand; slope new edge to an approximate 45
degree angle and hand-stack stones and sand fill; plant flat
area with spartina patens 6"-9" on center; and sloped area with
spartina alterniflora between stones. Located: 10450 New Suffolk
Avenue, Cutchogue, has been postponed.
Page eight, number 13, JMO Environmental Consulting on
behalf of CAROLYN R. AMEEN requests a Wetland Permit to
construct an 8x38' second-story deck above an existing first
Board of Trustees 4 December 11, 2013
floor deck; construct a 10'x12' first floor addition, 5'x7'
steps and a 6'x44' two-story addition onto existing dwelling;
construct an 18'x35' pool with pool equipment area on landward
side of dwelling; construct a 25'x28' garage; and install
gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff, and in
accordance with Chapter 236 of the Town Code. Located: 755
Lupton Point Road, Mattituck, has been postponed.
So we will not be addressing any of those tonight.
We'll set the next field inspection for January 15th at 8:00.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
We'll have our next meeting on January 22nd, at 5:30, and the
worksession starts at 5:00.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Motion to approve the Minutes of October 16th.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve those Minutes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Move to approve our organizational meeting
set for Friday, January 3rd, at 4:00 PM, in the conference room.
So moved.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
1. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for November, 2013. A check for
$17,612.94 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
Board of Trustees 5 December 11, 2013
hereby finds that the following applications more fully
described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee
agenda dated Wednesday, December 11, 2013, are classified as
Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are
not subject to further review under SEQRA:
TRUSTEE KING: They are listed as follows:
Sal Varano - SCTM# 86-7-4.3
Fishers Island Development Corp., c/o fishers Island Marina -
SCTM# 10-1-9
Sandra Pawson Sinclair - SCTM# 14-2-1.8
Parviz Lalezari - SCTM#13-2-7.7
Minnigan Family Trust, Go John Minnigan & JoAnne Lapp, Trustees
- SCTM# 38-6-9
Nassau Point Property Owners Association - End of Bayview Road
off Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue
850 President LLC - 117-5-31
Richard & Joann Savarese - SCTM# 37-6-7.1
Eileen & Vincent J. Flaherty - SCTM# 92-1-8
Joan Shannon - SCTM#126-11-7
Andrew & Karen Wills - SCTM# 52-5-8.1
Charles & Stephanie McEvily - SCTM# 52-5-6
Gaston Family, LLC - SCTM# 52-5-5
JC Miller Management - SCTM# 106-6-2
TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a motion on that?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Under resolutions, number one, RON AND SUSAN
MELAMUD request an Administrative Permit to replace the decking
surface and railings on the existing decks around the pool and
house, approximately 2,500 square feet of decking in total; and
replace the existing three-foot high fencing inkind. Located:
18603 Main Road, East Marion.
We have been out there a couple of times. Just to review
this, this is an Administrative Permit. This has been out there
for an awfully long time. This came in inconsistent under the
LW RP, and the coordinator's report notes that the location of
the deck is in the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area located on a
primary dune; major additions are prohibited on a primary dune
unless specifically provide for by Chapter 111; a major addition
is defined as an addition to a principal building resulting in a
25% or greater increase in the building footprint of the
principal building, other than an erosion protection structure,
pier, dock or walk.
Board of Trustees 6 December 11, 2013
That is essentially what this Board is. He says the structures are
not constructed pursuant to Coastal Erosion Management permit.
TRUSTEE KING: I think they were in there before we had
jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This house has been there for a long time. As I
recall, when we did our research on this, didn't we find out it
has a building permit?
TRUSTEE KING: It was found originally non-jurisdiction from the
Trustees back then.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was originally non-jurisdiction based on
the code at the time because it was we didn't have beaches or
other consolidated soils in the definition and it was more than,
it had the old Main Road there, which was intervening between
the vegetated wetland.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Taking a look in the file here, on March 2,
1989, they did have a letter from the Board of Trustees that
states that the town Trustees conducted an onsite inspection
this is a resolution, by the way and resolved that the Town
Trustees approved the request made by Robert Celentano, who was
the owner at the time, for a waiver to construct this house.
That was pretty much it. It was out of our jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's, more properly correct, the waiver at
that time was granted for buildings that would otherwise meet
the state DEC requirement behind substantially manmade
structures such as a road or bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So nobody knows, and noting there is a DEC
approval in here as well, from 1988, I'm going to make a motion
to approve the application as submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would second it with a bit of discussion
and maybe request that we I second it and maybe request that
we include permit language that no further expansion of decks or
decking materials be permitted on this, in other words, site,
because of the restraints of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act, so
there is no confusion for future owners.
TRUSTEE KING: That's a good idea. We'll approve this and
stipulate there be no further expansion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have a problem with that. I'll amend my
motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second again.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number two, Joseph Kollen on behalf of SCOTT
KLATSKY requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 13'x21'
deck with a plus/minus seven-foot high screening wall, outdoor
shower and benches onto the dwelling; and to install a hot tub
on slab. Located: 560 Sunset Avenue, Mattituck.
This was found inconsistent it was found inconsistent
because a Wetlands Permit was issued in 2010 for the
Board of Trustees 7 December 11, 2013
construction of a dock structure which was constructed, the
conditions require the installation of a 15-foot non-turf buffer
and the buffer is not shown on the current plans. In the event
the action is approved, it is recommended the Board require the
non-turf buffer be shown on the plans referenced in the
decision, and subsequent permits.
I went out and looked at this. There is really not a buffer
there because the whole area is non-turf. It's quite a slope
going down to the lake. Wherever he wants to put the deck, it's
just barely jurisdictional. This is a slope down here. The only
thing I would like to include in this Administrative Permit, he
has a fence that runs like this and across. I would like to
include the fence in this Administrative Permit and have him put
it on the survey. It's there. It's been there a long time. But
everything down here is all non-turf. It's not only a 15-foot
buffer, it's about a 50-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree with you. The only question I have with
the fence, as you pointed out, does it meet current Town Code.
TRUSTEE KING: It comes up to about here (indicating). I would say yes, it's
not on the property lines.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Because I know they amended the Town Code,
and fences cannot be forward of the front of the house, so.
TRUSTEE KING: No, it's all in the back. So I would find it
consistent, when you look at the size of the buffer, it's not
only 15 feet, it's a lot more. And I didn't see anything from
the Conservation Advisory Council on this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's administrative.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, so they didn't look at it. So I would make a
motion to approve this application with the addition of the
fence that surrounds the property on the rear part of the
property, and we'll have that drawn on the survey. That's my
motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE KING: And on these two transfers and administrative
amendments, I don't think we had an issue with either one of
them.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we can just put them both together. They
read as follows:
Number one, Docko, Inc., on behalf of HIRAM MOODY, JR.,
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7979 to
slightly modify the proposed pier structure by constructing it
in a continuous slope in almost the same exact alignment and one
Board of Trustees 8 December 11, 2013
dog-leg turn at the top of the slope section at a level
elevation of ten feet above mean low water and then projecting
straight back into the point of the existing path; and construct
access stairs to beach above apparent mean high water. Located:
16633 Reservoir Road, Fishers Island.
And number two, Docko, Inc., on behalf of PETER BACCILE
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #8261 and
Coastal Erosion Permit #8261C to place plus/minus 160 cubic
yards of stone backfill behind an existing line of armor stone
over an area of plus/minus 2,250 square feet and above the
apparent high tide line. Located: Equestrian Avenue, Fishers
Island.
So I would make a motion to approve number one and number
two under Applications for Extensions, Transfers and
Administrative Amendments.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. MOORINGS:
TRUSTEE KING: Under Moorings, we had a few mooring applications.
Once again I think we can lump these together. We'll do number
one and two. They are listed as follows:
Number one, RONALD KEHLE requests a Mooring Permit in Mud
Creek for a 21.9' boat, replacing Mooring #24. Access: Private.
And number two, ASHLEY & TOM LORETO request a Mooring Permit
in Broadwaters Cove for a 12' rowboat, replacing Mooring #BC2.
Access: Public.
And number three, ERIC IZZO, requests a Mooring Permit in
Little Creek for a 22' boat, replacing Mooring #317. Access:
Public.
There was a question on how close it was to a dock. By code
you cannot have a mooring closer than 50 feet from a dock. So
they would have to meet that condition. So I would make a motion
to approve these three with the notation that number three must
meet the code and not be closer than 50 meet to a dock.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Could I recommend that we move on numbers one
and two, and move on three separately so that is just, that
condition will just be in the one permit application that way.
TRUSTEE KING: Actually, it applies to all of them. If there are
any docks in the area, they can't be within 50 feet. But we can
do one and two together, approve those two. I'll make that
motion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
And Eric Izzo, approve this and specifically with the
stipulation it has to be at least 50 feet away from an existing
Board of Trustees 9 December 11, 2013
dock.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off our meeting and into
the public hearing section.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE KING: So we'll do the public hearings. If anybody has
any comments or any issues with them, please come up to the
microphone, identify yourself, and if your name is difficult to
spell, please spell it for our stenographer here so he can get
it on tape. We'll start with number one.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number one under Amendments, SAL VARANO
requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #8060 for the as-built
3'x5' landing leading to a 3'x12.6' set of stairs to a 10'x16'
platform with a second set of 3'x8' stairs that continue down to
a 3'x5' landing which transitions to a 3'x16' walkway leading to
a cantilevered 4'x4' platform with associated 3'x6' stairs to
beach. Located: 6600 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic.
The Board was out there and made a site inspection. The
notes show that we are recommending removal of the old 4'x4's
under the platform. The LWRP report shows that it's inconsistent
with the LWRP; that the as-built structures are located within
the VE flood zone, it's a velocity hazard zone. He notes in the
event the action is approved in full or in part, it's
recommended that the Board require high density planting of
native vegetation between the bulkheads. The area between the
upper and lower bulkheads should be vegetated as a landscape
buffer or non-turf vegetated buffer in any decision and
subsequent permits.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application and to include the repair of the pre-existing stairs
and deck damaged by the storm. That was it.
Is there anybody here who would like to address this
application?
MS. VARANO: Yes. My name is Kathleen Varano, I'm co-owner with
my son Sal, who could not be here. This is, I think he included
a photo also. All these things had been there prior to Hurricane
Sandy. This has been in existence for many years, probably close
to a hundred years now.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It looks quite a bit different, doesn't it. We
are just reviewing some of the old photos.
Board of Trustees 10 December 11, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have any issues with it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't either. What was the notes about
removing the 4'x4's under the platform?
TRUSTEE KING: The stairs going out to beach, underneath there
are two 4x4's sticking up out of the stand, about six to eight,
ten inches, they should be taken out so no one trips over them.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, they could be a hazard.
TRUSTEE KING: Somebody can trip over them.
MS. VARANO: Right.
TRUSTEE KING: It looks like old posts that were there and they
left them there. They should be removed.
MS. VARANO: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I see we have the jute down. What is the
planting plan here?
MS. VARANO: He's putting all the vegetation, he put some in now,
and in the springtime they'll be adding some additional.
They want to just keep it for soil erosion over the winter.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Did we note we wanted to see a non-turf buffer
at the top?
TRUSTEE KING: No.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Not on this one?
TRUSTEE KING: No, because that whole bank will be vegetated. I
didn't have an issue with it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's 160 square feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It should be 100, according to code.
MS. HULSE: I told him that when he pled guilty.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we are discussing, just so you understand,
is the 10x16 platform. According to code, platforms are limited
to no more than 100-square feet, and what has been built there
is 160-square feet. That doesn't meet code. So that's what the
discussion is going on. I didn't want you to not be a party to
the discussion.
MS. VARANO: I appreciate that. The platform there is basically
the same platform that has been there all this time. Except it
was because of the vegetation and the land that had been there,
it was basically set into it. So it always looked smaller, but it
was the footprint, so to speak, is the same footprint that was
always there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We understand. But the code has been modified
over time. It's kind of like for example if you built a house in
the 50's or 60's and it burned down and you wanted to replace it
today, you would have to build it according to code today and
not the code in 1950 or 1960. So it's the same thing we are
dealing with here. Residents have been dealing with loss of a
lot of structures because of Sandy, they are gone, now we have
the challenge of this is the code we have to work under today,
which is different than the code when these things were built in
the past. So that's the challenge we have is working within
Town Code.
Board of Trustees 11 December 11, 2013
MS. VARANO: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm just not so sure this platform is associated
with the stairs.
TRUSTEE KING: That's my feelings. It used to be 32-square feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And we upped it to 100.
TRUSTEE KING: That was platforms coming down the bluff that had
a midway platform. We need to change this somehow. Because I
don't consider this a platform associated with stairs. Even
though the stairs are attached to it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: The original intent was midway down the bluff, a
platform.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Was to limit the large scale platforms that
were going to disturb and disrupt
TRUSTEE KING: Right. It was not down between two bulkheads down
at the shoreline.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: A bulkhead and retaining wall, really.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This starts halfway down the bluff there. So I
respectively disagree. This is a platform associated with
stairs because it starts in the middle of the bluff. And I
think, you know, unfortunately or fortunately, whichever way you
want to deal with it, we have been consistent with this across
the board, where we said we are very sorry but you have to meet
what the Town Code is today.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have to admit, had this come in prior to the
work being done we would have been able to hammer this out
first, so I get that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Absolutely.
TRUSTEE KING: We have done a lot of decks along Peconic Bay
Boulevard that have stairs attached to them, that are well over
100-square feet, and we approved a lot of those. It's almost the
same situation of a retaining wall behind the bulkhead, and there
is a deck between the retaining wall and the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's because we don't necessarily consider it
as being part of the stairs.
TRUSTEE KING: That's my feeling.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If they cantilever decks on the top of the bluff
and the deck is down on the area between the retaining wall and
the bulkhead. But this is in the middle. You go down and in the
middle of the bluff, you could see in the picture is where this
deck starts. I just feel it has to be downsized to 100-square
feet to meet code. I think our hands are tied on this. I'm just
one of five.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Can I point out that the application reads "set
of stairs to a 10'x16' platform with a second set of stairs. So
it makes Trustee Bergen's point.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, that means we have to shave 60-square feet
off of it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Unless we grant a variance.
Board of Trustees 12 December 11, 2013
MS. HULSE: We can't do that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We can't grant a variance?
MS. HULSE: We can't do that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, we can't waiver on that. Okay.
MS. VARANO: Shouldn't our contractor have known this,
I mean, something like this had changed and made us aware of
this?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MS. HULSE: You had a violation for the work that was done.
MS. VARANO: Yes, so I found out. That's why you hire somebody
that has been here for so many years. They know what's going
on, we don't.
MS. HULSE: Trustee Domino and the rest of the Board have
suggested legislation that we are working on currently to sort
of take care of that particular problem with licensing of marine
contractors.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All right. Well, the platform is 10x16
currently, so if we keep the ten-foot length, cut six feet off
the width, extend the stairs back, you could do it.
MS. VARANO: Is there some way we have to do more work on
this?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. Are there any other comments? For me,
frankly, in the interest of
TRUSTEE KING: I don't see this as a big one. It's all on their
property. I'm looking at the intent. I think what Jim said goes
to the intent, that the primary intent on decks associated with
platforms associated with stairs is too protect the integrity of
bluff areas. I think it was clearly that notion that we were
having problems with, with the failure of bluffs from, you know,
rain runoff to obscuring sunlight from those areas.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, in fact, the way this is constructed it
would seem the only shadow it's casting is casting down on the
sand between the bulkhead and retaining wall.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you have a side shot of that?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's the bluff side. That's me standing on the
deck taking a picture of the bluff.
TRUSTEE KING: The deck is almost on top of that retaining wall,
isn't it? It's not midway up the bluff.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's really only a couple of feet. The stairs
here, the stairs on the side, goes down to the, you know, the
landing where the bulkhead and wall meet.
TRUSTEE KING: How much do we lose it we cut it off on top of the
bulkhead there. You see what I'm saying?
MS. VARANO: It's not on the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, the retaining wall is what we are talking
about.
TRUSTEE KING: If this much was cut off right on top of the
retaining wall, it leaves quite a bit of square footage.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Then that would be 16 by
Board of Trustees 13 December 11, 2013
MS. VARANO: That also helps to hold the land in.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It would be 16x5. 16x5. That's 40 inches. It's
close.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's 50-something feet. It's getting close.
Close enough.
TRUSTEE KING: That would pretty much satisfy it, I should think.
Then it's not on the bluff at all.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Unless they want to slide the whole thing
down so it's not on the bluff.
MS. VARANO: Do you know how far down those things are?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm not hung up on it because it's really not
very much over. I don't think it was their intention to break
the code. They had a contractor that went ahead and did it. He
has been fined for it. To me, in the interest of doing what's right in
this particular case, we are not talking environmental damage here,
I would let it go. That's me. I don't know if, you know
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, I disagree. And the reason I disagree is I
do feel very sorry for the applicant because if this had come in
with the original application, we could have addressed this
originally and prevented us from getting to this point.
Unfortunately it didn't. Unfortunately, the contractor went and
did the work without a permit, and so now it's put the applicant
and Board in a very tough position here. And I like the idea
that Trustee King just discussed of at least reconfiguring it so
it's downsized a little bit and down, starting at the top of the
retaining wall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That would be the best answer. We can't
really go against the code.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: To me, that's a good accommodation to this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That accommodation is evenhanded. It means
we are not setting a dangerous precedent going against the code.
MS. VARANO: Do you know what it entails to get those posts back
out of the ground and disturb all that land again, to pull them
out just to take two boards off?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I think your contractor put you in this
position. I think it's incumbent upon him to address that for
you.
MS. VARANO: He won't even return a phone call. He's responsible
for the fine and we can't even get a hold of him. He will not
even return a phone call, text, nothing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sorry you are facing that. That would be a
civil matter for you to take up.
MS. VARANO: I feel I'm getting punished for something that is
not even my fault.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I know. Well, would somebody like to make a
motion?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Close the public hearing first.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: No. Just that this is very, it's extremely
Board of Trustees 14 December 11, 2013
disappointing for me. These contractors do these things. It
leaves the property owner and us really holding the bag. You
know. I'm really tired of it and if we don't get this licensing
done, we are really dropping the ball. Then at least we would
have something over their head we can hammer them with. I mean,
some of these guys are getting to the point where they are
figuring on, well, if I do it, I get fined. Well, they work the
fine into the cost of doing the job, in case they get caught.
It's ridiculous.
MS. VARANO: He didn't even do that, because we are paying the
fine. We have the fine, so we are paying it. He's not even
paying the fine. We can't even get hold of him.
TRUSTEE KING: It's frustrating for me.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I want to say, I have to agree with Trustee
Bergen's comments regarding this particular application.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I understand. Any other comments?
(No response).
Comments from the audience?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Does somebody want to make a motion?
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion that the deck be downsized and
the landward edge be removed out to the top of the bulkhead. So
the landward edge of the deck is on top of the bulkhead I
mean, excuse me, retaining wall. The landward edge of the deck
would be just on top of that retaining wall. So the whole rest
of the deck is out of that area between the area between the
retaining wall and the bulkhead.
I can't scale it off. I'll point it out in the picture what
I mean. This portion of the deck would be removed out to here
(indicating). And this would be the landward edge of the deck
right here on top of the retaining wall. That takes a good
portion of the deck.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the seaward end of the deck would not extend
any further than it currently does.
TRUSTEE KING: The deck would be supported by the top of the
retaining wall.
MS. VARANO: It's not that low.
MS. HULSE: Ma'am, I'm sorry, the public comment portion is over
because there is a motion on the table.
MS. VARANO: I'm trying to understand, we were just talking about it.
MS. HULSE: There is a motion on the table. Just one second.
(Board member discussion).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll withdraw that motion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Sal Varano as described, with the condition that the 10x16
Board of Trustees 15 December 11, 2013
platform is downsized to 10x10 or 100-square feet to comply with
Town Code.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino,
aye). (Trustee King, nay. Trustee Ghosio, nay).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm voting nay.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm voting nay also.
MS. VARANO: Can I approach? I don't understand. I have to
explain it to my son.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That deck has to be downsized to 100-square
feet, configured any way you want to do it. Any way you want to
do it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We bypassed the details, that way you can do it
however and you your contractor decide to do it.
MS. VARANO: Our new contractor. Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Just for the record, we voted nay because we
didn't see the need to necessarily downsize it to conform. In
either case, it's now found to be consistent with the LWRP as
well.
TRUSTEE KING: Correct.
TRUSTEE KING: Number two, Docko, Inc., on behalf of FISHERS
ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP., c/o FISHERS ISLAND MARINA, LLC,
requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #8125 and Coastal
Erosion Permit #8125C to increase the quantity of the proposed
dredging another plus/minus 200 cubic yards over a plus/minus
3,500 square foot area; the new proposed total dredge quantity
to be plus/minus 8,850 cubic yards over a plus/minus 66,500
square foot area. Located: Central Avenue, Fishers Island.
This is an amendment to increase the dredging that was
approved before. This was found inconsistent, I believe. Yes.
It's found inconsistent because it's open water disposal. It's
picked up on the LWRP 5.3, protect and enhance quality of
coastal waters.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application? The Conservation Advisory Council did not make
inspection, therefore no recommendation has been made.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MR. NIELSON: I'm in favor of the application. On behalf of the
Fishers Island Marina, Fishers Island Yacht Club and Fishers
Island Utility Company, I'm Keith Nielson with Docko, Inc., and
we prepared the documentation documents for you as well as all
the previous recent permits for this project.
TRUSTEE KING: Keith, I think the issue here with the LWRP
coordinator is the disposal in open waters. I know the last one
we approved, that this is amending, we had stipulated that no
dredge spoils are to be placed in the New York waters section of
Board of Trustees 16 December 11, 2013
that dump site. That would stand with this amendment. We have no
control over what goes on in Connecticut.
MR. NIELSON: Right. It would be the same conditions because we
are still being governed by the other two permits which are
dictating that the open water disposal be in central Long Island
Sound, which has no component with New York waters.
TRUSTEE KING: Where the dump spoils are being placed is outside
of our jurisdiction. I don't think there is anything we can do
about it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When I spoke to Mr. Terry, he noted that he did
this specifically so it would be brought up. So it was actually
brought up and now we know where the spoils are going. And that
was a concern. Because if it was not addressed at all
TRUSTEE KING: This has been an ongoing situation with that dump
site off New London. It goes back to when they dredged, they
came through national security, if they were dredging it deep
enough to get the Seawolf submarine in there. And everybody was
against it. And everybody lost. It stayed open. We have no
control over that. So with that being said, is there anybody
else here to comment on this?
(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 application with
that same condition that there is to be no open water disposal
in the waters of New York section of that dump site.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
MILDRED DAVID requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #8171 for
a proposed 4'x97' fixed elevated catwalk; new catwalk to have
Thru-Flow decking over wetlands and remainder to be untreated
lumber; a 3'x12' aluminum ramp; and a 6x20' floating dock with
two 8" diameter piles in an "L" configuration. Located: 3825
Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue.
This was found to be inconsistent under the LWRP and this
was a review dated November 13, 2013, because the dock structure
will extend into public water and result in a net decrease in
public access to on public underwater lands. The Conservation
Advisory Council resolved to support the application on November
6, 2013, using flow-through grating above the limits of the
wetland, and the remainder to have untreated decking. I noted
the dates of those because we had originally looked at this back
in April and then in May, and had discussed it as a public
hearing in May, and at that time our challenge was that the dock
Board of Trustees 17 December 11, 2013
appeared to extend beyond the pier line, and so the applicant
has come back to us with some pictures with a pier line
contained on these pictures, which I'm passing out for the
members of the Board to look at.
Given that, is there anybody here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. The plan
that I sent you has the adjacent docks, Google Earth imagery,
has the adjacent docks in the area, and I drew in some lines
that are parallel to shore just indicating that they are pretty
much in line and consistent with, in general, all the other
docks in the area. You could see the two docks that are just to
the north are pretty far back from the proposed dock here, which
is, by the way, a replacement of what was there. And we actually
have a permit to build a dock now. I have a current permit. I
could building something now, from you guys. The DEC requested
I extend it out to 30" of water. So I have a permitted
structure. This amendment is only to move out that structure an
additional seven feet. And the original configuration of the
dock was a straight out, an "I" configuration. The pier to a
dock going straight out. Now I changed it to a "T"
configuration. So the boat is pushed further out. However,
just thinking about it today driving here, if we have a boat
tied up to this floating dock, a typical boat has a beam of
what, eight feet or so, so it will stick out eight feet
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It depends on the size of the boat.
MR. PATANJO: Agreed. It could be eight feet. Maybe if they have
a 24' boat, it would be eight feet, eight-and-a-half feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure.
MR. PATANJO: If they have a boat like that, if they tie it up,
stem toward the land, they could extend beyond that eight feet
with the configuration you guys previously approved. So there
is a possibility this will pull the boat back closer to shore.
Just by way of the way it's tied up.
Again, on the proposed, on the plan that I just recently
sent in, based on last month's public hearing, the two piers to
the north, they are setback pretty far. I didn't do any studies
over there. I don't know any water depths. But I'm assuming if
they come in for a new application, they are not going to have
sufficient water depth. And you are looking for consistency
amongst all the surrounding properties. If you look at my lines
parallel to the shore, you look at the adjacent docks, we are
right, as you see, we are right at the intersection of two
different shorelines. So in my opinion, I'm in line with the
adjacent docks. And again, I did mention last time, that I'm
going to be coming in for a permit for one of the docks, I
believe it's one to the south that has not been signed by the
contractor yet. So that's not going to happen for a month or
so. At least. So I don't want to have this dock be pending based
Board of Trustees 18 December 11, 2013
on the next application coming in.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. You are right in that we, on one of
the field inspections, we did go out and we walked down the
adjacent dock to the south and eyeballed it, and the original,
what was originally approved, was really just beyond the pier
line. So now because of the DEC requirement that you extend this
because of water depth issues, it's now put us and yourself
really into a challenge here because you are looking to extend
out beyond what we consider the pier line.
When we look at pier lines, we do, normally we look at, is
the adjoining docks on either side. We don't look at docks
farther down the shoreline one way or the other. It's kind of
like the same think we do with homes. And as your diagram shows,
clearly this will extend out beyond the pier line of the
adjoining docks. What you have made a case for is that it's not
beyond the pier line, if you take docks further down the
waterway into consideration. Normally with that, what we look at
is the shoreline. Has the shoreline changed, is it undulating
along there. In this case it really is not yours, your property
is almost, if there is such a thing, a little farther out
property than the other properties to the north or the south. So
unfortunately because of the DEC permit, it put you in this
situation.
MR. PATANJO: Which I have every other permit with the exception
of the Trustees.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: How does the Board feel about this?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have made the argument in the past in some
other places that when you have a shoreline that changes and,
you know, I understand not wanting to extend past the pier line,
but if you have a shore that changes, so the intersection of the
furthest-out docks in that area would be the pier line, to me.
The pier line is a curve as well as the shore. In this
particular case, I admit, he's right on the line, you know, but
I don't have an issue with this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think, similarly, it's reasonable enough.
TRUSTEE KING: This is not a narrow creek where it would present
a problem, really.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We sort of can't have it both ways also,
with respect to public access, we can't say we don't want to
have public bottom dredged or damage, so the intent is to get
sufficient depth so vessel operators are not hurting beneficial
bottom vegetation. So this could well be the neighboring docks
then established a narrow pier line are regularly damaging the
bottom, and the fact that almost all properties enjoy a dock
that somewhat comports with the physiography of that, I think
that's pretty much what Bob said. This is a bit of a curve,
irregular, but it's a very good approach to try to keep it
reasonable and work within the Board and the DEC parameters.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. I concur with the comments that have been
Board of Trustees 19 December 11, 2013
made. Are there any other comments from anybody in the audience
on this particular application?
(No response).
Not seeing any other comments from the Board, I'll make a motion
to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Mildred David at 3825 Stillwater Avenue, noting that when you
take into consideration the shoreline as well as adjoining
docks, that we feel this does comply with code, which will bring
it into consistency under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number four,
CHRISTOPHER SHOWALTER requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit
#8036 to remove existing concrete blocks and replace with a new
approximately 100' long rock revetment with two (2) plus/minus
15' returns. Located: 1015 Orchard Lane, Southold.
This application is deemed to be consistent by the LWRP
coordinator, but it was his recommendation that the Board
require a vegetated non-turf buffer encompassing the existing
onsite vegetation or similar, be installed landward of the new
stone wall. The Conservation Advisory Council did not support
this application indicating that it's the only revetment in the
surrounding area and it would set a bad precedent. This is a low
energy area surrounded by short fetches and any aggressive
hardening endangers the robust growth of the marshland.
The Trustees have been to this site on at least three
occasions and Trustee King's eye has sufficiently healed after
he was impaled by a branch as he walked behind me. So he was
capable of bringing the application in. My apologies. And the
Board has actually granted a prior approval for the use of Hesco
baskets for which the applicant did a very thorough research and
found that the company would not stand by their product given
the potential for UV degradation of the filter fabrics. We
subsequently performed another field inspection a month ago last
where we met with the applicant to discuss limiting the height
of the proposed rock revetment to no more than three feet. And
that is the status aware of we find ourselves now.
Is there anyone here now who wishes to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. SHOWALTER: Yes. Chris Showalter, the applicant. As you can
see, this wall was a carnage from Sandy. It's existing at the
time was a height of 46 inches. It's five rows of eight-inch
block and a four-inch cap, then you add in mortar and you end up
Board of Trustees 20 December 11, 2013
with about 46 inches height. We also discussed onsite, you guys
were kind enough to put me in touch with a product called
Redi-Rock, which I would be happy to use instead of rock
revetment. I think it's a more reasonable application here. My
challenge with Redi-Rock is Redi-Rock comes in 18-inch high
components, so it's either going to be 36 inches, which leaves
me below my original 44, or it will be 50 actually, the top
rock is only 13, so it's only at 49 inches on the inside, on the
interior side, and then backfill, which then this site already
has a 20-foot non-turf buffer, which we have been honoring since
we made the renovations in 2000, and we would obviously continue
to do that. And essentially plant essentially grasses. I think
grasses is the most sensible thing down there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, we were just discussing briefly. We
have reviewed the paperwork in the office this last field
inspection day on the 4th of the week. When we were out on
November 6th, we had indicated that we needed a three-foot
maximum height. And I think the sentiment of the Board is we
would want to keep the height somewhat lower. We recognize the
Conservation Advisory Council concerns about it being maybe the
first in the area, but it was a first in the area and the
structure did protect your upland somewhat, and it's very close
to your home. So I think the reasoning there, and possibly the
perspective of the Conservation Advisory Council didn't pick up
the fact that the fetch actually under storm conditions, could
be actually a longer fetch; I'm thinking a long fetch, half mile to a
mile, depending what kind of breaching action comes over the
Cedar Beach Creek barrier area.
MR. SHOWALTER: Yes, that barrier gets breached in a nor'easter.
It doesn't even take a big storm to do that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Have you seen pictures of the Redi-Rock?
MR. SHOWALTER: No, not at that time, but I did a lot of
research.
TRUSTEE KING: This is one that we just approved a while ago that
was just built. I think you can see why we like the idea.
MR. SHOWALTER: I think it's a great option. You are saying 36
inches from the outside, right?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: From the wetland grade, would be two blocks.
TRUSTEE KING: Actually, almost just exactly what you have there.
Pretty close. This is a side view of it. And they, ran the return
on either side of the property. It really looks nice. They did a
nice job.
MR. SHOWALTER: It looks pretty robust.
TRUSTEE KING: And it's less invasive than a rock revetment.
You can keep those, if you want.
MR. SHOWALTER: I appreciate that.
TRUSTEE KING: Two comments. One, that the photographs sort of
belies the inference that this is a low energy area. And the
second being that when we were in the field, we made a reference
Board of Trustees 21 December 11, 2013
point, I'll remind you of that, um, that you were going to leave
that one section to the very end so that we would not exceed
that elevation.
MR. SHOWALTER: Right. And that's 40 inches. That reference point
is 40 inches from wetland grade.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I don't recall that but I remember we pretty
much agreed that would be the maximum we would be happy with.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The would be or less than that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Or less than that, yes.
MR. SHOWALTER: That's fine. I appreciate it, thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are there any additional comments or
questions, concerns?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think it's a good idea.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing no additional questions, 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 move to approve this application
with the stipulation that either a rock revetment with the size
stone as indicated on the plan of a thousand pounds, or a
Redi-Rock wall be permitted for this erosion protection
structure, and not to exceed the height of 36 inches from the
marsh grade level. So moved.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. SHOWALTER: Thank you, gentlemen.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under wetland and coastal erosion permits,
number one, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of
SANDRA PAWSON SINCLAIR requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to restore the bluff face via cut-and-fill (with
the inclusion of plus/minus 722 cubic yards of fill obtained
from onsite); install a 16' tall, 13' wide, 195' long rock
revetment to protect the toe of the bluff; construct beach
access stairs consisting of four-foot wide stairs with
associated 4'x6.4' entry platform, a 4'x5.5' landing with bench,
a 4'x4' landing, a 5'x6' landing with bench and a 4'x4' base
platform, total length of staircase to be 57'; and install
revetment stone steps from base platform to beach. Located:
29827 Main Road, Orient.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The
Conservation Advisory Council voted unanimously to support this
application. The Trustees visited the site several times, but
most recently on the 4th of December, and noted that the
application was okay as submitted, suggesting that they move the
Board of Trustees 22 December 11, 2013
gazebo landward.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
for the applicant Sinclair. Submitted with this application are
engineering plans prepared by Jeff Butler, and they consist of a
site plan, cross sectional plans, et cetera. This is pretty much
a standard revetment. The idea of the revetment is to protect
the toe of the bluff.
What we found during Hurricane Sandy is these bluffs were
on The Sound, they were not subject to the wave action that some
of the places in the bay were subject to, like Nassau Point and
other places like that, but they nevertheless were impacted by
the tidal surge that occurred. So what happened was with the
tidal surge, the toe of the bluff became eroded, causing the
upper portions of the bluff to collapse down on the beach,
necessitating this application.
So this is an application to protect the toe of the bluff,
and it also provides for the planting of the upper portions of
the bluff as a stabilizing the entire system. It is similar to
an application that was approved by this Board several months
ago known as Frankel. The neighbors down here are all intending
to work together to implement this plan, as many neighbors have
in various other places in the town. And I'm really here to just
answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this
application?
(No response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: We were all out there and saw it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It really is needed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: What was it, one comment from the Conservation
Advisory Council about moving the gazebo? We had talked to the
owner out there, she said she was going to move that. She has
to. So that was already done as part of the process.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further additional comments, I make a
motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number two, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc., on behalf of PARVIZ LALEZARI, requests a Wetland Permit
Board of Trustees 23 December 11, 2013
and a Coastal Erosion Permit to restore the bluff face via
cut-and-fill (with the inclusion of plus/minus 481 cubic yards
of fill obtained from onsite); and install a 17' tall, 10' wide,
115' long rock revetment to protect the toe of the bluff;
construct beach access stairs consisting of four-foot wide
stairs with associated 5'x6' entry platform with bench, a 4'x4'
landing, a 5'x6' landing with bench, and a 4'x4' base platform,
total length of stairs to be 77 feet; and install revetment
stone steps from base platform to beach. Located: 1390 Demarest
Road, Orient.
This is an application to the neighbor to the application
that we just approved. Same basic idea. It's been found to be
consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council has
found it to be supports the application, and is recommending
installation of gutters and drywells on the dwelling to contain
roof runoff.
There is a letter in here of support for the application
from the neighbor. And our field notes do indicate that we see
the need for it and it didn't really have any other comments or
issues with this application.
Is there anybody here who would like to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
on behalf of the applicant Lalezari. This is also part of the
previous testimony on Sinclair, it is the same basic structure
designed to fit this stretch of bluff. The plans submitted by
Jeff Butler consists of a site plan as well as the
cross-section, and it's, again, to anchor the toe of the bluff
and to stabilize this bluff. This bluff also has been similarly
damaged by the storm surge in connection Hurricane Sandy. I
really don't have any more to add to that, but I'm here to
answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any comments from the Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't want to ignore the Conservation Advisory
Council's comments. I think the drywells and gutters are, you
know, it's something that typically if there was some work being
done on the house we would ask you to do it. This is 100 feet
away and this project has nothing to do with the house. But I
didn't want to ignore the comments.
MR. ANDERSON: It's probably a good idea to do that, and I'll
certainly relay that. I would add, however, in both situations,
the top of the bluff is actually much higher than the house.
TRUSTEE KING: The land slopes toward the house.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. And there is no runoff generated from the
house that will go over the face of the bluff.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right. Hearing no other comments, I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
Board of Trustees 24 December 11, 2013
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of the ORIENT WHARF COMPANY, c/o JOHN TUTHILL requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to dredge roughly
2,150 cubic yards of material in the area surrounding the Orient
Yacht Club in order to maintain the navigability of the harbor;
dredged material to be placed in a drying container secured to
the wharf which will then be removed to an approved upland
source. Located: 2110 Village Lane, Orient.
This is a dredging application. This is found consistent
with the LWRP. I'm looking for the Conservation Advisory
Council comments. I don't see anything from the Conservation
Advisory Council on this. Here we go. This is June 12, 2013.
They supported the application at that time.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson on behalf of the Orient Wharf
Company. This is an application to dredge, as you all know. The
original application was prepared, I'll say early summer. We met
with the Trustees, you folks, out, I believe it was in August,
the inspection date in August. At that time you had recommended
that we shift the dredging seaward so that no dredging would
occur essentially in the intertidal zone. That is that area
between low water and high water. Which we did. We filed amended
plans that show that. Obviously, at the same time we have been
before the DEC and DEC came up with the same concern, and so
those plans were also amended to reflect the location of the
dredging as being restricted to waters below mean low water. So
those changes were made.
We also received similar comments from adjacent neighbors,
and there has been, I gather an unpleasant history among folks
out here. But I have been in touch several times with Tony Pasca
with Essex, Hefter & Angel, who represents the neighbors, and I
spoke to him as early as last Friday, and I'm authorized let you
know that the neighbors are in fact in support of this
application as amended.
So our challenge really here is to obtain the permits and
commence dredging within the dredging window, which we expect
will close on January 15th. We are, at the moment, we have
published in the newspaper a notice of complete application,
which will appear in tomorrow's Suffolk Times, and I expect DEC
to approve the application shortly thereafter. And upon that
approval we'll provide this Board with a copy so that both
Board of Trustees 25 December 11, 2013
agencies will be approving the same plan and you'll be clear
with what is going on here. Other than that, I'm just here to
answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE KING: Bruce, when do you expect to hear from the DEC?
MR. ANDERSON: I expect to hear from them early next week some
time because I will be all over the DEC on a daily basis until
this is revolved.
TRUSTEE KING: Because I'm looking at this notice of a complete
application. They left the public comment period open to the
19th of December.
MR. ANDERSON: Right.
TRUSTEE KING: Are they going to issue a permit before that
public comment period is over?
MR. ANDERSON: They probably won't but what I'll do is try to
cajole them into at least preparing the paperwork. So absent of
any negative comments, they would be prepared to issue the
permit at that time. As I said before, I'm not expecting any
negative comment because we have been sensitive and flexible to
all concerns in this application. So I'm expecting to be issued
as amended.
TRUSTEE KING: Because I know the first time they objected to
anything landward of the four-foot contour.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, the four foot contour
TRUSTEE KING: Which puts it right into the boating area.
MR. ANDERSON: I think they made a mistake there. I think in
subsequent conversations I said do you mean low water. Quite
honestly, it's been difficult with the DEC because this was an
application that was filed with them last January. So it's a
little disconcerting that it would take so long to get a review.
And quite honestly, other than a receipt of application, I have
received nothing from DEC other than, you know, a couple of
short E-mails with regard to this application, which is
unfortunate. But even if they issue a permit on the 19th, or
let's say the 20th or 21st, that will give us three weeks to do
some of the dredging. And quite honestly, the critical area to
dredge is that easterly dock facility. Because that is, you
know, quite honestly, with the northwest winds that we have,
these boats will be resting on the bottom in that kind of
condition.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, we understand that.
MR. ANDERSON: That would not be desirable for anyone, I would
think.
TRUSTEE KING: Any Board comments?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just refresh my memory. Disposal of the
dredge material is mostly pure sand, is it not?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, they said they'll have a container fastened
to the
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. What we have done is we've proposed, since we
don't have a spoil site onsite available to us, so we
Board of Trustees 26 December 11, 2013
constructed, I believe, a 40-yard dumpster with the back end
open and we would install filtration, such as hay bale, silt
fence on that. So the material will be loaded from a clamshell
bucket into that container, and the liquid pass filtered through
the material, and then it would, on a roll off, and it would be
removed from the site and hauled to an approved upland location.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For myself, I know this application has been
into us for a while, as is demonstrated by when we did the
original field inspection, and I think it's a well thought out
plan and I don't have any problem with this application at all.
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments from anybody?
(No response).
Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
And I'll make a motion to approve the application and when and
if the DEC approves, what they approve, we want to be consistent
with them, so if there are any changes we need to be notified of
those changes, and that would mean an amendment to this
application.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of
MINNIGAN FAMILY TRUST, c/o JOHN MINNIGAN & JOANNE LAPP,
TRUSTEES, requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit
for the as-built 68.5' vinyl retaining wall with 6.7' and 5.4'
returns inplace of timber retaining wall and returns. Located:
580 South Lane, East Marion.
The Board did go down and looked at this in their December
field inspection. This was reviewed and found to be inconsistent
under the LWRP. The reason for the inconsistency is the
structure described was not constructed pursuant to a Trustees
permit or Coastal Erosion permit. In the event the action is
approved, it's recommended the Board designate the existing
vegetated area between the bulkhead and retaining walls as a
non-turf buffer.
This was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council and
I'll read their determination. The Conservation Advisory Council
does not support the application because the application is
inadequate for the intended structures, as these structures
cannot be legalized on property the applicant doesn't own. This
should be a joint application with the homeowners association.
In addition, the area between the upper and lower bulkhead
should be non-turf and specified in the plans.
Board of Trustees 27 December 11, 2013
Now, we did note when we were out there the fact that a
very small portion of this project that has been applied for
does in fact fall on the neighboring property, and we have here
in the file, which says permission from that property owner. So
just stand by for a second.
I'm searching. Just stand by. Here we go. A letter dated
May 25th, from the Old Orchard Homeowners Association. In an
agreement entered May 24th, 2013. (Perusing). What I'm trying
to do is get to the meat of this. It's a very long agreement.
MR. HERRMANN: I can help you with that, Dave.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Hang on. In the agreement, in the sixth
paragraph, the party consents to and authorizes the first party
to file the necessary applications to the town for permission to
maintain the retaining wall owned by the first party.
So, like I said, this is a very long agreement, and I'll
stipulate this agreement will be entered in its entirety into
the record. So with that is there anybody here to speak on
behalf of this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
the applicant. This application is basically a bi-product of a
prior application that had been submitted and approved by this
Board for the Old Orchard Homeowners Association to replace the
primary bulkhead that shows in your photograph there along the
beach. And it is a little bit of an unusual situation that the
secondary retaining wall, which we often see on these parcels
along the bay or harbor, everyone, the same person owns each
structure. And in this case, there is a long history that I'm
not sure is worth necessarily going into. But the facts that
pertain to the application before you are that the bulkhead was
replaced by the Old Orchard Homeowners Association pursuant to
their permit, which my firm also obtained a couple years ago.
And I believe, as it's been described to me, when the Trustees
went out to do their compliance inspection for the wall, they
noticed that the retaining wall behind it had also been
replaced, but the association had not gotten a they did not
modify their permit with Minnigan permission, nor did Minnigan
come in separately at that time. So basically the end result
was the wall was replaced without permission from anybody.
So as described in the two documents that Dave was
referencing just a moment ago, as a result of what I believe was
a resolution violation on this case, the upland owner here,
Minnigan, was required to come before the Board, which is why
I'm here tonight, to obtain a permit to legalize the retaining
wall. How the two parties and their attorneys handled the
overlapping jurisdiction is what is contained in the meat of the
letters Dave was referencing. One is actually a letter, you said
it's from Old Orchard. It's actually really from the applicants
written to Old Orchard, and in that letter, which I won't go
through, but you have for the record in your file, they go
Board of Trustees 28 December 11, 2013
through the description that I just summarized what happened
with the history, and that they are asking the Old Orchard
association to consent to the legalization as part of this
permit for any of the wall that actually exists on the
association property. And they went so far as to formalize a
boundary line agreement, which is the other document that Dave
was reading, so that they don't get into any dispute over the
land over time.
With respect to the inconsistency recommendation, I never
quite understand that because the inconsistency is based on the
fact the structure doesn't have a permit, but that's of course
why we are here. And with respect to the further comment about
the non-turf buffer, that is already a non-turf buffer
stipulated in association with the original association permit,
which I think caused its own whole other separate set of
troubles that the Trustees have been through on this site.
So basically those conditions have been addressed. And
otherwise in and of itself this is really a simple application.
Had the retaining wall been included in the original permit, we
would not have to be dealing with this. The reason it was not is
because it was perceived it was not really within the property
owned by the association.
So herein lies the proposed solution and hopefully the
Board will see fit to legalize it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Nothing is simple, Rob.
MR. HERRMANN: If it was, I would not be here.
MS. LAPP: I'm JoAnne Lapp. I'm the property owner behind the
retaining wall. You know, when the association did this project,
they undermined our wooden retaining wall that has been there
since the'60s. So I had asked Ian Crowley who did the work if
we needed a permit and he said we didn't need a permit because
we were just replacing what was there. So he didn't ask me if we
ever had a permit to begin with. So I guess, you know, it was
not done maliciously or anything, and so now we are coming to,
we got a violation, which we handled, and now we are just
looking to approve what we have.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I'm looking at the agreement between the two
parties. And the association is listed as a second party on page
two, the second part. It says the second party grants to the
first party permission to maintain the retaining wall as shown
on the real property of the second party. So that, in essence,
gets to the legal part of this.
MS. LAPP: Right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments from anybody in the
audience?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
Not hearing any, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
Board of Trustees 29 December 11, 2013
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Minnigan Family Trust as described with the condition that will
match the permit condition of the bulkhead, that a non-turf
buffer will be maintained between the bulkhead and the retaining
wall. And in granting this permit it will bring it into
consistency under the LWRP. That's my motion.
MR. HERRMANN: Dave, before that motion closes, I have a question
for Lori. Typically, the buffer requirement then stimulates a
request for a covenant. But the covenant is already there. The
buffer is not on the Minnigan property. I just want to be clear
we won't be asked to covenant the buffer but that the buffer be
referenced to the original Old Orchard permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's a very good point, from a legal
perspective.
MS. HULSE: The buffer is not referenced in the resolution.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I had just made that in my motion.
MS. HULSE: All right. That's fine. Just take it out as a
condition.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, so I'll withdraw my motion and put
forward a new motion, that being that I make a motion to approve
the application of En-Consultants on behalf of Minnigan Family
Trust as described, and with the granting of this permit it
would address the inconsistency and in essence bring it into
consistency under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you, Dave.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, Rob.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing, under Wetland Permits,
number one, Mark Schwartz, Architect on behalf of RICHARD &
JOANN SAVARESE requests a Wetland Permit to raise the existing
dwelling, and remove and reconstruct the foundation to raise
finished floor height to elevation 14.0; reconstruct existing
16'x16' deck with 3.6'x4' steps and 6' wide x 1' deep step to
the ground; and reconstruct existing front stoop. Located: 2575
Old Orchard Road, East Marion.
The application has been deemed to be consistent with the
LWRP. A speck note of the LWRP coordinator is that due to the
parcel size and configuration there is no ability to relocate
the structure outside of the flood zone AE-E17.
The Conservation Advisory Council has moved to support this
application. The Trustees performed a field inspection on
Board of Trustees 30 December 11, 2013
December 4th. Specific questions we had, I'll outline, some are
addressed also in a subsequent report of the principle building
inspector Michael Verity. But the Trustees on inspection had
specific concern whether or not the project lies within the
coastal erosion area. Subsequent to that, it was pointed out
that the coastal erosion area line is in fact on the property
survey. The Trustees question whether or not this in fact was a
demolition, and the response from the town reviewer Michael
Verity from the Building Department was in fact that a part of
this application is considered a demolition. The Trustees also
voiced a concern concerning the snow fence they saw that was
down at the beach for apparent erosion control.
Additionally, the Trustees were concerned about the
placement of or a sanitary system for a house that was going to
be ostensibly going to be demolished, in our view. There was a
prior permit that was issued to Richard and Joann Savarese on
July 22, 2009, which apparently may have lapsed, for which the
permit conditions were to demolish the two-story dwelling with a
deck, and it did put a condition of a new sanitary system and
retaining wall. That was also on plans prepared by Mr.
Schwartz.
The chief building inspector also noted that the project
will require a building permit. It will not require a Zoning
Board of Appeals. It was a qualified statement here, no prior
excuse me, there was a prior permit shows approval for current
size of 16'x16', therefore the deck rebuild would be permitted
as an as of right. So the deck rebuild would not require a
variance. I'm not sure if I totally made all these points clear.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. Mark Schwartz, architect of the project. I'm
not sure where you came up with where this will be a demolition.
We are not altering the house at all. We are raising it up,
demolishing the foundation and putting it back on the
foundation. That's it. There are no additions, no roof changes,
no interior changes. They just wanted a foundation because it's
not adequate the way it is.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All I can tell you is this report was sent
to us on December 9th from Mr. Verity.
Okay. Our clerk Elizabeth is just pointing out to me a
point that I was not aware of. That apparently there is still an
outstanding and current Building Department permit that
indicated there was an approval for a demolition, and that is
the same and references similar language to the prior Trustee
permit that was issued July 22nd, 2009, which was specifically
called a demolition.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. That project was going to be knock down of a
new house. They decided not to do it. They are going to leave
what is there and just raise it up and put it back on a new
Board of Trustees 31 December 11, 2013
foundation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So we have that would still remain just a
concern of the Trustees about the sanitary system. Previously
approval was granted for a new sanitary work where extensive
construction is taking place. I know it's a concern that
particularly where we are raising buildings and elevation, to
accommodate, you know, storm events, the question is what kind
of sanitary is here and was there a prior approval from the
Suffolk County Health Department at the time that you were
granted a Trustee permit for the demolition. And is there a
county health permit that you can give us for the file that
shows there was approval for that.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, there is. I can get you a copy of it. They
were not intending on doing the septic system for this project.
Um, I'm sure what is there is not to code, but I'm not sure we
would be required to change it based on the Building Department
since we are not expanding or adding bedrooms.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, I'm going to tell you my individual
concerns here. The expense involved in elevating structures and
putting new foundations and the extent of construct and the
extreme disturbance to sites to conduct these sorts of
activities, the time to put in a new sanitary system is when you
are doing this work, and particularly if you have county
approval dealing with a site that is heavily constrained based
on lot size, it's to the advantage of the applicant to upgrade.
Particularly, just as a point of information, for several weeks
after Tropical Storm Sandy, the bacterial levels in our surface
waters never got down to a level to allow for shellfishing. And
that was because there was so many sanitary systems that were
actuality flooded and then disbursed their contents. In the
area very close here in East Marion there were actually
bulkheads that were sheared off and beach homes had their
sanitary system basically blown into Gardiners Bay or Orient
Harbor. And so it's my individual feeling that when you are
talking about, if you are talking about a rebuild on an upland
site, this is one of the rare cases where I think the waterfront
owners, it's not only a consumer benefit to the homeowner but
also a benefit to the environment when you are doing this
extensive work that you perform the sanitary system upgrade,
particularly because it's getting I'm a bit preaching to the
choir, because you are a design professional, and you understand
that when we get the bottom of the cesspool above ground water,
we provide basic filtration.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I agree 100%.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: My concern is that this is the time for that
and I would ask for a stipulation of that in the permit.
Anyhow, any additional information, I think the
clarification was good. So now is the building permit, they are
banning or are they putting a request in not to do a demolition?
Board of Trustees 32 December 11, 2013
MR. SCHWARTZ: They are definitely not doing that project. I
think there may have been several permits that expired.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is still a standing permit I have a
question for Lori. Do they have to specifically withdraw any
current permits they have in the Building Department that might
allow for demolition.
MS. HULSE: The plans have to match. So at some point have they
to get a CO. So you won't be able to have two divergent plans.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right. One plan in the Building
Department. One plan in the Trustee Department. One health
approval coming from the county that looks the same.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I understand what I have to do is additional
paperwork even with the Department of Health that those a new
house. So I have to go back to them to amend that permit also.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is no it doesn't show the septic at
all on this plot plan at all. That was a question as well.
MR. SCHWARTZ: It's on the water side of the house. That's the
only place.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay.
MR. SCHWARTZ: But we did have a DEC permit, a Trustees permit,
that had the septic system on it, and the Department of Health,
so, I assume it would be able to be revised and amended.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess if you are going to go through the
separate agency review and you were to return a Health
Department permit here as a condition of the Trustee permit with
all the stamped approved survey that they would issue for an
approval to construct, I guess I don't think I have a problem
with that to have a permit investigation on the sanitary if they
are going to review that. I don't know how the Board feels on
that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I feel similarly.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree with the concerns, number one, and the
recommendations that Trustee Bredemeyer has brought up here. For
myself, though, I think they should, when there is a permit
application before us, it's not a demolition, it's, in this case
a raising and putting a new foundation underneath, I don't think
the requirement of septic should be an additional requirement
made by the Trustees. In other words I think there is an agency,
the Suffolk County Health Department that can deal with that
issue. I think it's a recommendation that I fully support but I
don't know that I would support making it a condition of this
permit that a new septic system be installed.
TRUSTEE KING: I feel the same way.
MR. SCHWARTZ: In addition, it will be a lot more disruption on
the site seaward of the house. Considerably.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a point of information. Jurisdiction,
having some slight knowledge of how they
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: A lot of knowledge.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: (Continuing) the issue is that the county
Board of Trustees 33 December 11, 2013
Health Department considers a structure that is not being
demolished an existing structure, and they will claim they have
no jurisdiction. So the applicant walks away and will continue
to be able to put a cesspool directly in groundwater. So I
think this is really the time that the county Health Department
is steadfastly avoiding having a model sewage code for rebuilds
or add on to sewage, and one, I don't believe in setting a
different standard for individual owners along the waterfront
but the conditions surrounding our surface water quality right
now and the degradation of water particularly as it relates to
bacterial contamination that is closing shellfish lands, means
at some point, we have the jurisdiction and we can compel a
review by the Health Department. It's difficult, it's prickly,
it often results in a Board of Review hearing, it takes a long
time. But in the end you get the best possible thing you can
have. But otherwise it's a walk-away. If we grant the approval,
the homeowner will basically continue with a substandard sewage
system. Many of these houses, and I don't mean to pick
individually on the applicant, the Savareses. I know some
people where they have small beach houses and are of limited
means, money is an issue, but a lot of these turn into total
demolitions, they turn around, and other individuals will just
simply say you've got no jurisdiction, they'll continue to do
what they are doing, and we are all worse off for it.
I spent probably 300 hours this last year doing shellfish
sanitation work for the town as a little fun add-on, and I got
to tell you, this is one of those where I kind of, you know, if
someone were to come in with a new home, on a heavily
constrained lot, if they can even get an approval, they're going
to be, you know, into some dear time, a prior board thought it
was suitable here so as a stepping stone of the prior board
thought sanitary was suitable here. So I'm kind of stepping, as
a stepping stone, on a prior board. So I just wanted to amplify
my concerns. I know that these are difficult situations. They
are heavily constrained and I feel for the people, having dealt
with Sandy on a small property.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I concur with John in the sense that over the
last six, seven years, I have been involved in doing a lot of
the research on the septic systems, particularly in East Marion,
Orient. I have made comment in the past about raised septic
systems, and I'm not for them. Of course that has nothing to do
with this one. But I'm concerned as well that when we have an
opportunity to upgrade a septic system on something that chances
are doesn't meet current code to begin with, we ought to try
make the attempt or at least try to address it. I happen to
agree this is something that really should be addressed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are there any additional comments from
anyone with respect to this application?
MR. SCHWARTZ: The owners are not able to be here. I'm not sure
Board of Trustees 34 December 11, 2013
they would be against doing a new septic system anyway, so if
that's a requirement or suggestion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a
motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application as submitted with the stipulation that the final
permit copy not be distributed to the applicant until an
approved plan of construction is received from the Suffolk
County Department of Health Services through the onsite
subsurface sewage disposal system.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I want to note for the record I'm voting aye,
and the reason I'm voting aye is because the applicant has
stated in his testimony that he doesn't feel that the applicants
will have a problem with supporting the new septic system. So I
vote aye.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number two, En-Consultants on behalf of ANDREW &
KAREN WILLS, request a Wetland Permit to construct two (2)
plus/minus 93 linear foot wood tie terrace retaining walls, one
along toe of embankment (landward of tidal wetlands) and one on
embankment face, each with two (2) plus/minus 5' returns;
renourish embankment by backfilling terrace retaining walls with
approximately 15 cubic yards clean sandy fill to be trucked in
from an approved upland source; re-vegetate plus/minus 10' wide
embankment with native vegetation, e.g., Cape American beach
grass, switchgrass, Virginia rose, and/or northern bayberry,
which is to be maintained as a non-turf buffer area. Located:
1675 Bayview Avenue, Southold.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency is due to the fact that the term "terrace wall" is
not an identified erosion control structure. The structure is
either a retaining wall or a bulkhead. And it must be
determined. If the structure is determined to be a new bulkhead
then it had must be a low sill bulkhead. Additionally, a
ten-foot non-turf buffer is required. In the event the action is
approved, it is recommended that the Board requires that the
existing tidal wetland vegetation be undisturbed to the greatest
extent practical. The Conservation Advisory Council voted not to
support this application. They recommend a unified revetment
plan with the adjacent property owners in a manner that would
protect the marsh. The Trustees visited this site on December
4th. The field notes, that the project may need more than 15
Board of Trustees 35 December 11, 2013
yards of fill requested. Otherwise it was a straightforward
application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. The Board will note that this property and the two
adjacent to it, to its north, are all before the Board tonight.
This was an area that has taken a bit of a beating during the
past few years in the current storm cycle. And the Wills'
property in particular got blown out pretty badly during
Hurricane Sandy. And figure one in our application, which was
taken some time after Sandy, is a good representation of that.
Basically, the idea here is to try to reconstruct and
restore the previously existing embankment and to do that we
obviously have to bring in re-nourishment material and then
thoroughly replant it with native vegetation.
The purpose of the two terrace retaining walls, one at the
toe and one at the center, is basically just to stabilize that
bank, create a stable placement area for the fill, and to
increase the success of the plantings.
Your description of it as a fairly straightforward
application, I would agree with. If you have any other
questions, I can certainly respond to them.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to note that in the plans submitted
November 14th, 2013, it is referred to as a retaining wall. And
furthermore, that it is, using the scale provided, it's more
than 15-feet landward of the high water mark, which would make
it a retaining wall, not a bulkhead.
MR. HERRMANN: And on the section, Mike, what we tried to show
here, is the wall will pretty clearly run from the corner of the
adjacent structure, basically to the landward end of the
existing dock. And you can see in the section that the low toe
is roughly about two feet exposed above grade, and then the bank
slopes back to another wall which predominantly buried, and then
tapers back to the existing grade. We specifically have designed
this structure to be landward, not only of high water but
landward of the tidal wetlands area that exists there. The
purpose of that is to avoid any fill of the tidal wetland and to
avoid disturbance of the existing vegetation, which I think was
one of the comments in the LWRP report.
So we were mindful of that when we designed this, and both
with this and the next application before you, there is a bit of
a narrow physical window between tidal wetlands area and the toe
of the bank, and we have been mindful to stay landward of that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this
application?
(No response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
MR. HERRMANN: Mike, I should say, I'm sorry, one other comment
is with respect to the non-turf buffer. We do have in the notes
Board of Trustees 36 December 11, 2013
on sheet one of our plan, note number six, that that ten foot
area behind that lower toe is to be maintained. Obviously we
are proposing to vegetate it and that it would be maintained in
perpetuity as a vegetated, non-turf buffer. I just wanted to
mention that is in the plan before you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Duly noted that it is on the plans submitted
November 14th, 2013.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes.
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, noting that the term "retaining wall" on the plans
addresses the inconsistency, as pointed out by the LWRP
coordinator.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of
CHARLES & STEPHANIE MCEVILY requests a Wetland Permit to
construct approximately 97 linear feet of wood terrace retaining
wall along toe of embankment (landward of tidal wetlands) and
construct approximately three additional terraces on face of
embankment with lengths of approximately 25, 14 and 30 linear
feet; renourish embankment by backfilling terraces with
approximately ten cubic yards clean sandy fill to be trucked in
from an approved upland source; and re-vegetate all terraced and
disturbed portions of embankment with native vegetation, e.g.,
Cape American beach grass, switchgrass, Virginia rose and/or
northern bayberry; and remove and replace plus/minus 51' wood
tie retaining wall and install new plus/minus 26' wood tie
retaining wall, both along landward edge of top of embankment.
Located: 1795 Bayview Avenue, Southold.
This is a property that is right next to the Wills'
property which we have just discussed. This one, however, the
LWRP coordinator did find this to be consistent with the LWRP,
provided that, he recommends that the Board require the plan
dated 11/5/13 match the revised description of 11/19/13, and it
the term "terrace wall" as identified on the plan is not a
defined erosion control structure in Chapter 275. Note that the
applicant must demonstrate excessive erosion has occurred in the
area to warrant the installation of the lower retaining wall.
In the event the action is approved, it is recommended the Board
requires existing tidal wetland vegetation be left undisturbed
and integrated with the structure design to the greatest extent
practicable.
Board of Trustees 37 December 11, 2013
The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the
application; recommends a unified revetment plan with the
adjacent property owners in a manner that would protect the
marsh and wetland vegetation.
And our field notes show that we did note that we would
perhaps want to pursue only a single retaining wall, rather than
the multiple, to allow the vegetation that is there to remain.
As can you see, based on the photographs, it's quite a bit of
vegetation that is there. Is there anybody here who would like
to address this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
applicant, Charles and Stephanie McEvily, who are also here.
This is the adjacent property to the north of Wills, the
prior application and hearing that was just closed. This has
been a little more of a difficult site to work with in terms of
our design, whereas the Wills' property really left nothing to
the imagination by the time the storm was through, this is a
bank that has been very well vegetated. It is heavily vegetated.
When Mr. and Mrs. McEvily came to me, the issue they had been
having, and you can see this in figures three and four with the
application that I had submitted, you can even see the areas
along the staircase where there is stain on the side of the
stairs versus where there is not, where there used to be soil.
And what they had found, similarly, over the past several years,
is despite the heavy vegetation on the bank, they have been
gradually losing soil, and there are some places where you could
see a little bit more clearly in the winter where the bank was
heavily eroded. And I just, you have these, just for a quick
reference I'll hand that extra copy up of those two photos. So
what has happened, some of the shrubs that exist there, there is
Baccharus both along and above the tidal wetlands boundary,
there is some bayberry in there, and what has happened is those
root masses at the bases are becoming exposed. And so right now,
we are sort of at a critical juncture of that embankment, where
if that erosion is allowed to continue during some of these
avulsive storm events that seem to be getting more frequent,
eventually those will give way in a more avulsive way, in a
sudden way, and then we'll have a much bigger problem such as
what we have with Wills next door. Having said that, because of
the nature of the bank, we can't really propose something quite
of the stature that is proposed as Wills, because with Wills',
that area is open and they are running actual 6x6 deadmen back
into the bank. If you had to run deadmen here you literally
would have to deconstruct the bank, remove the vegetation that
is there, to get the deadmen in, which would sort of defeat the
purpose of the project in the first place.
So I called upon Peter Sterling from Plantings By The Sea
to come in and look at this with us, and I know the Board is
familiar with the terracing work that Peter typically does on
Board of Trustees 38 December 11, 2013
The Sound behind some of these larger bulkheads, where they are
actually putting 12" boards one on top of the other, so similar
to Wills, you have a two-foot toe at the base and then those are
being driven in with vertical pipes.
To take a step to the side, just to respond to the LWRP
comment about the project description. This is where we have
the original issue. When I discussed the design with Peter,
everybody, as even the Board seems to be at the moment, was in
agreement that you have to start with a layer at the toe. Peter
senses it is impossible at this point in time to know where, how
many, how long, extra smaller terraces might be needed just in
the areas that are severely eroded right now. There are areas,
stretches of this bank that probably don't need to be touched at
all, and other areas like around the stairway where I showed you
in figure three that probably needs some attention. The problem
was I tried to submit the application project description that
way, knowing I'd probably get a call from Liz telling me I
couldn't, but basically we were saying terraces as needed. Which
I also realize from the Board's perspective maybe leaves open
too big of a ball of wax. But the intention here is honest. We
could put the toe in and not need anything about above it, if
the fill and the supplemental vegetation takes, or we could need
some additional terracing up top.
What we really want to do is just try to maintain what is
there in as natural a condition as it has been in for a long
time, without losing what is there. With that said, I think we
can agree on the toe. I'm not sure exactly how the Board wants
to deal with the rest of it. The reason the project description
changed, it still matches the plan. So to Mark's comments, the
updated description is still consistent with this plan. Nothing
has changed since day one except for the fact that Liz asked me
to commit to what is on the plan as opposed to saying well maybe
this is what we are going to do and maybe it is not. So I just
wanted the Board to understand what we were doing there.
I would like to hear the Board's thoughts on it. Again, I
don't know if there is a way we could get the toe in with room
for modification later once the project starts. If we could set
up a site meeting with the Trustees as it goes. Again, I think
the McEvily's want to do as little as they need to do, but they
don't want to come up short because if some of those shrubs
start to really pull away from the bank it will then require a
much more involved hardscaping structure that we are really
trying to avoid.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, any thought to using helix screws to
obviously, as a backing system, to one retaining wall that would
not create an adverse effect to the vegetation there on the
bluff?
MR. HERRMANN: I would have to talk to really a dock builder. The
helix screws are pretty heavy duty devices. They are really
Board of Trustees 39 December 11, 2013
designed to be these very large anchors that get screwed and
driven into the back to hold up a very big wall. For the
terracing that Pete proposes, the pipes really supply that
purpose. So you would have to have really almost a bulkhead that
eliminates the embankment to apply helicals. I mean it's a
conversation we could have, but it's really like using a sledge
hammer to bang in a finishing nail. I'm not sure how it would
apply.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I just want to make a notation here that we did
make a pre-submission inspection a year ago, in December of
2012, just to kind of review the notes we on it at that time,
and I do have pictures to show the erosion from Sandy certainly
a lot better than this. It's going back in. The vegetation is
now hiding a lot of the damage. Erosion due to Sandy suggests a
row of large stones over fabric, backfill and plantings and
replace creosote 6x6's with 6x6 landscape ties. That was the
comments back then. I notice that of course the application is
not mentioning anything about using large stones and filter
fabric or anything like that.
MR. HERRMANN: No, the 6x6's up at the top, the wood tie that is
up there is proposed to be replaced, and there is another one
that is proposed on the other side of it. We actually met down
here with the DEC subsequent to your site meeting with both the
McEvilys and the Wills, I believe. But prior to making the
application and because of the close proximity of the existing
marsh to the embankment, they did not seem inclined to allow a
larger structure like that. I mean we could put toe stone of a
particular smaller size right along the toe, but in order to get
that two feet in the air, you would really have to slope it out.
You probably have to excavate it in a little bit. And the
wetlands are so close, that is what presents the problem with
that kind of project here. That's why we really had the DEC come
out to the site in the first place.
I think you'll actually get a little taller and more
efficient retention ability out of a vertical wall here than you
would stone. I'm afraid I think the stone you would have to
get too big of a footprint to establish to get two feet.
Because you would have to occupy at least a three-foot wide
area. They don't really have the room for that, then I think it
would be more easily overtopped. We are trying to pin the bottom
of this bank so that when they put the re-nourishment material
and plants on it, it doesn't all just slough down and collapse.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have to tell you, using 2x12's, it's really
used for small retaining walls. This is actually less than I
think what we envisioned when we were taking about using large
stones. So, I don't have a problem with it. I just wanted to
bring that up that this process is not something that just
started 30 days ago; we were there a year ago and this has been
ongoing.
Board of Trustees 40 December 11, 2013
MR. HERRMANN: We are aware of that. So the only question is, is
there some way the Board would be willing to facilitate how we
do the upper terracing if, as the contractor is going, like in
those areas by the stairs, because I'm showing these sections,
the 25 feet, the 14 feet, the 30 feet, it's not, I guarantee
it's not going to look like that. It won't look like exactly
what is on the plans. So I'm just looking if we could get some
flexibility, some ability to deal with that.
MR. MCEVILY: Charles McEvily. Unfortunately, I feel a little
Mickey Mouse. I have a small iPhone photograph of the
conditions that existed last December. And it demonstrates the
way in which the wave action has scoured out underneath these
existing bushes. So I feel it's sort of odd, I feel I'm trying
to support exactly what this Board is doing by preserving the
existing bushes. The only way to do that, because I have watched
these roots get washed away over the summer, and I watched the
seaward side of the bush literally die. These are amazing
bushes, because the seaward side of the bush dies and it kind of
moves it back into the embankment. But I'm afraid the entire
bush is going to die. It was that, that Rob came up with the
idea of a very small one foot board that would help cover the
remaining roots to preserve. But it's almost impossible,
especially, unless we went until January, and literally trimmed
the top of the bushes. You can't see what you all saw last
December. Which is revealed by this, with these rocks rolling
down. And this erosion will occur absent these walls a little
higher up on the bank.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We do have pictures of last December in the
file. That's what made me bring it up. It was a separate, distinct file.
MR. MCEVILY: Thank you, very much. Because when I saw this
picture, I said this doesn't show what is going on.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't know how we could give him the flexibility
to change things, that's all.
MR. HERRMANN: The only thing I could think of, if the Board
doesn't object to it, could the Board approve this plan, with
the understanding that when the work starts, I mean at some
point, and again, I don't know for a fact if it will be Peter
Sterling, but if it is Peter, at some point before he starts
driving boards, he has to know, he has to set up his job, and he
can possibly, you know, set a stake here, set stake here, run a
string between, and then if there has to be some adjustment, we
could come in and modify the plan to reflect what he's actually
going to do.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We could stipulate that a pre-construction be
done.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sure.
MR. HERRMANN: Just some way to get let them get this done the
right way without running afoul.
TRUSTEE KING: We can do that. He can stake it out, we can do a
Board of Trustees 41 December 11, 2013
pre-construction look at it and if we need to change it, we
change it.
MS. MCEVILY: That's great, thank you.
MR. HERRMANN: And if it holds up, you are in great shape, and if
at some point we need something bigger
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted with the stipulation that there will be a
pre-construction inspection showing, once the project is staked
for actual construction, just to approve the actual location.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of GASTON
FAMILY, LLC, requests a Wetland Permit to construct
approximately 85 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead inplace of
existing concrete seawall; remove existing concrete return and
construct plus/minus 15' vinyl return along inside of property
line; and backfill/renourish eroded area landward of bulkhead
with approximately 25 cubic yards clean sandy fill to be trucked
in from an approved upland source. Located: 1875 Bayview Avenue,
Southold.
I believe this was found consistent. The Conservation
Advisory Council resolved not to support it. Same comments as
the previous two properties. These are all in line. This is the
next one to the north and it's the same recommendation about
unified revetment plan. Is there any here to speak on behalf of
or against this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of the
applicant. Again, this is now the property that is the most
northerly of the three, probably the most straightforward, as
this is a property that has been historically retained at its
face. Basically you have a sheer embankment, as you can see,
that is supported by the existing concrete block seawall. There
is a continuous concrete block seawall that extends farther to
the north. This is a weathered wall that got severely damaged at
its most southerly comer adjacent to McEvily. The only twist
here is that the existing return, as you'll see on the project
plan, currently extends beyond the applicant's property line to
the south and on to the McEvily property. So when they are
placing a new return, that return will actually move to the
north, inside the applicant's property line, which will shorten
up the overall length of the wall a little bit. Otherwise,
again, this is probably the most straightforward of the three to
the extent that we are just dealing really with the historic
condition of the hardened shoreline and just seeking to maintain
Board of Trustees 42 December 11, 2013
that existing condition.
The other change that, right now, because of the concrete,
there is a set of recessed stairs in the center of the wall, and
that will be replaced by a simple set of timber steps that will
go down off the top of the wall. If the Board has any questions,
I'm still here.
TRUSTEE KING: The field notes were okay as submitted, but what
about a non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead, Rob?
MR. HERRMANN: Do you want to go with ten feet, consistent with
the others. I thought I had put a ten-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE KING: No, you have 15-foot disturbance, but no indicated
buffer.
You thought I wasn't paying attention, didn't you.
MR. HERRMANN: (Perusing). You are correct. I try to dot every
"i," but occasionally
TRUSTEE KING: Ten foot is all right with me. The rest of the
Board?
(Affirmative response).
Does anybody else have any other comments?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve the application and there will be
a ten-foot, non-turf buffer, landward of the new bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five, McCarthy Management, LLC, on behalf
of 850 PRESIDENT LLC, requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
30'x59' single-family dwelling with drywells; proposed sanitary
system landward of dwelling; and driveway. Located: 7165 New
Suffolk Road, New Suffolk.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be
consistent, provided that the Board consider the following: A
permit condition that a non-disturbance buffer be established
along the four-foot topographical line. And then in the next
recommendation, the Board establish a 25 foot non-disturbance
buffer landward of the edge of wetland where practical, because
this is adjacent to Schoolhouse Creek. And further recommended
the driveway be designed to pervious.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application with the condition the dwelling is compliant with
FEMA and the sanitary system complies with Health Department.
We do have one letter that was just handed up here, dated
the 11th of December, from Michele Chaussabel. I'll stipulate
that this will be entered into the record. And since she is
Board of Trustees 43 December 11, 2013
standing before us here, I'll allow her to make some comments.
Before you do that, the Board did go and look at this. We
do have a notation from the Building Department. This proposed
structure will require a building permit prior to being allowed
to be done. So with that, is there anybody here to speak on
behalf of or against this application?
MS. CHAUSSABEL. Yes. Michele Chaussabel. My property is adjacent
to the property where the building is proposed. First, may I ask
you what exactly is a buffer?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: A buffer is there are two buffers. There is a
non-disturbance buffer and a non-turf buffer. What is being
discussed here is a non-disturbance buffer. That is an area
where the applicant will not be able to make any changes to what
is there presently. It has to remain undisturbed. If it's a
non-turf buffer, it means it could be disturbed but there is not
allowed to be turf maintained in that area.
MS. CHAUSSABEL: So the buffer would be behind their house,
between their house and the wetlands.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That is for consideration here tonight, yes.
MS. CHAUSSABEL: Okay. I have three issues. The first is very
small. My dwelling is listed as using public water when in fact
I have a well. And my other two issues also concern water.
Underneath my house I have been told, and I have seen it, is a
stream that runs from the school house, on the other side of my
house, down to the creek. In times of heavy rain it becomes
almost a river, and my basement has to be pumped out constantly.
Now this would also apply to the proposed building because
that's where the direction of the stream is. So they would have
this water situation also.
Now, my concern for my property is that if they build a
foundation and a cellar, the water will then backup and make my
situation even worse than it is. That's one part of the water.
That's from below. There is also the fact that the water comes
in from the creek during storms and hurricanes and things like
that and comes on to my property and also this neighboring
property, comes right up. It comes well up past the designated
wetland area. In fact, a couple of times it has come almost to
my foundation. And that was up until Sandy. Come Sandy, my house
was completely surrounded by water and the basement was
completely filled with water. I have installed a generator which
I hope will help this out in the future. But the fact is this is
an area where there is water very often. And I would like that
to be taken into consideration when this property is built. I'm
afraid that if there is any fill, like even the fill taken from
what they dredge off to make the foundation, that that will make
that property slightly higher and I'll get even more water on my
property, which is already very watery. Those are my concerns.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, very much.
Board of Trustees 44 December 11, 2013
MS. CHAUSSABEL: I want to say this property, 1 have been there
for 35 years, and Mr. Fudjinski has bought the property after I
moved there, after a couple of years, and at that point said he
had no intention to build a house on the property. He only
wanted it to be used for a dock for a boat. Thank you, very
much.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else here who would
like to speak for or against this application?
(No response).
Is there anybody here from McCarthy Management?
(No response).
I can tell you my own perception of this going out there. I'm
very concerned about what is proposed here in that this is an
undeveloped piece of property. It is very close to the wetlands.
And what is proposed here for us tonight is a 30'x59' footprint.
So 30x60, just estimated, 30x60 is 1,800 square feet, times two
if it's a two-story structure. I think you can see what is
proposed here is potentially a very large building, and for me,
I'm very uncomfortable to approve here tonight this large a
footprint on this small a piece of undeveloped property. I
realize when I use the term "small," it's a very large piece of
property but only a small segment of it that is capable of being
developed. Much of it is wetlands or immediately adjacent to
wetlands where we would require some type of non-disturbance
buffer. So for myself, I would propose to table this
application and ask the applicant to come back to us with a
scaled-down proposal. That's just me. I open it up to other
questions or concerns from the Board.
TRUSTEE KING: I agree. I'm uncomfortable with this. This is just
the initial stage of this property and I think it's premature to
issue a permit for anything like that right now.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Also in tabling it, I would like to request
we request the applicant in the meanwhile to give us a corrected
survey indicating the water, proper water supply of neighbors
because they'll need that for going to the county Health
Department. That will set the stages for that. And I, too, am
concerned about the size of the building envelope and if there
are groundwater concerns that maybe should be a profiling or
engineer report concerning the soil there. I don't know if we
even want to go so far in the future to consider a report from
Soil Conservation. Because if there is an underground stream and
the conditions in the neighborhood are well known, the people
who live there, we certainly would not want to have we would
certainly want any house there to take into consideration soil
conditions before we would start impacting neighboring
properties from subterranean water flow.
TRUSTEE KING: Like if they try to dig a foundation, they'll
strike water.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Exactly.
Board of Trustees 45 December 11, 2013
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't know if going to be any more different
than the house next door.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Probably not.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: But I think Jim had mentioned the idea of maybe
not necessarily specifying a particular square footage, in this
particular case because this house may not actually be end up
what is being built, but giving him a building envelope to work with.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it's premature right now to even move on
this at all.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Question, Michele. Where on your property is
your well?
MS. CHAUSSABEL: I think it's directly behind my house.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, so you are not exactly sure where it is?
MS. CHAUSSABEL: No. That's where the pipe comes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, when you say in back of your house,
between your house and this proposed footprint of the new house,
someplace in there?
MS. CHAUSSABEL: Someplace in there is the well. My basement is
tiny. It's basically a cistern sort of thing. It's a very old
house. But you could see from my house when you go in the cellar
where the pumps are, you could see the level of the water. It's
very close to the basement floor at all times. When it rains,
it's above it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, if there are no other comments, I'll make
a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number six, Samuels &
Steelman Architects on behalf of EILEEN & VINCENT J. FLAHERTY
requests a Wetland Permit to construct an addition to an
existing residence with renovations and reconstruction of
portions of the existing residence with an addition of a
subsurface drainage system for rain water runoff for the
residence and the existing driveway. Located: 470 Inlet Way, Southold.
This is a resubmission. After last month's hearing the
application for a demolition was withdrawn at that time. The
application we have submitted here today has been deemed
inconsistent by the LWRP coordinator. The concerns being protect
and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands. The specific
reference is made by the LWRP coordinator that the ZBA issued a
variance for the action in 2012, number 6583 on the plans that
do not match those submitted to the Trustees office which were
dated November 14th; specifically the drywells are were located
outside of the FEMA AE elevation six flood zone on the ZBA. Now
two drywells are located within the zone and all the drywells
are 8'x2' instead of 8'x4'. The shallow drywells are not a
negative change but should be noted. In addition, two leaching
Board of Trustees 46 December 11, 2013
pools are shown on the latest submission. This is new
information. The plans do not also include past wetland permit
conditions as specified in a 6469, which included a 15-foot wide
buffer located on the eastern part of the property. The buffer
should be shown on the plans submitted. The permit also requires
maintenance of existing native plantings, however vegetation
onsite may have been lost due to the effects of storm referred
to as Sandy. The location where this condition applies cannot
be determined.
The town's Conservation Advisory Council voted to support
the application with the condition that the roof drains from all
structures be directed into drywells, and that the new structure
should be FEMA compliant.
There is also copies of Zoning Board of Appeals approvals
in the file as well. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on
behalf of this application?
MR. SAMUELS: My name is Tom Samuels, I'm the architect. Also my
client Eileen Flaherty is here, and some others.
I would just like to just review a history of the project.
The house has been there for many years, probably from the
mid-fifties. We have submitted all of the COs of course to the
Zoning Board of Appeals, which acted on this. About
two-and-a-half years ago we came into this Board and got a
permit for essentially the same project that we are here before
you tonight on. After that, this was before the Trustees had
decided that projects had to go to the ZBA first. So afterward
we went to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and in two actions with
them got permits, sorry, relief variances, to do essentially
what we are proposing again tonight to do, which is to renovate
the house, partial demolition, renovation, by the town's
definition of demolition. We had to go back to the ZBA to ensure
that COs in the attached accessory structure are valid. So we
eventually did get the variances in place that we needed. We
then went to the DEC and got permits for essentially the same
application that is before you tonight. We then went to the
Department of State in order to get relief from the required
two-foot freeboard is which is attached on top of the FEMA
requirement, required base flood elevation and received that
variance from the Department of State of New York. And then
finally we went to the Building Department. We had already met
with the Building Department, they were aware of the project
from early on. We went back to the Building Department and got a
building permit to do essentially what is before you tonight.
Unfortunately, in that period of time, two years until after we
got the building permit, we inadvertently allowed this permit
from the Trustees to lapse. Construction nevertheless had begun,
and at that time we found some inconsistencies with our
expectations and considered some other options, but are here
tonight to say we would rather go back to the original permit
Board of Trustees 47 December 11, 2013
that was granted by this Board two years ago, to do the project
for which we have a building permit and for which is in
construction as we speak, although the construction is halted,
of course, pending this action tonight.
As far as drywell locations are concerned, I think you guys
are aware of Jamie Richter's involvement with drainage in this
town, and his involvement having to do with exact location and
size of all leaching pools. We are flexible as far as leaching
pool locations are concerned but do have some other oversight in
that matter from the Building Department and Town engineer. But
we'll do whatever we can do accommodate your concerns about the
location of drywells on the site.
In the two years since you originally authorized this
permit, nothing has significantly changed on the site. I mean
Superstorm Sandy happened, but the house was not flood in that
event. Whatever landscape was damaged as noted by the
Conservation Advisory Council we are simply willing and able to
restore. But otherwise nothing has changed on the property or
in the code or in our intentions for this project. So we are
here merely today to ask for exactly what you granted us two
years ago, so we can finish the project which is under
construction and already begun. And hopefully you will
understand the hardship involved in having an open construction
site prominently displayed on the board and how my clients are
impacted by this, by this cessation of construction, as is the
general contractor, Seifert Construction, who is here tonight as well.
So, as I have said, time is somewhat of the essence. We are
hoping against hope to salvage the season. This is a very
important piece of property to my client. They spend a lot of
time here, and this couple of months that we have had to spend
in order to get this project going again has taken time away
from their occupancy of the house in the spring or summer.
So I'm here, as I say, to answer any questions, and we have
some additional people here, if required, to speak.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Question for you, Mr. Samuels, real quick.
You used the term "leaching pool" and the "town engineer." Were you
referring to the drywell drainage?
MR. SAMUELS: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because there are two leaching pools on the
recent submission which I think currently referring to the
terminology when it refers to the sanitary pools. I just wanted
that clarification.
MR. SAMUELS: Those are existing, where the others are proposed.
And the location of the proposed roof runoff and surface water
runoff systems are flexible, but we are constrained somewhat by
(a), the location of the public water system which is already
installed in the driveway and has become a little clearer to us
exactly where that is, and of course by the oversight of Jamie
Richter who needs to authorize these and did authorize these as
Board of Trustees 48 December 11, 2013
part of the building permit process.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess some of us, myself in particular,
are very concerned about the surface water quality in the town
and albeit I know there is a history of permits granted prior by
this Board, and actions and the withdrawn application last month
when we were in the process to hear the condition of a permit on
Suffolk County Health Department approval.
One of my major concerns is that Cedar Beach Creek was one
of the first critical environmental areas that this Board in its
individual capacity designated by the Trustees as one of the
first in the county or in the state. And that the Cornell
Cooperative Extension Marine Program Public Facility at Cedar
Beach produces between 20 million and 50 million shellfish every
year, and that house renovations and reconstructions adjacent to
our waterways can have negative impacts. Particularly we have a
new requirement, of course, that you amply discussed with
subsurface drainage, where we are now probably protecting the
creek from surface runoff of rainfall, but now we are pushing it
all into the groundwater on a property that is very small for
which has some sort of a sanitary system for which we have no
engineering specifications on. There is no prior history from
the Suffolk County Department of Health Services that we could
ascertain through the town building records and so that we are
being asked to approve an application where we don't really know
what is in the ground. We are actually pushing more stuff in the
groundwater, and we have a public facility here which produces
shellfish for Southold, Southampton, East Hampton, all the east
end towns. And so I think with that in mind, I have to disclose
I had a discussion with you, as a design professional, and I was
trying to advance the notion that I understand and I believe
it's accurate to say that depending on the nature of the
application you may be totally extra-jurisdictional from the
county Health Department but nonetheless I'm very concerned as
someone who has spent maybe about 300 hours sampling surface
waters, particularly in the Cutchogue Harbor area and down in
New Suffolk where we are trying to get shellfish lands open.
And I have a bit of experience in bacteriology, so say what you
will, I have a real concern, without more information, concerning
the water quality here and what is going on in the ground. And
it is to the credit of Trustee Domino who said, gee, where is
the sanitary here. I'm really concerned, with all the good things
we think we are doing by pushing the roof draining into the
ground, that may be the place we don't want to have the roof
drainage for this particular site, and maybe this site is one
that we should take possibly a better look at the subsurface
disposal system for sanitary waste, and that maybe a design
professional should consider the totality of what we are trying
to do in the ground here, particularly since this is peninsula,
it's a peninsula, and it points right in the entrance to this
Board of Trustees 49 December 11, 2013
very important waterway where we have a very huge commitment,
millions and millions of dollars of a shellfish hatchery
facility. I see the voluminous paperwork here and I'm very
concerned what the applicant must feel hearing this at this
point, but I think it's a very important thing for this town to
not only protect this critical environmental area but also that
we take a measured approach in this particular application. I
generally feel most of these issues with the waste waters and
sanitary density base but I think this is a situation here where
it's different because of the physical siting.
I'm concerned, I don't have the answers, I don't feel
comfortable voting on an application without more expert
opinion. I have had 35 years in public health with the county, I
feel even myself at a loss to come to a decisions to vote on
this application because I don't have the information base that
I would feel satisfactory moving the application forward with; I
believe would undermine some of my own work that I'm doing with
the town and I know the work of the Trustees historically. So I
just wanted to share that with you. I don't know how the other
Trustees feel.
MR. SAMUELS: As you say, if I'm permitted to speak, we did speak
yesterday, and I thank you very much for that conversation. And
you gave me some interesting insight into some of the other
systems that may be available. And I took the opportunity to do
a little bit of research on it. It has not been very long, of
course, since that conversation, and I spoke with Ed Lyons at
the health department about the infiltrator systems and the
galley systems that you suggested, and the insight he was able
to give me was (a), they are not systems that are generally,
that are part of their regulations, and that it would absolutely
involve the Board of Review in order to get permits to do those
kinds of systems, if they are appropriate for this area. You
also led me to believe there were some maintenance issues for
both of those systems which involve the homeowner in terms of
making sure they are operating properly and that that was
something that the Health Department themselves was quite
concerned about. He also described the situation where they
would probably take more site area would have to be devoted
to either an infiltrator or galley systems than a conventional
system would, and of course our site is extremely restricted in
area and my concern would be that we would end up digging up the
entire site in order to install such a thing, at a huge cost, I
must imagine, and also in some kind of contradiction to permits
we already have from the DEC.
So we are interested in this approach but we feel that this
particular application is not the place to have this imposed as
any kind of condition. We met with the Building Department early
on and were informed, as we knew, from all the experience of the
town, all our experience in the town, 25 years' experience that I
Board of Trustees 50 December 11, 2013
have here, as a practicing professional that when a renovations
project does not involve increasing the number of bedrooms that
the Health Department in Southold Town is not required to be
involved. And that has never been any different in any of my
experience working in Southold Town.
We are very concerned about the time delays that might be
part of this. As you can see, we are in construction, and to be
stopped at this point, not because of anything you guys have
done but because we inadvertently let a permit lapse, and now to
have to go back and basically change our entire, approach to the
project and our approach to how the site is going to be handled,
we feel is not consistent with the kind of oversight that you
generally give projects of this sort. We basically are back for
the same thing we were here for the first time, and nothing has
changed. Cornell has been there a long time. This did not come
up the first time around. We were given the permit, and on the
basis of that permit all other permits, because the first permit
we got was from the Trustees, we use that at the ZBA which
required us obviously, at the DEC and also the Building
Department. So I will just reiterate, yes, it's an interesting
approach and I understand and my client certainly understands
your concern, I'm not denigrating it in any way, but we are here
tonight for a very simple matter to have reauthorized a permit
which was previously granted to us.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Another question I have. Did you have an
opportunity to, in your discussion with Mr. Ed Lyons of the
Suffolk County Health Department, to discuss any jurisdictional
claim they would have with respect to board of review. In other
words, as a person who would give you professional advice, he
gave you some, did you discuss the jurisdictional aspects?
MR. SAMUELS: He suggested that it looked like Board of Review
all the way. Especially for the extra systems, but the site in
general.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right. But I think we have to be honest with
ourselves, or at least I have to be honest with myself, and
correct me if my understanding is wrong, the fact is if the
county Health Department does not exert its jurisdiction over
existing buildings, which was the demolition, this Board was
properly within its right to send this to the Board of Review.
So if we are going to try to work through this avenue of
providing proper protection for the environment, then we have to
find an avenue where the extra-jurisdictional quality
improvement to the sanitary system by a design professional is a
possibility for this application, and not just have a very large
house show up that could be further damaging to the subsurface
water quality. And I'm concerned about pushing all the roof
runoff here, it might be pretty clean stuff and maybe it should
be allowed to go into the ground. Here is a possibility. We have
a very capable environmental engineer, Michael Collins, now, who
Board of Trustees 51 December 11, 2013
works at the town level. His department obviously is looking at
the subsurface drainage. Would there be a possibly that you
could work with him into developing an upgrade to the sanitary
system. We don't know what is there. Maybe it's in ground
water, maybe not; to come up with something that would provide
some protection and maybe allay some of our concerns. With what
the applicant has been through, I personally don't want to delay
the application. I made steps, I had made some suggestions we
could move it expeditiously if he has a design professional that
could come up with something that meets some of those
requirements.
MR. SAMUELS: Would that not require us to go back to the DEC
though, and I mean other agencies; it's just messing with the
structure of the permits we have in place. We literally had
everything in place here. And yes, due to, I mean and, Jay, I
understand where you are coming from. But my objective is simply
to reinstate a permit which we already had. And nothing has
changed here on this site. It's the same situation that it
originally was and it somehow seems prejudicial to now have to
go talk to the town engineer, which will create issues with the
county presumably, and with the state, and presumably also with
the Building Department. We are just going around in a lot of
circles.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I understand. Rather than getting
information on how systems function, if the county is afraid of
having a model sewage ordinance for rebuilds, it simply will not
happen. It's not politically palatable. I don't think any county
agency is going for it. If this Board of Trustees doesn't stand
up to even a modicum, at least my point of view, individually,
if we don't stand for protecting water quality in these
instances and we perform the same walkaway that the county is in
this particular instance, we are probably just letting
everything go into a black hole and someone will show up again
with backhoe, and put another 4'x8' ring right into the ground
water and we are none the better. And the same thing goes, I
don't think there is maybe the political will at the Town Board
level to have a model sewage code, I don't think necessarily the
Town Board would want to have additional inspections there. If
we don't pick a few of these that are potentially difficult and
ask the questions and have our questions answered, I consider
I'm not doing my job, I might as well go home.
MR. SAMUELS: And certainly, yes, you should do that at some
point. I would just ask you not to do it on this project. This
project was granted a permit already, and if there were a
project that came in for the first time and/or that somehow you
felt this was the one, but here, we are in the middle of a
stream and to change horses is going to be just very, very
awkward. We'll be sent back to the state, I know it, at that
point, and it's a variance from the DEC, I know it would have to
Board of Trustees 52 December 11, 2013
be.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think that's true. The Cutchogue Harbor
Marina is interesting, and I don't want to go into too many
details, because the surface water quality issues and concerns
there, I saw the Cutchogue Harbor Marina, in a proposed
expansion, put in, had gotten approval from both DEC and county
on a very extensive review for the infiltrators. And there is
no question that they are and the Trustees as well so
there would be the model there. I guess what I'm leaning to is
are you on behalf of the applicant or you as the applicant for
the property owner, are you willing to revisit the sanitary and
come up with a commitment that if we were to stipulate an
approval so you could go forward, that you would take those
steps necessary to work with the town engineer on the subsurface
drainage without impinging on an upgraded sanitary and you would
go through the process with the Suffolk County Department of
Health, if they were going to impose their jurisdiction, but
certainly with the DEC and you as a design professional or
others. I'm just, a willingness, in other words to move it ahead
with but with a stipulation that there has to be some
consideration for inground sanitary and water quality.
MR. SAMUELS: The difference is with Cutchogue Harbor Marina is
that it's a marina. It's a commercial facility, which probably
has a hundred boats in it and a hundred people coming every day
to their sanitary system and taking showers and doing whatever
they do there. I mean obviously that project would warrant your
kind of concern and oversight. In this instance, it's a
single-family house that has been there forever. We have met
every requirement. I mean you talk about a black hole, for you
guys going down a black hole, I feel you are sending us down a
black hole of oversight from the state, county and town where
none was required two years ago. And please tell me what has
changed in that time. Because I don't believe anything has
changed except for our inadvertent lapse of a permit, which I
take responsibility for. But beyond that, nothing has changed
here. And I don't believe this is the project to take a stand
on, you know, saving the water quality in the town. If you want
to save the water quality in the town, well take the road runoff
that is coming from every dead end road in this town and do
something with that, because that's going straight into the bay,
and every dog that goes out there, it's not even going
underground. It's literally going into the bay. So this is not
the project. I don't believe this is the project to make a
stand. This is a project that was granted by this Board; most of
you, I think were on the Board at the time. Nothing has changed,
except the fact that we are now in construction and there is no
going back. They can't live in this house. And to have to go
down that road is an open-ended time delay that we can't just
afford. We simply can't afford it, and I think it's prejudicial
Board of Trustees 53 December 11, 2013
to impose upon us at this time.
I invite anybody else from my client or whomever else among us
would like to continue.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Let me take I would like to say something
before we go any further. I understand and am sympathetic to the
concerns that Jay is bringing up, as I've said in one of the
other applications today, sanitary conditions and the issues
with the groundwater and surface waters has been a concern of my
mine all along. It's been a slow process to get people to start
to recognize that. Things are happening, people are beginning to
realize, particularly out in Orient, we've had lots of
discussions and doing some studies and things to try to make
that better. I think what you bring up about the Health
Department's lack of support for some of the new types of
systems, maybe lack of support is the wrong way of putting it,
but they are not willing to stamp those yet or get on board with
that, is indicative of some of the questions that are still out
there in how to address it. We know we have a problem, we are
just not sure how exactly to go about it.
I'm of the opinion that, yes, I happen to side with you, I
think it is something we need to address in one way, shape or
form. I'm not so sure this is the place to take that stand,
again, because we did approve a permit on this in the past. That
stipulation was not there. As far as I'm concerned, at least in
the way that our code is currently written, I don't see us
having to make this a condition in order to issue the permit.
I'm not so sure if it's fair. That being said, I just want to
make a note that I do understand and support the need to address
these issues. I'm with you, I'm just not so sure this is the
right thing to do. It seems to be unfair.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Here is what I would like to question my
fellow members of the Board. How can you vote an application
when you don't know what actually is happening in the
groundwater? In other words you basically, we don't really know
what is going on in the site with respect to groundwater. This
specific provision in our Wetland Code which would allow for an
independent review of such things specifically with regard to
the hydrological and drainage analysis, and more specifically
the discharge of any pollutants as a contributing to surface or
groundwater of the resource area. The question I have is, a line
drawing that just says, you know, leaching pools, that doesn't
really tell me what is going on with the hydrology of the
groundwater, and it is a specific provision to get more
information under the wetland ordinance. My suggestion was the
design professionals work to develop a system that is as best as
they can with available control technology. I'm hearing an
argument here for simply doing nothing and not even using the
tools at hand that we have in the code for proper investigation.
That's, I guess that's where I'm going on this one, particularly
Board of Trustees 54 December 11, 2013
because of the Cornell Cooperative Extension shellfish facility
there.
I'm going to stand on these comments. I appreciate, I
understand what people were saying, but I think this is one that
we have to be careful with.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to add to the point that we don't
have enough information. Something that is confusing to me about
this, and that is that I count 15 drywells to handle the roof.
15 because there are eight foot by only two foot deep. Someone
knows something about the depth of the groundwater there.
Because it obviously it would be beneficial to have only eight
if there were four-foot deep. So why are they so shallow? The
inference is there is not great depth to groundwater. I see a
test hole here that indicates water in the sand is only 20 feet
from the designated wetlands. I have a real problem
understanding that. And to clarify my point, there is no
indication here on how deep these two leaching pools are. They
could be quite shallow or quite deep and in that water. So I
think Trustee Bredemeyer is just asking for a little more
information, and so am I.
MS. SAMUELS: A lot of those drywells are not for roof runoff,
they are for surface runoff. Along the driveway, for example,
they are not connected to the roof downspout. They are just
connected to that basin. So basically in this town any water
that falls onto a piece of property has to be taken to
underground. And so most of those drywells have nothing to do
with the roof. They have to do with the surface area and
permeable driveway; a permeable driveway, but nevertheless we
need drywells for it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That point is correct. The calculation is done
for one or two-inch rainfall is how you base the number of pools
that you need. And the number of pools here is great because
there is very little depth to water.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Dave Chicanowicz, Creative Environmental
Design. I have been maintaining and doing most of the work for
the Flaherty's for the past eight to nine years. So I know the
property quite well. I'm there with crews or myself physically
each week if not every two weeks. So I have observed all the
conditions of that property as it has been for the last eight or
nine years, with no problems at all. I mean there has been zero
problems at that place. There has never been overflowing septic,
there has never been a drainage problem from roof runoff. That
property has been pristine from the day I have been on the
property. So giving you a little bit of firsthand history, I
foresee absolutely no problem in letting them do it. The house
is not getting to be twice the size. I think there is a small
square footage increase, but it's being renovated to be upgraded
to current standards, I mean, to make it a little more modern
than it was, because it needed a lot of work. And that's all
Board of Trustees 55 December 11, 2013
they are looking to do is to renovate and keep everything as is.
But there has not been any problems. So, thank you.
MS. HOEG: Good evening. Karen Hoeg from Twomey, Latham, Shea,
on behalf of the applicant. While we appreciate the comments
regarding the sanitary and the concerns, I think we need to keep
in mind that this was a permit that expired due to an oversight,
and to impose any conditions of having us now go to the Health
Department, which would ultimately require us to go to Board of
Review, would be extremely prejudicial to the homeowner and it
would be extremely costly as well as unfair for all these local
contractors that have now been at a standstill on this job.
I don't think the Health Department, in my dealings with
them on these alternate systems in situations like this are
totally sold on alternative designs, especially when there is
any kind of maintenance required by the homeowner. And I think
the fact that this is a renovation and not a demo, deems it the
type of application where the concerns over the sanitary should
not come into play.
I also think that your own building inspector, the state,
the DEC, as well as the ZBA, have all approved this without any
conditions of requiring Health Department approval, and I think
that needs to be taken into account. I know there will be many
more projects that come up in Southold where the time is to take
a stance on the sanitary issue, but I don't believe this project
is one of them. And I don't believe that the fact that this
permit had expired back in August of, a couple of months ago,
would require all these new conditions placed on it in terms of
any Health Department.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. I have a couple of questions for the
applicant. Tom, on the original permit that was approved, we
heard earlier apparently it was a 15-foot non-turf buffer on the
eastern side of the property. Is that something you would be
willing to
MR. SAMUELS: Of course.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. The second question, it sounds like it was
also noted, I believe on the LWRP review, that the drainage
system that is proposed now is different than what the drainage
system was that was originally approved.
MR. SAMUELS: In very minor terms. It has to do with the
separation between the existing sanitary system and the leaching
pools. And so we will work with, I mean those leaching pools,
all the surface drainage is not installed, and minor
modifications of that to your satisfaction are not an issue, as
far as we are concerned, as long as we can satisfy the other
agencies as well, meaning Jamie Richter, particularly. Because
he had a look at this after you did. Now you guys are sending
things to him first, I believe, or at least you are talking
about doing that. But that has not been the case. It was always
Board of Trustees 56 December 11, 2013
you go to surface drainage situation because the chapter came
later. So, it happened during the building permit application
phase. So minor modifications were made at that time. But
believe me, they were not done in a way or intended, we didn't
increase the number of pools. We just shifted slightly in order
to satisfy Jamie. But we'll talk to Jamie Richter if we need to
in order to satisfy where you and me both can agree.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, you've answered the question that I had. I
just want to get those housekeeping issues on the record.
For myself, I also very much appreciate all the issues that
Trustee Bredemeyer has brought up pertaining to the importance
of the surrounding waterways, and the proximity to Cornell I
think is significant. I wish that all this had been brought up
in the original permit application, and probably if it had, it
would have been addressed then. I think it is incumbent upon
this Board to take into consideration these factors, and this
Board does have the opportunity, when it's made available to it,
to change past practices and maybe move forward in a more
positive, in my opinion, more positive direction
environmentally, to deal with these issues. But in this case,
what sways my decision here tonight is the fact this was
previously approved by this Board, you are coming back and you
are asking for the same thing. We have suggested, obviously your
client has heard all the comments that have been made both last
time and tonight here, and so, you know, I would urge your
client to consider everything that has been brought up tonight.
But for myself, I don't see where this particular application at
this point in time, or this particular project at this point in
time, should be the one where we stop it in order for all these
changes to take place. If this was two years ago, if we could
turn back the hands of time, I would say absolutely, back then
this should have been addressed. But for myself, and this is
just myself, I don't think this is time right now to do that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would just like to add something. The
fact is that the initial permits that were granted for the
activity did include all the current members of this Board, and
so that boards do change and the notion of what our public
responsibilities are do change. What I just, I guess I would
feel more comfortable with, if we could get assurances from the
applicant that they would move forward with some kind of
upgrade, to do the same thing for their sanitary, which I
presume might be in ground water and I'll say I think it is,
because you have now shown me otherwise do the same thing to
the sanitary that has been done to the roof drainage. The
two-foot deep pools clearly indicate to me the town engineer's
requirement, those pools have to be above ground water so there
is filtration and so they don't become infested with insects and
rodents.
Now, those standards for the drywells are clearly
Board of Trustees 57 December 11, 2013
indicative of the ground conditions as stated by Trustee Domino.
And so site unseen, we don't know what kind of junk is in the
ground in that sanitary system, in the groundwater, within about
40 feet of surface waters, on a system that is historically old
and outdated. Without the assurances from you and your
applicant, when the surface water quality tanks in Cedar Beach,
I want it known on the record that when we can't take shellfish
out of the facility that is funded by state and federal and
county and town money, and we can't put it throughout this
estuary because it's closed to shellfishing, I want it known that
that is what I said tonight.
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to move this along. Are there any
other comments?
MR. SAMUELS: I just want to say, we have taken it under
advisement and we take it seriously and we have talked about
making the situation better there and we'll definitely continue
to study this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm holding the current hearing matter. Is
there anyone else who wishes to add some comments or concerns?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter. I sense that the Board is not going to support my move
to get additional engineering information, so I'll hand the file
off to someone who wants to move this.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there a motion first to close the public
hearing?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I move to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If anybody wants it, you can have the file.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Does anybody want to make a motion on this?
TRUSTEE KING: We have heard a lot of testimony here on this. I
myself would be very uncomfortable to hold this project up,
because it's been previously approved. Even though it's a
different Board, most of us were on that Board at that time. So
I would make a motion to approve this application, and I agree,
we have to do something with our water quality issues, but this
project, to stop at midstream, I just can't do that. So I would
make a motion to approve this application. Those 15-foot
non-turf buffers were put in before on other work that was done
and they are still an established buffer that needs to be there.
It doesn't have to be part of this permit. That's my motion.
We can put it in the C&R's because we didn't do that
before.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So make it part of this permit.
TRUSTEE KING: All right, I'll make it part of this permit for a
15-foot buffer from the original permit that would now be put in
the covenants. We'll have a roll call vote.
Board of Trustees 58 December 11, 2013
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would like to have a discussion on the
second. I'm very disappointed that this Board is not willing to
seek information. That's a disappointing point in my career as
Trustee. I have been here for 14 years. I just want to state
that for the record.
TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments?
(No response).
We have a second on the motion. We'll have a roll call vote.
Trustee Domino?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll vote no. Again, the presence of 14 or so
drywells tells me there is things going on here that we need to
know.
TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bredemeyer?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No.
TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bergen?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm going to vote yes. Trustee Ghosio?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Motion carries.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number seven, Jeff Patanjo on behalf of JC
MILLER MANAGEMENT requests a Wetland Permit to remove and
replace 77 linear feet of existing deteriorated timber bulkhead
with new vinyl sheathing bulkhead with a two-foot wide timber
top cap; and provide a ten-foot wide non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of the bulkhead. Located: 5675 Mill Road,
Mattituck.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent, the
reason being it was, the structure was, the bulkhead that is,
was not constructed with a Board of Trustees permit.
TRUSTEE KING: That's inaccurate. That determination is
inaccurate, I have to say.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm just reading from the comments.
TRUSTEE KING: I know.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Moving on, the Conservation Advisory Council
voted to support this application. The Trustees visited the site
on the 7th at which time it was a note that during heavy rains
that this particular site is subject to storm water runoff
issues. Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. This is
to remove and replace the existing bulkhead. And we are
providing a ten-foot non-turf buffer along the base of the
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Duly noted.
MR. PATANJO: Other than that it's remove and replace in the
existing location.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The Trustees recommended a silt boom be in place
during construction.
Board of Trustees 59 December 11, 2013
MR. PATANJO: That's part of the DEC permit, which I have
already, actually. I got that this week. I have a New York State
DEC permit in hand. Same exact plans I submitted to you.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you know any of the history of this piece of
property?
MR. PATANJO: The only history I know is Mr. Miller's company had
purchased it from the town and part of his stipulation in
purchasing the property is he had to replace the bulkhead, which
he is doing.
TRUSTEE KING: Mr. Miller is here, correct?
Do you know any of the history in this piece of property?
It's kind of interesting.
MR. MILLER: I believe it's the base of the old bridge?
TRUSTEE KING: No, in 1935 or 1936
MR. MILLER: I was just born then. And I'm older than you.
TRUSTEE KING: It's before my time. George Nagels owned the old
mill, and he requested from the Trustees to deed him that
property. That was underwater land where that bulkhead is. So
the Trustees deeded that to George Nagels on the condition he
build a bulkhead there. So the bulkhead was built and then Mr.
Nagels transferred it to the town. And he stipulated that that
could only be used for recreational boats, and the town had to
maintain that bulkhead. And pretty recently, in the last few
years, it was left vacant basically, and then the Coast Guard
auxiliary used that for quite a few years as a place for their
boats, and after they left it was used by Cornell Cooperative
Extension as a grow-out place for clams and rafts, and then the
town decided it was surplus property and put it up for bid. And
that's how you bought it.
MR. PATANJO: That was just to make you replace the bulkhead
again.
TRUSTEE KING: So now the bulkhead is being replaced and the only
thing, we did a watershed analysis in Mattituck back in the
'90's, and that site was one of the sites they felt something
should be done with the road runoff. Because if you go up to the
west where Nagels Drive circles around down, the owner of the
property just north of that bulkhead where the Captain Bob ties
up, Captain Bob complained to the town, water from Nagels Drive
was coming down their driveway onto the property and eroding it.
So the Highway Department put an asphalt small berm alongside of
the road, so that directed all the water down the road toward
the old mill. And there are drywells on the west side of the
road and there is also a pipe through the old mill bulkhead just
south of you. So what happens, in the heavy rain, the drywells
get full, the pipe can't handle it, and water sheets across the
road and goes across your property and into the creek. So
sometimes you have a real problem there with road runoff. It
just sheets across. So there is the story of that piece of
property.
Board of Trustees 60 December 11, 2013
MR. MILLER: Are you suggesting I engage in attorney and sue the
town to control their water? It's their water.
MR. PATANJO: I think the non-turf buffer will alleviate some of
that problem.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't know what will happen. It's horrendous
sometimes. We've looked at different ways to try to solve the
problem. There is really no place to do anything for drainage.
MR. MILLER: You have a severe hill there. I don't know that it's
curable. Dig up the road and fill the road with drainage.
TRUSTEE KING: It's something to think about. But that's the
story of that property. It's really interesting. I did a lot of
history on that and looked way back what had happened there. So
when the LWRP coordinator says there was no permit, well, the
Trustees requested a bulkhead be built there, back then in the
'30's. That's it.
MR. MILLER: So we are just trying to follow through what the
requirements were for the purchase of the property by the town,
by rebuilding the bulkhead. So we are being an honorable
landowner.
TRUSTEE KING: So it's an inplace replacement. It never goes dry,
so that's why we felt you needed a silt boom there, because it's
always in the water.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would note I was not on the Trustees Board at
that time when that was done.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: None of us were on the Board at that time. Not
even Jim.
I find it interesting that the town required as a condition
of the sale that the bulkhead be replaced, and the town didn't
make a requirement regarding the water runoff issue.
MR. PATANJO: That means they'd have to do it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, when the Trustees first heard this
property was going up for sale, we all had the same reaction.
When I say up for sale, that the town was putting it up for
sale, we had the same reaction, it was that whoever buys this
will buy into a water runoff issue. And so, you know, I'm very
concerned about the water runoff issue there also. And I don't
know whether just a ten-foot non-turf buffer will address this
water runoff issue.
MR. PATANJO: I have done a bunch of other jobs with the same
situation in the past, other villages west of here. We have
done and DEC actually funded it for us, creating a non-turf
buffer with decking above it to allow the storm water runoff
from a parking lot to run behind the bulkhead, filter out
through, then leach into the water. This has been something that
has been done before that the DEC funded, the DEC approved. So
as far as what is the whole purpose of capturing the storm
water runoff, is to remove sediments and remove pollutants from
it. Again, this goes back to what was just brought up at the
last hearing. All of the runoff is going to be filtered
Board of Trustees 61 December 11, 2013
through, and I don't know what specifically I know we are
doing a two-foot deck, then the rest of the non-turf buffer I
apologize, I don't know the intended ultimate use of the
property but I would assume it would be some sort of sand or
gravel with some sort of filter fabric underneath it. I would
assume probably gravel surface in the ten-foot area. Mr. Miller
may be able to elaborate a little more on that. But that will
absorb some of the runoff, not allowing it to run over the
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jeff, you've just taken the words out of my
mouth. I was going to continue with a suggestion that this
non-turf buffer not just be what we normally see as a non-turf
buffer just no sod there. But that some type of system be put in
place there to help address this situation. I was thinking of a
French drain, and what you described is a modification of a
French drain. But if a French drain was put in this non-turf
buffer, I think that would greatly improve the chances this
water would all, as you say, be filtered. But you are giving a
suggestion of something a little bit different. I think that's
great and I'm all in favor of it. I would just want to condition
this that not just a non-turf buffer but a non-turf buffer that
is designed in some way to help address the road runoff issue.
That's all
MR. PATANJO: Well, if we do, and this is exactly what we did on
the last one, we did just some sort of a bank run material
behind the bulkhead with a ten-foot that is exposed during the
installation of the deadmen system, would be ten foot of a clean
bank run, and on top of that we'll do filter fabric with a pea
gravel. And that will, you know bank run absorbs water better
than anything else. A pea gravel will, if you get, I don't know
the velocity of the water coming down this hill. So will the
pea gravel get washed away? I don't know. Maybe if it's
something that Mr. Miller is acceptable to do, some sort of
permeable paver, but I think that's not going to absorb anything
better than gravel will.
TRUSTEE KING: What needs to be done, we need to get some
drywells in the road up above where the stuff is coming from.
It's the town's responsibility.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Absolutely.
TRUSTEE KING: We have not been addressing it the way we should.
When this property first was declared surplus, I wrote to the
Town Board and what I requested in there was, well, if you do
sell it, how about taking the money and put it into a road
runoff project. I don't think that's going to happen. It
probably went into the general fund.
MR. PATANJO: I've a lot of these projects, being a civil
engineer for 17 years
TRUSTEE KING: That's where the problem is. There should be
drywells up there.
Board of Trustees 62 December 11, 2013
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Could you describe for me again what you think
might help the runoff in that particular spot?
MR. PATANJO: I have done a lot of runoff design projects over
many years now. Normally what we do is try to capture it
upstream, put drywells along the way, capture it into drywells.
Along this area the town really needs to control it in drywells
at the base of the slope, and then from Mr. Miller's property, I
think the best thing to do is any of the additional that does
not get captured in the drywells, is to really do a non-turf
buffer in that area and just pea gravel with a bank run
underneath it. It will leach in there. The Village of Babylon, I
did many jobs there.
The Argyle Bar, right along the gazebo, we have, it was DEC
funded back in you know, okay, on the south side of Montauk
Highway, Argyle Park, there is a new deck system there, we did
the exact same thing there.
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to move this along. It's been a
drainage issue there for years and it won't go away in a while.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We are talking a 15-foot non-turf buffer, pea
gravel over bank run. How deep?
MR. PATANJO: You know what, you really don't need to go to the
high tide line, which over there is probably three-and-a-half
feet, I believe. Four feet, maybe.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this
application?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as submitted with the understanding that the non-turf buffer
will be approximately three-and-a-half feet deep, pea gravel
over bank run, to help with the runoff situation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. PATANJO: Are revised plans required?
TRUSTEE KING: You could, to show the depth of the non-turf
buffer.
MR. PATANJO: I'll add it to the ten-foot section.
TRUSTEE KING: Anything else?
(No response).
Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 63 December 11, 2013
Respectfully submitted by,
James If g dent
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED
d 7 /t 127
FEB 2 4 2014
Southold Town' Clerk