HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-11/13/2013
James F. King, President *1 SUl/ly0 Town Hall Annex
Bob Ghosio, Jr., Vice-President 1140 54375 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Dave Bergen Southold, New York 11971-0959
John Bredemeyer ,per Telephone (631) 765-1892
Michael J. Domino A. U11% N Fax (631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RECEIVED r UV - -
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 330 A M
~ ~L&
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold Town Clerk
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
5:30 PM
Present Were: Jim King, President
Robert Ghosio, Vice-President
Dave Bergen, Trustee
John Bredemeyer, Trustee
Michael Domino, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Clerk Typist
Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 5:30 PM
WORKSESSION: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 5:00 PM
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of September 18, 2013.
TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone, welcome to our November meeting.
Before we get going, we have some postponements I would like to let you know
about.
On page six, number five, 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, has been postponed.
Number seven, Fairweather & Brown Associates on behalf of VASILIOS
Board of Trustees 2 November 13, 2013
FRANGOS requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7388 & 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.
We won't be addressing those tonight.
On page seven, number three, four and five have been postponed.
Number three, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of WEE HOUSE
PARTNERS requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to repair the
existing 25' long wave break attached to existing dock. Located: 650 Bay Lane,
Orient, has been postponed.
Number four, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of JOHN F. & ANN MARIE
KELLY requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to repair the
existing 25' long wave break which is attached to dock on adjacent property.
Located: 600 Bay Lane, Orient, has been postponed.
And number five, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of ORIENT
WHARF COMPANY, C/O JOHN TUTHILL requests a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit to dredge roughly 2,150 cubic yards of material in the area
surrounding the Orient Yacht Club in order to maintain the navigability of the harbor;
dredged material to be placed in a drying container secured to the wharf which will
then be removed to an approved upland source. Located: 2110 Village Lane, Orient,
has been postponed.
On page ten, number 15, 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.
Number 16, 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.
Number 17, 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 altemiflora between stones.
Located: 10450 New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue, has been postponed.
And number 18 on page eleven, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of
CAROLYN R. AMEEN requests a Wetland Permit to construct an 8'x38' second-
story deck above an existing first 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.
Board of Trustees 3 November 13, 2013
So we won't be looking at those tonight. Sometime during tonight I may turn
the meeting over to Bob, the vice-president here. I have been under the weather for
the last week. My throat has been killing me. I'm not known to talk too much, but if it
gets so bad I can't talk, I'll let him take over. I'm reaping the benefits off all the
Camels and Lucky Strikes I smoked years ago.
I'd like to set the date for the next field inspection, December 4th at 8:00 in
the morning.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Our next meeting, December 11th, at 5:30, with the work session starting at 5:00.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve the Minutes of September 18, 2013.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
1. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for October 2013. A check for
$13,743.47 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
It. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that
the following applications more fully described in Section VI Public Hearings Section
of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, November 13, 2013, are classified as
Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to
further review under SEQRA:
These are listed as follows:
Wickham Bungalow East, LLC SCTM# 110-8-32.10
Parnel Wickham SCTM# 110-8-33.1
Christopher Showalter SCTM# 90-4-15
Mildred David SCTM# 137-1-3.1
Drouzas Real Estate Development Corp. SCTM# 52-2-20.1
Nicholas Noyse SCTM# 3-2-1
Wee House Partners SCTM# 24-2-10
John F. & Ann Marie Kelly SCTM# 24-2-11
William Giacone & Cindy Nance SCTM# 111-14-17
John & Elvira Aloia SCTM# 118-4-9
Lawrence Holfelder SCTM# 126-11-1
Board of Trustees 4 November 13, 2013
Steven & Beate Swanson SCTM# 31-12-6
Eileen & Vincent J. Flaherty SCTM# 92-1-8
Michael & Celia Withers SCTM# 117-5-24
Thomas & Linda Kelly SCTM# 107-4-13
Kevin Barr SCTM# 81-1-20
Kristopher Pilles & Nicole Oge SCTM# 111-1-16
Greg & Carol Karas 15-3-3
J. Milton Hutson SCTM# 78-1-10.20
Charlotte Raible & Wayne Weiss SCTM# 99-3-15.1
Donald McCallion SCTM# 116-5-13
Joan Shannon SCTM# 126-11-7.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Under resolutions and administrative permits, what
we try and do with these, to move things along, we'll group them
together if there has been no controversy with them. So what I
would like do, on page two, we'll take number one and number
three; on page three, number five, number six and number seven,
we'll group them together to approve. They are listed as
follows:
Number one, ESTHER MATELLI requests an Administrative
Permit to replace the decking and railings on the existing
+/-34'2"x11'9" deck; and to remove one tree located within the
existing deck. Located: 2125 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue.
Number three, THOMAS E. UHL requests an Administrative
Permit to install a 30"x24" generator and create a 4"x14' long
trench to install underground electric and water lines on the
landward side of the house; enlarge existing shed to 8'x12';
maintain existing 4' wide access path; maintain three (3)
existing 5'x8' wood vegetable planters; maintain and trim the
shrubbery throughout the established lawn area; and to remove
dead trees and vegetation around the vegetable planters.
Located: 1730 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue.
Number five, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of
MATTITUCK PARK DISTRICT requests an Administrative Permit to
repair three (3) landward drainage assemblies in the existing
asphalt parking lot by removing the surrounding asphalt,
excavating the soil surrounding the drywells, and repairing or
replacing the damaged drywells; crushed rock will then be
filled in around the drywells, and a maximum of 1,850 square
feet of new asphalt will be installed on top. Located: 11020 &
11280 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Mattituck.
Board of Trustees 5 November 13, 2013
Number six, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of
JOHNNY DONADIC requests an Administrative Permit to install a
+/-105 square foot trelliswork entryway onto the landward side
of the existing dwelling; and install an exterior spiral
staircase up to the deck above the sunroom. Located: 325 Willow
Point Road, Southold.
And number seven, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf
of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP. C/o FISHERS ISLAND YACHT
CLUB requests an Administrative Permit for a Sea Stretcher
gurney ramp by installing two 6"x6"x12' timber piles, fasten
hinge mount to existing dock, and install a 42"x8' ramp, lifting
cables and counterweights. Located: Central Avenue, Fishers Island.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, Quarty Construction on behalf of
DIANNE SHEEHAN requests an Administrative Permit to install a
snow fence along the beach dunes. Located: 1200 Leeton Drive,
Southold.
We did go out and we looked at this. This was an
application to put up a snow fence along the beach dunes. We
were, I think, speaking for the Board, we were uncomfortable
with this because we didn't really see what the snow fence was
going to accomplish as far as the protection of the beach dunes.
This is an area that was beat up pretty badly in Sandy and
previously in Irene. So at this point the Board did not feel
that this snow fence was something that would be beneficial for
this area.
So with that, since this is not a public hearing, I'll make
a motion to deny without prejudice number two, the application
of Dianne Sheehan.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, LUCIE HARRIS requests an
Administrative Permit to remove five (5) dead/dying oak trees
around the existing dwelling and power lines; re-vegetate areas
with various plantings and add garden fencing. Located: 305
Private Road #3, Southold.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent in that
the applicant did not work to protect and preserve the
resources of the town. It's unspecified what that is, but I
would imagine it would be the large oak trees that were cut
down. And during field inspection on November 8th, I noticed the
trees were removed, no ground was disturbed and the stumps all
appeared to be infested with carpenter ants.
I would make a motion to approve this in that the removal of the
Board of Trustees 6 November 13, 2013
trees, if we grant this permit, it would address the LWRP coordinator's
concerns.
TRUSTEE KING: Why was it found inconsistent?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Removal of the trees as damaging they were
old trees.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You say they were infested with carpenter
ants. So they were already debilitated.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there a second on that?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next Administrative Permit, number
eight, in the matter of LINDA M. ECKERT requests an
Administrative Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit for
the removal of poison ivy; trimming of the groundsel bushes; to
put down wood chips and plant ornamental grasses. Located: 1635
Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck.
This is in an area that previously had been determined to
be one that was supposed to be a wetland buffer area. The
proposal is deemed to be inconsistent with the LWRP because the
trimming of groundsel bushes, which are protected species, would
not be allowed under the Wetlands code, therefore it's an
inconsistent action. The Trustees visiting the site also noted
that that would be an improper activity that would be not be
covered under the Wetland permit. The placement of wood chips in
an area that was otherwise reserved under previous permit would
not be permitted as well. But the Board's determinations to
allow hand pulling or cutting of Poison Ivy has been considered
consistent in the past, and the LWRP coordinator did concur that
that would be appropriate action for this site. And the LWRP
coordinator also recommended to bring this project into
consistency and to protect the wetlands in the future that the
vegetated non-disturbance buffer that should be established in
perpetuity and go on the property C&R's. So to honor the
request of the LWRP coordinator and bring the project into
consistency, I would move to approve this application for
strictly the hand removal or pulling of Poison Ivy, and that the
area to the seaward of the dirt road known in the subdivision be
placed in protection with a restrictive covenant on the deed to
establish a vegetated non-disturbance buffer in perpetuity so the
activities that may have taken place there in violation of the
prior permit will be signaling future property owners they can't
do it, I would so move.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 7 November 13, 2013
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number nine, 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; for the
existing 16'x24' on-grade patio; and replace the existing 3'
high fencing in-kind. Located: 18603 Main Road, East Marion.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be
inconsistent because the location of the deck is within the
coastal erosion hazard area. The structure was not constructed
pursuant to a Coastal Erosion Management permit. Furthermore,
the applicant has not verified the structure qualifies as a
non-major addition in this ecologically sensitive area.
The Board did go out and looked at this, but in reviewing
this application we agree that this really requires, because it
is within the Coastal Erosion Zone hazard area, that it does
require a Coastal Erosion Hazard Zone permit application. So
what I would move to do is to table this to give the applicant
an opportunity to withdraw this Administrative Permit and
resubmit for a permit, with a Coastal Erosion Zone hazard
permit, as well as Administrative Permit.
MS. CANTRELL: We can't do an Administrative Permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. So again, I would move then to table
this application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONSITRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE KING: Under Applications for Extensions, Transfers and
Administrative Amendments, once again we try and lump them
together if we can, if there is no controversy over them. So we
could do number one on page three; numbers two, three, four,
five, six and eight on page four; and number nine on page five.
We can do those together. I make a motion to approve those, and
they are listed as follows:
Number one, FERUCIO FRANKOLA requests a One-Year Extension
to Wetland Permit #7704, as issued on December 14, 2011.
Located: 1900 Glenn Road, Southold.
Number two, ALAN & GAIL KESSLER request a Transfer of
Wetland Permit #3755 from Anthony Panzarino to Alan & Gail
Kessler, as issued on June 23, 1989, and Amended on January 18,
1991. Located: 800 Strohson Road, Cutchogue.
Number three, JOSEPH SCHAFER requests a Transfer of Wetland
Permit #5376 from Preston & Nancy Harrington to Joseph Schafer,
as issued on July 25, 2001. Located: 1030 West Lake Drive,
Southold.
Number four, JOSEPH SCHAFER requests a Transfer of Wetland
Board of Trustees 8 November 13, 2013
Permit #4740 from Preston M. Harrington I I I to Joseph Schafer,
as issued on June 3, 1997, and Amended on August 27, 1997.
Located: 1030 West Lake Drive, Southold.
Number five, LUCIE HARRIS requests a Transfer of Wetland
Permit #2074 from Lawrence Marks to Lucie Harris, as issued on
September 25, 1985, and Amended on August 2, 1993.
Located: 305 Private Road #3, Southold.
Number six, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of DANIEL J.
McGOEY requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #958 from Norbert
Rademacher to Daniel J. McGoey, as issued on July 2, 1973.
Located: 1050 Oak Avenue, Southold.
Number eight, FREDERICK de la VEGA & LAWRENCE HIGGINS
request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7715 to
include the existing two (2) 4' high by 8' wide wire mesh with
cedar frame gates; the one (1) 4' high cedar gate; and the
second set of two (2) 4' high by 8' wide wire mesh with cedar
frame gates. Located: 15437 Main Road, East Marion.
Number nine, Robert Barratt on behalf of EDGEWATER 11, LLC
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #8273 to
raise the proposed stairs to 3' above grade; replace the
platform with steps at top of bluff; and create a 4' wide wood
chip path from the 20' contour line to the toe of the bluff.
Located: 63735 Route 48, Greenport.
TRUSTEE KING: I would make a motion to approve those all
together.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, William R. Garbarino, Esq., on
behalf of MORANDINA LIVING TRUST requests a Transfer of Wetland
Permit #7050 from Patricia Fitzpatrick to Renzo and Sylvia
Morandina Living Trust, as issued on March 18, 2009. Located:
1035 Calves Neck Road, Southold.
This was a little complicated. This is a piece of property
where a permit was issued to rebuild the bulkhead and actually
two bulkheads. One of them was to be removed. And it's also for
a dock and float. And the work that was done was only for the
dock and float. The bulkhead work was not done. So what we'll do
is transfer that permit, and the rest of the work that was
supposed to be done, because there was removal of a portion of
it, it will go into the covenants and restrictions on that deed,
so the new owner, when it comes time to do the bulkhead, he's
bound by this first decision to remove part of the bulkhead and
extend it landward beyond the other one. So just to clear that
matter up a little bit. But that's what we are transferring
would be for the dock and the work that was actually done. The
other work that was never completed, that goes on the deed. I
would make a motion to approve that.
Board of Trustees 9 November 13, 2013
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: As submitted. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: On number ten, RESOLVED that the Southold Town
Board of Trustees RESCINDS Resolution Adopted July 17, 2013,
regarding the property located at 8860 Great Peconic Bay
Boulevard, Laurel; and AMEND to read as follows:
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees APPROVES
the request for a Transfer of Wetland Permit #4995 from George
Christmann, Jr., to JAMES & JANE D'ADDARIO, as issued on January
22, 1999; and an Amendment to Wetland Permit #4995 to extend the
existing bulkhead 19" to adjacent bulkhead. Located: 8860 Great
Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
We wanted to rescind a resolution that was on a
piece of property on Great Peconic Bay Boulevard. It was for
extending a bulkhead to a neighboring bulkhead, and also put two
retaining walls. The retaining walls were never there. So we
want to remove those retaining walls from that language, so the
only thing that will be done is a request for a transfer and it
is just to extend the bulkhead. It excludes the two retaining
walls that never existed. So I would make a motion to approve
that new language.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off the regular hearings
into our public hearings section.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: Please, when we get into this, if you have any
testimony about any of the projects, please come up to the
microphone and identify yourself so Wayne Galante here can get
it on the record. If your name is lengthy or difficult, maybe
you can spell it out for him if he can't get it right away.
I also forgot to mention, Jack McGreevey is here from the
CAC, representing the Conservation Advisory Council. They go
out and do many of the same inspections we do and give us their
recommendation and note it in the file.
TRUSTEE KING: Motion to go into the public hearings.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number one under public hearings, under
amendments, Stephen Searl on behalf of WICKHAM BUNGALOW EAST,
LLC, requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #6724 to add one
Board of Trustees 10 November 13, 2013
large rock top row to existing 148' long revetment raising top
elevation to +3.0'; construct a new 30' return extension to
existing revetment's north end; install stone filled Maccaferri
reno mattresses landward of existing revetment; fill existing
eroded area with clean fill from existing dredge spoils located
north of project location, re-grade area and re-vegetate with Cap
American beach grass in sand and native plantings in soil.
Located: 4787 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk.
The LWRP coordinator has found this consistent with the
LW RP. Our field inspections, there were a couple of things we
noted while we were out there; one, being we had a question
concerning where the sand was coming from, and we would prefer
sand coming from an upland source. We didn't want to know why
there was a bump out in the revetment or creating a bump out
that is not there now, and what about access stairs to the
beach. The CAC resolved to support the application with no
other notations.
Is there anybody here who would like to address this
application?
MR. SEARL: I'm Stephen Searl. So I can take your comments.
So the fill, I'll begin with that one, I suppose. The fill, we
had proposed to bring the dredge spoils which were placed next
to Cutchogue Harbor there, next to the channel, it was placed
there many, many years ago, 20-something years ago. And it
doesn't seem, it is part of the family's contiguous holdings
there. It doesn't seem to add anything to that area. Certainly
from an ecosystem standpoint, from a scenic standpoint, and
again, it is, it's been traditionally dredge spoils and we
thought it would be, we would like to propose to use that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This Board really doesn't, generally, approve
moving sand from one part of the beach to another, you know what
I mean. Generally it would be sand would be brought in from an
upland source. I mean, I'm not speaking for everybody, but it's
probably the rout we are going to take.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The sand in question seems to have a pretty
robust population of wetland indicators and vegetation on it. It
would be a fairly lengthy study just to outline what is there
and then it might fail of its own weight, because you might have
wetland indicators there. So I think that was the problem most
of us were encountering. It's not that it was just a fresh
accumulation of dredge spoil that was put there within the very
recent past.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's basically become over the years as part of
the environment there. I understand what you are saying. It
would probably be less expensive and probably faster for you to
just get from an upland source.
MR. SEARL: I understand your concern.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What is the bump out? Do you know what I'm
talking about when I say the bump out? It's right in front of
Board of Trustees 11 November 13, 2013
the deck on the revetment. You can't see it there but you are
showing, currently it's pretty straight across. But all of a
sudden you are changing the shape and bumping it out here
MR. SEARL: That was not, that shouldn't be the case. I see what
you are saying.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You see in the picture here, it's straight.
MR. SEARL: Right. And we would propose to keep it straight. Is
that what your I thought you were talking about the return.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In the picture, on the survey, it shows it
moving out about five or six feet.
MR. SEARL: These plans were adapted from Costello, who did the
work originally, so, you know, originally it may have shown the
bump-out, perhaps for stairs that were proposed to go down
there, or some other landing that was going to be up there on
the landward side. But it's going to be straight. It certainly
won't adjust. It would be very difficult to do that at this point.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Which brings us to the next question. Do you
plan on putting the stairs in?
MR. SEARL: Yes, indeed. I can revise the plans to show that, and
to remove that bump-out there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. So we can approve this, adding the stairs,
revised plans and survey. And second, fill from upland source.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We noticed out in the field there seemed to be a
small wire fence. Was that wire fence showing us where the
return is going?
MR. SEARL: Exactly.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what we thought. Usually it's staked. We
just wanted to make sure.
MR. SEARL: I had some trouble finding stakes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It worked.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Are there any other questions or comments from
the Board or audience?
(No response).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the amendment with
the following changes: That the fill will be coming from an
upland source, that they add stairs for beach access, and that
they submit a revised set of plans and survey indicating those
changes, as well as changing the line of the revetment from one
which is curved in the center to being straight all the way
across. Noting that it is already found to be consistent with
LWRP. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 12 November 13, 2013
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, under Amendments, Stephen Searl on
behalf of PARNEL WICKHAM requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit
#6650 to add one large rock top row to existing 125' long
revetment raising top elevation to +3.0'; install stone filled
Maccaferri reno mattresses landward of revetment; fill existing
eroded area with clean fill from existing dredge spoils located
north of project location; re-grade area and re-vegetate with
Cape American beach grass in sand and native plantings in soil.
Located: 4299 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk.
The Board did go out and looked at this. It was reviewed
and found consistent under the LWRP. And the Conservation
Advisory Council resolved to support the application.
Is there anybody here to speak for this application?
MR. SEARL: Yes. Stephen Searl.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, very much. The Board really didn't
have any questions, other than two issues. One was the same
issue with the sand and if you would wish to amend this
application so that sand is coming in from an upland source. The
only other question we have, and it might be it's answered here,
we didn't see a set of stairs at all on this plan, but we see
existing access path to beach, and we want to make sure the
applicant was not going to have stairs here, was just going to
have an access path, or do you want like with the last
application, to put stairs in.
MR. SEARL: There are existing stairs now and I would propose we
add that into the plan.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we'll be adding the existing stairs into this
application, and those existing stairs, my guess they are no
more than four-foot wide?
MR. SEARL: That's correct, yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. I believe that was the only questions we
had. Obviously this was an area that was effected by Storm Sandy
and this is work to rebuild what Storm Sandy damaged.
MR. SEARL: That's correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anybody else in the audience wish to comment on
this application?
MR. MCGREEVEY: Dave, on those stairs, the Conservation Advisory
Council just recently started recommending stairs that are
descending on to the beach or higher ground, that they either be
retractable or removable. I don't know if it's applicable in
this case and the one prior to it. But we would like to be
consistent, if it is applicable.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you understand what the Conservation Advisory
Council is asking for here, if the stairs could be seasonally
removed. And again, I don't want to speak for the Conservation
Advisory Council, but one of the reasons for this is so in the
off season or winter season when we do get winter storms, they
Board of Trustees 13 November 13, 2013
won't get beaten up and destroyed, and if you remove them, they
are safe for the next season without causing any damage or
further damage, also environmentally to the area when the stairs
get destroyed.
MR. SEARL: I think that would be fine, particularly for the
first property. The second property, the stairs are already
built. They are already existing. Will that be something we
would then have to take them down and put in a new set?
I wanted to be clear.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let's stick to this one first, Parnel Wickham,
that's just a recommendation. I understand what you are saying,
you have already built them, they are already there, and you
would like to reuse what you already have rather than build
something new.
MR. SEARL: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's just something to think about in the future
should those stairs need to be replaced, that you think about
the use of removable stairs.
MR. SEARL: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, Jack. Does anybody else have
any comments from the audience pertaining to this application?
(No response).
Any comments from the Board?
(No response).
If not, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application
Parnel Wickham at 4299 New Suffolk Road, with the condition that
the current stairs that are already there be added to this
project so they could be re-used, and that the fill is obtained
from an upland source. And in doing so, it's found consistent
under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: With regard to the last application, the beach
bungalow, when you bring in the new set of plans, if you want to
look at removable stairs, just put them on the new set of plans.
MR. SEARL: Okay. Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, 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
6'x20' floating dock with two eight-inch diameter piles in an
Board of Trustees 14 November 13, 2013
"L" configuration. Located: 3825 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue.
The application has been deemed to be inconsistent with the
LWRP. The dock structure needs to be assessed with respect to a
result in any potential for net decrease in public access for
underwater lands. There is also notation here by the LWRP
coordinator that the applicant enjoys access to the public water
via an existing permitted dock structure, for which I'm at a
loss to confirm because I only see one proposed dock on the
survey. The Conservation Advisory Council has voted to support
the proposal. The Trustees performed a field inspection on the
6th and the concern of the Trustees on field inspection was that
this new proposed location does not extend further into the
waterway than surrounding docks to the left or right as you go
waterward.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of
this application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any Board comments?
(No response).
The prior inspection we performed I think before the "L"
configuration, I think we determined it was within the general
pier line, as we call it, where structures will not extend out
into the creek in their navigation. The proposed structure does
employ the general required Flow-Thru grating over the wetlands
so that the wetlands potential adverse impact of the vegetated
wetland will be minimized, and the dock construction on the base
of the four-foot wide with the ramp and 6x20 float is also
consistent with the minimal size structure to protect the
wetlands.
So I think without speaking for the whole Board, does
anyone else have any concerns? But I think the primary concerns
was that the structure will be in conformity with the pier line
in the vicinity.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. MCGREEVEY: I might have misunderstood you. On this
application, the CAC does not support this application. Maybe I
misheard you. But we do go into a lengthy explanation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, you did resolve to support this.
Unless the records have gotten confused. It says resolved to support
Mildred David.
MR. MCGREEVEY: I'm sorry.
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, sorry, I'm late.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We just opened the hearing in the matter of
Mildred David. I went through the various approvals and
determinations and the field inspection report of the Trustees.
The primary concern of the Trustees on field inspection is that
the new "L" configuration doesn't go further than the
neighboring docks.
MR. PATANJO: The proposed lengthening is due to the New York
Board of Trustees 15 November 13, 2013
State Department of Environmental Conservation. They were
worried about the water depth. They did not agree with the
proposed chocking, which I originally proposed. To chock the float
at low tide. They wanted the adequate 30 inches water depth to
be at low water. Therefore the original application had the dock
straight out, not in a "T" configuration. I moved the proposed
dock out I think 12 feet additional length. I went into the
creek 12 feet, which is, due to the fact they rotated it 90
degrees and made it a"T" configuration, and it is in line, if
you look at all the others in the area, it's pretty much in line
with the others. You can't see it on that, obviously, because
it's not existing right now. The water depth there. That's what
I need to go out in order to gain 30 inches. And I do have a
DEC permit for it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We had done the original straight and now
the DEC, was it a problem with the original permit approval?
MR. PATANJO: Yes, the original permit approval going out
straight I didn't have adequate water depth.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As well.
MR. PATANJO: Correct. That's why I chocked it at mean low water,
which is normally accepted by DEC. They've actually requested it
on other applications that I've done. But chocking it so it
doesn't hit bay bottom at mean low water. However this
application for some reason they rejected it and they said go
out.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Unfortunately, we had a very high tide
during the course of field inspection otherwise we would have
tried to access neighboring docks to shoot along the pier line.
But we were not able to
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We were, when we considered this back in May, we
were able to go out and look at the pier line and it was before,
right at the pier line. Because I was the one that happened to
go to the neighbor's dock and shot it. And what you are asking
for now is a 97' catwalk. What was approved was a 76' catwalk.
That's additional 21 feet. You subtract out, because now the
dock instead of going straight out 20 feet is now essentially
going the width, which is six feet, so you have a 14' again. So
you are still going about seven feet farther out as the net
MR. PATANJO: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I did the math right?
MR. PATANJO: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was not sure. Thank you.
MR. PATANJO: For reference right now, look at the dock and the
pier to the north. Look at the projection of that one out into
the water. That is out 40 feet, 50 feet. And even beyond it,
another one to the northwest.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, what I did is went on the neighbor's dock
to the south, stood at the end of that dock and looked to the
next dock.
Board of Trustees 16 November 13, 2013
MR. PATANJO: I'll be in in January for that one. We can revisit
that one. I don't know if we have sufficient water depth there.
That's my next application I'll be working on. We may have the
same situation that that dock will have to be extended out, due
to the changes in tides at low tide when I go out there; I went
out and set those stakes as you saw in the picture, at low tide,
and I was at 30 inches at low tide. And the dock to the south
I'm sure I'll have the same situation.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand the depth issue. I really do. And
believe me, I'm not arguing with the depth issue. Our challenge
is that the code says that we can't extend docks beyond the
present pier line, and what we are saying is this dock as
proposed would go out beyond the present pier line. It's just a
challenge we are facing.
MR. PATANJO: What is the present pier line? Because if you look
at the one all the way to the northwest, do you project that one
to the furthest one that sticks out to the southeast? Or do you
do it to the adjacent landowners who don't have sufficient water
depth at low tide?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, we look at adjacent docks. Kind of what
we look at when we do homes; structures on land that can't
project out beyond other homes, we look at the immediately
adjacent homes. Same thing with docks. We look at the
immediately adjacent docks. And that is the situation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because we don't allow dredging in creeks,
there may be an opportunity if there is other docks that have
sufficient depth problems for which the DEC is going to rule
somewhat contrary to our wish to keep them tucked in along the
shoreline, maybe this application should be tabled and look at a
number of the docks in totality, particularly if they are
applications you are going to bring, since we are not in a
position to grant approvals for dredging, and it would seem
there may be a reason for changing the pier line to be
consistent with the natural geography of the bottom there where
we can't dredge. Maybe there is something to be said for that.
Otherwise I'm I'm speaking for myself I think the Board is
in a hard place to be right now that we probably can't approve
it and we are putting it between, we are administrating the code
according to what we have and then you have the DEC doing
theirs, and you'll start looking like you are playing ping pong.
MR. PATANJO: Can you zoom out just a little bit and see what's
to the southeast? It's not really in line with the southeast.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And if I was to draw a line from the pier that
is furthest out, carrying it across to where the current dolphin
is, and even meet up with this here, you are still not going to
make it. You know what I'm saying?
MR. PATANJO: I don't have an answer. I'm going out an additional
seven feet, and the DEC approved it. So if I can't go out seven
feet, I can't build this dock, which was pre-existing. It was
Board of Trustees 17 November 13, 2013
damaged during Hurricane Sandy and lost. It's seven feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand your frustration, but another
agency, their actions, we don't control their actions, we don't
recommend, we don't give feedback to their actions.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think the DEC particularly cares how long
the dock is as long as they get the water depth they want. And
we have always tried to keep these docks tucked in. It's been a
battle between the two agencies from day one, because they used
to demand four feet of water. Now we got them down to two,
two-and-a-half feet, but it's a seasonal float. That's the only
thing they would allow. The problem is the creeks are getting
sediment. We are losing depth of water. There is no dredging
allowed. And the only alternative is to extend the dock. And
that's where we are at. It's a Catch-22.
MR. PATANJO: I would definitely agree with you if this were a
narrow creek, like many other applications I have. But we have
fifteen-hundred feet across this creek. This is not a narrow
creek. Look at the water body and the projection of the location
of this actual dock, is not a navigation route.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe we should take the opportunity to try
to inspect this on a lower tide where we can access the
neighboring structures and see how this looks in relation to
those neighboring docks. I agree it's a quiet area in the creek
and the relief being sought is not large and there was a dock
here that was destroyed. Apparently that's the artifact on the
LWRP coordinator where he says there is an existing permanent
dock structure, if you came from his view of the aerials.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Can you put, draw this in on an aerial so we can
take a look at it? That would be helpful.
MR. PATANJO: Sure.
TRUSTEE KING: You are saying you are doing the adjacent property
in January?
MR. PATANJO: I'm hoping to start it next week. I'm not going to
get into December, which is tomorrow.
TRUSTEE KING: Even if you could put a proposed length on that,
something for us to
MR. PATANJO: That comes into play with a bunch of other things.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm saying you have two docks right next door to
each other, both of them want to be extended.
MR. PATANJO: I did not do any investigation on the dock to the
south, so I don't know what the water depth is there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments? I think we should
table it. Any additional comments?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table this application and
request the receipt of an aerial with a lay of the proposed on
an aerial so we could see it in relation to neighboring docks.
So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
Board of Trustees 18 November 13, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, DROUZAS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
CORP., requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7891 to
relocated the proposed dwelling to approximately 25' from the
edge of wetlands; construct a slightly smaller two-story,
single-family dwelling; and to modify the location of proposed
pea gravel driveway. Located: 54120 County Road 48, Southold.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent in that
it runs contrary to Chapter 268, Section 4.1, subsection "a"
which is minimize potential loss to damage by relocating
developmental structures away from flooding and erosion areas.
It is specifically section three, which is moving existing
developing structures as far away from flooding and erosion as
is practical. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to oppose
this application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. DROUZAS: My name is Peter Drouzas. I'll listen to you if I
can answer.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The Trustees visited this site on the 6th of
this month and the field notes, the Trustees are concerned about
moving this dwelling closer to the wetlands. That's the issue
before us.
MR. DROUZAS: It's 25 feet from the wetland. That's what I'm
asking for.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Check the wetlands that are not the salt
water but the freshwater wetlands.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It shows that it's 25 feet. So the inconsistency
here is that the backyard is 115 feet. There is plenty of room
to move the structure closer to the county road. That is the
recommendation of the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE KING: I believe we issued a permit to build the house
there.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We did. We issued a permit #7891 on August 22,
2012.
TRUSTEE KING: If they wanted to amend that permit, then make any
amendments landward of the most seaward edge of the parcel that
was approved. Not bring it closer to the wetlands.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's exactly what I tried to explain.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The original permit had, after a long period of
time, and hashing that out, there was a lot of different
versions of that, too.
TRUSTEE KING: This has been an ongoing process here.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So it's the feeling of the Board you are moving
in the wrong direction. You should be closer to the highway
rather than the wetlands.
MR. DROUZAS: Are things big enough the property to move down the
house. And smaller house now.
Board of Trustees 19 November 13, 2013
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the Board is reluctant to go back on
a prior determination. Amongst a range of alternatives there is
no alternatives to putting a structure closer to protective
wetland where we already made a determination. There has been no
change in the Board since the determination so the amendment
would have to deal with issues that are landward of the
determination we already made. It's very straightforward.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this
application?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: I think we are all on the same page.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to deny this application in that
based on the concerns of the LWRP coordinator and the
Conservation Advisory Council.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. DROUZAS: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 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
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.
The Board was out there originally to look at this back in
September, at the time, and we looked again at it in October,
and we had noted that the manufactured block was not exactly as
described. And after it was done seemed to be higher than it
was supposed to be. So we do have some questions on that. In
fact we even recommended removing one row of the rock and
reinstalling a new capstone on there. The LWRP does find this to
be consistent with the LWRP. And the Conservation Advisory
Council did resolve to support the application of Thomas Aprea
for this, with no further notes.
Is there anybody here who would like to address this
application?
MS. MOONEY: Good evening, my name is Maureen Mooney and I'm the
adjacent property owner to Mr. Aprea. I had come previously when
the applications were first initiated and had some concerns in
Board of Trustees 20 November 13, 2013
terms of what kind of work would be done with the permits. I'm
coming tonight to talk to you in regard to the amendment to the
permit and asking that I understand that environmentally the
placement of the gravel is probably the most approved way of
maintaining the sand, but because this is such a visually
insulting kind of structure that was put up on a pristine,
bucolic beach, that we, that in addition to the stones that are
being recommended to sustain the sand, that perhaps the Board
also be looking at perhaps the planting of grasses or other
natural vegetation which would cut down, as I said, the visual
insult that this bunker kind of structure that was installed,
you know, that you consider something to help the community come
back to looking at a nice pristine beach rather than one what
is, as I say, affrontive.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just one question for clarification, ma'am. The
planting that you are asking for, are you talking about landward
or seaward of the structure?
MS. MOONEY: No, seaward, to possibly grow over or as they say
grow in front of the wall.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He wants put the stone in the front, where this
vegetation is. Are there any comments or questions from the
Board?
TRUSTEE KING: I wish the contractor was here.
MR. APREA: I'm Thomas Aprea. I would like this read into the
record, if possible. I'm a little under the weather, like Mr.
King, so possibly my friend could read it for me.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sure. Introduce yourself, please.
MR. GARRITANO: My name is Bruce Garritano. I'll be reading this
for Thomas Aprea. Mr. Aprea asked me to read this to you
gentlemen.
To the town Trustees of Southold Town, the object of this
meeting tonight in part is to determine whether to allow me to
install a wave break or rip rap, which is more commonly known.
The rip rap will be in front of my bulkhead and just in front of
the seawall to stop erosion from undermining the seawall and to
stop any further sand from spilling into the inlet, to Spring
Pond, which is the entrance to Gardiners Bay Estates by water.
Wave breaks, rip rap, have been used to stop or deter strong
waves or currents from eroding coastal communities as well as
jetties, sea walls and bulkheads. By the way, the Mayor of New
York City has started a project to erect an 11' high seawall
along lower New York Harbor to stop and further damages from
strong storms like Sandy. Also, Japan is erecting seawalls to
stop tsunamis. This problem is not just a local problem, so I
can't see anyone in their right mind being opposed to this
project.
Fortunately for my community, my property is a natural
Board of Trustees 21 November 13, 2013
barrier island to the community, and my neighbors have the piece
of mind of being behind my property and seawall, which will
hopefully stop any surges and strong waves from breaking it. As
far as the low voltage accent lighting under the top of the
seawall is concerned, you can see by the photo, the lights on
Mrs. Mooney's house are very much brighter than the red,
one-watt accent lights under the top of the seawall. These
lights are not visible from Mrs. Mooney's house or any other
neighbor's house in the community.
Two weeks ago a DEC inspector came back to my house to
inspect how the project was going and was pleased to see the
outcome, since he was also at my house just after Sandy ravaged
it. During his visit he stated the lights were also an aid to
navigation. I would like to point out that flood insurance does
not cover property such as land, decks, bulkhead and sand loss.
It covers the structure and its contents. The expenses for this
project came out of my pocket. I have been a Southold resident
since 1969 and have paid flood insurance for 25 years.
I must say in closing that the Southold Town Trustees
office and its employees such as Amanda and Elizabeth have been
tremendously helpful to me and other residents of Southold Town
working on the recovery from the ravages of the monster storm
Sandy. Thank you, so much.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you. I think one of the concerns that we
had, and I'm just looking at it now, was that the seawall that
was built was not built according to what we approved back in
May. For example, the wall was supposed to be approximately five
feet back from the bulkhead. And it appears to have been built
right on top of the bulkhead.
MR. APREA: It's built actually behind the bulkhead. What has
happened was we, I called up Suffolk Cement, they had come back
and said if you leave a space between the bulkhead and the
thing, the waves will actually erode it down and the whole
seawall can collapse. So he told me to put down RCA and gravel
a foot-and-a-half deep, have it compacted, and I hired an
installer and he started putting it right there. I kept it about
six to eight inches away from the wall. Because it was all sand
behind the bulkhead, in no way to encapsulate the foundation of
the wall.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Now, the total height was supposed to be four
feet from the ground level.
MR. APREA: Correct. But recently the top of the bulkhead, I lost
14 to 16 inches during the storm, which if I had to replace it,
it was $5,000 to put a beam, I have pictures to show where the
original bulkhead was left and the one that was ripped off. So
I have pictures of that stating if that was put in the 14 inches
were put back on top of the exiting bulkhead it would be less
than 48 inches. Because for me to put a $5,000 beam on that, I'm
going to wind up burying, hopefully with sand and clothe and
Board of Trustees 22 November 13, 2013
rocks, it would be a waste of money to bury something that would
never be seen. I have a picture if you would like to see it of
the actual old bulkhead that didn't get ripped away and the one
that has been ripped away.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is a picture right here of what was there
MR. APREA: Correct, but down the other send where it ripped
from. And I have pictures of that other end, if you would like
to see it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm just going through what I have on file here.
That's basically what is there today.
MR. APREA: Can I please show it to you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sure.
MR. APREA: Thank you.
That's what was there originally. You can see the height of
where everything is. And that's what is there now. It's been
raised considerably.
MR. APREA: This is the bulkhead that was ripped off. This is the
height of it. You can see this 14 inches, if you put that 14
inches back in front of the wall, it would be less than the 48
inches. But like I say, to put that much money into something
you are going to bury. See, that dock was not affected, that
part, but everything else was ripped off.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Frankly, I mean, it came out basically the way I
kind of expected it to. It puts the capstone higher than what
the original intent was.
MR. APREA: Right.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have a problem with the accent lighting,
myself. But now we are coming back for rip rap.
MR. APREA: That's what I was applying for. If it's not
possible, I won't put it there. I just wanted to stop the
erosion in case a big storm does come.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You have a lot of structure there to begin with,
frankly.
MR. APREA: That's cool. It will save me money. I just thought it
would be a deterrent to any further damage. I was basically
concerned about the inlet because so much sand does get into the
inlet, which has to be dredged out. Whether it's by me or
Gardiners Bay Estates. That's basically why I wanted to do that.
I had no other reason. I have no reason to do it other than to
protect the foundation, stop further sand from spilling into the
inlet.
TRUSTEE KING: Maybe rip rap against the base covering those
piles will make it look less
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what he's doing. On the plan he's coming
up over the top and dressing it off.
TRUSTEE KING: It might make it look a little more natural if rip
rap was over the base of that wall.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I have a problem that it's not built according
to the permit that was first issued. On the eastern end, on the
Board of Trustees 23 November 13, 2013
inlet side, it's close to six feet higher than the bulkhead. And
rip rap will not address that issue. And if it were such a
concern that you were worried about it not being stable built
back where it was supposed to be, that was the point in which
you were supposed to come in for an amendment.
TRUSTEE KING: You are right.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This project should have come in for a major
amendment with a public hearing. This particular structure
approved at four feet, when it approaches six feet, that's a
substantial change over the original approval that was granted.
And it should have been before the Board so it was heard by the
public and people had an opportunity to voice their concerns.
MR. APREA: Right. But the measurements were taken from the
beach, which is not really ground level. The beach is a
changeable land. Originally we measured it from behind the
bulkhead. That's where the actual ground level was. We didn't
measure from beach level.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We can see from photographic evidence here
it's almost two feet higher than what was here when we did the
first field inspection.
MR. APREA: That all eroded away but I had to fill it up with the
base to hold the wall, the RCA and the gravel. I had to fill
that all the way up to the top of the wall and compact it down.
I mean whatever recommendations you have, I'll gladly do. I'm
just trying to protect the property, that's all I'm doing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree with what Trustees Domino and Bredemeyer
stated already. It puts this Board in a very difficult situation
when an applicant has an approved project, realizes that it's
not going to work, and instead of coming in and going through
the process, like every other person does, takes it upon
themselves to just build outside the scope of the permit. It
then puts us in a very difficult position here.
MR. APREA: I tried from the contractor also to do it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is your contractor here tonight?
MR. APREA: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Could your contractor please step up and
introduce yourself for the record, please.
MR. CONTE: John Conte. I was the installer.
MR. APREA: He was the installer, not the contractor.
MR. CONTE: Someone gave me the plans and I basically installed
it as what I saw, what I was told to install. I came in in the
middle of the project.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You installed this as per the plans or you
modified it in your installation?
MR. CONTE: No, I installed what was already set. When I came in,
it was already started. And I installed the wall itself. And
as far as the rocks that he's looking to do, which is basically
would be a plus to what the wall would do, so it doesn't
undermine the base of the wall.
Board of Trustees 24 November 13, 2013
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are you an engineer?
MR. CONTE: No, I'm not. But I built those walls before.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think the only difference, really the only
difference that I see, based upon, is the capstone. That is the
only difference is the capstone. Based on the plans I have that
we approved. Now the capstone is about six inches.
MR. CONTE: If you take the measurement from the top of the
bulkhead that was left there, it's roughly four feet to the top.
Because there is a piece sticking out, and if you look at the
front of the wall you can see part of the bulkhead that was
existing. Because we did drop the wall. You could see part of
the face of that wall is 18" blocks, so part of it is actually
submerged down below the wall. If you measured up from the top
of the wall it's just under four feet and you add six inches of
a cap, it's roughly four-foot high.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Didn't we grant the approval based on grade,
not on the top of the bulkhead? And when we inspected, the
grade was as it is now below the bulkhead. I'm at a bit of a
loss. At least from the back patter where we did the first
inspection, unless the plans specifically state from the top of
the bulkhead, the inspection was at grade was four feet. Unless
I'm missing something here, that would be about half the upper
capstone and half of the upper course.
MR. CONTE: The only way those blocks are 18 inches tall. Each
block. There is no way to change the elevation of the wall other
than submerging it further and further into the ground. That
would mean actually digging out the back of the wall.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Height wise, he's showing on the plan that we
originally approved, four feet. 48 inches of exposed face wall.
Okay. When we took the measurement in September, it's showing 40
inches.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Where is that from?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm looking here.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is that on the west side.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It looks like the west end is here.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: There is two blocks and a cap. It's three. So
it's 18 inches more than that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So let's take a look here.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: On that end is only two. That would make it 58.
Okay. Well, gentlemen, what do you want do?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would like to see this restored to what
the permit had and table the current application for rip rap.
Personally I think we should table the current application. It
is inappropriate to move on an amendment for something that
should have come in before us. And this application should be
made whole with respect to the prior permit that we wrote, and
then we can come and discuss rip rap in front. That's my
thought.
In other words if this has to be shortened by 14 to 18
Board of Trustees 25 November 13, 2013
inches, take the capstone off, if they can get a custom block
built that would serve the purpose of the capstone instead of
the capstone that is there in the lower course, and bring it
into compliance with the original permit, that would seem
appropriate. Otherwise we are going to have an application like
this every month where somebody decides to go off on their own.
TRUSTEE KING: Do they make that redi-rock in different heights?
Can you buy it like 16, 18 or two feet? It's a standard height?
MR. CONTE: To be structural like that, it's that height. The
only rock they make smaller is not structural.
MR. APREA: What about if I put one-inch capstone took off the
six-inch capstone and put one-inch capstone on the top of the
wall.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You know what, I'll go out on a limb here and
make a suggestion. Maybe we go and meet you guys out in the
field. And meet out there and
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm sorry, let's move this on a vote then. I
don't see a need wasting I'm not going to waste my time
further on this application which is basically off the
reservation. I'm telling you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just one piece of information now. Trustee
Bredemeyer, you had said to have it returned to the state that
was, what was approved. And what was approved was five feet
landward of where the structure is. So were you including in
your recommendation that this entire wall be removed and be
moved five foot landward, or is it more of a height issue that
you are concerned with? Because that would be a major change in
what you are recommending here.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We should have gotten a call that on. I'll
defer to the rest of the Board. The height issue does seem to be
a real issue here. But they just went off on their own, you
know.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only other comment I had was just to
respectively disagree with the lighting. Looking at this
lighting at night, I just think that's very excessive.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it would be confusing, the average boatman
would be confused.
MR. APREA: That's not a problem.
TRUSTEE KING: That's not an aid to navigation, in my mind.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I appreciate your consideration
MR. APREA: Of course, that's not a problem. This is what it
looked like before I went to the red lights. It was pointing out
instead of down. That was really intrusive. As soon as I found
out, I immediately tipped the lights down and put the red ones
in. As soon as I found that, I changed it. But I don't have to
have them. It's not the end of the world. The more important
thing is protecting the property from the storms. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That I understand.
Board of Trustees 26 November 13, 2013
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think from what I heard, the people that
spoke to this at the public hearing, they seem to be concerned
about the height. If there is an engineering imperative to
having the wall in its location that a coastal engineer can
document that that is an imperative to the unit structure, then
I think it would be wise that maybe the Board consider that. But
the height consideration is so substantially different from the
original permit approval, that seems to be the major problem
that we are dealing with.
MR. MCGREEVEY: We were just conversing about it. I think we are
all facing the same thing. It's a big problem. How do you solve
the problem. We were just talking, possibly take that top tier
that is a little above the height grade and tear it back. Take
that tier, the top tier, and just drop it back a step and lower
that into the sand so it still serves the purpose, but it also
meets your height requirement. Just a thought.
MR. SCHROEDER: Robert Schroeder, Sound Shore Excavating,
Southold, New York.
MR. SCHROEDER: I have been working at Mr. Aprea's property since
the '80s until the present. I also helped and assisted him in
this project. And if the blocks were placed should they have
gone in, you know, the way it was, to make a change, probably.
But right now to remove that bulkhead, you know hydraulically
will, it will weaken the structure that you guys have approved
right now. You know. So it's a Catch-22. If you are going to
make him take it and move it back, you'll make them pull the
bulkhead, it will do more damage to the beach than you already
have now. And it's been an ongoing damage, rebuild, damage
rebuild. And at his expense, I know he paid us three times to
dredge the inlet out at his expense. And I know, like you guys
spoke earlier, without technicalities on permits, if he does do
the rip rap in front, one-foot diameter boulders at a 45 degree
angle, you'll cover the existing bulkhead. You won't see it. And
if you are going to rip out the entire bulkhead on the beach,
you'll lose that beach on the next storm. John, you live here,
you know.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It doesn't justify going ahead without
contacting this Board.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What you just said supports my other comment.
Because of the actions of the applicant and the contractors, it
now turns around and says, Trustees, this is your fault that
this happens XYZ. No, the problem was you guys proceeded and
built something that was not approved. So it's not the Trustees
here that are causing a problem. It was the problem has been
caused because the Trustees approved a structure that would
hopefully protect this property, and the applicant chose to
build something larger. So, you know, this becomes frustrating
for us as well as you as a contractor.
MR. SCHROEDER: From an engineering point, the way it is now, the
Board of Trustees 27 November 13, 2013
existing bulkhead in the ground, even including rip rap, would
make it not as accessible to hydraulic damage from the water,
you know, breaching the wall and back and forth. Eventually, if
the wall was there by itself, without the help and aid right now
of an existing bulkhead, I don't think that structure would
stand up. Because you would see many more those in town instead
of plastic or CCA. And esthetically, I mean, if he goes up with
rip rap, it will look much better than it is. And I'll tell you
what, John, I shot some elevations there from the top of that
bulkhead compared to the original
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You see, I have a problem with being piece
meal. That's the problem I had have here. I would like to see a
coastal engineer bring a new set of plans in and if they have a
proposal for a height or if they have a proposal for rip rap on
the bottom, we get a coherent plan with all elements in it that
we can review as a Board. Otherwise we are just playing games
here.
MR. SCHROEDER: If we went by the original plan you approved,
that would fall over in the next storm.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I didn't see an engineering report coming
back to this Board with a request for a rehearing to discuss
these issues.
MR. SCHROEDER: Again, I was not the engineer, I didn't draw that
original design up.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would like to move this application, Mr.
Chairman.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, the only thing I can tell you, I'm going
to make a motion to table the application, to give everybody a
chance to re-review, re-think it, you know. Maybe examine it in
the field. Whatever we want to do. But I'm only one person. I
can make the motion.
MR. SCHROEDER: Like you said earlier, maybe it would be worth it
to re-visit the site, maybe one time before.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor; that we'll go look at it next month?
We'll take a roll call vote.
Trustee Domino?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Aye to table it. Trustee Bredemeyer?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Nay.
TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bergen?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Aye. Trustee Ghosio?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aye.
(Trustee King, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye.
Trustee Domino, aye). (Trustee Bredemeyer, nay).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Let's try to make set a date or set a time with
the folks on field inspection day, maybe meet out there and see
Board of Trustees 28 November 13, 2013
if we can come to some kind of conclusion as to where this is
going to go.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Wetland coastal erosion permits. Number one,
Docko, Inc., on behalf of NICHOLAS NOYSE requests a Wetland
Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to place plus/minus 50 cubic
yards of stone armor over plus/minus 1,000 square feet on an
unprotected slope; all landward of the flagged tidal wetlands
and apparent high water line. Located: Off East End Road,
Fishers Island.
This was found consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation
Advisory Council did not make an inspection, therefore no
recommendation was made. We have all been out there. We are all
familiar with this piece of property. Some of this work had been
done previously, which was permitted. This is just an additional
spot that had erosion.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MR. NIELSON: Keith Nielson, on behalf of the Noyse family. I
prepared the application documents before you tonight, including
the application drawings and the narrative statements and the
necessary certifications in accordance with the regulations and
the ordinances, and I have to say that when we did the original
project, we had anticipated that most of the wave damage at this
site would be for waves coming in from the northeast, and that
the eastern part of the property was most sensitive and
susceptible to further damage. However, in Hurricane Sandy, the
west edge of the property in fact eroded and approximately 50
yards of material was lost.
What we have proposed to do there is replace the lost soil
with a layer of, one-and-a-half layers, more or less, of armor
stone to match the rest of the front of the site, and allow
vegetation to reestablish in between stones just the way it has
along the front of the property. The area has been minimized, we
are staying five feet off the property line and five feet off
tidal wetlands to make sure there is no resource or adjacent
property impacts, and we have done our best to balance the
protective nature of the project with the environmental features
on the site.
I would be happy to answer any questions you my might have
regarding the project.
TRUSTEE KING: We are pretty familiar with the property. We have
been out there quite a few times. I don't think any of us had
any issues with this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, we have been there at least three or
four times in as many years.
MR. NIELSON: I have the return receipt cards and photographs of
Board of Trustees 29 November 13, 2013
the posted signs and affidavits for your files.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone else to comment on this
application?
(No response).
Board comments?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve the application as it has been
submitted.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. NIELSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, ANTHONY NAPOLITANO requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for the existing
plus/minus 90' wood bulkhead with associated plus/minus
4.5'x4.3' platform and 32" wide stairs to beach; for existing
5'2"x10'6"x111 0"x12'10"x14" high planter box at eastern edge of
property to be planted with native vegetation; existing
10'x11'-12" square block patio non-turf permeable area; existing
12' wide x60' long area of 3/8" crushed bluestone non-turf
permeable area used as a bocce court; and for an area
approximately 5'x11'x9'x11' of 12" square patio blocks with an
electrical outlet on a post, a water spigot and one pole light.
Located: 200 Cleaves Point Road, East Marion.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent
and inconsistent. Just to clarify, that the proposed action for
the bulkhead was consistent, the bulkhead platform and stairs.
What was inconsistent was the planter box and the other
structure that is used as a bocce court because it was built
without a wetland permit. That's why it was found inconsistent.
I do have one letter here that I'll read into the record. I
want to note it will be entered into the record in its entirety.
It is dated November 12th, it's from Candida Harper at 290
Cleaves Point Road. And it states: I'm a neighbor to the
immediate east. I have serious objections to the plans for the
property. My first and most serious objection is the lamp post
Mr. Napolitano plans to erect. She goes on to state they agreed
with the use of night lighting for years, he leaves three lights
on at night that spill over and light up my property. We went to
the zoning department, we agreed to settle the matter with a
recessed light over the porch. He had the recess light for a
short period of time but replaced it with a lantern light that
broadcast light in all directions and refuses to install a light
that directs beams downward on his property. If allowed to put
Board of Trustees 30 November 13, 2013
light on the bulkhead, it will be another light on all night
lighting up my property as well as his. I strongly believe in
dark skies philosophy to minimizing the impact of lighting.
I also object to the already erected raised flower bed. It
is now an eyesore. I do not object to the parts of his proposal
that are flush with the bulkhead.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
(No response).
The Board has, as I said, did go out and looked at this. We
didn't have a problem with the application as submitted. The
only issue that I would address is the lighting, that it comply
with the dark skies ordinance and that all lighting be pointed
down and not illuminate into the sky.
MS. HULSE: You're determining the lighting for the application
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, for the application. Thank you, for the
clarification. For any lighting associated with this project
would be dark skies compliant.
Are there any other comments from the Board pertaining to
this application?
(No response).
Is there anybody here who wishes to speak against this
application?
(No response).
Not seeing anybody, I'll make a motion to close this public
hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Anthony Napolitano and with the approval of the application
within address the inconsistency of the LWRP, bringing this
project into consistency, and as a condition, that any lights
associated with this project will be dark skies compliant.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, under Wetland Permits,
number one, En-Consultants on behalf of ARTHUR & JULIANE
GRUNEISEL requests a Wetland Permit to construct an elevated
4'x42' fixed timber catwalk equipped with two sets of 4'x4'
timber steps on landward end to allow for passage along
shoreline; a 3'x14' hinged ramp; and a 6'x20' float secured by
(3) 8" diameter pilings, and install (2) eight-inch diameter
tie-off piles off south side of float. Located: 2875 Pine Tree
Road, Cutchogue.
The application went under a plan revision submitted by the
Board of Trustees 31 November 13, 2013
applicant at the request of the Board after we tabled this
application at last month's meeting. The Conservation Advisory
Council voted to recommend approval of this application provided
the dock didn't go more than one-third of the way across the
creek. The LWRP coordinator determined that the project is
within the public waterway and issues of the significant coastal
fish and wildlife habitat area are to be considered in
developing a consistency review for this project.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
project?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicants. As Jay mentioned, this is a carryover from last
month. We had submitted to the Board a revised plan that was
also staked for your review. I just handed up to Jim formal
copies of that revised plan complete with revised title block
and so forth.
The plan was revised pursuant to our discussions last month
in that the dock that had projected out straight has been
changed to an "L" configuration, so the dock now protrudes about
11 feet less into Little Creek. The tie-off pilings that the
Board had objected to were removed, and the two pairs of dolphin
piles to support the float that the Board indicated last month
would be acceptable, have been added to the plan. So that plan
dated October 25th, I believe, has been revised in accordance
with the Board's direction last month and hopefully you were
able to see that revised stake out during your field inspections
last week.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We did inspect that last week. There is a
small amount of intertidal wetland here but there is a bit of a
gap in between, being hopeful it might also restore in the area
where there is a gap that the dock is placed, could we request
Thru-Flow decking, and that would be help with the inconsistency
and possibly allow for the creation of additional habitat.
MR. HERRMANN: The catwalk is, was designed to be situated in
between the marsh, but that would not be an unusual request by
the Board for the portion of the catwalk over the marsh, and
basically that's the predominant part of it here. So if the
Board needs to make that a condition of approval then we would
have to abide by it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional questions or concerns?
TRUSTEE KING: I think he did everything we asked him to do.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to close the hearing in
this matter.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve the
application as pursuant to the amendment that was submitted and
which is dated
Board of Trustees 32 November 13, 2013
MR. HERRMANN: The plan is 10/25. And Jay, the note also mentions
the decking would be untreated lumber or composite. So if you
put in the permitted condition for the open-grate, it would be
consistent with that, too.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right. And that, too, with the stipulation
the open-grate Thru-Flow decking be provided to make this
proposal consistent with the LWRP, bringing it into consistency.
So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number two, under Wetland Permits,
En-Consultants on behalf of WILLIAM GIACONE & CINDY NANCE
requests a Wetland Permit to demolish and remove existing
one-story, single-family dwelling, shed, and outdoor shower and
construct new two-story, single-family dwelling; install
drainage system of gutters to leaders to drywells; remove
existing sanitary system and install new sanitary system more
than 100 feet from edge of wetlands; remove existing driveway
and construct new gravel driveway; and establish a 10' wide
non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the tidal wetland
boundary. Located: 1130 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC
voted to support this application. The Trustees inspected this
on the 6th and found the proposal to be straightforward.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant. This is a pretty straightforward application.
It's basically a removal and reconstruction of existing
dwelling. The project conforms to all zoning code requirements.
It will comply with the Trustees requirement regarding staying
in line with adjacent houses. The septic system will be located
more than 100 feet from wetlands, and thus out of the Board's
jurisdiction, and we have already obtained a tidal wetland
letter of non jurisdiction from the DEC because of the
elevations on the site.
Obviously the drainage will also be upgraded pursuant to
town drainage code and that is indicated on the plan as well.
And the existing asphalt driveway will be replaced with a
pervious drive, which though essentially out of the Trustees'
jurisdiction, obviously still adds a benefit to the property.
If the Board has any other specific questions about the
plan, I'm happy to answer them. And also Mr. Giacone is here if
the Board has any questions of him.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are there any other questions or comments from
the Board?
(No response).
Board of Trustees 33 November 13, 2013
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of JOHN &
ELVIRA ALOIA requests a Wetland Permit to construct
approximately 99 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in-place of
existing timber bulkhead; backfill with approximately 15 cubic
yards clean sand fill to be trucked in from an approved upland
source; remove and replace existing +/-16'x24' on-grade wood
deck and +/-13'x20' on-grade masonry patio, both adjacent to
bulkhead; remove and replace steps at bottom of existing
stairway down embankment; and remove and reattach existing
+/-3'x7' steps to beach to new bulkhead. Located: 8145 Nassau
Point Road, Cutchogue.
This application, there was some work done on the bulkhead
area. It's in Nassau Point. It has been found by LWRP to be
consistent and inconsistent. So let me just take a moment to see
what that is all about. He does note no permit was found for the
slate patio, and it's not shown on a 1991 survey. And there was
a past wetland permit issued in 1991 for the 16'x24' deck.
MR. HERRMANN: 2001.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He has it down as 1991. Another permit was
issued for the bulkhead and the stairs in 1995. That part he
finds to be consistent. But he says recommendation of the
proposed action to remove and replace the existing 16x24
on-grade wood deck and 13x20 on-grade masonry patio, both being
adjacent to the bulkhead, are inconsistent with the LWRP based
upon it's minimizing potential loss and damage by locating
development structures away from flooding and erosion hazards.
He notes the majority of the portion of the patio and deck are
located in FEMA flood zone VE, and he is recommending that the
structures be modified or relocated to conform with Chapter 275.
He also noted the above slate patio is constructed without Board
of Trustees review or permit.
Moving on to the Conservation Advisory Council, the CAC
supports the application, however felt there was insufficient
information. The plan lacked construction details for the deck
and the patio and there should be an erosion control plan for
the slope.
The Trustees field inspection, we noted we would like to
see the cap on the new bulkhead be flow through. We wanted to
Board of Trustees 34 November 13, 2013
verify the thickness of the vinyl; reduce the deck to 12x20;
patio must be porous I'm just reading off the notes the
patio must be porous, deck to have one-eighth inch slots for
drainage, basically making it pervious; increasing the fill to
rebuild the bluff to an angle similar to the neighbor's bluff;
and make the stairs off the bulkhead seasonal.
With that, I'll ask is there anybody here who would like to
address this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
John and Elvira Aloia. This is generally a straightforward
application to replace what was basically a storm-damaged
bulkhead. And there probably was some erosion loss at the toe of
that slope as well, that you commented on. I'll go down the list
of the comments that Bob had mentioned.
The use of the aluminum, basically it's an open-grate cap,
a little different than the open-grate catwalk, but that's fine,
and I think that's what the contractor would use. They are
probably going to use a corrugated vinyl wall similar to say
like an Everlast 8.5 which has pretty close to a half-inch thick
vinyl sheathing. You asked about the width of the sheeting.
The patio, Mark's observation is correct, the patio does
not have a permit. The patio will have to be removed as part of
the bulkhead replacement, so if the Board would see fit to allow
a pervious patio in place of the non-masonry joist, basically
patio just set in sand, I explained this already to the
applicants, and they would be fine with that direction if that's
the one that the Board wishes to go in.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 12x20.
MR. HERRMANN: Now, the deck that's the patio I'm talking
about. For the deck, they do not want to change the size of the
deck. They have a Wetlands Permit from the Trustees for the
deck. I know you read from your comments, 1991. 1 did not find
that permit. I found a permit #4484 that was issued in 1995 and
I found permit #5399 that was issued in 2001. And that permit
was issued specifically at that time to legalize the
reconstructed stairway and a 16x24 deck. So since we have a
Wetlands Permit for that deck, I mean the deck is in functional
condition, it just has to be removed to allow for the bulkhead
replacement.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, he is showing wetland permit #5399.
MR. HERRMANN: That's what I have here, it's dated September 4th,
2001. So they would like to simply maintain what they have a
Trustee permit for. The steps to the beach, those steps had to
be reconstructed last year after Sandy in order to provide
access to the beach. And because of their age and health they
don't really want to use a seasonal stairway. So I know that has
become sort of a stock suggestion due to the loss of stairs, but
since they had them rebuilt and they view them as more stable,
they would like to hold on to those.
Board of Trustees 35 November 13, 2013
Certainly, as part of the backfilling and bulkhead, they
can certainly taper that toe out. I think I know what you are
driving at. I don't know if you have a picture of it. But I
think in one of the pictures we submitted with our application
you can see that toe has crept back, and they can certainly
feather that back out and get it replanted with beach grass or
other native vegetation and try to restore that slope behind the
wall.
I know that they have contemplated the possibility maybe at
some point of even putting a secondary retaining wall or
something down there. But for the time being, I think just, you
know, sloping that back out would be fine.
I think I covered all of your comments. I think you
mentioned a one-inch spacing. Did you say one-inch spacing on
the deck?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's generally we wrote one-eighth slots. I
think usually it's three-eighths. One-eighth is too close. We
usually go three-eighths.
MR. HERRMANN: Sorry, I didn't hear. But that would not be
inconsistent with what the Board has required for these decks
before. So I don't think that's a problem. I think that covers it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, are there any other comments from the
Board? Questions?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think given the fact that the deck was
permitted, and I know out in the field we had looked at reducing
the size of the deck, and I understand the argument that Rob has
made, I would go along with maintaining the current-size deck,
but with a total removal of the patio and non-replacement of the
patio. I think it's just when you add the square footage of the
patio in addition to the square footage of the deck that had
been previously approved, you are covering a great deal of space
there. Much greater than we would normally do.
MS. HULSE: If it's removed, you can require it to be downsized
if you want. It's your discretion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The deck. I understand that. So what I'm trying
to do as compromise here is maintain the deck size and remove
the patio all together. He had said it was going to be removed
during construction anyhow, and just not bother putting it back.
So that that area can naturally vegetate.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This here?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Again, it's a compromise over what we had
talked about in the field over the reduction of the size of the deck.
MR. HERRMANN: I mean if you want to discuss the patio, I would
focus on the patio. I understand the connection to the deck, but
I would rather see if we could resolve the patio, if they even
just put down loose slate set in sand. I think what is down
there is what is down there actually have masonry joists? I
don't remember.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The patio, I don't believe so.
Board of Trustees 36 November 13, 2013
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was loose.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If not, we can go back to the original
recommendation to downsize the deck.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Downsize 16x24 to 12x20.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, I'm just looking to compromise, that's
all.
MR. HERRMANN: I understand. But we had this argument before, and
we have gotten into these issues of changing something that is
either pre-existing or unpermitted or whatever. The deck has,
you know, a current Wetlands Permit. And I think it would be a
bad precedent for the Board to set on this issue with somebody
who has a permit for a structure that is functional, that has to
be moved incidentally due to storm damage to another structure,
to take that as an opportunity, discretion or no discretion, to
take away what you have already permitted, I think has finally
sort of crossing that line that we have argued for a long time
and Lori has enjoyed arguing with me.
MS. HULSE: You are incorrect in your statement they are setting
precedent. That's a completely incorrect statement. It's well
within their discretion as per code if something is being
removed and replaced, they can downsize to conform with code. I
appreciate the fact you are advocating for your client but the
Trustees you are misstating they would be setting precedent.
They would not be.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay, I'll retract the use of the word precedent.
What I would suggest is that if nothing else means anything, a
permit that this Board issues has to mean something. So a permit
1 get from this Board last year, you are saying means nothing
today if at their discretion they want to change it.
MS. HULSE: That is not at all what I had. I said it has to
conform with current code. And you know that. So, that's not
what I said. You are talking about a permit issued in 1991
MR. HERRMANN: 2001.
MS. HULSE. In 2001, excuse me, and now they are replacing it.
They are replacing a structure. That's the issue, Rob.
MR. HERRMANN: I'm not getting into this again.
MS. HULSE: I'm just clarifying what you misstated on the record.
MR. HERRMANN: I understand what you are saying. I have been in
front of this Board for 20 years, and in my practice with them I
have rarely seen the Board say that a permitted structure that
is a functional structure that is being removed incidental to
another project, that they will just arbitrarily say it has to
be downsized.
With respect to the patio, would the Board consider
allowing any sort of a pervious patio or would your position be
that you want it removed. If you were giving me a choice, as
Dave set it up, I would say we would leave the deck and remove
the patio. Because while I'm arguing for the permitted state of
the deck, the patio has no permit.
Board of Trustees 37 November 13, 2013
MS. HULSE: Rob, just for clarification, you are referring to
Wetland Permit #5399. When was that issued?
MR. HERRMANN: September 4, 2001.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: LWRP has it listed as 1991.
MR. HERRMANN: He just has a typo in his LWRP report.
TRUSTEE KING: I would just say do away with the patio.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. We granted a prior permit.
TRUSTEE KING: The deck is permitted, leave it alone. The
unpermitted patio, remove.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree.
MR. HERRMANN: I could agree to that now.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. Is there anybody else who would like to
speak to this application?
(No response).
In that case, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make the motion to approve the application
with the following notations: That the capping be open-grate in
nature; that the patio is going to be removed from this
description in the application; and that the slope be restored
to an angle akin to what the neighboring property has and that
it be replanted with native vegetation. I think by doing so we
address the issues with the inconsistency, making it consistent,
in full, with the LWRP. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number four, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. On behalf
of KRISTOPHER PILLES & NICOLE OGE requests a Wetland Permit for
the existing 18'x2.5' and 6'x20' fixed "L" shaped dock; repair
existing 6'x30' and 20'x14' wood walkway; and replace existing
pile located to the east. Located: 560 Fisherman's Beach Road,
Cutchogue.
This application was found inconsistent under the LWRP
because two docks occupy the same parcels and therefore the
proposed action does not comply with Chapter 275.
MS. MOORE: It's the permits. I have attached permits.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to
support the application using best management practices and a
drainage plan for the house. The Conservation Advisory Council
questions the encroachment over the western property line.
The Board did go out and looked at this and we had the same
concern that was found in the LWRP consistency, and there was a
float that was part of a floating dock that had been approved
previously by the Board, but the fixed dock was not permitted.
Board of Trustees 38 November 13, 2013
So in essence we are coming in and the request here is to permit
that non-permitted dock, do we have a situation where we have
two permitted docks on the same piece of property, which is not
allowed under the code.
So is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore, on behalf of Mr. Pilles is here,
and Nicole Oge. I have given you the history here because my
client has just recently purchased the property, and prior to
the purchase this issue came up because I think someone went out
and we requested a compliance inspection, and the issue came
up. And when we started researching what permits were on this
property. As it turns out, this property has numerous permits.
And I recited them for you. The original dock, the fixed dock,
which is for vessels, the one that is part of the permit, that
is for the permit today, was built in 1950's. In 1991, permit
#3898 was issued that allowed for the replacement of part of the
bulkhead, west side of the bulkhead, I believe, and it must
have been the east side of the bulkhead because it included the
dredging of a 25x21 boat basin, that is still showing here on
the property. That boat basin is similar to other boat basins in
this area.
In 1996, the float that you see that is in that boat basin,
originally the application in 1996 for a permit #4666 was to
attach that float for kayak. It's not a large vessel float. It's
just for a kayak launch. The original permit was to attach it to
the existing dock. And the Board at the time was not in favor of
that. But the recommendation was relocate that float, since it's
really a very minor kayak float, to relocate it inside the boat
basin that had been created.
TRUSTEE KING: Pat, I think you said 1996. This was in 2003.
MS. MOORE: Sorry, you're right. 1996, I'm not reading my own
notes properly. Permit #4666 was replacing the bulkhead, but
then the amendment used the same number. So that's why it's a
little confusing. When the permit was issued, the same number
4666 was amended. Your procedures at the time, I don't know why.
So in 2003, that was the application to install that
double-hinged ramp and low profile kayak float. And, Mr. King,
you would remember because actually in reading the transcripts,
it was a good suggestion that that was a very minor structure.
TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was good at the time.
MS. MOORE: It was a great suggestion at the time, to put it,
move it into the boat basin. But it has a permit. And it's
really just a float in a boat basin, as I said, for kayak
launch. Every single one of the permits that have been issued
have shown this dock as part of the overall site plan. But
because of the procedures that you used to implement, it was not
necessary to identify absolutely every single structure that is
existing. Only those structures that needed to be repaired or
Board of Trustees 39 November 13, 2013
replaced.
So the bulkhead description showed the existing dock that
is there, that under today's procedures you would rather have
everything that is showing on the property, specifically
identified with a permit description. So that is what was being,
that's what the application is today.
My client bought the property with all the structures that
are there, with permits, and everything is functional. The
application, due to storm damage, there was flooding of the
house, and the walkway, again, the wood walkway that is
described along the boat basin, that sustained some damage, and
it's being proposed to be replaced. And it was my I
mis-described it. I apologize. I said that the pile on the east
side, but it's actually the pile that is on the dock itself, was
hit by lightning. That's my mistake. I identified it as
northeasterly and it should have northwesterly.
In addition, let me see what else we have. There was one
more thing. Oh, at the inspection, I believe Mr. Pilles had
mentioned the insurance company had recommended that the
bulkhead be at the same height, and you have a higher bulkhead
on the west side than on the east side. So the request is to
just add, I guess how would you do it, ten inches to carry the
bulkhead along the entire top, extending the top so it is all
at an even height.
Aside from that, everything else is in place and he is
slowly but surely working on storm damage repairs to the house.
Does that explain the existence of the docks now?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, thank you, it does. Now, I did the
compliance inspection on July 26th. I just checked my notes.
There was no trace of the small kayak dock at that time. It was
gone. Completely.
MS. MOORE: It was on the property. My clients are elderly and
they had experienced extreme stone damage, so they actually
could not go back to the house because the house was not
habitable. So the insurance company, actually part of the, the
closing occurred with Mr. Pilles purchased the property, but the
prior, when you went to inspect, it was under the prior owners,
who are elderly, because I made the request for a compliance
inspection to make sure that all the structures had permits on
it. So the float was still there, it just was not installed
because, as I said, they just could not, it was just too much
damage with the house. They pretty much, you know, they didn't
continue with the season, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, when I was there, the float was not
there. There was no structure there. So I noted that at that
time in the compliance inspection. So I just want to make sure
you understand for the record, I only found one dock there when
I was there for the compliance inspection. And at that time, I
stated this exact challenge that was there, and my suggestion at
Board of Trustees 40 November 13, 2013
the time, as part of the compliance inspection, was that the new
owners come in to permit this dock you are trying to permit
tonight and give up that small dock. Because the present Town
Code only allows for one dock. This goes back to the discussion
let me finish my comments please. This goes back to the
discussion you already heard tonight that we have to work under
present Town Code. And we understand things were done in the
past, and that is okay, but when structures are gone, and they
need to be replaced, it has to come under current Town Code
let me finish.
When I went out there on 7/26, there was no part of the
floating structure there at that time. It was gone.
MS. MOORE: It's a floating dock. The float was not there. But
the pile is there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, I made my point. The pile, just for the
record, is not in the approved plans for that floating dock. The
floating dock that was approved, you did a great job with the
research here, 2003
MS. MOORE: It was post moratorium.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. The plans that are here for that, there is
no piling associated with that dock.
MS. MOORE: Yes, there is. Let me point it out. On the drawings
of the basin, it says here proposed mooring pile.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have here in my hand dated 6/10/04, the plans
for this. The plans that are stamped approved by the Board of
Trustees, and there is no piling there.
MS. MOORE: I'm showing you a 1991 permit for that pile.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, but I'm saying when this was done in 2004,
there was no piling there.
MS. MOORE: It doesn't matter because it already had a permit, so
why it would need another permit? The code has not changed that
drastically, and I would agree with Rob, that the permits, our
code says structures that are permitted have vested rights. They
are, as long as they have permits and they are functional.
Well, the pile is there, the float was there. Itjust it's a
seasonal float that pops in and out.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Here is an interesting perspective. I think
this is a unique situation. Here is a question I'd offer up to
the rest of the Board of Trustees. If Mr. Pilles was to simply
request to move the float which is permitted, and attach it to
his catwalk, he would have the usual catwalk and float assembly,
or you can could add a ramp. So in essence, although it's a
little disjointed, it's a small float. We know floats are put in
and removed seasonally. So that could happen, it be during the
time of year and be removed. I mean, he as a permit for this so
he could always request, you know, go for a permit and have it,
or by the same token, it is tucked in the corner and was subject
to a prior Board's determination that that was a good location
for it. So the circumstance is kind of unique in that it has all
Board of Trustees 41 November 13, 2013
the components of a typical catwalk float assembly. And he's
not asking to expand anything at this point. So it's just a
notion, it's not really apples and oranges. It's really apples
and apples, but we just have a piece of the apple aside on the
property.
So, looking at it that way, otherwise I don't see why he
couldn't come in, and the feeling is we can only have one dock
on the property, he can come in and go for a 6x20 float if it
met the plot line bounds. I think that might be the issue.
MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, I'm listening but I'm having trouble
understanding.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would be an option to merge the two into
one structure providing it meets the code requirements for set
off on the property line.
MS. MOORE: Well, it's interesting because that was originally
what was applied for and he was, well, the prior owners, were
told to put it in the boat basin. The existing dock historically
has been there since the '50's, so there is no plan on moving it
or changing it.
Do you want a float next to your dock?
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): That was denied, as far as I know.
MS. MOORE: Come on up. That had originally been denied. If you
are suggesting relocating the float that is here and attaching
it to the dock, existing dock.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. Just a second. I think they are working
on something here.
MS. MOORE: We are talking about two different types of dock
structures. One is a kayak launch, the other one is for a
vessel. So the more substantial one.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we saw out there was a float, as in it
would be normally referred to as a floating dock. It walks like
a duck and quacks like a duck. It's a floating dock. Then you
have the other structure, you're right, the dock that has been
there historically for many, many years. It's a little floating
dock.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right. It's connected to these two poles with
little stairs to get into it.
MS. MOORE: The one you are talking about in the boat basin.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: I have a suggestion. I was on the Board at the
time, and the original proposal was for a ramp to a float here.
That was denied. Then we said why don't we put the float in the
little comer. Now it's being considered two docks. Why don't we
go back to square one, put a ramp here to the 12' float. It's
all one structure that meets the code.
MS. MOORE: From this?
TRUSTEE KING: From the inside of the fixed dock.
MR. PILLES: Kris Pilles. I don't know if that structure would be
able to support a ramp. It's just a narrow structure. The reason
Board of Trustees 42 November 13, 2013
I'm here with this application is simply for what I thought was
to keep it the way it was originally permitted. I saw the
original plan which had proposed it to the west. That's a whole
lot of structure for me to maintain. Quite honestly, having the
small floater in the basin makes a lot of things very easy for
my life. You know, I didn't anticipate this or look at it as a
second dock.
TRUSTEE KING: That seems to be issue. It's being looked at as a
second dock.
MR. PILLES: How could there be a dock from the '50's and then a
permit granted subsequent to that without the knowledge that
yes, indeed there was already a dock there.
MS. MOORE: And understand, this dock in the boat basin was
approved after your moratorium, so after the code was changed.
So it's a relatively, you know, it's under our more current
code, then, I don't know what derivation we are up to now, but
that was post-moratorium. So it would be have been considered
after the Board had revised all their codes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All the structures are aging out. What about
a limited lifetime based on the material so they could come back
in with a unit structure. Because the float's in rough shape,
the dock is not in wonderful shape. Giving a limited lifespan.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If we don't have an objection on the square
footage to begin with, frankly, I don't see it doing I see
it, if we move it out into the water, and out of the basin, I
mean, we'll be shading the bottom out in the creek, where in the
basin it's relatively hidden anyway. You know what I mean? I
don't think we are doing an environmental thing to move it.
TRUSTEE KING: That was the whole purpose originally in tucking
it in that corner.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think it's the best place for it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: On the other hand
MR. PILLES: May 1 make one other point. The concern that I have
is moving the floater to the interior of the dock, if I'm to put
my boat on the exterior of the dock, that's a very narrow
channel and it may create a navigation issue for my neighbors. I
don't know that to be the case, but that's depending on the
width of the beam of the vessel. If you go there at low tide,
it's a very narrow navigational path.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I'm very familiar with that channel. I have
been in and out of it many times. I agree with you. I would not
want to put a float outside that dock and then put a boat there.
I agree 100% with what you are saying. I think what Trustee
think was saying was put the float inside the dock so you are
not going to extend any further out toward the channel.
MR. PILLES: What I'm saying, if you do that, then by default,
the boat I own would be on the outside of the dock.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right. Out here instead of in here.
MR. PILLES: And it may create an issue for my neighbors to the
Board of Trustees 43 November 13, 2013
east.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Frankly, I think it's best being left where it
is.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I do, too. And call it the property is not
to exceed having a dock and float, whereas others would have a
catwalk, ramp and float. So essentially I look at it as if it's
the same. The square footage is identical.
TRUSTEE KING: It's not different than having a fixed dock with a
ramp and float.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And Trustee Ghosio's comments as far as the
environmental impact said that is a mitigating factor here that
by not putting more structure in the creek, the basin is shaded,
it's shaded from the south side, it's a deep cut. So there is
not a lot of beneficial vegetation there. So I think what he
says makes a lot of sense, to leave it alone.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments?
TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to make it a seasonal float?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They probably take in and out anyway.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think it was meant to be a seasonal float to
begin with.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The seasonal float or whatever we are spending
so much time talking about, is not included on this permit
application. It's not on the plans.
TRUSTEE KING: It has a permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: That was to be secured by chains to a bulkhead. No
pile or anything to be attached to that float.
MR. PILLES: There is not. There is if you go back to your
other photo, I don't know, again, that's the way I inherited the
property, but
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's secured by two pipes.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is a pipe here securing it rather than
chain. It kind of makes sense to me. A chain would just wear
away.
TRUSTEE KING: As a matter of fact, this was an En-Consultants
application.
(Inaudible).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Anyway
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The '91 permit was a good permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If we could get back on track here, please.
Is there anybody else in the audience who wishes to comment
on this application? Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
I know I for one had no problem with increasing the height of
the bulkhead by ten inches. And obviously denoting the correct
piling here that needs to be replaced. I don't think anybody has
any problem with that at all.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Was there any concerns by the Board with the
possible encroachment regarding the property line?
Board of Trustees 44 November 13, 2013
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think you are referring to this float that we
have been talking about?
MS. MOORE: No, the bulkhead kind of angles oddly. That was also
part of the permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. That was permitted. I see exactly what you
are talking about here.
If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close
the public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
described, with the modification of the pile that is noted to be
replaced on the plans that is actually the pile on the dock that
we are now permitting to be replaced, and that will be noted on
a new set of plans. And we are approving also the increasing the
height of the bulkhead ten inches so that it's consistent in
elevation all the way across the front of the property. And due
MR. PILLES: Excuse me. That's just the eastern half of the
bulkhead. Because there is a step up which changes the
elevation of the property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll have to change this motion. I'm withdrawing
the motion.
This application does not include the bulkhead at all. So
we can't address the bulkhead here. What I'm doing is I'm making
a motion to approve the application as submitted with the
adjustment of the piling that is listed to be replaced is
actually a piling associated with a dock. There will be a new
set of plans to address that. And that the fact that the other
small structure was previously permitted would bring it into
consistency under the LWRP.
MS. MOORE: I think my drawing shows the piling on the left side
of the dock already.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MS. MOORE: Do you need a new set of plans.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, I'll just note that on the plans.
MS. HULSE: Sorry, is there a motion on the table?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is a motion. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you want to step up and initial next to my
change.
MS. MOORE: Sure. How do you want you want us to approach the 18
inches on the bulkhead that has a permit?
MS. HULSE: Are you re-opening the hearing, Dave?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, I'm not.
MS. MOORE: Do you need us to come in with an amendment on that?
Or just do it?
Board of Trustees 45 November 13, 2013
TRUSTEE BERGEN: An amendment.
TRUSTEE KING: There is a bulkhead permit, right?
MS. MOORE: Yes, there is a bulkhead permit, both sides of the
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on, just a second. (Perusing). Okay, thank
you. I appreciate it. I'd hate to have some technicality come
back and haunt us ten years down the road.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next Wetland Permit application, number
five, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of GREG & CAROL KARAS
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 15'x25' gunite pool
with water feature; extend existing patio approximately 720
sq.ft. eastward and up to 75' from top of bluff; construct a
4'x8'x4'6" cedar pool equipment enclosure; landscape a 10' area
between pool and property line; install 54" pool fence with
gates along edge of patio; replace existing 3'x11' landing and
3'x45' bluff stairs to beach in-kind and in-place. Located: 135
Soundview Road, Orient.
This was found to be consistent under the LWRP. The
Conservation Advisory Council supported the application but
questioned the adequacy of a closed system pool closed pool
recirculating system not requiring a drywell. As did the
Trustees themselves. And I have performed the inspection for the
Trustees, having done a C of C on the property, essentially a
month earlier, to check the vegetated, non-turf buffer. It's a
very standard swimming pool application for which also all the
items requested in the Trustee permit were subject of a Zoning
Board determination that approved the project.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Karas. Yes,
this is after the Zoning Board approval. The Zoning Board
actually stipulated that this had to be a gunite pool, which is
a much more expensive pool to build. We are advised that it
doesn't need a drywell but we can certainly
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the ZBA also requested it.
MS. MOORE: We can put one in if it's needed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I inspected swimming pools for the County
Health Department for 20 years and I never heard of one without
some kind of backwash. There is a limit to how many times you
can reuse water. I don't think it's a big issue. There is not a
lot of water, but since we have 236 in the Town Code we don't
want to be discharging water within ten foot of the property
line. We wouldn't want to have even a small amount of water
starting an erosion situation where we are so close to the bluff.
MS. MOORE: Not a problem.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Very straightforward. Any questions?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
Board of Trustees 46 November 13, 2013
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve the
application as submitted with a stipulation that a suitable
drywell be installed to handle the pool backwash, if any. So
moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number six, Frank Uellendahl, R.A. on behalf of
LAWRENCE HOLFELDER requests a Wetland Permit for a partial
second-floor addition and a 300 square foot first-floor addition
to existing dwelling; for the existing stairs with associated
retaining walls leading from dwelling to a 16'x16' on-grade
non-treated patio with associated cantilevered 4'x4' platform
with stairs to lower bulkhead. Located: 6340 Great Peconic Bay
Boulevard, Laurel.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent and
inconsistent. The inconsistency is associated with the fact that
the existing stairs to the 16' on-grade patio was not permitted.
This application also has ZBA approval. The Trustees visited the
site on the 6th and found it to be okay as submitted. And the
Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. UELLENDAHL: Good evening, my name is Frank Uellendahl on
behalf of the applicant Holfelder. I was not aware of the fact
that the stair and the 16x16 foot patio did not have a permit. I
needed to get a pre-CO and the building inspector came out and
said, well, where is the permit. So I found out there is a
permit for the double bulkhead and that the bulkhead was
destroyed in 2005 and was rebuilt. There is a permit #6341. It
did not include for some reason the steps going down to the
intermediate landing between the two bulkheads. The owner
decided to not rebuild the pre-existing 12x24 foot deck that was
spanning between the two bulkheads, which was destroyed during
the storm, and he instead retrieved and put a patio of similar
size on-grade. But other than that, we are trying to improve the
structure. We are adding a dining room on the first floor and we
are raising partially the roof to accommodate for a master
bedroom suite.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Understood. Any questions or comments from the
Board?
(No response).
Is there anyone else here to speak to this application?
(No response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
Board of Trustees 47 November 13, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted on plans received October 19th, 2013, noting that that
would bring it into compliance and address the inconsistency.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number seven, Frank Uellendahl, R.A., on behalf
of STEVEN $ BEATE SWANSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct
a screened porch addition with second-floor roof terrace; and
construct a 245 square foot first-floor deck to the existing
1-1/2 story dwelling. Located: 1120 Truman's Path, East Marion.
This is a home that is under construction. We were looking
for some prior permit history. There was no prior Trustee
permit. The new dormer, of course, is exempt.
The notes from the field inspection were that the hay bale
line should be incorporated into the survey. The area landward
there should be a non-disturbance zone except for the invasives,
that would require a permit to remove; gutters and leaders on
the north side currently leading to water to the surface of the
ground, which is going directly to Marion Lake. That they must
be routed to drywells. House renovation is a substantial upgrade
with existing sanitary facilities possible in two buildings as
per ZBA approval; consider a new sanitary system.
The LWRP coordinator does find this to be consistent with
the LWRP, but recommends that the Board require a vegetated
non-turf buffer ten feet landward of the wetland, which is
consistent with what was noted in the field notes. And the
Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the
condition that the everything complies with the current drainage
code.
With that, is there anybody here who would like to address
this application?
MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes, My name is Frank Uellendahl on behalf of
Steven and Beate Swanson. So I understand, we are going to have
a ten-foot non-turf buffer where exactly; around Lake Marion?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Let's see. (Perusing).
MR. UELLENDAHL: The lot is kind of interesting and difficult in
certainly ways. It's one of the narrower lots on Truman's Path.
All the lots north of the applicant's lot are 75-feet wide. This
is only 50 feet. The one to the south is 100 feet wide. The
topography is very different on that hundred-foot wide
neighboring lot. And I did not want to propose a screened-in
porch or deck on the Lake Marion side because of the bluff
situation. So that's why we were proposing a relatively narrow
deck and screened-in porch on the south side.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, I would think, and I can confirm this with
Board of Trustees 48 November 13, 2013
Jay, the ten-foot non-turf buffer, or vegetated buffer that was
mentioned a couple of times, on the survey it's showing a
flagged wetland line. Would ten feet from there be sufficient?
Is that what you were thinking of when you looked at this?
This is, you had mentioned it and it came up in another
report, put a vegetated buffer in. Ten foot vegetated buffer.
Frank needs to know, Mr. Uellendahl needs to know where that
should be.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is a staked hay bale line there now,
isn't there?
MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think seaward of the hay bale line looked
to be a reasonable location.
MR. UELLENDAHL: We were just talking about the wetlands, the
flagged line, which way down on the water. If we are going in
ten feet from there, this is vegetated at this point.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right. You have a pretty steep downslope
there. Most of the homes along there, we have been to a number
of those houses. It's above the hay bale line. What would you
say, Mr. Uellendahl, maybe around eight or nine feet landward of
the crest of the bluff?
MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You are saying they would like to have a
little more rear yard area; is that it?
MR. UELLENDAHL: We are talking about the area beyond where we
have the hay bale.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would not be unreasonable to have a
non-turf buffer that would be from the crest of the bluff to the
waterward because there is an extensive bank that is heavily
vegetated, and the wetland line there is a goodly number of feet
from Marion Lake. That would not be unreasonable. I think I made
notes out of the sake the hay bale line could be easily located
on the survey. But the crest of the bluff could easily be also
located and make the non-turf area waterward of that and be
reasonable.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, fine. Aside from that, I mean really once
we address that buffer, um, and making sure everything complies
to the drainage code
MR. UELLENDAHL: We are putting in two new drywells.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 1 don't think there is any difference I don't
see anything on here. Hang on a second. (Perusing). Okay, you do
have it on the new drawings. You are showing the drywells here.
The only thing we need to add is the non-turf vegetated buffers.
Any other comments or questions?
(No response).
Anybody else?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
Board of Trustees 49 November 13, 2013
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application
noting the following change: There will be a vegetated buffer
included on this application on a revised drawing that will go
starting at the crest of the bank and ten-feet seaward of that
point, to create a non-turf vegetated buffer using native
vegetation. Again, noting that this is consistent with the LWRP
and the plans that I currently have do show in fact leaders,
gutters and drywells for roof runoff that will be consistent
with current drainage code. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: We'll take a five-minute break, everybody.
(After a recess, these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, folks, I guess we'll get going again.
Number eight, DANA & MICHAEL SAVINO request a Wetland
Permit to repair/replace existing +/-100' long bulkhead with a
38' north return and a 64' south return using vinyl sheathing;
remove and replace existing 100'x21' decking; temporarily remove
and replace existing gazebo; and add approximately 275 cubic
yards clean fill. Located: 1945 Bayview Avenue, Mattituck.
This is one that was tabled from last month. We had started
quite a bit of discussion on it. It was found exempt, I believe,
from the LWRP, because it's a replacement. And the Conservation
Advisory Council did not support the application because the
square footage of the floating dock exceeds code; the property
is not conforming to any standards of wetland code; with narrow
encroachments on public property. Those were the comments from
the Conservation Advisory Council.
Like I say, we started getting into it. We wanted to do a
little research on this property because it's kind of an unusual
piece of property, with all the development that is on it.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant.
TRUSTEE KING: Where we left off last month, if I remember right,
we were talking about possibly moving that bulkhead ten feet
landward, the new one, from the existing. I think that's where
we left off.
MR. PATANJO: I'm just starting to represent the Savinos. Moving
the bulkhead back ten feet is kind of out of the question.
TRUSTEE KING: Why is that?
MR. PATANJO: Just for the fact that it's a permitted bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KING: There is no permit on that bulkhead. It was
waived by the Trustees back in '71. They said a permit was not
necessary at that time.
Board of Trustees 50 November 13, 2013
MR. PATANJO: Correct. So it was not necessary.
TRUSTEE KING: Right. They said it was on private property and
they declined. They just said a permit is not necessary.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You need some clarification there. In 1971
there was no wetland ordinance. The Board of Town Trustees
would have only been granting approvals for structures that were
in the tidal waters owned by the Trustees, you know, beneficial
ownership for the people of the town. So that, you know, there
may well have been dredge spoil because the creek had been
excessively dredged prior to that, so that on inspection it may
have appeared to be upland land. But the Trustees' determination
merely meant, at that time, that the structure was not going on
public property. It does not confer any, it doesn't confer any
special rights. It doesn't mean that it was the equivalent of a
wetland permit. It doesn't mean anything other than it was not
in public domain of the people of the Town of Southold.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you, for clarifying that, Jay. That's
exactly it.
MR. PATANJO: However it was existing since 1971.
TRUSTEE KING: It's been there a long time, we know that.
MR. PATANJO: In the same configuration. So the application right
now is really for reconstruction of what has been existing since
1971, right?
TRUSTEE KING: Correct.
MR. PATANJO: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: But as you can see, the wetland line through that,
if that bulkhead was moved landward ten feet, we would gain a
lot of wetland area to reestablish there. And I don't think
there is any question that the loss of wetlands has been one of
the worst things that has ever happened to our marine district.
And if we could regain a little bit of it, I think it's well
worth trying to get it back. All that decking has to be removed
to replace the bulkhead. Everything has to be stripped off of
that. Why not move it back ten feet and put a new bulkhead in.
They still have the use. Same size decking. It doesn't change
anything except it's ten feet closer.
MR. PATANJO: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: That's where I'm coming from on this. I think it
would be a tremendous gain of wetlands for us.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Basically putting the wetland line back to where
it was, almost where it should be, and gaining that habitat back.
TRUSTEE KING: The more I think about it, I think it's probably
going to be a cost savings, too. The returns will be shorter.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Penetration will be shorter on the fascia,
more than likely.
TRUSTEE KING: And I think there is quite a bit of fill to be
brought in. I think it would do away with all that fill that has
to be brought in. You're talking it's 275 yards. That's 27
ten-yard dump trucks.
Board of Trustees 51 November 13, 2013
MR. PATANJO: The town-owned property just to the south, the
runoff from the end of the road there, Bayview Avenue, has been
eroding over the years. And as you can see from aerial
photography, over the years, the imagery, it's cut back a lot.
TRUSTEE KING: Well, I know a lot of history there. That road
used to go down almost right into the shoreline. That's where a
lot of the erosion came from, is runoff from the road. What the
town did in 1994 or 1995, we backed that road end up 50 feet. We
put a complete drainage system in there to stop that erosion. So
that's what caused that.
MR. PATANJO: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: I think the owner has the benefit of a huge
complex there for a residential lot that is, it looks like a
mini marina. It really exceeds all the code by today's
standards, and I just think this is a chance to rebuild some
wetlands. And it's important to me. I'll stop preaching.
MR. PATANJO: However, it's permitted. All of the floating docks,
all of the structures, everything, are permitted.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's why we are not
MR. PATANJO: We have permits for all the structures and all of
the docks. If you go down to the south a little built, there is
another structure just like it, floating docks, there are other
facilities similar to this one. It's been in existence since
1971. It goes back a long time. All we are requesting on this
bulkhead application is to replace the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Where are you talking about?
I'm not seeing anything that is south of there.
MR. PATANJO: 2012, go back.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm talking about you said if you looked at the
aerial south of there, structures like it. I'm not seeing it.
MR. PATANJO: This right here (indicating).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You have a small finger there on the left.
MR. PATANJO: 2006. (Handing).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It changed since then. They apparently made them
scale it down.
TRUSTEE KING: A lot of that's been reduced. That was the Wells'
property. There was a couple commercial fishermen tying up
there. As a matter of fact, one we lost. So that facility has
been there a long time. And I think it's been downsized since
then because of the loss. So the only things I have seen didn't
have permits on it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we were just looking at is the dock
structure. It looks like there is an extra float inside there
and there, and a jet-ski float.
MR. PATANJO: Those are jet-ski floats and they are permitted.
Dana Savino actually has an approval for those.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was just looking at the original dock permit,
and it was not there on there.
MR. PATANJO: Those have recently been permitted.
Board of Trustees 52 November 13, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: We couldn't find any copies of any permits for
jet-skis.
MS. SAVING: In 2003 1 applied and I was permitted. And that's
when they also transferred the previous owner's permit to me.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you have a copy of it?
TRUSTEE KING: We have no record of it.
MR. PATANJO: We'll try to dig that out.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think, at least from what I heard
from other members of the Board, and correct me if I'm wrong,
that were we to, you know, move on a determination to move the
bulkhead landward some ten feet, I don't think we want to change
the current dock configuration, other than to allow for
additional catwalk out. We are more than happy at the advance
in protecting or creating several hundred square feet of new
wetlands, which will benefit the creek, the oysters that are in
there. We have no interest in changing the dock configuration
whatsoever other than just allow that additional catwalk to get to it.
MR. PATANJO: I think Mr. And Mrs. Savino have no problem with
creating wetlands, however, do not want to relocate the
bulkhead. We are more than I don't know what I'm looking for,
but more than okay with creating wetlands to the south, in the
area that has eroded over the years in the end of the road, just
to the south of the property. I have no problem creating
wetlands, planting Spartina Flora or patens.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Not patens. It would be Altemiflora in the
water.
MR. PATANJO: Okay. In that area, to create the wetlands. They
are all about the environment for the area, however they don't
want to lose any of the facilities they currently own. And it's
currently permitted. If you want to, we can definitely agree to
creating wetlands to the south.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What about an alternative, bringing it back,
it would become a retaining structure, retaining wall,
bulkhead/retaining wall, what if then the deck of a flow-through
type material. There are a number of competitors out there, so
they could then have it like a catwalk beyond the retaining
wall, but with flow-through. That way they would have the same
visual presence and they would not have to extend the catwalk.
They would have the same amount of space out over the creek, but
they would let the light through to have the wetland on the
site. Visually it would look the same. They could entertain and
use the property as they always have, and that would possibly
be the offset and not needing as much fill and having the
retaining section back further. And then you have both the
wetland creation as well as a benefit of maybe some reduced
cost.
MR. PATANJO: Where are you talking with right now?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In other words the ten feet we are talking
Board of Trustees 53 November 13, 2013
about. In other words, instead of just pulling everything back
ten feet and push the deck up into the yard ten feet, would be
move the bulkhead back ten feet but then have a ten-foot wide,
if you will, flow-through catwalk that lets the sunlight
through, and that way they could have a continuous deck area,
just as you see now
TRUSTEE KING: You mean like cantilevered.
MR. PATANJO: Cantilever the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Put a low sill bulkhead in and then cantilever
over the top.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That was the thought. Although Jim feels
that the low sill won't work because it's already maybe too far
up from low water. Ten feet back and cantilever it out with
flow-through, that way you visually have everything there. You
have access to the existing dock assembly and you would create
what, ten feet by the breadth of the property, is like 1,000
square feet of wetland. That's huge.
MR. PATANJO: I understand what you are saying, but
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 1,000 square foot of wetland with
productivity ten times upland, you are talking about ten-fifths
the productivity of two-and-a-half acres of upland vegetation in
constant productivity that is producing probably hundreds of
pounds food for oysters in that creek.
MR. PATANJO: I don't know if I agree with two-and-a-half acres,
but as far as asking them to move their bulkhead back, the whole
goal here is to preserve the property and the equity in the
property that they own. This is their property. It's been this
way since prior to 1971. It's on the records as being this way
since 1971. 1 have documentation for that. All right? Which we
just came up with. At the previous meeting it was not determined
that we had prior approval for this and jurisdiction from the
Trustees that, I should say non-jurisdiction from the Trustees.
Which I'm sure you guys have that, right?
TRUSTEE KING: I pretty much looked through it. They came in to
get permits for the deck, they have permits for the gazebo, they
have permits for all the floating docks. The only thing I
couldn't find was the jet-ski float and that one little
additional float area.
MR. PATANJO: The jet-ski is just recent.
TRUSTEE KING: I could find no record of it.
MR. PATANJO: We have it. It was just recent.
TRUSTEE KING: We would have to see those.
MR. PATANJO: The structure is existing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think
MR. PATANJO: I only have one copy, although you say it's not a
permit, it's the actual approval from the Trustees in 1971
giving permission for the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KING: They're saying no permit fee is required for the
bulkhead.
Board of Trustees 54 November 13, 2013
MR. PATANJO: Right, and there is non-jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE KING: It doesn't say non-jurisdiction. It's beyond the
jurisdiction because it was considered to be on private property.
MR. PATANJO: Right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In 1971.
MR. PATANJO: And that's handwritten notes on the Trustees.
TRUSTEE KING: That was the application that was the
application for a permit and they said a permit is not needed.
MR. PATANJO: Correct.
TRUSTEE KING: So what's the issue?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Today a permit is required.
TRUSTEE KING: Like Jay explained, that was before the Wetland
Code came into effect. That's why it was like that. See, I have
property further to the north and I have applied for a bulkhead
in 1970 or 1971. And they gave me a permit for a bulkhead
because it was along, within Trustee jurisdiction. So they were
issuing permits back then. They felt this doesn't need a permit.
Of course, you know, some of the recordkeeping back then was not
as good as we have today. Some of these Trustees I knew, and the
rest of them I know are all dead. So there is nobody to ask.
MR. PATANJO: Just a couple other things. You know, property
preservation of their property. They purchased the property
knowing they'll have this square footage of property. That's one
item I want to throw out there for you.
TRUSTEE KING: The only thing I would have to throw out there,
it's still their property. Even though it's wetland, it's still
their property. They have not lost any property. It's not like
you are taking property away from them.
MR. PATANJO: I can agree with that. However it's not really
usable property. Let's just say, for instance, they want to
remove the deck, and they want to put grass in that area. They
no longer have the ability to do that.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They don't have the ability to do that now.
MR. PATANJO: They do have the ability to do that now.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You can't put grass there.
MR. PATANJO: Why is that? It's a non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Non-turf, you can't put grass.
MR. PATANJO: Some sort of sea grass, yeah.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You can't put turf grass there.
MR. PATANJO: What if they like to play volleyball on sea grass.
TRUSTEE KING: We need to move this along. We've had a lot of
testimony. I've had my say. Are there any other comments from
anybody else?
MS. SAVINO: Dana Savino. I spoke to George Hamarth. He said he
knows a few of you people and he said you guys can give him a
call, that I cannot change the permit for the DEC. I have to
rebuild it the way it is. We are coming into storm season and it
will be another six months minimum for me to get a permit
through the DEC. If anybody has any questions, he said he would
Board of Trustees 55 November 13, 2013
be glad to speak with them.
TRUSTEE KING: That's because you probably went under a general
permit from Sandy that you can replace an existing structure.
MR. PATANJO: Remove and replace inkind.
TRUSTEE KING: And they are going to make you go through a full
permit process to back that up landward.
MS. SAVINO: Yes, he said I would have to go through the full
permit, so tell them if they have any questions, call him. He
gave me his number, 444-0371.
TRUSTEE KING: I know George. He's a good guy.
MR. PATANJO: As we said before, we have no problem creating
wetland in the town-owned property to the south. We are all for
that. If we can create the same square footage of wetlands that
we would propose with the 10'x100', 1,000 square foot of
wetlands, we'll plant wetlands grasses. If you want them five
miles from here, in your jurisdiction, we'll plant wetlands
grasses. If you have other areas, if you want us to plant those
areas, we will. However we are a little hesitant to move the
bulkhead back.
TRUSTEE KING: That would be like mitigation, because of that. I
don't think we are interested in going there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sir, would you like to speak?
MR. SAVINO: Yes, I'm Michael Savino. What did you say, Mr. King,
just now, about mitigation?
TRUSTEE KING: Usually, sometimes, like if there is something
done someplace in a sensitive area, it's approved, lots of times
they'll say, well, in exchange for what you are doing here, you
can rebuild over here, with like grow a wetland. It's called
mitigation. But we would not be really interested in doing
something like that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Particularly in this creek has ongoing water
quality issues and it's starting to get upgraded. In other
words, its water quality is improving. We would not want to
mitigate in other creek where this creek would benefit directly
by keeping the wetlands in the creek.
MR. PATANJO: Which I definitely agree with. But by replacing
inkind/inplace the existing bulkhead would not contribute to
water quality issues. But by us implementing additional
wetlands grasses and plantings will increase water quality.
Which is what we want to propose to you. This is an
inkind/inplace, has been there since 1971, obviously.
TRUSTEE KING: You made your point. We understand that. We
understand that. I know it's been there that long. If there is
no other testimony, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Does somebody want to make a motion?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make the motion. I'll make a motion
Board of Trustees 56 November 13, 2013
that I would like to table the application to give the
applicants an opportunity to think about it. Otherwise I'm going
to move to deny the application without prejudice because it is
damaging to the replacement, at this time, would be damaging and
result in a continued loss of intertidal wetlands in Mattituck
Creek. So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. Your motion started with I'm going to
move to table it, then you changed it to deny. If you could just
clarify your motion for the record.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll move to deny without prejudice because
we have not, move to deny without prejudice because the
construction as planned will be damaging, will prevent and will
damage intertidal wetlands within the Mattituck Creek system.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there a second?
MR. PATANJO: It's existing. How can you damage it?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any discussion?
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to call George Hamarth and tell him
what we want to do.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a point of discussion also, George
Hamarth is a separate agency that and if they granted a storm
relief permit, I think it is apples and oranges. George is a
great guy, I worked with George. I know George.
MR. SAVINO: Did you say if there was any other questions?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The public hearing is closed. Is there any other
discussion up here.
MR. PATANJO: Let's have discussion. How does it damage
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is not open to that.
MR. SAVINO: You just asked if there was any more questions.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's to the Board.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The problem with a motion like this, we
can't engineer. We can only approve or deny. This is a difficult
position to be in.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The motion has been presented and seconded.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll take a roll call vote on it. Trustee Domino?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Nay.
TRUSTEE KING: Nay to the denial?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's correct.
TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bredemeyer?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bergen?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm going to vote nay because I would rather talk
these people into moving that bulkhead. I'll vote nay on the
denial.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thanks a lot. I have to be honest with you. I
have to vote aye. Let's deny it and try to figure out what to do.
TRUSTEE KING: Motion carries.
Board of Trustees 57 November 13, 2013
(Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer,
aye. Trustee King, nay. Trustee Domino, nay).
MR. PATANJO: Can I ask what is the next step in this?
MS. HULSE: One second please. Is that a denial without
prejudice?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was, specifically.
TRUSTEE KING: The motion was to deny without prejudice, and it
passed three to two.
MR. PATANJO: How do we carry this further? I never had one
denied before.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have to be honest. I think if moving it back
the ten feet, trying to regain some of that wetland, you are not
losing that much. You have to rebuild it anyway. I think you
come back with that
MS. SAVING: I have to go for a full application now.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We've had a motion, it's been denied. We need to
move on to the next public hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Just in fairness.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand. But perhaps a discussion in the
office on it.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The deadline is tomorrow for December.
MR. PATANJO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number nine, Samuels & Steelman Architects on
behalf of EILEEN & VINCENT J. FLAHERTY requests a Wetland Permit
to demolish existing residence and construction of new two-story
structure with addition of a subsurface drainage system for rain
water runoff for the proposed residence and existing driveway.
Located: 470 Inlet Way, Southold.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be
consistent. The CAC supports the application with the condition
of roof drains for all structures direct into drywells and
structure be FEMA compliant. They question the legality of a
floating dock.
This was a project that was previously permitted back in
2011 as a renovation. Our understanding is the applicants found
that during the renovation really the entire structure needed to
be taken down. The permit in 2011 had run out so they are back
before us for a new permit. This has been before ZBA and cleared
with ZBA.
So, is there anybody here to speak for this application?
MR. SAMUELS: Tom Samuels, Samuels & Samuels Architect, on behalf
of the applicants. It's been a bit of a long history on this, I
think. We have been to you and the ZBA a couple of times,
obviously. We are in construction, we have a building permit
for this project, despite the fact that our permit has lapsed,
and it's in the initial phases, which is the demolition phase,
which is the portion of the building to be demolished, is
Board of Trustees 58 November 13, 2013
permitted; that the extent of the existing foundation was better
assessed, shall we say, and while we are not in a state of
collapse or there is no absolute imminent need to replace the
existing foundation, it was decided on the part of the owner and
myself and our general contractor Fred Seifert, who is also
here, that it would be better to have a new foundation under
this house. At the same time we would probably because the
existing floor elevation is below the minimum of FEMA with the
two-foot freeboard in New York State we went to the State of New
York and got a variance from them to leave the floor elevation
where it was, and that is how we have it to this time. At this
time, under the circumstances of being able to more properly
assess that foundation, it has become clear that raising it to
the FEMA compliant elevation would be beneficial. We knew that
anyway, but we are trying to add these two things together and
say, okay, maybe we can bite the bullet on this, maybe we can
afford to replace and complete, and at that point we went back
to the Building Department, of course, they sent us to the ZBA,
of course, and they sent us here. And here we are. And of course
as far as drywells are concerned, that is no problem. I don't
know about the floating dock that you mentioned, Dave, I don't
know what that's about.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking at the plans here and I see plenty
of drywells here. A question we had here is where is the
location of the septic system.
MR. SAMUELS: Yes. I have drawings showing where the sanitary
system is.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Excellent.
MS. SAMUELS: As I said, we have two existing, you'll see it in
that parking court, number of two existing leaching pools. And
these are additional copies of that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we just want to make sure that you have all
approvals from Suffolk County Health for this project.
MR. SAMUELS: We have not been to the Health Department as of
now. It's not been required we go to the Health Department from
the Building Department, who has generally made that call. We
are not increasing the number of bedrooms in the house and until
this point at least, it has not been a requirement.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ordinarily though, there would be a request
on a renovation such as this to have a new sanitary. A two-pool
system is a far cry from a modern septic tank and five pool
system, or six or seven depending on gallonage. I have to tell
you, I have a problem without trying to upgrade where you are
building a whole new home. I don't know, ordinarily they usually
come before us that they have the new sanitary incorporated into
the plans coming out of Building or Zoning. I don't know how
that happened. But as a Trustee, I'm concerned that we get just
the very basics.
MR. SAMUELS: There are certainly issues with the sanitary
Board of Trustees 59 November 13, 2013
approval, the sanitary approval here as being all non-conforming
for setbacks. The whole house is and all of the property. There
is nothing 100 feet from wetlands there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: But it's not really our determination. In
other words, the Trustees don't act on behalf of a Zoning Board
determination. It may be equally as inappropriate for us to
simply pass on a sanitary where that is something that should be
reviewed by the Suffolk County Department of Health Board of
Review. I mean, it's tough calls.
MR. SAMUELS: I think in that instance we would probably be more
inclined to proceed the way we are, which is what the current
Building permit and doing a renovation project, seeing it as a
renovation project.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And not doing the reconstruction.
MR. SAMUELS: And not doing the reconstruction.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Come on up to the microphone and introduce
yourself.
MR. SEIFERT: Fred Seifert, Seifert Construction.
So our intention all along was to do the project the way
the permit was written. We, as Tom stated, during demolition,
realized that the structure was less sufficient than we thought.
We brought it to the attention of our client that we think maybe
we could improve the situation. Our client has agreed. We have
already incurred a six-week delay, which we really have not had
to, because as Tom said, we have a building permit and we could
continue to go. We have no violations, we took down only the
part of the house we are supposed to. We left the part that is
there. But we thought by putting a new foundation in and
raising, we are only improving the condition. If we have to
continue to incur more delays, we are inclined just to continue
as is. And we are only here before you taking the right steps
to try to improve the situation, not to incur more delays.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So a question I have, Lori, their permit ran out
and they are at the partial demolition stage of that permit. Are
they still, if they continue construction under that permit, is
that legal?
MS. HULSE: That permit didn't call for a demolition, though,
right?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
MS. HULSE: So it's expired.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So it's expired, and they are at the partial
removal, I'll call it, of structure right now.
MR. SAMUELS: Everything has been demolished that has been
intended to be demolished. It's partially demolished, but that
is everything that is supposed to be demolished.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under that original permit.
MR. SAMUELS: That's right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Could they continue under the original permit
that has run out at this point.
Board of Trustees 60 November 13, 2013
MS. HULSE: No.
MR. SAMUELS: We have a building permit. I don't know what you're
saying.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The Trustee permit is expired. And what my
question was, if you were to withdraw this tonight, I don't want
to jump ahead of ourselves, but if you were to withdraw this
tonight, and what I'm hearing you say is continue under the 2011
permit that has expired, my question is legally could you do
that. You would be continuing a project under, the construction
of a project under an expired permit. And that is why I asked
legal counsel is that something that could happen. The answer we
get is no.
MS. HULSE: You have to get an extension prior to the expiration.
You have to request an extension.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So they have to come back in for another Trustee
permit.
MS. HULSE: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's where I'm going with this.
TRUSTEE KING: Just to continue what you are doing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You have to re-apply for what you already have a
permit for.
MR. SAMUELS: And you are not able to make that happen tonight, I
assume.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, it has to be noticed and everything.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And that would be subject to a review, that
permit application. So given that, is your intention here
tonight to withdraw this application?
MR. SAMUELS: I suppose you could say that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on.
(Off the record).
Is there some additional comment that needs to be made?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think what Lori was just saying, we could try
to make it work within the confines of what they have applied
for. We can change it, like we have in the past, we can change
the conditions.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The key issue here, if you are demolishing
the whole house and you don't have a modern sanitary system, it
means you can't establish a setback from the wetlands.
Ordinarily the Trustees would rely on the Health Department in
their wisdom to design a new sanitary system for a new house.
Because this is a new house. Even though it may require relief
from the sanitary code from their review board, which we
automatically by reference usually include in our permits. But
it seems inappropriate to move ahead with an approval here where
we are on face value the sanitary doesn't seem to have the
number of elements that a modern system does, there is no Health
Department review.
MR. SAMUELS: You guys did give us a permit for it and at this
point I'm only look for a renewal, and it sounds like I can't
Board of Trustees 61 November 13, 2013
get it tonight. But that's exactly what we are looking to do, is
renew that existing permit.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What you are saying is the difference between
just reconstructing this and knocking it down triggers
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Usually the Building Department requires new
sanitary on the total teardown. This has a different evolution
on how we got here.
MR. SAMUELS: Correct. We are conferring to their judgment on
there with regard to new construction and looking to continue
the project, which is already underway. I can't imagine there
are not other projects whose Trustee permits expired in the
middle of the project. I mean it must happen.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It does, actually, if it expires in the middle.
But they have to be renewed in the middle of the project.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And usually they are viewed with respect to
the issues of setbacks required and conditions of the permit.
This is
MR. SEIFERT: You know, we sit here tonight for hours listening
to all these people who have done things against your wishes and
come here looking for permission, and we come here tonight after
a six-week delay in construction where we could have kept going,
trying to do the right thing, and we get in essence worse than
what the people who have done the things they should not have
been doing, thrown at us.
MS. HULSE: That's not really an accurate comment. That's really
not I'm not understanding that comment. I don't think it's
really justified. The Trustees are trying to work with what they
have.
MR. SEIFERT: We have come here in good faith to try to do the
right thing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't know if that's in good faith or common
business practice. I would hope it's common business practice.
MR. SEIFERT: Well that's how we've always done it.
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to move on this myself. If we could
condition it, hold the permit until there is an approved
sanitary system from the Health Department, then at least you
are through with us.
MR. SAMUELS: We are, but we would probably
TRUSTEE KING: And if you don't get need anything from them,
fine, just give us a letter from them stating that and we are
good to go.
MR. SAMUELS: We very well could be back asking for the same
permit that has recently expired. Can you give me any sense of
the likelihood of that? I have to tell my clients something.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to move forward with this and not
try to predict what could happen in the future with additional
application. Unless you want to withdraw this application
tonight. Which you obviously have the right to do.
MR. SAMUELS: I would like to withdraw this application.
Board of Trustees 62 November 13, 2013
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm confused.
MR. SAMUELS: I'm not sure how this helps me to have your permit
for something I know will take us six months or more to get from
the Health Department, when I have a house that is demolished.
MS. HULSE: You could be leaving here tonight with a permit for
what you basically are asking for.
MR. SAMUELS: Which I can withdraw later. Okay. I might come
back with another application, is my point. I have to continue
this project in some fashion.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Again, this is I know I have this meeting and
one more and I'm done, but just for a little clarity. If we
gave you this permit, right, I'm assuming he would be compelled
to go to Health Department just by virtue of the fact that we
issued the permit. Whether we say it or not, right?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, he would just go ahead and construct. He
would only be compelled to go to Health Department if we make it
a condition that compels him to go to the Health Department and
get either a sign off or approval that we would have to get
before we actually issue.
MR. SAMUELS: I'm sorry, can you explain
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's my understanding if we grant a permit
conditioned on the Health Department, we would not release our
copy of the Wetland Permit until either a letter came back of
the Health Department is either whatever they are doing,
approving, waiving jurisdiction or whatever they would do.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I guess my point being is that are we in a
position to be the police for the Health Department?
I don't know.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are in the possession of being police for
the Town of Southold Wetland Code because we have a whole entire
new house being built, and they are trying to tie it into an
antiquated sanitary system. That's the issue. And this current
sanitary system is more than likely in groundwater and is
extremely close to groundwater.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm not arguing the merits of doing it. I'm just
asking, procedurally, if we issue the permit, he still has to go
to the Health Department.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's not my understanding. If he has a
building permit and he gets a permit from us, they would
construct and there would be a substandard sanitary system in the
ground because the County Health Department is not compelled
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So you have a building permit to do this, what
you have just come to us for.
MR. SAMUELS: Correct.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Now I'm up to speed, okay.
MR. SAMUELS: We have a building permit in place, in hand, which
was based on your permit which was in effect at the time of that
building permit. And at this point I'm simply saying I would
Board of Trustees 63 November 13, 2013
like to withdraw this and just continue with what we are doing,
because anything else is hugely onerous to my client.
TRUSTEE KING: You would have to re-apply for the original plan
that was already approved.
MR. SAMUELS: I understand that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Note for the record that the applicant is
withdrawing the permit for Eileen and Vincent Flaherty.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Dave, a point on this. A question from the
Conservation Advisory Council. I heard mention that on the
diagram it shows drywells. Are they looking for a permit for
those drywells or are they already in the ground?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That is part of the process and that would have
been covered under the first permit. So now they'll have to
address that with a new permit application.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Would you pose that question to the applicant?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I can't now.
MR. SAMUELS: The drywells are not in the ground but they were
permitted by you and also by the Building Department.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So the application has been withdrawn.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number ten, Samuels & Steelman Architects on
behalf of MICHAEL & CELIA WITHERS requests a Wetland Permit to
construct an approximate 25.4'x23.3' addition to the existing
dwelling; install drywells to addition; and an underground gas
line. Located: 6635 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk.
The application has been determined to be consistent with
the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council has voted to support
the application. There is a lengthy letter in the file from Ms.
Anna Barisic, which is a four-page letter. I'll paraphrase. Ms.
Barisic specifically is questioning an expansion of the existing
building, which she purports started out as a guard shack which
had a number of renovations. She goes on to question a number of
additions to this guard shack and then home, which seemed to
question things having to do with building and zoning which
really don't have to do with the town wetland ordinance. But she
does make extensive comments concerning runoff and flooding
issues on the property. That letter by reference we'll include
in the record the formal record of this evening.
The Trustees visited the site on November 6th. The
notations were that the house does comply with Chapter 236 and
it does show house downspouts to drywells. I'll double check to
make sure. I don't believe that we had any concerns with the
fact that it did have additional drainage that was calculated to
meet the needs of the building addition, which may additionally
help control runoff onsite so that they are 236 compliant.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MS. STEELMAN: Good evening. Nancy Steelman, Samuels & Steelman
Architect. I'm here on behalf of my clients Michael and Celia Withers.
Board of Trustees 64 November 13, 2013
1 would like to maybe just talk about what we are planning
at this point. This is a relatively small addition, about
five-hundred square feet. It is going to be an art studio. We
have provided adequate drainage for any runoff on the property.
It will not have a basement. This is just a crawl space, so it
will be minimal excavation on the property. There was difficulty
in terms of trying to locate this as far as we can from the
existing bulkhead. We received Zoning Board approval because we
were closer than the required 75 feet. And I think this is a
good solution for my client. And if there are any questions,
I'm here to answer them.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Also my apologies, I wish to have the record
corrected. When I read the Trustees field report, I
misinterpreted the information on the report. The question, we
had a question about their existing downspouts on the main house
that are not tied in with drywells. So I mis-applied it. We did
see the proposed drywells on the new side, but there was an
additional question concerning the existing house and the
downspouts. And given the concerns of Ms. Barisic with the
extensive digging that will have to take place with those
drywells, do you think it might be possible the main house could
be tied in and possibly add a drywell where there is a question
of already a water problem on the property, so that way it might
alleviate the runoff from the main house where flooding is
apparently an issue on the property itself, and they would help
alleviate what might be a Chapter 236 issue while the work is
taking place.
MS. STEELMAN: I don't think we have a problem with that. But I
want to state for the record, I'm not sure where this flooding
is taking place. The property is very level, and if you look on
our site plan, we have all spot elevations. They are fairly
consistent all the way through the property.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We saw that.
MS. STEELMAN: It's not anything where any of our runoff is going
on to an adjacent property. But I think we would not have a
problem running additional drywells for the main house. I think
that would be acceptable to us.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any Board members, questions or concerns?
(No response).
Okay, any additional comments from the audience?
MR. BARISIC: Joe Barisic. Ms. Barisic's son. I want to mention
that the house was originally, as I said, a guard shack. I've
known Mr. Withers since he purchased it, and I knew the property
before he purchased it, probably 30 years ago. It has increased
in size three times over the years. And the flooding that is
occurring, is occurring in the southeast comer of our property,
which is basically the adjacent abutting part to his land. And
I didn't know how storm water runoff worked and drywells. I know
in looking at the law you didn't have drywell requirements back
Board of Trustees 65 November 13, 2013
in the '90's when most of the construction took place. Up until
recently, the flooding would pool up. Now most recently it has
actually made its way into our basement. I think the addition of
a drywell could probably help a lot on that. But also by the
same token, I want to mention, there is an old cesspool on the
southeast corner of our property which is no longer tied in. If
you pop it and look inside during high tide, it full. During low
tide, it's low. That's what we are having on our property. And
his property is between us and the creek, I can't imagine the
ability to absorb drain water is there. The land itself is just,
I mean there is a reason for a 75' border away from the creeks
in order to build, and this is a non-conforming use. Granted it
was grandfathered in and the entire building is within 35 or 40
feet of the water, whatever it is. But I just think the land
itself is not permeable enough to accept more drainage. All the
drywells, you can fill the whole property with, they'll fill up
and stay full. And I think that needs to be addressed. And
perhaps the addition will cause more runoff. Which will just
either go into the creek on the creek side or on to us to the
land side.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, very much. Is there anyone else
who wishes to speak to the application?
MS. BARISIC: I'm Anna Barisic and I'm in my eighties. I don't
hear well. But anyway, I'll speak up. We bought the house in
1971 and it was in back of the marina. I mean the marina was in
back of my house was the marina. In New Suffolk. And there was
never any house there. But then the owner of the marina died and
Mr. Withers bought the property, and on the property was a
house, a small house, like a shack, where the watchman used to
sit during the summertime. So when he moved in, he built up
through that house, and then he keeps adding extension,
extension, extension, and I don't mind because they were very
nice neighbors and it didn't bother me at all. But now they want
another extension. And as it is, after they built the house, and
all those cesspools and everything, my lawn and yard is flooded
every time not every time, it's been a dry summer but I
have had many floods in my yard, which I never had before. Then
it's seeping down into my basement. Now they want to put another
extension, a studio with a bathroom and a kitchen, and another
deck, and I'm going, I'm afraid I'm going to have more flooding.
So anyway, I don't want any more extensions. That's my bottom
line. And my son is speaking for me. He was 12-years old when
we bought the house, now he's speaking up for his mother.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Another question. I didn't see on
the plan any drainage calculations that went with the drywell,
but I may have missed that.
MS. STEELMAN: There's not. We have done our own but we didn't
put them on the drawing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under the circumstance, I don't know how the
Board of Trustees 66 November 13, 2013
other Board members feel, the drainage calculations for the
entire house could be made and submitted to the town Engineering
Department for a 236 review and that way at least there would be
the engineering certainty that they would meet the Town Code
requirements, and we could stipulate that, if it's not a
problem. I don't think, because this has a strong vegetated
buffer, and it's in a dredge and bulkheaded creek, the
environmental issues surrounding the Trustee review largely
center on compliance with the handling of runoff and waste water
from the roof system. And since other boards have made their
determinations, it doesn't leave us much we can do. We don't
control additions, per se. And that the calculations would have
to include the depth to groundwater so they could be sized in
relation to the depth of groundwater at the site, which is
admittedly very high.
MS. STEELMAN: I want to say now, the town, when we are in for a
building permit on this, everything now goes to the town
engineer. And everything is checked, all our calculations, test
holes are required, so as a next step that would be a normal
process for us.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I'm Benja Schwartz. I live on Fleets Neck in
Cutchogue. I have a very short letter, if I may read.
Thank you for considering this letter. About 56 years ago,
my uncle Al Zelinski kept a small boat in this creek. The creek
was beautiful. My uncle's dock was a little catwalk on locust
posts. There was still a natural beach at that time with
fiddler crabs and eel grass. Now the creek is all bulkheaded.
Fragile wetland is no longer healthy. There is already too much
development on this estuary. Please give nature a chance to
heal. Please do not say, yes, we have to give this property
owner something. They have already overdeveloped. Please say no.
Thank you, Nancy Sevastinovich (sic), President of Save
Cutchogue.
If I may, 1 could submit a copy of the letter.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure, we'll put it in the file.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I question the reference to this addition as a
quote unquote art studio. It looks more like a studio apartment
to me. It may not have a kitchen, but it has a sink and a
bathroom and I mean, maybe it's an elderly artist that needs
facilities, but if they are living in that house, couldn't they
use the bathroom in the house?
I know this is stretching the Trustees jurisdiction a
little, but then again the Trustees jurisdiction extends to 100
feet from the water. And this is only three feet from the water.
Or three feet up from the water and I don't know how feet back
from the bulkhead. But as we all know, water flows down. And
whatever goes down into a drywell on this area I submit would be
going into the creek and also into the water table, which will
Board of Trustees 67 November 13, 2013
be impacting the neighbor's property. So we have an
environmental issue here. But there is also an issue of
competing or conflicting property rights, which I believe this
Board can consider, along with their environmental mandate. The
environment belongs to everybody. We should all protect it. This
little shack that was a part of this property, as I understood
it, was originally developed as a marina, and then there was a
little shed that was probably used in conjunction with the
marina that was converted into a residence. The current owners
purchased the property and my understanding is they built that
shed in place without changing the size of the footprint. Maybe
they went up a little bit, but they turned the shed into a
residence. Now you have a property on the water in an M-2 zone.
But it has two uses already. Now, if they wanted to build a
second house on the property, could they do it? I don't think
so. This art studio or studio apartment, however you want to,
you know what we are talking about, appears to me to be barely
connected to the house. It's almost like a separate dwelling.
And it would make a very nice rental. Maybe it will be for rent.
I don't think it will be an affordable rental.
You know, the cumulative impact of all this development is
another thing, too. Not just, oh, is this one studio going to
destroy the creek? No. Is the creek already destroyed? I don't
know. But the fact that we are talking about the plans include
the drywells, is in essence an admission that this will
aggravate the non-porous surface or non-permeable surface on the
property and will create the potential for more runoff. Maybe it
will alleviate the runoff. I don't know. But couldn't that be
done keeping the house the same size it is? This land, this
property, is not just flat. It's right on the water. It used to
probably have a little slope going down to the water. Now it has
a bulkhead. It's flat property but it's in the wetland zone. And
I think that I would just ask the Trustees rather than mitigate
and reduce the damage, let's just prevent it and say no. Thank
you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else who wishes to speak to this
application?
(No response).
Board members?
(No response).
MS. STEELMAN: Would it be helpful for the Board to get a little
more history about this property from the owner? Would you like
to hear a little bit of that clarification on some of the things
being said here tonight? If that would be helpful.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's up to individual members. I believe I
have heard enough concerning the issues that are within the, I
feel are within our purview as a Board member. Maybe another
Board member has a different thought.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Not for me.
Board of Trustees 68 November 13, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: Not for me.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. 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, contingent upon the submission of a
drainage plan for the entire structure, including the new
addition, with groundwater elevations to be submitted to the
town engineer for review under the town's Chapter 236, and for
sufficient volume to handle the roof loading under Town Code. So
moved. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second the motion.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Motion carries.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number eleven, Creative Environmental Design on
behalf of KEVIN BARR requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
13'x23' sunroom onto the seaward side of the existing dwelling.
Located: 200 Basin Road, Southold.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The
Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this application.
There was a letter in the file from a Joseph and Laura Mazza,
neighbors, in support of this application. The Trustees did a
field inspection on November 6th. It is straightforward. Check
previous permits for setbacks, et cetera. And that was done.
There is a ZBA approval, prior ZBA and Trustee permits. So
everything is in order.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. CICHANOWICZ: Dave Cichanowicz, Creative Environmental, for
Kevin Barr. I'm here to answer any questions or concerns you may
have about this. It seems to be pretty straightforward.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any of the other Trustees have any questions?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There was nothing in the field notes?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: As I said, the field notes said everything was
okay, straightforward.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: CAC comments?
MR. MCGREEVEY: As part of the Conservation Advisory Council
report we do say with the condition of a drainage plan for the
300 square foot sunroom addition. We would like that addressed.
MR. CICHANOWICZ: We would be happy to oblige.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay. Is there anyone else here to speak to this
application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I would make a
motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
Board of Trustees 69 November 13, 2013
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application with
the condition that it shows the drainage plan for the 300-square
foot sunroom addition. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 12, THOMAS & LINDA KELLY requests a
Wetland Permit for construction of a 20'x40' with 12'x16' "L"
extension in-ground pool; construct a 1,700sq.ft. Pool patio;
install 4' high pool fencing; construct a 10'x12' tool shed;
construct a 700sq.ft. Terrace seaward of existing covered porch;
and re-vegetate previously cleared areas. Located: 4553 Wickham
Avenue, Mattituck.
The field notes show we made an inspection. The field notes
say the project proposed in a non-disturbance area which appears
to have been cleared. We had some discussions about moving it
to an area that had previously been approved in a prior
application with a former owner. This was found to be
inconsistent with the LWRP, with the following notation: the
proposed 50-foot non-disturbance buffer is not the correct
classification for the buffer, since the area will be planted.
It's recommended that the Board require a landscape buffer be
applied. And he gave us an example of what he considered that
would work. A landscape buffer with land area of a certain
length and width which is planted with indigenous drought
tolerant vegetation similar to that found in the immediate
proximity of the parcel. Vegetation shall be installed in
sufficient density to achieve 95% ground cover within two years
of installation, with survival of 90% for a period of three
years. It is also recommended the tool shed be located outside
the 100-foot minimum wetland setback distance. It is recommended
that the Board require a pool dewatering well to be installed.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application with the condition of a drainage plan to include the pool.
With that, is there anybody here who would like to speak to
this application?
MR. KELLY: Thomas Kelly.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, have you had some
MR. KELLY: I wanted to make sure you have, I submitted new
drawings that place the pool in the same location of the prior
approval. The only thing that should be different is the shape
of the pool. I know that there was concern expressed about the
amount of clearing. I have been there since September 6th. I
have been told by numerous people that the prior applicant
exceeded his rights. But in my plan I intended to revegetate
those areas anyway. We don't want the turf there ourselves. The
Board of Trustees 70 November 13, 2013
location of the tool shed, I have no problem moving. I was not
aware of that, but.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have the landscape plan here as well. The
tool shed is outside the 50 foot non-disturbance buffer on the
landscape plan, and is showing planting this buffer back up to
where I will note, and bear with me here, that the
re-vegetating the non-turf buffer is going to include
ornamentals. Just to make that clear. From what I'm looking at,
I'm seeing ornamentals mixed in here, right?
MR. KELLY: I don't know one name from the other, but I'm
assuming he drew them in there, yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do we have a set of plans for what was
originally approved there, that include the delineation of the
non-turf buffer?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It was there when we did the inspection. We have
to go back to what the original permit had. Basically it's this
same thing but change the shape of the pool. And this was the
buffer. (Perusing). It's dam close to what we
TRUSTEE KING: It's very close. Looking at these two here. The
fence for the pool.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are just looking for the fence for the pool.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's the outline, the "X's." The fence is
going out into the non-disturbance buffer, according to this
diagram. It's a chain link fence and it's encroaching into the buffer.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can we bring that fence back in so it's inside
the non-turf buffer, in other words it would run right behind
the terrace.
MR. KELLY: You tell me where to put it and I'll put it there. I
think we just tried to recreate where he had the fence lines
drawn in the original plan.
TRUSTEE KING: He had the fence along, right on the 50-foot line,
on the original one.
MR. KELLY: He had it in his artistic rendering, it does into the
buffer. I think that's what we tried to copy.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Should we set a limit how far he can go into
the buffer.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I suppose we could do that. I think what Trustee
Bredemeyer is referring to is the whole idea of a
non-disturbance buffer is when it's established, first off, it's
not to be disturbed at all. It's supposed to be naturalized. You
are putting in some of these ornamentals. That is generally not
something that we would allow in a non-disturbance buffer. So
what he's suggesting is that we allow you to do it to a certain
extent, to a certain point, and then that's it. Then everything
else has to naturalize.
MR. KELLY: Okay, when you say naturalize, my neighbor and I
don't know one plant from another but my neighbor apparently
makes his living growing native vegetation for wetlands. So
when you say naturalized, do we plant that or just let, because
Board of Trustees 71 November 13, 2013
the prior owner cleared too much and then let weeds come up.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Planting those kinds of plants and then letting
them just take off from there, is generally a good idea. And it
works out, frankly it works out pretty nice. If done right. It
looks pretty nice after a few years, too.
MR. KELLY: Well, looking from our deck, the nicest portion of
our yard is phragmites.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, it's a bit invasive, but I hear what you
are saying. And bringing the fence back on the border of the
non-disturbance buffer is the best thing to do.
MR. KELLY: Okay. I have one question. I don't know if it's off
topic or not. Only when I saw the agenda tonight did I see
certain folks are here asking for a transfer of the previous
permit. Should I have just, is that really the way to go?
I'm changing the shape of the pool, which is not addressed in
here, but.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think, the original permit, the work was
never done. So it's actually
TRUSTEE KING: So that would have been an expired permit.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So you did the right thing.
MR. KELLY: I'm glad to hear that, to tell you the truth. It's a
lot of running around.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And we are, as a Board, I think I can speak for
the rest of the Board, we were wondering how you made out after
we left, if somebody got thrown under the bus.
(No response).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or questions?
MR. MCGREEVEY: The CAC would like to raise a question, a general
question. We are talking non-turf or non-disturbance buffers.
What is the intent of that? Is it the intent for that area not
to be fertilized? Is that the purpose of it or is there another
purpose?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In the case of a non-disturbance buffer it's
really just wanting to maintain the habitat, really. Because
it's a corridor for wildlife as well as being a buffer to help
clean any runoff that might be heading toward the creek or
wetland. And the case of a non-turf buffer, that specifically, I
think, is really geared toward keeping runoff clean and no
fertilizers entering the wetland.
MR. MCGREEVEY: So fertilizing is an important point in a
non-turf buffer and also in remaining, using planting that
doesn't require fertilizing, so the intent is there.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's the intent, yes.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Very good, thank you.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The only difference really with a
non-disturbance buffer is it gets the added feature of
maintaining the habitat.
If there are no other comments or questions I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
Board of Trustees 72 November 13, 2013
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application
based upon the new drawings received on November 12th, 2013,
that reflect the moving of the pool back into the area landward
of the non-disturbance buffer, noting that the fence is to also
be on the border of the non-disturbance buffer, and that in the
non-disturbance buffer that is being re-vegetated, that native
vegetation be planted and be allowed to naturalize over the
course of the next three years. And that the drainage for the
pool, a drywell is included for the backwash. And the shed is to
be moved outside of the non-disturbance buffer as well. I think
it already is.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The shed is outside.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So you're okay. By doing that, it makes this
consistent with the LWRP. And that is my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KELLY: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 13, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of DONALD WCALLION requests a Wetland Permit to demolish
existing fire damaged dwelling and decking, and construct new
proposed +/-1,440sq.ft. Dwelling with +/-290sq.ft. Front entry
and porch; +/-590sq.ft. Rear decking with a +/-64sq.ft. Hot tub;
and new sanitary system with approximately 300 cubic yards of
fill. Located: 1100 Dean Drive, Cutchogue.
The Board went out and looked at this property. This was
reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. The
Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application. This has been before Zoning Board and the Zoning
Board has given a variance for this project.
So is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicants, the McCallions. As you know, I met you out
there on the property twice now in the past several months. I
think everyone fully understands what it is we are doing here.
The only thing I would add to the record is during the course of
the Zoning proceeding, all neighbors adjacent supported fully
the application.
At this point we have retained all of our permits with the
exception of the Health Department permit, but we have cleared
all the technical review of that permit and we simply await
receipt of the Trustee permit. And once that is forwarded to
the Health Department, they will promptly approve it.
So my request tonight is if we can approve it tonight,
Board of Trustees 73 November 13, 2013
hopefully get the permit out quickly, we are hoping to start
immediately. And whether is not our friend at this point. So
anything you can do to expedite this, should you approve the
application, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just looking for the opportunity to put a
staked hay bale line here, and I'm wondering how much room you
need for the demolition and construction activity. I'm looking
at the six-foot contour line, if there was a hay bale line put
along that six-foot contour line, if they would enable you to
have plenty of room there to do all the construction activity
you needed.
MR. ANDERSON: It would.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Are there any other questions?
(No response).
Is there anybody else who wants to speak on behalf of or against
this application?
(No response).
Not hearing any, I'll make a motion to close this public
hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Suffolk Environmental on behalf of Donald McCallion, at 1100
Dean Drive, with the condition that a staked hay bale line will
go at the six-foot contour line. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf
of JOAN SHANNON requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the
existing 69' retaining wall with 12' return. Located: 7080
Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
This application is deemed consistent with the LWRP. The
Conservation Advisory Council has voted to support this
application. The Trustees visited the site. We had concerns that
activities under permit #7384 may not have been completed in the
entirety. And we are concerned that the project as proposed for
repairing a retaining wall may be a segmentation of a larger
project or the way things are moving in a piecemeal fashion,
since this started out with a request earlier this year for more
extensive work and the application was withdrawn when we
suggested it was not subject to an administrative permit. So
this harkens back to a permit that we approved in 2010, that on
August 18 of 2010 we approved a permit to install six new
pilings at the highest elevation, attach tie rods with
turnbuckles, existing two-story deck and existing bulkhead plumb
straight, with the condition of a five-foot non-turf between the
Board of Trustees 74 November 13, 2013
lawn area and upper deck. That was on the site plan of Mark
Schwartz, dated July 28, 2010.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting.
Actually, we worked on this project in 2005. And in 2005, we
replaced, we received the permits to replace the bulkhead, the
actual bulkhead itself, which is constructed out of fiberglass,
I might add, and held up on the storm, which I'm grateful for.
This is, from my standpoint, simply an application to replace an
upper retaining wall that was obviously damaged by Hurricane
Sandy. I can tell you, and I have spoken to the client, that the
prior 2005 permit called for the planting of beach grass between
the two, between the bulkhead and retaining wall. It's our
intention to plant that beach grass. As to any other conditions
such as planting beach grass, as I understand, landward of the,
I guess at the top of the bluff, if that's the prior condition
then I would simply suggest that we simply restate it. Because
this application does not in any way relieve the property owner
of any prior regulatory decision that was made. In my view,
anyway. And I think the applicant understands that. So hopefully
that addresses your concern.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess a question that I have, how would
the reconstructing retaining wall take place without removal of
the deck and what remains of what looks like a cabana.
MR. ANDERSON: Let's be specific. In other words, what you are
saying is that the actual construction would necessitate the
removal of these; we have done this before on lots of similar
applications. It's done by hand. Boards that have to be moved
aside, are moved aside. If you went there and looked behind I
guess where the outdoor shower is, you'll see there was, right
there, you'll see how some of the work was done prior to. So,
you know, my feeling is that what would actually happen is that
much of this upper bulkhead, this upper retaining wall, would in
fact be installed by hand. Because that's really the only way it
really can be installed.
I also note that under the prior plan there was a design to
utilize helical screws, and that can certainly, that is carried
through in this plan. So it doesn't really require us to do
very much behind the bulkhead, because the screws are going to
be installed from the outside in. Obviously we'll want to
replenish the sand that was lost, both above the seaward
existing bulkhead and also behind what was the retaining walls.
Those are open areas now. That's what makes the wall strong. So
the plan would be that the bulkhead would be constructed in
place, reconstructed inplace and it would be anchored with
helical screws as per plan.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bruce, what are your plans for the rest of the
structure there that all needs repair?
Board of Trustees 75 November 13, 2013
MR. ANDERSON: We'll repair them, if we can. But it's not part of
this application.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is it permitted?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, it appears on the plans that were stamped
approved by this Board.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we need to check to see that it's
permitted. See, our concern was this is going to be done
piecemeal.
MR. ANDERSON: This is the plan you approved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I need to see the permit that goes with the
plans.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is that the August 18th, 2010?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a copy of the permit here. The permit
was to install six new pilings at the highest elevation, attach
tie rods with turnbuckles, pull existing two-story deck and
existing bulkhead plumb and straight, with the condition of a
five-foot non-turf buffer between the lawn area and upper deck
as depicted on the site plan of Mark Schwartz, dated July 28,
2010, stamped approved August 18, 2010.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: See, my interpretation of that permit, and I
could be wrong, is that it does not permit in this other
structure here. It's addressing work to be done on a bulkhead
and requiring a non-turf buffer and pull existing deck straight.
So again it goes back to, you know, if this is not permitted,
what is the plan for it.
MR. ANDERSON: We are not saying it's not permitted. If you look
at your site plan; the applicant is here. The property owner is
here. My understanding is that everything you see there,
although damaged by the storm, was there in 2005, and again in
2010 when you looked at it. You have been out to the property
twice.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are you saying the work in 2010 was
accomplished and then subsequently undermined by the Tropical
Storms Irene and Sandy or
MR. ANDERSON: What I'm saying is, my understanding is everything
that was there, everything that is there today was there, has
been there since 2005, and has been inspected.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The structure was there. Because there is no
five-foot buffer when we were out on the field inspection.
MR. ANDERSON: I get that. That, I think we are bound by that.
There is no argument there. But I think what you are asking for,
for example, you see a crooked wall there. For example. What
the property owner can speak to, although it's not part of this
application, is that that wall was there, it was there in 2005
and it was there in 2010. And the Board, when it conducted its
inspection during those dates, would have known it was there.
Whether or not a specific permit was applied for, it may
pre-exist. I don't know when it was built. Our survey
Board of Trustees 76 November 13, 2013
information goes back to approximately 1971. Let me make sure I
have that right. (Perusing). And all I can go by is a Van Tuyl
survey. And also a property of records card which sort of places
in context, it was, the property was purchased by an individual
named the Palmers back in, sorry, 1968. The Palmers sold to the
Friedlanders and the Friedlanders sold to Shannon. So Shannon,
it seems to me, purchases a property with, under certain
condition. And my understanding is that condition today is the
same conditions then. That's all I can say.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let me try to make it a little clearer. If the
structures here are not permitted, and I'm not seeing anything
here saying these structures are permitted, so that means no
repair can be done of these, of non-permitted structures. That's
in the Town Code. So if there is, I just want to, you know, we
have already asked how this will be done without removing the
structure and you said it will be hand done.
MR. ANDERSON: Right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And then you indicated they'll do repairs on
this structure. Well, unless it's a permitted structure, and I
have not seen anything yet here tonight saying it's a permitted
structure, those repairs can't be done. You have to come in and
apply for a permit for that. That's all I'm trying to say. We
have unfortunately run into situations where somebody has a
project like this and they do end up removing this structure in
order to do the wall. And I know you said that's not your
intent here. And when they have done that, they now lose that
structure because it's not permitted. They have to come in and
apply for a permit to replace that structure. So I just want the
client to understand, you know, I would not want to see her get
caught in this Catch-22 where she attempts to do a repair to a
non-permitted structure. Because you are not allowed to do that.
That's why it got back to our original comment of we were just
curious why just the retaining wall. Why not come in and ask for
a permit for the retaining wall, for this structure, for all the
structures that are there, that way they would all be permitted
and repairs could be made.
MS. SHANNON: Isn't that what I'm doing? I want to repair
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you would step up to the microphone, please.
This is why I want to make sure we didn't get ourselves down the
road to a violation situation.
MR. SHANNON: No, it was there when I bought the house. I did not
put it in. And I could lose the shower. I could lose half that
lower deck if you want. That's not important to me. I just want
to repair the upper bulkhead to protect my property. The lower
bulkhead was replaced, now I want to do the upper bulkhead. And
I don't need the shower, I don't need the decking. I just need
to have this structure that is sound for my property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that. What I'm asking is what is
the intent, you are looking at a wall that is falling down what
Board of Trustees 77 November 13, 2013
is the intent. The answer is to repair it. If it's not
permitted, it can't be repaired.
MS. SHANNON: Okay, 1 have to get a permit for my deck?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For the cabana, the deck whatever. That's why it
was, we were curious in the field as to why not apply for all
the structure that is there so it could all be addressed and you
can do whatever repairs.
MS. SHANNON: I'm not sure what structures you are talking about.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, I'm looking at a wall falling down on the
cabana. And the deck underneath it that is leaning down. Right
now you can't do any repairs to any of that unless you can show
us it's a permitted structure.
MS. SHANNON: Okay, so, 1 just assumed that the prior owner had a
permit. So there is no permit for it. What about the upper deck?
You gave me a permit two years ago to put the huge screws in my
lawn to correct it, and I spent a lot of money.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, without researching it and looking for
it, I'm just trying to avoid a situation where you, without the
intention of doing anything wrong, go out there and do a repair
to that, what we are looking at in the picture falling drown,
and you are subject to a violation from the town for doing work
without a permit. I'm trying to help you.
MS. SHANNON: Okay, so what do I need to do, is my question.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, you can talk to your agent for getting
structures permitted. That's all.
MR. ANDERSON: Can't we amend it on the table.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Not that structure as it stands there. I would
not be comfortable with doing that.
MR. ANDERSON: Why not?
MS. HULSE: Because your application only refers to the retaining
wall. It has to be properly noticed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a substantial structure. We don't know
whether the prior permit, any activity took place on it, because
we were never called for a compliance inspection.
MR. ANDERSON: What I think is they are reflected on the 2010
survey, okay.
MS. HULSE: I'm sorry, we really can't entertain discussion on
this. It's not part of your application and has not been duly
noticed.
MR. ANDERSON: I understand. I'm just asking a question. They are
reflected in the 2010, for sure. The upper deck was there in
1968, for sure. I don't even know you were regulating these
things in 1968. It's too far for me to go back. You are only
eleven years past Zoning, past Building permit time. So what I
would suggest is maybe we can approve what we have asked for and
we can file a subsequent application for the repair of the
structure, if that clears the matter up. There is no
segmentation issue as that term is defined to SEQRA because it's
a Type 11 action and SEQRA doesn't apply.
Board of Trustees 78 November 13, 2013
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's not that SEQRA applies but in generic
terms when we start parsing projects into smaller pieces, and
when there may be as big or larger whole of partially broken or
disrepaired structure, we are getting into that area where we'll
have misunderstandings and exactly what Dave was trying to
avoid, is having a situation where an applicant gets involved
with a project and the project starts growing in new directions
that were unforeseen by the Board, whereas I think looking at it
in total, what you are looking for, what you want to keep, a
project plan, are permits required, discussing how a project
plan will evolve, in this case, what will get removed to do the
repairs, what you want to keep, I think that would be in the
best interest of both the Board and the applicant.
TRUSTEE KING: I think the best thing to do with this is table
this and amend this description to include what you want. If you
don't want something, take it out, and get it cleaned up, and
re-notice everybody, and that will be the end of it.
MR. ANDERSON: Is there any problems per se with what is there?
I have not heard anything in terms much impact or anything else.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would be the subject of another public
hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And Board review. We'll go through some
changes and arguably it will not be the same Board here very
shortly, so. I can't say. We really are only looking at one
piece when we were out there, and we see all this other stuff
going on. So, I mean, we can't prejudge.
MS. HULSE: We can't give an advisory opinion from the dais.
MS. SHANNON: Basically when you buy a house you really need to
have it approved by the Trustees, what exists and what doesn't?
You can't assume that the people you bought from got permits or
MR. ANDERSON: More than that, this will be the third time she
has been here since 2005, and we are hearing it for the first
time now. That's really the dilemma I see. I would assume if
the Board has regulated this two prior occasions, I don't know
why on the third occasion you would get tripped up on this. I
could suggest that they grant a permit for the wall as applied
for with the understanding that repairs can't take place unless
and until the other structures receive some sort of, I guess a
grandfather permit of sorts.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There again, I don't want to speak in
hypotheticals, if the work was granted under that fashion and
the cabana falls down, we may not have the cabana and the Board
may not be in a position, or subsequent Board, may not want to
have something stay there, whereas is something looked at in
totality, with very specific project plans, gives a Board a
sense of where a project is coming from and where it's going to,
to make a reasoned determination. But right now we are just
looking at a piece, so we can't give advisory opinions or tell
up how we'll act from here because we felt we didn't have
Board of Trustees 79 November 13, 2013
sufficient information when we went out the first time. I think
what President King has suggested would be the best course of
action for the Board. If you don't have anything additional to
add, I think we'd probably want to table the application.
MS. HULSE: Is that a motion, Jay?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are there any additional comments?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE KING: Do we have a second?
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
/James . King, Pr ident
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED
/l-- 3OAv-
MAR 1 33 2014
q i o i"ow)