HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-02/19/2014 e Town Hall Annex
John M. Bredemeyer III, President �"o� pG
Michael J. Domino, Vice-President �= yam , 54375 Route 25
James F. King ° m r P.O. Box 1179
Charles J. Sanders o Southold, NY 11971
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED
APR
9:d5� 9�1
?Ol,
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Southold Town Clerk
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
5:30 PM
Present Were: John Bredemeyer, President
Michael Domino, Vice-President
Jim King, Trustee
Charles Sanders, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Clerk Typist
Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 at 5:30 PM
WORKSESSIONS: Monday, March 17, 2014 at 3:00 PM, and on
Wednesday, March 19, 2014 at 5:00 PM
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome
to the Town Trustees meeting for February 19, 2014.
1 know most of the faces out here this evening. Just for those who may
not know our Board: Charles Sanders is to my far left; past president Jim King
to my left; I'm John Bredemeyer, president; Vice-president Mike Domino; our
attorney Lori Hulse and our very able clerk, Elizabeth Cantrell to her right.
I'll take a motion for next field inspection for Wednesday, March 12,
2014.
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do I hear a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 2 February 19, 2014
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll move the next Trustee meeting for
Wednesday, March 19th, at 5:30 PM. Do I hear a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And to hold work sessions on March 17th at 3:00
PM and Wednesday, March 19th, at 5:00 PM. So moved. Second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll take a motion to approve the Minutes of our
December 11th meeting.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for January 2014. A check for
$9,466.91 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds
that the following applications more fully described in Section V Public
Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, February 19,
2014, are classified as Type 11 Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and
Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA:
Jane W. Kaytis — SCTM# 81-3-28
Cynthia O'Leary — SCTM# 123-7-7.3
Sandsong LLC, c/o Michele Goss — SCTM#4-4-2
Luan Sadik— SCTM# 33-1-16
Alvin Schein — SCTM# 90-1-15
Verni Family LLC — SCTM# 43-5-5
Steven & Susan Bloom — SCTM# 126-11-15
Kathryn A. Campbell — SCTM# 66-2-12
Robert & Heidi Bailey— SCTM#43-5-6
John & Sarah Henry— SCTM# 26-1-17.1
Edward J. Flannigan — SCTM# 38-6-14
Ellen F. Emery 1999 Revocable Trust
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For the purposes of meeting the requirements of
the State Environmental Quality Review Act, I would move the Trustees
approve all those projects so listed under number three in the agenda.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
Board of Trustees 3 February 19, 2014
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONSITRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In order to keep our evening meetings moving
along, particularly this time of year, and with weather typically settling in,
activities that result in a minor action of the Board, basically administerial or
administrative actions for extending permits or transferring permits or
providing administrative amendments the Board has reviewed during the
course of field inspections and in work sessions in the town hall, accordingly I
would move to approve the entire block of items under number four, items
one through eight as a block, as being administrative and having already
been reviewed. They are listed as follows:
Number one, ARTHUR LEUDESDORF requests a One-Year Extension
to Administrative Permit#7737A, as issued on February 22, 2012. Located:
1700 Hyatt Road, Southold.
Number two, Fairweather & Brown Associates on behalf of PETER &
MARY KORNMAN request a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7773,
as issued on April 18, 2012, and Amended on August 22, 2012. Located:
1077 Bay Home Road, Southold.
Number three, Fairweather & Brown Associates in behalf of PETER &
MARY KORNMAN request a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7742,
as issued on February 22, 2012, and Amended on May 16, 2012, and
Amended again on August 22, 2012. Located: 1077 Bay Home Road,
Southold.
Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of HAYWATERS ROAD LLC
request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#492 from Catherine Hunt Healy QPRT
Trust to Haywaters Road LLC, as issued on July 1, 1968. Located: 2400
Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue.
Number five, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of ROBERT &
PATRICIA ELLIOTT requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#8315 from
Robert Tapp & Nicholas J. Ellis to Robert & Patricia Elliott, as issued on
October 16, 2013. Located: 275 West Road, Cutchogue.
Number six, CHARLES KIRSCH, MARY KIRSCH & KATHERINE
SACCAMANO request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#736 from Mary Ober to
Charles Kirsch, Mary Kirsch & Katherine Saccamano, as issued on August 8,
1972. Located: 555 Windy Point Lane, Southold.
Number seven, ROBERT & JENNIFER PLACE request a Transfer of
Wetland Permit #10-1-89-70-4-3 from Robert Fairlie to Robert & Jennifer
Place, as issued on December 22, 1989; and for an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit#10-1-89-70-4-3 to include the existing three
(3) +/-12" diameter tie-off piles. Located: 3765 Wells Avenue, Southold.
Number eight, Paul Pawlowski on behalf of MICHELLE & TIM
McMANUS requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7883
to relocate and repair the existing beach cabana 4' landward so that it is
Board of Trustees 4 February 19, 2014
entirely within the Zone X flood zone and not in the VE flood zone. Located:
7725 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next item we have is under public hearings,
we have the first is under the section of amendments. The first one we have
under amendments, is for Michael and Maria Maroni.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on
behalf of MICHAEL & MARIA MARONI requests an Amendment to Wetland
Permit#5915 to install a 32"x16' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6'x20'
seasonal floating dock secured in-place by four 8" diameter anchor pilings at
offshore end on existing fixed dock. Located: 855 Pine Neck Road, Southold.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
lies in the fact that the purpose for the dock extension has not been identified,
and that construction will be significantly greater than adjoining docks and
might impede
navigation.
The Conservation Advisory Council voted not to support this action and
also mentioned the seaward end of the floating dock was not staked and
noted an excessive amount of runoff from the driveway.
The Trustees on the field inspection, the only note was a suggestion of
a possible change in the configuration that is that a "T" or an "L" configuration
might make this more acceptable since it did appear that it is approaching the
one-third rule.
Is there anyone here it to speak to this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. My name is John Costello, with Costello
Marine Contracting. We are the agents for Michael and Maria
Maroni on this application. And one of the problems is, as you
can see, it does not approach the, that is staked, that is the
first stake is the start of the float to the end of the ramp.
The second stake offshore of that, it's hard to see, but it's
flagged, it's marked, you can walk out on the ice. We walked out
on the ice and did that. We put it in there one other time and
when the ice was moving up and down we lost it and we went out
and did it again, a second time. It certainly, the width of that
creek at that point, it does not take up more than one-third of
anything. But the main channel of that creek is almost near the
other shore. By putting the float straight out like that, the
only thing is we gain approximately one foot of water. She has
a small boat, she is a fishing fanatic. And to get underneath
that bridge, she's got to be very cautious. And where she did
tie up the boat previously, if the tides are below normal, the
boat was aground. And they are trying to get out from
underneath the bridge. By doing the float straight out like that,
Board of Trustees 5 February 19, 2014
you pick up approximately one foot of water. And the boat only
draws six inches, with the outboard up, and she goes out and she
can get out there underneath the bridge, if she has to go.
So, the purpose of it by, you see the property is angular,
by putting it in an "L," what we did is reshape it so it
remains the same distance off the property line as the main dock
is. About six feet. We angled the ramp to the west. We angled
the float to the west, in order to alleviate that.
If it was suggested to put it in an "L" configuration, it
certainly could be, but if that is a condition, I mean that
certainly could accommodate, and it could almost accommodate the
additional foot of water.
We have spoken with the DEC on the project because they
like to see a water depth of more, and when they have the shoal
drafts, they usually want it chocked off the bottom. I persuaded
Chris Arston to consider putting the four pilings in and
chaining it up so it never does hit the bottom. And it will only
be seasonal. You probably, in ordinary conditions, in the ice
like this year, you would have trouble, you would probably take
the piling out. Because the ice would do it. It just happens to
be a little rare for the last four or five years, but it does
occur. And that's the way, instead of putting timbers
underground and leaving them there and having the whole
structure come up, you could just disconnect the chains and take
the float out in the wintertime. She would probably take it out
to the marina right down the road. But if it's the Board's
desire to put it in a "T" or "L" -- I don't think it can go in a
"T" configuration because of the property line. We are trying
to keep it off of the property line, but it could go in an "L"
configuration.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to point out the channel there is
210 feet across, and according to the plans submitted, the total
length would be approaching the 70 feet, which does get into the
one-third rule, close to it. Which was the reason for our
suggestion of a possible --
MR. COSTELLO: Whatever the Board feels is the right thing to do,
we'll certainly attempt to persuade the customer. I'm sure she
will listen to your advice.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That would shorten it up somewhat.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A modified "L" would shorten it a bit and
put her into the wind so it might keep a boat there without
bouncing off the docks so much. I'm just thinking of looking at
the diagram now. It's pretty much going due north.
MR. COSTELLO: Quite close to north.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Would you like to see new plans?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think where the applicant has made, Mr.
Costello on behalf of the applicant has offered to put in an "L"
form, I guess I would like to see a modified "L" in a new set of
plans, if the Board is amenable, and it would meet with what we
Board of Trustees 6 February 19, 2014
saw in the field survey. A slight leg of an "L" to the northwest
would keep it out of, you know, probably lessen some of the slap
on it. I don't know how that would be with this. But yes, I
think modified plans showing a degree of an "L" would be
suitable.
MR. COSTELLO: I think you would want it perpendicular to the
property line, into an "L" shape.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That would make a lot of sense.
MR. COSTELLO: Because it is a pie-shaped projection. Trying to
compromise both property lines I think would be more wise than not.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else wish to speak to this application?
MR. COSTELLO: And I'll supply whatever additional drawings you need.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(No response).
Any further comments from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application
subject to a revised set of plans showing the L-shaped
configuration, which will address the inconsistency as pointed
out by the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do we have a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Before I get into the next meeting, as a
point or order, I neglected to indicate what items are postponed
from this evening's schedule. If you have come a long distance
or wish to comment on a particular item that has been postponed,
we can open the hearing, but one should be mindful of the fact
that speaking at this time on an application might be subsequently
amended or withdrawn or have project plans changed before it
would come up for discussion. That said, I will run through the
list of postponements for this evening.
On page four, we have number four 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 1' in diameter rocks in front of and on top of
existing bulkhead; for the as-built cap-stones on top of existing
redi-rock seawall; seawall is 54" above wooden bulkhead to top
of cap-stone; for the existing accent lighting along seaward
side of bulkhead; install aluminum stairs to beach; and for the
as-built +/-2,000 cubic yards of fill landward of seawall.
Located: 500 Beach Court, East Marion, has been postponed.
And number five, Fairweather & Brown Associates on behalf
of VASILIOS FRANGOS requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit
Board of Trustees 7 February 19, 2014
#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.
One page five, item number two, Young & Young on behalf of
OREGON CLIFFS, LLC, c/o MARTIN SOJA requests a Wetland Permit
and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a 33' extension to an
existing bulkhead and rock revetment, construct a 4'x114' set of
bluff stairs with a 4'x8' upper platform and six (6) 4'x4'
associated platforms; placement of approximately 325 cubic
yards of clean fill and restore approximately 2,030 sq.ft. of
slope by re-grading area and re-vegetating with a mix of beach
grass, rosa rugosa, bayberry, Virginia rose, and pitch
pine; slope stabilization to incorporate board and stake
terracing. Located: 13457 Oregon Road, Cutchogue, has been
postponed.
On page seven we have items ten, En-Consultants on behalf
of JOHN & SARAH HENRY requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing fixed "J" shaped pier that consists of an 8'x152'
shore-perpendicular section, and 10'x36' and 10'x17'
shore-parallel sections; as-built repairs consisting of the
installation new 2"x10" untreated decking and the replacement of
inside pilings, caps and stringers; and proposed repairs
consisting of the installation of additional 2"x10"
untreated decking and replacement of additional 10" inside
pilings, 6"x6" caps and outside stringers, and 4"x6" inside
stringers. Located: 2440 Village Lane, Orient, has been postponed.
And number 13, which goes on to page eight, Twin Fork
Landscape Contracting, Inc. on behalf of ROY & DAWN WARD
requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built 4'x55' fixed dock; a
4'x10' ramp; a 6'x38' float, and a 6'x14' float; for the
as-built 18'x50' patio with a 118 sq.ft. landing with steps;
patio to remain open to the sky and drainage provided to contain
run-off; no further construction of any structures/storage
buildings between the patio and the bulkhead; and install and
subsequently maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of the bulkhead. Located: 4075 Stillwater Avenue,
Cutchogue, has been postponed.
On page eight, we have item 14, Lagoon Association on
behalf of PATRICIA A. BRENNAN PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST, c/o
PATRICIA & DONALD BRENNAN requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten-
Year Maintenance Permit to maintenance dredge the entrance
channel from northerly bulkhead to center to a depth of 5 feet
below mean low water; and place +/-600 cubic yards of dredged
material on beach (N/W 375' of entry). Located: 1663 Bridge
Lane, Cutchogue, has been postponed.
Number 15, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf
of JOAN SHANNON requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the
existing 69' long timber retaining wall with 12' return using
vinyl sheathing; repair existing 12' wide x 67' long lower
Board of Trustees 8 February 19, 2014
decking landward of the retaining wall; repair existing 6'x8'
beach shower; re-vegetate all uncovered ground seaward of the
bluff crest with Cape American beach grass except for an 8' wide
access way to the bulkhead. Located: 7080 Great Peconic Bay
Boulevard, Laurel, has been postponed.
And 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.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to those items?
If you know it now, let me know and I'll make sure we make
provisions for you to speak later.
(No response).
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Could you repeat that all, please.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
MS. HULSE: It's listed on the agenda, the ones that are
postponed. It says "postponed" at the end of the description.
The only one that was also postponed that is not typewritten on
is the one, number four on page five.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Point of order, well, relative to item
Eleven.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: On which page?
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Page seven.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item eleven on page seven has not been
postponed. That's Ellen F. Emery Revocable Trust.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Item Eleven on page seven --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You might be dealing with an old agenda.
There is a new agenda is on the table there.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Does anyone want me to repeat that?
Apparently we had to amend the agenda after the initial agendas
went out.
(No response).
With respect to item number two under Amendments, En-Consultants
on behalf of JANE W. KAYTIS requests a Transfer of Wetland
Permit#5847 from George Kaytis to Jane W. Kaytis, as issued on
December 17, 2003; and for an Amendment to Wetland Permit#5847
for the in-place replacement of approximately 101 linear feet of
existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead, approximately 6"
higher than existing; the replacement within +/-24" of
approximately 20 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead
(located in front of existing shed and deck to remain) with
vinyl bulkhead, approximately 6" higher than existing; the
in-place replacement of existing +/- 4'x4' wood landing and
+/-4'x8.5' steps to beach; the construction of a +/-12' vinyl
return along the southerly property line; re-nourish the eroded
Board of Trustees 9 February 19, 2014
embankment with approximately 200 cubic yards of clean sand fill
and loam to be trucked in from an approved upland source and
re-vegetate with native vegetation. Located: 3740 Paradise Point
Road, Southold.
This project was visited by the Conservation Advisory
Council, who supported the application, with a recommendation to
have retractable steps to the beach issued. The project has been
determined to be consistent with the LWRP.
The Trustees performed a field inspection of the site. The project
plan as submitted, it combines previous actions of the Board along with
modifications to bring it into one unified permit going forward,
which was the recommendation of this Board.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing none, are there any comments from
the Board?
(No response).
We felt that was a straightforward replacement and I don't think
there were any issues.
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application as submitted with a recommendation that retractable
steps be placed to the outward or seaward side of the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Joshua Horton on behalf of CYNTHIA
O'LEARY requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit# 8062 for the
existing 3' wide by 41.5' long boardwalk; re-install existing
12' long by 8' wide platform; construct 3'x3' steps from
platform to a proposed 3'x4' landing; construct a cantilevered
3' wide platform with 3'x6.3' steps to beach parallel to
bulkhead. Located: 280 Park Avenue, Mattituck.
The LWRP has not been completed because there's
insufficient plans. And the CAC supports the application with
removable or retractable steps to the beach. And provisions
should be made for lateral beach access. That's the comments
here from the CAC and the LWRP.
The Board was out there, I think we also felt that the
plans are inadequate. We need to see something a little better.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application?
MS. HORTON: Good evening Joshua Horton, Horton Dredge and Dock,
Board of Trustees 10 February 19, 2014
210 Fifth Street, Greenport, New York, on behalf of the applicant
Cynthia O'Leary.
Essentially the application in general is to request a
permit or to legalize what has been an existing boardwalk and
platform that's been replaced, believed to be dating back to the
30s and 40s, and has simply existed for quite some time. This
Board approved the bulkhead that has been constructed, and the
plans that you currently have, actually, have been updated to a
slightly scaled back set of plans, which would reflect simply
the 8x12 platform connected to the end of the 41-and-a-half foot
long boardwalk. The steps being the same dimension and inplace,
parallel to the bulkhead, so as not to extend out on to the
beach much, and also I think this Board agreed, as has been
stated in the past, that the steps are mounted or installed
parallel to the bulkhead tend to have a greater chance of
survival. So those have been designed as such. So what the
application seeks to achieve now is to legalize, if you will,
the boardwalk and the platform.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we'll a need another set of plans here,
Josh. And also a profile of it. We would like to see a profile
of the boardwalk coming out. Are you going to have steps down to
that on-grade platform?
MR. HORTON: No, actually.
TRUSTEE KING: We are trying to figure out how you'll get from
that down to the platform.
MR. HORTON: The platform was actually going to be, as I said,
you see the terminus of it now, that has actually been heaved
up, so it will be, the platform, the boardwalk actually will
conform to the slope of the bluff.
TRUSTEE KING: I see. In other words you'll put that back down to
grade and follow the grade down to the platform?
MR. HORTON: Yes. The applicant seeks to install as little as
possible; certainly not seeking to achieve a large area or have
anything constructed on any large scale. I mean, the 8x12
platform, quite frankly, I discussed this with the client, that
doesn't even have to be 8x12. That was the initial concept as
set forth by the applicant. Because that was what the original
deck was. A 6x10 platform or something not rectangular 8x8,
would suffice.
TRUSTEE KING: I think the 8x12 is reasonable. And the steps, are
those going to be changed?
MR. HORTON: Those are actually just temporary. We didn't put
those up. The steps would actually have to be, as I mentioned --
TRUSTEE KING: In other words, to have a small platform and steps
down parallel to the bulkhead?
MR. HORTON: Yes. And that's depicted on the plans. The top of
the steps would be a three-foot wide platform which would serve as
the top step. It would be three-foot wide because of the width
of the steps is three feet. And I could certainly submit
Board of Trustees 11 February 19, 2014
additional drawings if the Board was moved to support this
contingent upon the drawings that reflect your input.
TRUSTEE KING: I think that would be reasonable. The CAC
recommends a retractable or removable steps. It's difficult when
you have a little platform off the bulkhead like that to make
them retractable.
MR. HORTON: If I may, I think, what our client suggests or
Requests is to have the steps, I mean those are quite steep. We
would not want to have steps of that angle installed. So if
those steps were built to, you know, be the angle one would
normally do so, they would extend out quite a bit further on to
the beach. When they extend out perpendicular to the bulkhead
there is a greater chance of them being knocked apart by storm
surge.
TRUSTEE KING: If you have a three-foot square platform with
steps down parallel to the bulkhead, it's closer to the bulkhead
than steps going out.
MR. HORTON: And by all means, much more secure.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anybody else to comment on this
application?
(No response).
Any comments from the Board?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to approve this with that walkway
being put down on to grade, down to an 8x12 platform, with a 3x3
platform on the seaward side of the bulkhead, with steps down
parallel to the bulkhead, and approve this based on a new set of
plans showing that. With a top-down view and profile view for that.
MR. HORTON: Certainly.
TRUSTEE KING: That's my motion to approve, based on the plans
showing what I just talked about.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would second that, and to the degree that
it's a minor project, it would be considered consistent with the
requirements for decks and stairs, since it's a deck less than
100-square feet associated with steps. So I second that. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HORTON: Thank you, have a good evening.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay, the next section is Wetlands and Coastal
Erosion Permits, number one, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of
SANDSONG LLC, c/o MICHELE GOSS requests a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit to armor approximately 325' of existing concrete
seawall by installing boulders at random intervals on the seaward side of the
wall to break wave energy; temporarily remove existing beach access stairs,
Board of Trustees 12 February 19, 2014
and at the eastern end and the western end of the site excavate the beach
approximately 5', install geotextile fabric, place approximately 1.5' of 3"
crushed stone as a filter layer, install armor layer riprap revetment 4' minimum
diameter rock at toe; install armor layer revetment stones and provide loam
and seed as required to transition slope to proposed revetment; and to
reinstall the beach access stairs. Located: 173 Seal Place, off East End Road,
Fishers Island.
The LWRP found this to be consistent. The CAC did not make an
inspection and no recommendations were found. And the Trustee field
inspection revealed the request is good as submitted. Is there anyone here to
speak on behalf of the client?
MR. JUST: Good evening, Glen Just, JMO Consulting, on behalf of
Ms. Goss and Sandsong. I think it's a pretty straightforward
application. I don't know if I submitted this cross-section, but
the original concrete wall, that seawall there, was built in
like 1955. 1 can pass this along and give you copies tomorrow,
if you would like. But it's an existing concrete seawall that
got a little overtop washed with some of the bigger storms. And
what they would like to do, as I explained in the application,
is put some boulders in there to break up the wave energy so you
don't get the splash over and erosion on the backside. And on
the east and west size side of the seawall there was some
erosion going around the end and they just wanted to finish off
with a return on either end by putting in a sizeable rock
revetment. And this is one of the typical ones we have been
being doing on Fishers Island in the past five years, where they
excavate the beach down to about five feet, store the material,
put in some geotextile material, put a lay layer of crushed
stone, maybe six inches to 12 inches thick on top of that, and
then put the rock on top of that. And the crushed stone and
geotextile fabric will end up actually being a filter when water
runs off the top. And at the eastern and western end of the
seawall they also propose to put some topsoil in and plant some
plantings which normally hold up the top of that slope there.
And this is an unusual one. This is on the north side of
Fishers, out toward the east end of Big Club. Most of the ones
we have been coming in on, as of late, is on the south side of
the island.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is this your plan that was submitted?
MR. JUST: That's the old profile from 45 or so -- that's how
long it's been there, about 45, 46 years now. It's in good
shape, we just want to armor it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Has DEC been out to the site on this project
yet?
MR. JUST: Quite frankly, John, the DEC has not made an attempt
to go to Fishers Island since April 21, 2012.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We were the last ones out there.
MR. JUST: And I think it was just us that time. And the time
before that, I think nine, ten months before that, I charted
Board of Trustees 13 February 19, 2014
Fishy Business and went out. The DEC is not making any attempt
whatsoever to do any field inspections anywhere.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: These plans are typical of that engineering
firm, and they gave ample cross-sections and very good photo. I
don't think there was any issues with respect to our review. We
are hopeful to get out to Fishers quite soon.
MR. JUST: I think I told you and the Board I have quite a few
coming in within the next week or so. Same type of project. They
really got smacked with Storm Sandy and the boxing day type of
storm.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to
this file?
(No response).
Comments from the Board?
(No response).
Motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve as submitted.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Wetland Permits, Swim King Pools on behalf of
LUAN SADIK requests a Wetland Permit to construct an 18'x40' in-ground
pool with a 20'x30' permeable paver patio, 5' wide walkways around pool, and
associated pool fencing. Located: 2200 Sound Drive, Greenport.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. I would like to read
his comments. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance in 1986 to
allow the construction of a pool 30 foot from the top of the bluff. Aerial
analysis shows the bluff surface is heavily vegetated and relatively stable.
However with consideration of the recent intensity of storm events that have
caused the town shoreline to experience severe erosion, it is recommended
the pool be redesigned and relocated to maximize the distance. Also notes
that the pool dimension is four feet greater than, in length, than what was
approved in 1986. It goes on to say the Board should assess the loading of
equipment to construct the pool does not compromise the stability of the soils,
and that the dewatering drywell is not shown for the pool, is either shown to
the side or that the leaching pool in the front indicated as a drywell is not in
fact part of the sanitary system.
The CAC voted to support this application.
The Trustees on their field inspection, on the 12th, noted it's a fairly
straightforward application. Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MS. MILLNER: Yes. Eve Millner, from Swim King Pools. And I also
have the homeowner here as well.
Just in relation to the 1986 ZBA approval, they made
Board of Trustees 14 February 19, 2014
mention about the width being longer than what was originally
approved. The width of it does not encroach into the coastal
erosion line or the bluff line, so the homeowner actually, we
made it larger in length, but it does not affect the coastal
erosion line or the bluff line. And we actually are farther,
the edge of the water of the pool is actually farther away
because there is a five-foot walkway that is proposed. The pool
actually is in fact 35 feet from the top of the bluff. The only
other-- so CAC supports it, you had said?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's correct. The other question was about the
dewatering elements.
MS. MILLNER: Okay, the existing drywell in the front, I showed
on the plan.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The LWRP coordinator's question, is that part of
the septic system or is it a complete and separate drywell?
MS. MILLINER: It's separate.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Can you give us a moment. Counsel is looking at
the ZBA determination.
MS. HULSE: What's the difference from the top of the bank on this?
TRUSTEE KING: 35 for the pool, 30 for the patio.
MS. HULSE: It has to be 50 for any new structure. It has to be
not closer than 50 from the top of the bank for any new structure.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The top of the bluff to the walk is 30, and top
of the bluff to the pool is 35. So it's right on.
Are there any other comments or questions from the Board?
(No response).
Does anyone else wish to comment or speak to this application?
MR. MCGREEVEY: I didn't make the inspection but we went over it
in detail. From the observations made from Peter Young and Peter
Meeker, they determined that the bluff was extremely steep, and
based on that and even the fact that it is 35 feet away, the
determination was made as part of our recommendation supporting,
but with conditions, and one of the conditions was the proximity
to the top of the bluff is a concern, as the project could
negatively impact the condition of the existing bluff. So that
was one of the factors. We support it from a conservation point
of view, but we do put in conditions there.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I see that. It reads, in fact, the Conservation
Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of
a detailed drainage plan for the pool backwash and paved areas.
The Conservation Advisory Council recommends a geo-land survey
because of the proximity of the pool to the top of the bluff is
a concern, and the project could negatively impact the condition
of the existing bluff.
I would point out that the plans do show that the drainage
will be directed to the drywell, which is landward of the home.
TRUSTEE KING: What's the setback on the pool?
Is it 50 feet, by code?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It is, 50 feet by code. That's why it was ZBA
Board of Trustees 15 February 19, 2014
issue.
MS. HULSE: The plans don't exactly match what the ZBA saw in
1986, but the decision was based on the distance from the top of
the bluff. They call it top of bank.
TRUSTEE KING: We've kind of fought tooth and nail in the past to
keep them at 50 feet, if they could. This is impossible because
the house is there.
MS. HULSE: There has been erosion since 1986, as well, I'm sure.
MS. MILLNER: Can I just make a comment?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Certainly.
MS. MILLNER: I have the original paperwork from 1986, and the
first plan that was submitted, was not granted. They made some
changes. And actually the porch, which is 12.1 feet, where five
feet, there is a walkway then, and the plan that was approved,
it actually was 15 feet away from the porch. The original plan,
was 15 feet. Then they were making it an 18x36 pool. So this, we
brought it as close as we could. There is no other alternative.
And we are within the outside of the coastal erosion line, and
30 feet from the top of the bluff. And it's highly vegetated,
that bluff. I know the CAC also mentioned that in their determination.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The concern that I have is that the Board of
Trustees, we are not engineers, but there is a concern about
loading, the weight, and construction activities, and it's
dependent on the types of soils you have. We are losing more and
more Sound bank all the time. I'm uncomfortable with the project
without a review by soil conservation or soil engineers just to
make sure as a matter of consumer protection for the homeowner
and protection of natural resources and the bluff, that there
would not be a bluff failure. Because the soil patch beneath the
construction zone could possibly lead to failure, you know, from
ponding water around the structure itself or the handling of the
backwash water. So that's a concern that I have, is to protect both
the environment and the consumer of the pool. I think there should be
soil studies, you know, ahead of this application, to get a determination
of professional engineers, that this would be a site suitable for placing a pool.
TRUSTEE KING: That's a good idea.
MS. MILLER: The other thing I should mention, as well, although
each property has different situations. There is a property two
houses away that has a pool existing. It's not as close to the
bluff, I don't have the exact number, but there is a property on the
east side of the Sadik's property that has a pool.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That might be valuable information for the
person doing the soil test or an engineer, since, if the soils
are consistent in that area. There again, I'm not suited as an
engineer to discuss stability of soils. And we understand that
in some cases the soils on a bluff, on a steep bluff face may be
unstable in many tens of feet -- 50, 60, 70 feet -- so this
pool, based on some of the reports we hear from Sound front
property in Southold Town and other towns, it could be
Board of Trustees 16 February 19, 2014
imminently in danger during construction and after. So it would
be maybe a very wise thing to do is to have the soil reviewed.
And arguably, if there is a pool on a neighboring property and
it's working, and the soils meet with the standards that an
engineering review would support, then that would seem
appropriate.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Taking into account Trustee Bredemeyer's
comments, and the fact that Town Code specifies no swimming
pools -- swimming pools and related structures have to be 50
feet from the top of the bluff, it might be best to table this
pending that soil survey so that we do no harm to the bluff.
MS. MILLNER: So have a soil test review from an engineering
company and present that to the Board, not at another hearing
but just come into the Trustees and just bring in, is that what
you are recommending?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: You would still have to have a hearing.
MS. MILLNER: Okay, so another hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: It would be a continuation of this hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: If you table it, it would be a continuation.
You would not have to re-notice it, in other words.
MS. MILLNER: So keep everything in the same location, have a
soil test done and present it at the next meeting.
MS. HULSE: You can opt to change it, if you would like, in the
interim. If you want to change what you are requesting, you can
do so.
MS. MILLNER: No. Because there is no other--
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, hearing no further comments, I make a
motion to table this application pending the submission of soil
tests and some drainage studies to ensure that we are not
destabilizing the bluff.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing, number two, J.M.O.
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.
This request concerns a swimming pool which is landward of
the house. It received a determination from the ZBA concerning
setback for house additions because it's located on a property
which has a bulkhead.
The CAC has voted to support this application. It is also
Board of Trustees 17 February 19, 2014
considered consistent with the LWRP.
The Trustees, on performing field inspections, indicated
that they had no major issue with the project, but wanted to be
certain that drywells were added to the seaward side of the
house and for the backwash for the pool. I believe we saw
downspouts going directly into the ground. So it's a question of
having sufficient drywells.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. JUST: Good evening, Glen Just, JMO Consulting, on behalf of
applicant. We have, given the recommendations of the Trustees
and the CAC, there is no problem putting drywells on the seaward
side of the house. Same thing for the pool backwash system. The
ZBA has required a 15 to 20 foot, I don't recall exactly what
the exact figure was, of a buffer zone, because of the sloping
backyard down toward the creek. So what I'll do is I'll revise
the plans and show the drywells, backwash and the buffer zone.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, thank you. That's pretty
straightforward. Any comments from the Board?
(No response).
Anyone else here wish to speak on behalf of this
application?
(No response).
Hearing no additional comments, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I would make a motion to approve this application as submitted,
with the addition of additional notation on the project plans
for the buffer as determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals, and
drywell for the seaward portion of the gutters and leaders of
the house. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc. on behalf of ALVIN SCHEIN requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 4'x26' catwalk using thru-flow, decking; a 3'x14'
hinged aluminum ramp; and a 6'x20' floating dock anchored by
three 8" diameter piles. Located: 2145 Little Peconic Bay Lane,
Southold.
This was found consistent with the LWRP. And the CAC
resolved to support the application as it was submitted.
I don't think any of us have any issues with this. It's a
small dock on West Lake.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
Board of Trustees 18 February 19, 2014
application?
MR. IVANS: Matt Ivans, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, for the
applicant. I'm here to answer any and all questions.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had any questions. It's pretty
straightforward and not complicated
MR. IVANS: I have letters of support from five neighbors, if you
want that in the record.
TRUSTEE KING: Sure.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Presumably they are in favor of it?
TRUSTEE KING: I believe there was a house permit in 1999 and one
of the conditions of the house permit was a 40-foot
non-disturbance buffer landward of the wetland line. With all
the snow around we can't tell if that's there or not, but that
was in the house permit back then, so, just keep that in mind.
MR. IVANS: Sure. Once the snow melts, I'll send crews out there.
TRUSTEE KING: Back then, I don't think we were doing that in the
covenants like we do now. So sometimes these new owners don't
realize it was part of the plans. But they should be advised of
that. There is a 40-foot buffer that is supposed to be kept
there landward of the wetland line.
MR. IVANS: All right.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anybody else to comment on this?
(No response).
I'll motion to close being hearing, if there are no other
comments.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
it has been submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. IVANS: Thank you, Board.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The next file is, number four, Robert Barratt
on behalf of VERNI FAMILY LLC requests a Wetland Permit to
demolish existing dwelling and sanitary system; construct new
3,000 square foot, two-story dwelling with attached 3-car garage
to be built no closer to the wetlands than existing footprint; a
new septic system to be installed within a +/-130' retaining
wall on the landward side of the dwelling; a line of staked hay
bales with silt fencing to be installed prior to and maintained
during construction; and a 20' non-turf buffer to be established
and subsequently maintained along the landward edge of wetlands.
Located: 160 Inlet Lane, Greenport.
The LWRP could not be completed due to insufficient plans.
And the CAC supports the application with the following
conditions: A 20 foot non-turf is an annotated on the site plan;
there is a detailed drainage plan for the property; no ground
water level diagram is discernible; and there is a concern with
Board of Trustees 19 February 19, 2014
groundwater seepage; and the driveway remains pervious.
I'll go really quick to our findings. The Trustees field
inspection requests revised plans without the retaining wall.
Is there anybody to speak on behalf of this file?
MR. BARRATT: Robert Barratt. If I can ask a question. I
couldn't hear all of your comments.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Would you like me to repeat them?
MR. BARRATT: Well, only the negative ones.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll start with the CAC supports the
application with the following conditions: A 20-foot non-turf is
annotated on the site plan; there is a detailed drainage plan
for the property; no ground water level diagram is discernible;
and there is a concern with the groundwater seepage; and the
driveway remains pervious. That's the CAC.
And then the recommendation for the Trustees was revised
plans without the retaining wall.
MR. BARRATT: All right.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. At the time we didn't have plans.
MR. BARRATT: I'll address the retaining walls, to start with.
When we started off, we thought a retaining wall would be
necessary, because we were using a leaching pool system that was
three feet above the highest water table. Subsequently, we
changed to figure ten in the design manual for the Suffolk
County Health Department, which allows an arrangement where
there is only two feet between the top of the water table and
the underside of the leaching pools. This permitted us to lower
the depth of the leaching pools. And right now, if you look at
the most recent drawings I've sent you, starting on the
perimeter of the site, the level is five feet, and it rises to
6.5 feet over a period, over a distance of about 15 feet. And as
a result, I agree the retaining wall is totally unnecessary.
Now, you said something about drywells were missing from
the diagram. If that was true, I would challenge it. There is a
table that shows a three eight-foot diameter drywells.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: They probably didn't see this in the plans.
MR. BARRATT: Can I approach?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Sure.
MR. BARRATT: This is a table which shows the calculation in the
normal way. It's here, storm water and runoff control table.
And you have to look at every word on this page because every
one of them is necessary to get the Health Department to put it
through. This shows three eight-foot diameter wells are needed.
And here is one of them here, here is the second, and here is
the third.
TRUSTEE KING: They may not have had this, the CAC, when they did
their review.
MR. BARRATT: Yes. If you recall, after the pre-submission visit
to the site, the first visit to the site, I volunteered and gave
you guys new drawings with more information, which we had.
Board of Trustees 20 February 19, 2014
Now, what was the third?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The other one was the revised plans without the
retaining wall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's what was submitted after the course
of the other, and I contacted Mr. Barratt for that.
MR. BARRATT: This one shows, see the retaining wall is now
missing. It was a retaining wall like that, but we had a smaller
number of leaching pools. So we separated those out.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Where is your status with the Suffolk County
Health Department using the alternate plan here?
MR. BARRATT: Well, they refuse -- this is a staggered practice.
The Suffolk County Health Department refuses to look at any
drawings until the Trustees and the DEC have had their input
fully implemented. But I can tell you, because I'm doing these
things all the time, the arrangement we are using now with the
two foot is one that they strongly recommend, and has been
approved, so I don't see any problem with this one.
There was one other point you made --
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The LWRP didn't make --
MR. BARRATT: The pervious driveway. The driveway is pervious and
the --
TRUSTEE SANDERS: He wants to request it remain pervious.
MR. BARRATT: Yes, it does. And again, if you look at the latest
drawings, it shows that the pervious sections, which is the
driveway and a sun deck, are 2,000 square feet. Compared with
3,000 square feet.
TRUSTEE KING: I think that's outside of our jurisdiction. The
driveway is not even in our jurisdiction. So we can't tell him
what to do there.
MR. BARRATT: No, but you see, the DEC can. So I have to sort of
try and catch all of you. But I'm -- the DEC will go through with
this. They have just done another one, on a non-waterfront, you
know, where you guys were not --
TRUSTEE KING: I'm uncomfortable trying to mandate something
outside of our jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would be more concerned that Mr. Barrett
address the concerns of the LWRP coordinator.
MR. BARRATT: I think we have.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because of the nature of the project,
without the LWRP coordinator's review, we can't move ahead with
a determination. And I'm not entirely sure whether he had the
revised plan when he made his determination --
MR. BARRETT: He clearly did not.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And that may impact the information he
needs. And maybe you should contact Mr. Terry directly with
respect to that review.
MR. BARRETT: This is Mark Terry in Planning. Sure, I would be
happy to do that tomorrow.
I was under the impression that actually everybody was
Board of Trustees 21 February 19, 2014
clear, because I checked about a week ago to make sure the
revised drawing had been submitted. I got a positive.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: We can just table it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Table it for the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we have any issues other than we
don't have the LWRP report.
MR. BARRETT: The issue is the LWRP personnel have not been given
-- I'll do that tomorrow. Thank you.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is there anybody else to speak on behalf of
this file?
MR. MCGREEVEY: I would like to make a point that the CAC, when
we make inspections, we are not only inspecting them for the
Trustees, but we are also concerned about things that might be
out of the jurisdiction of the Trustees but should be brought to
the attention of one of the government agencies. That is an
important issue with drainage on front property to public.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I understand. I think it's an important note
that you make for us, but it's not part of our statutory
responsibilities under the Wetland Code. I would suggest that
you approach the Town Board. Certain individuals may want to
have an environmental review or environmental audit of their
property during the course of our review that could always be
forwarded to the owners of a wetland permit with suggestions.
Since we are dealing with the regulatory requirement of being
within 100 feet of the wetlands, that might be something to
bring up to the Town Board. For those individuals that are new
in the area and not aware of our standard environmental
practice, that could something we could talk about in the
future, and therefore those additional concerns of the CAC
because obviously there are many cases where there are numerous
eyes looking at the project that it can then be forwarded on to
an owner before they start work.
MR. MCGREEVEY: It's a matter of process and how it should be
handled by town government because we have been approached by
the Trustees on different occasions to make notations on storm
water runoff, and we do try to help you out that way.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, we appreciate it. And we do now have
the town requirement for the drainage assessment, which is part
of the application packet. So that is being addressed in the
application process. But I'm thinking in a larger sense --
recently when we met up with CAC members during the course of
field inspections, we sometimes bump into each other in the
field, and they say what about a drywell here, or gutter or
leader, or a pervious, going from pervious surfaces to
impervious surfaces, and by and large if we are looking at the
building of a dock or replacement of bulkhead, we are not really
involved in mandating those sorts of environmental improvements
for a project that is very separate and limited in nature. And
it would also, it would be, it would not be promoting a good
Board of Trustees 22 February 19, 2014
relationship with the Board if we immediately compelled people
to do those things, which are good, but which are not linked
with their current permits. So I think it would be an opportunity
to discuss with the Town Board, and that way your report could
be attached to a permit as a set of recommendations, and that
way it would be going forward, and so new owners would know for
their next project, gee, when we are doing landscaping, let's
put new drywells in, or whatever, we need gutters and leaders
because we'll have a runoff problem here.
MR. BARRETT: For both of your, to allay some of your concerns on
the drawing --
MS. HULSE: Mr. Barrett, if you could just keep your voice up so
the court reporter can hear what you are saying.
MR. BARRETT: I apologize. I beg your pardon. What I was saying,
to allay some of the concerns by the Conservation Advisory
Council representative and the Board, the drawing which I passed
to the Trustees office a week or so ago, it does say that the,
first of all, the driveway, the driveway is reduced by
one-third, because it's covered by the pervious garage, which is
there. So the pervious driveway is reduced.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mr. Barrett, I don't mean to cut you short,
but I don't believe we have a problem with that. I think it's
just a matter at this time to have our LWRP coordinator review
your plans for consistency and then the Board will be in a
position to address any issues he may have, that if we have to
bring it into consistency, upon tabling. So I don't think --we
understand what you said.
MR. BARRETT: Are you able to disclose the name of the LWRP
coordinator?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Absolutely, I mentioned it earlier, his name
is Mark Terry. He's our coordinator. He reviews the projects.
MR. BAILEY: My name is Robert Bailey. Coincidentally, I'm here
for my own project and I'm also the abutter to this project. So
I just happened to be in the throes of all of this stuff you are
talking about. And my primary concern is the one you seem to be
talking about. I was given a drawing, which seems you have a
much more detailed drawing. I just have a question or concern
about, you know, what they are doing about ground water runoff,
because it was not evident from this, as well as new septic
system, what will happen to make sure it works. I have a pretty
keen interest in it since I'll be living next door. But it's not
clear to me from your conversation whether you have jurisdiction
over that or not.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have jurisdiction over all the activities
within a hundred feet, and there was a new plan submission after
the one that apparently had been mailed out as part of the
noticing, because our office, and I called Mr. Barrett
particularly, that the line drawings were not sufficient to
clearly see what was happening with the project.
Board of Trustees 23 February 19, 2014
MR. BAILEY: Okay. So I didn't get that, which maybe I should
not have gotten it. But from your perspective you are
comfortable that everything is being done appropriately?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As this point we want the LWRP coordinator
to complete his review, and then we'll address any additional
concerns.
MR. BAILEY: Thank you.
MR. BARRETT: May I address the gentleman?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You really can't. You have to address your
comments to the chair. If you gentlemen want to go and talk
outside, that's fine.
MR. BARRETT: I would like to say, one of the biggest concerns I
had with this project was not the lot that the Verni house is
on, but in fact the lot next door, which is this gentleman's
lot. Because there the wetlands line comes in very, a long way.
And in fact a good bit of the house that is currently built on
that lot is fully within your jurisdiction. Whereas on the Verni
lot, the whole house is beyond your jurisdiction. So, but, to
answer his question, for the house, I installed on the drawing
three eight-foot diameter drywells to take all the runoff from
the roof of the house. And they have a safety factor of about
30%.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I think that's great. Thank you. Let's
move on this. Was there a motion?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is there anybody else who wants to speak on
behalf of this file; anybody else on the Board?
(No response).
All right, I would like to make a motion to table in order to
obtained an LWRP report.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number five, McCarthy Management, Inc., on behalf
of 850 PRESIDENT LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
30'x59' single-family dwelling with drywells; proposed sanitary
system landward of dwelling; and driveway. Located: 7165 New
Suffolk Road, New Suffolk.
The LWRP coordinator found this consistent. The CAC voted
to support this application with the condition that the dwelling
be compliant with FEMA, and the sanitary system complies with
Health Department requirements.
The Trustees field inspection on the 12th, it was the
second field inspection, noted the second test hole -- okay.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KING: Did we ever find out where the neighbor's well
was?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They were concerned about their water well.
Board of Trustees 24 February 19, 2014
We could hold for a Health Department approval in this case to
make sure that she has an opportunity to have her well protected
or get public water. Public water is in the area.
TRUSTEE KING: As a matter of fact, on the original application I
think she said she had public water.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: No, she didn't. She said she had a well. So
what's the wishes of the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: Is there any kind of non-disturbance buffer
indicated on that survey?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: 50 foot non-disturbance from the wetlands,
flagged by Environmental Consulting in 2013.
Is there anyone else to speak to this application?
MS. CHAUSSABEL: Michele Chaussabel, New Suffolk. Are you still
operating with the same blueprint that we were sent in the mail
two months ago?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: These are the plans, I believe, that were
submitted on January 28th, 2014.
MS. CHAUSSABEL: Is it right they are planning to build a
foundation under this house?
TRUSTEE KING: We really don't know.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We don't know. We just see the building
envelope. These are not detailed plans, if you would like to
approach.
MS. CHAUSSABEL: I see. I think at this point they are free to
build a foundation under this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Typically, the Board does not control the
construction of a foundation. The height or material is handled
by the requirements of the state building code and FEMA flood
plan elevations, and it typically is not a concern of ours, if
the house placement is out of the vegetated wetlands. In this
case, the wetlands have been flagged and there is no
construction proposed directly within the wetland area. So that
would be left to meeting the requirements of the Building
Department and flood plain elevation of the building code.
MS. HULSE: You could FOIA the Building Department if you want to
see their plans. They applied for a permit there.
MS. CHAUSSABEL: So I could get a copy of this plan. Okay, very
good. I'll try to do that then, thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: To answer your question, I don't see a well
indicated on the neighbor's property.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is this lady's house. Actually, this is
a new dated survey that we requested. It does show your water
well on the house. It does indicate that it's on the survey. And
there was a modification to the size of the -- shows a proposed
home as opposed to a building envelope. It was a resubmission
after we had been there.
MS. CHAUSSABEL: So could I obtain a copy of the resubmission?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, you may, sure. You can get information,
at your request, we can get you a copy of that. I think from
Board of Trustees 25 February 19, 2014
what the Trustees have seen, because we are concerned that your
water supply be protected, we may not move on this until we hear
the applicant has satisfied the Suffolk County Health Department
with respect to your water supply, to protect your water supply.
MS. CHAUSSABEL: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right, hearing no further comments, I make a
motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is a motion made and seconded.
Discussion on the motion. Do you want to table it for cause and
we'll request that they receive a Suffolk County Department of
Health department approval, that way we can communicate to the
Health Department. They will move ahead if they receive
communication from us requesting that they move ahead on the
approval process. If that's acceptable.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The motion was made and seconded. All in
favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, Fairweather & Brown
Associates on behalf of STEVEN & SUSAN BLOOM requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a 16'x35' in-ground gunite pool with a
surrounding on-grade 1,827 sq.ft. brick patio and 4' high pool
fencing. Located: 7800 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
The Trustees performed an inspection of this site. The
proposed pool as submitted is located quite to the side of the
house, and it meets our required setback. It also shows a
drywell associated for the swimming pool. And the project as
proposed is consistent with the ZBA determination.
The LWRP coordinator has deemed the project to be
consistent. The CAC has moved to support the application. And
the field inspection reviewed that the application appeared to
be satisfactory as submitted.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MS. MARTIN: Amy Martin, here, of Fairweather & Brown,
representing Steve and Susan Bloom. The only change that I have
put before you is we have reduced, we were waiting for the
homeowner's approval. She asked to reduce the size of the patio.
So the patio is actually about just under four-hundred square
feet smaller than we originally proposed. It's a combination of
the cost of what originally was requested and consideration of the area.
MS. HULSE: So what's the total square footage now?
MS. MARTIN: The total square footage now is 873-square feet, as
per the plans I just submitted.
MS. HULSE: You are requesting the application be so amended.
MS. MARTIN: Yes, please.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes
to speak to this application?
Board of Trustees 26 February 19, 2014
(No response).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The only thing, modify the Trustees section
where you checked off all our names.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: (Perusing). Unfortunately, you are mistaken.
It was only checked off I performed the field inspection. You confused
this with another file.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Sorry about that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just for point of information. No problem.
Okay, not hearing any additional comments or concerns concerning
this project, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I would make may motion to approve this application as
amended, with the reduction in the square footage of the patio
from 1,827-square feet to 873-square feet. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, Fairweather & Brown Associates on
behalf of EDWARD J. FLANNIGAN requests a Wetland Permit to
replace existing water-side windows with new large sliding glass
door and window; construct a raised 22.8' wide by 9' deep patio
with open wood arbor above; and a French drain with perforated
pipe to be installed along the water side of the proposed patio
and connected to an existing drywell. Located: 330 South Lane,
East Marion.
This was found consistent with the LWRP. And the CAC
supports the application with the condition of a ten-foot
non-turf buffer is indicate on the plan; and there is a drainage
plan for roof runoff; and the building complies with FEMA
regulations. That's the CAC recommendations.
I believe Trustee Bredemeyer looked at this and had
no issues with it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's very straightforward.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or
against this application?
MS. MARTIN: Amy Martin, of Fairweather & Brown, for Edward and
Rachel Flannigan. The only question I have on this is I believe
everything for the rebuilding of the little platform and
everything was before you a short time ago and was approved.
And are those the plantings you are talking about or is there
an additional non-turf buffer being requested?
We really didn't address what was previously applied for,
we just used the survey for our site plan because we were just
working with this patio. So I was not sure.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't know where they want to see this buffer.
MS. MARTIN: I don't either. Because I know they had special
Board of Trustees 27 February 19, 2014
plantings put in after the bulkhead was repaired and the steps
down were repaired.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With the heavy snow cover on this job, I
have to be frank with you, the notion of a non-turf buffer was
not in view during this inspection.
MS. MARTIN: I do know that they recently had been before you as
the homeowners of I think of the three properties in a row. And
they were allowed to replace the damaged stairs and docks and
bulkheads and whatever, and I know there is a brand new planting
because of that. So I'm asking if the Conservation Advisory
Council, obviously they saw snow cover, too, so --
TRUSTEE KING: They may not be aware there was already a buffer
established.
MS. MARTIN: Okay. I'm not sure if that is considered a buffer or
there is more being asked for.
TRUSTEE KING: I really don't know.
MR. MCGREEVEY: It was posed as a question, John. It was heavy
snow and this was posed as a question is a ten-foot buffer
required or needed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We could put it under additional review. I
think a number of the houses already had vegetated buffers on
them. I think it would be simple matter to put it on field
inspection next month and we could make a determination.
MS. MARTIN: That would be great. We would appreciate that. Thank
you.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone else here to speak on behalf of or
against this application?
(No response).
Board comments?
(No response).
Motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
it has been submitted.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number eight, En-Consultants on behalf of
ROBERT & HEIDI BAILEY requests a Wetland Permit to raise the
existing one and two-story, single-family dwelling by 2 feet and
construct additions to dwelling consisting of a partial
(30.4'x45.9', max.) Second story addition over existing first
story with new roof overhang in-place of existing; a 3.9'x9.7'
one-story roadside addition in-place of existing porch; new
5.9'x19.9' roadside porch addition with 6.5'x9.7' steps;
construct 9.2'x9.8' stoop/steps in-place of existing rear
Board of Trustees 28 February 19, 2014
stoop/steps; construct new 9.2'x20.3' waterside patio using
pervious pavers; relocate 8'x12' shed to rear of house; erect
fencing; remove existing asphalt driveway and install pervious
gravel driveway; abandon existing non-conforming sanitary system
and install new, upgraded septic system no less than 100' from
wetlands boundary; raise grade around proposed sanitary system
with approximately 107 cubic yards of clean sand and topsoil to
be trucked in from an approved upland source; replace and
relocate existing public water service line; install drainage
system of leaders, gutters, and drywells; and establish a 10'
wide non-turf buffer adjacent to the edge of tidal wetlands
boundary to be actively planted with native vegetation. Located:
129 Inlet Lane, Greenport.
The LWRP has found the project to be consistent, and the
CAC supports the application with a 20-foot non-turf buffer
because of the built up lot coverage. There is a concern with
the location of the sanitary system and the high groundwater
conditions.
And the field inspection by the Trustees revealed a request
for a 15-foot non-turf buffer.
Is there anybody here who would like to speak on behalf of
this file?
MR. HERRMANN: Good evening, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on
behalf of the applicants Robert and Heidi Bailey. Meryl
Kramer, the project architect, is also here if the Board has any
questions.
The project is fairly straightforward in terms of the
essence of the renovations that are being proposed in that it is
primarily an upper-story addition; it was more bumped out in the
front; the patio that is proposed to be constructed with
pervious pavers in the back side of the house, you could see
where those chairs are, where you are all heading in that
photograph on the screen.
To address a couple of the CAC comments, and this frankly
is probably what led to Mr. Bailey's questions about the
application that was before you earlier for his neighbor, is
that we actually went through a very extensive period of design,
both for the proposed upgrade of the existing sanitary system
which is located outside the Board's jurisdiction, and also a
site drainage plan to conform with the town's storm water
management requirements. And while the Health Department does
not necessarily require that the septic tank be elevated two
feet above groundwater, the DEC does, within their jurisdiction.
So the design here addresses that requirement. Again, as noted
by the Board earlier, this is outside your jurisdiction, but
since it's connected to a house inside your jurisdiction, it's
worth noting, that the sanitary system that is being removed is
almost certainly sitting in groundwater and will be replaced by
an upgraded system with all of its components located at least
Board of Trustees 29 February 19, 2014
two feet above ground water, with a grading and drainage plan
around it, to retain all site runoff on the property.
We had proposed just because of the narrowness of the yard
a ten-foot non-turf buffer landward of the tidal wetland
boundary, and interestingly, with respect to the coverage on the
property, the lot coverage by impervious surfaces, which
includes all the surfaces this Board is concerned with, not just
those defined under the building code, there will actually be a
reduction of approximately 1,037-square feet in area of lot
coverage from 22.8% to 16.4% as a result of the removal of what
is now an impervious driveway and the installation of a pervious
driveway in its place, as well as the removal of some concrete
walks that exist on the property today.
So if the Board could live with a ten-foot buffer here,
which we have proposed, not just simply as a non-turf buffer but
an area to be actively re-vegetated with native vegetation, we
would certainly like for you to consider that. Otherwise I think
that covers the comments that I heard. But again, we are here if
the Board has any other comments or concerns with the project.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Anybody else like to speak on behalf of this
file?
(No response).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In the field notes, we want to go a little
larger with the non-turf.
TRUSTEE KING: Maybe because with the neighbor, we put a 20-foot
next door, so we felt it would be more consistent.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We anticipated a 20-foot non-turf buffer on
the neighbor and we felt the tie in with 15, it seems as if the
area wants to naturally re-vegetate. I question whether we would
actually want to actively planting vegetation in there and just
culturally try to enhance the natural tendency for patens and
Baccharus to move into that area.
MR. HERRMANN: We could do a 15-foot non-turf buffer with showing
the ten-foot of active planting with the other five-feet just
for passive restoration. Would that --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just submit a separate plan. That would
seem to meet our needs and the homeowner's. That seems reasonable.
MR. HERRMANN: That's acceptable.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay, anybody else?
(No response).
I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Motion to approve with the 15-foot non-turf
buffer and five feet of non-disturbed area, correct?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 15-foot non-turf with the first ten feet to
be actively re-vegetated, and a plan submitted that comports with that.
Board of Trustees 30 February 19, 2014
MS. HULSE: With the first ten feet, would you describe that
landward, seaward.
MR. HERRMANN: Landward of the tidal wetlands.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A motion was made. Do we have a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a point of information, the next item, I
have recused myself on and I'll leave the dais. I request the
record of the meeting reflect that I have left the dais.
(Trustee Bredemeyer steps down from the dais).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number nine, En-Consultants on behalf of JOHN &
SARAH HENRY requests a Wetland Permit for the existing fixed "J"
shaped pier that consists of an 8'x152' shore-perpendicular
section, and 10'x36' and 10'x17' shore-parallel sections;
as-built repairs consisting of the installation new 2"x10"
untreated decking and the replacement of inside pilings, caps
and stringers; and proposed repairs consisting of the
installation of additional 2"x10" untreated decking and
replacement of additional 10" inside pilings, 6"x6" caps and
outside stringers, and 4"x6" inside stringers. Located: 2440
Village Lane, Orient.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent.
The existing "J" shaped pier consists of an 8x152'
shore-perpendicular section and 10x36 and 1 0x1 7 shore-parallel
sections; as-built repairs consisting of replacing pilings,
stringers and installation of untreated decking. The application
states that this proposed action is normal maintenance and
therefore is exempt from the LWRP. The dock is not in
conformance with the Board of Trustees grandfather permit and
therefore the action cannot be exempted from review. The permit
was issued for a dock length of 100 feet. The current length is
152 feet. The "L" section is permitted at 45 feet. The current
length is 53 feet. It is therefore his determination that it is
inconsistent with LWRP policy.
The permit he is referring to is issued on 2/28/95, and
reads: Grandfathered permit for the 8x100' and "L" shaped 8x45'
foot existing dock.
The CAC voted to support the application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. ANGEL: Two of us, actually. My name is Steve Angel, Esseks,
Hefter & Angel, 108 East Main Street, Riverhead, New York. I'm
the attorney for the applicants John and Sarah Henry. And I
don't think I'll have too much to say. I just want to introduce
Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants who will present the actual
application and address some information, certainly, about the
permit that you referred to. Rob?
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you. Good evening. Rob Herrmann,
Board of Trustees 31 February 19, 2014
En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicants John and Sarah Henry.
This, on its face, should be a fairly routine application,
as has been presented in our application. This is a dock that we
have reason to believe dates back to the 1930s. The dock has
remained in the same location and configuration and size and
dimension since that time, with respect to the overall
dimensions of the dock, as far as we can tell, from our research
of online aerial photographs and the documentation in the
folder, the Trustees folder in association with the grandfather
permit that Mike just mentioned.
I'll hand up to you a few different documents. Basically
what we are here trying to accomplish was to -- well, let me
step back. This application was originally borne from a
violation that was issued by the bay constable and Trustees
office for some repairs that were done on the dock after
Hurricane Irene in 2011. And the basis for the violation was
this was an unpermitted dock. What we recently figured out, as
apparently has Mark Terry, that under a different name and a
different tax map number, because the lots used to be
separate -- there was a lot for the house and a lot for the dock
--that there was in fact a permit issued for this dock. So one
could perhaps contend that the violation that was premised on
the structure being unpermitted is actually now in retrospect
not completely accurate. But I'll leave that argument for a
different day.
MS. HULSE: It is not an argument. That case has already been
reviewed and disposed of.
MR. HERRMANN: Right. Exactly. So what we did notice, as Mike had
read from Mark Terry's notations, and which is a bit peculiar,
is that the grandfather permit that was issued in 1995
references an 8x100', an "L" shape of 8x45 existing dock. So
trying to make some sense of that, I went through the additional
materials and the Trustees' files, and also looked at some
additional aerials. And what is interesting is in the original
application that was submitted by, well, looks like Gerald and
Mary Dorman, although the permit was issued in the name of
Gerald Dorman. Under the project description section of the
application, I'll hand up a copy of this, the application reads
"dock has been in existence since 1930s. Dr. Gerald D. Gorman
purchased parcel with another across Village Lane in 1958, which
has been his residence since that time. We are now seeking a
grandfather permit for the dock in anticipation of selling the
properties. Additional proof of pre-existence of dock is
appended here in Schedule A. Dock eight feet wide by 150 feet
long, "L" is 45 feet long."
So the roughly correct dimensions are referenced in a
handwritten note, which I'll hand up to you, in the application.
And this I just downloaded from the town's website, so you can
verify this pretty quickly and easily. For some reason the
Board of Trustees 32 February 19, 2014
permit came out for a hundred feet. I took the plan that was
attached to that application and I blew it up on the photocopier
until it came to scale. And unfortunately, the dock is not
drawn at all to scale. The eight foot wide portion is to scale,
but as can you see from the drawing, it almost shows that little --
the reason I call it a "J", as opposed to an "L", because it makes
the shape of a "J", not really an "L". But this little section
here is much shorter than the longer section here (indicating). And as
drawn here it doesn't look that way. But it clearly shows the dock
extending all the way into the upland portion of the property.
And when you take the survey and put a scale to it, you'll find
that the distance from the outside edge of this dock to the
outside edge of what I call the "J" is in fact 45 feet. So the
45 feet that they are referencing is from that point to that
point. At least it has to be. I mean, obviously, today, the
plans that we prepare, the dimensions that we put on them, and
generally what the Trustees require is a lot more exacting than
what was required in 1995. 1 don't think anyone would refute
that.
So what I did, in order to try to verify that assumption,
is I went to Google Earth. Again, this is something anyone on
the Board can do. And they have a digital measuring tool where
you can put a measuring line from one point to another and it
will tell you the number of feet how long it is. So I started
at the end of the dock and went up just roughly to where it
looks like the landward edge of the structure, and it came up to
150 feet and change. So this is just a screen shot of that
measurement. Again, this is a tool that anyone on the Board --
MS. HULSE: For the record, Rob, you are submitting that for the
Trustees' consideration?
MR. HERRMANN: I am.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: What year is that? Is that the most current
Google shot?
MR. HERRMANN: It should show on the screen shot. That's an
aerial that was taken from the Google Earth site taken in April
of 1994. The reason I chose that picture is that's how the dock
would have existed at the time the Dorman's submitted this
application and the permit was issued.
So I would also submit for the record the entire copy of
the application that went in from, that was submitted by
and issued to Gerald Dorman. It should note for the record that
this blowup is something I manipulated just to try to get the
survey in scale. And based on some of the other reference
measured on the map, it appears to be to scale. But again, this
dock is not drawn to scale. All these dimensions are much longer
than when they show here.
(Inaudible).
MS. HULSE: That's also why the violation is legitimate, because
it was.
Board of Trustees 33 February 19, 2014
MR. HERRMANN: I'm not questioning that.
MS. HULSE: You brought it up.
MR. HERRMANN: I just know that we have been at this for a while,
and I think for a long time, despite the various number of
reasonably educated minds that have been looking at this, we
have all been accepting the assumption for a long time this dock
had no permit. So I just wanted to make it clear for the record
it actually does have a permit, which you now know. I'm not here
for the record trying to question the violation, just the
premise that it was an unpermitted structure.
The other website that I have looked at, again, just for a
general reference, I can't scale these, and I should note for
the record these are websites that of course want you to
purchase these aerials, and I'm just giving them to the Board
for reference. These are screen shots. Historicaerials.com, they
have both aerial shots and topographic maps that date back, in
the case of the aerials, to 1954, and in the case of
topographical maps, back to 1947. And you can see the dock
clearly, along with the Orient Wharf structure. This is a screen
shot of the 1954 aerial showing the dock. This is a screen shot
of the 1960 aerial showing the dock. And this is actually a copy
of a 1947 topographical map where you can see they would hand
draw in some of these structures on the topo maps, and you can
see the Orient Wharf structure and also this sort of"L" or "J"
shaped structure.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are you submitting these for the record?
MR. HERRMANN: I'm submitting all those for the record. Again,
those are just references, because I think it sounded to me like
what Mark Terry was detailing in his statement, that the normal
maintenance here would not be deemed a minor action, that should
be exempt from waterfront consistency review, it seemed like he
was premising that position on the fact that the dock doesn't
conform to the permit. Which I think, as an objective viewer, is
true.
MS. HULSE: He was.
MR. HERRMANN: But obviously there's some the sort of measurement
representation, clerical error associated with this permit
because all the photographic evidence and other evidence that is
included even in your file, indicates a length of 150 feet and
the 45-foot length on the outside "L". Again, I can show you up
here. But if you go to your survey and you measure from point to
point, even though it's not truly an "L", it's roughly 45'. 1
think it's 45.6 when I do it in AutoCad and electronically.
So clearly, the dock that was present at this site, with
respect to its overall dimensions in 1995, is the same dock that
is there today.
Beyond that, I don't really have much more to offer. Again,
this is a dock that obviously by various references has been in
place for almost 80 years. It has sustained damage now from two
Board of Trustees 34 February 19, 2014
hurricanes in two sequential years. And we are not proposing to
remove the dock. We are not proposing to reconstruct the dock.
We are not proposing to relocate the dock. We are not proposing
to change the dock, other than through superficial changes such
as using untreated decking instead of pressure treated lumber as
would have been done years ago. And so we are really just
asking the Trustees to permit however you would deem necessary.
In other words, had we discovered this, had everyone discovered
this grandfathered permit however long ago, and there was not
this odd discrepancy in the length, I'm not sure we would be
here. So that's really all I have to offer.
I don't know if Steve or John Henry has anything else to
offer. Ian Crowley, John's marine contractor is also here, if
the Board would have any questions. That's all I have.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Well, for the record, the Trustees in their
examination of the aerial photographs notice that there was not
a change in the length since 1994, as far back as we went.
So is there anyone else here that wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. BREDEMEYER: Eric Bredemeyer. I'm the brother of that guy
over there, used to be called president, but I think I should
say congratulations Vice-president Domino for your ascension for
the moment.
I represent my family, the Bredemeyer Family Trust. My
parents, who are aged in their 90s, live right next door to that
dock there. They are at 2660 Village Lane. And five or six years
ago they turned much of their affairs over to my brother John,
you call him Jay, I call him Jay, and myself, in order to assist
them. They're very old, they are quite infirmed.
So having said that, this matter, actually, that is before
you, goes through three presidents of your panel. It goes back
through Jill Doherty, through President Jim King and now my
brother is obviously president but not on this matter. And I
just wanted to bring to your attention some things. Let me just
approach, if I can. I prepared a brief that I could hand to you
that you could perhaps read along with me.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Fine.
MR. BREDEMEYER: These are official copies, for your records.
I beg your indulgence, again, since it did go over perhaps
three leadership situations, I might talk a little long, but I
think it may add some background. I just want to start by
reading an E-mail. I think it's important because it goes to the
recusal of my brother. This goes back to October 10, 2011. It
was to Southold Trustee President Jill Doherty from Trustee John
Bredemeyer, Trustee specializing in the Orient/East Marion area.
Subject: Request for Board review of activities at 2440 Village
Lane, Orient, and including Trustee Bredemeyer recusal.
You can read along, but basically this Trustee has received
several requests from area residents inquiring how to proceed in
Board of Trustees 35 February 19, 2014
the aftermath of Tropical Storm Irene. Activities within the
coastal and wetlands zone at the subject property at 2440
Village Lane, which is the subject of the application we are
talking of today. Including but not limited to possible repair
and new construction --
(The stenographer requested Mr. Bredemeyer to slow down).
Okay, basically, from Tropical Storm Irene. Activities within
the coastal and wetlands zone at the subject property at 2440
Village Lane, including but not limited to possible repair and
new construction on a residential dock there. They've taken
place since Irene with no contact with the Trustee office or the
area Trustee, which was my brother, where he says it himself.
Within the last year the town bay constable and code enforcement
officer intervened on the subject parcel in a separate matter,
status at that time was undetermined. Consequently, on October
4, 2011, Trustee Bredemeyer requested that the Trustee office
place the subject property on the docket for Trustee monthly
inspections for October.
Since the subject property adjoins 2660 Village Lane,
that's where my parents live, the property of the J&J Bredemeyer
Family Trust, which at that time my nearly 90-year old parents,
they now have gone over that, they are still alive. They are
still with us. They've owned the property and/or resided there
in excess of 46 years, for which I -- was my brother-- am a
co-trustee of that Trust (as disclosed in my Town ethics
filing). I must recuse myself, that's him recusing himself, from
all Board of Trustees discussion, review and determinations that
might follow from this request, reserving a right of impeachment.
To not delay the Trustees field inspection, I gave, that's
me, Eric Bredemeyer, gave permission to my brother to let you
know you all could not trespass but have license to cross our
land to do your inspection, to survey.
Anyway, because of the age and infirmity of my parents and
owning to the uniqueness of this situation, my brother advised
you that any official copies or anything should be sent to me, I
live down in Florida, and I'm willing to reimburse the town for
any additional postage or things that are required.
I never got anything as result of this communication, from
anybody at the town. I've never heard anything from Trustee
Doherty or the like. But I want to let you know he has recused
himself very early on and my brother has been most ethical, it
appears to me, for whatever that means. Because, you know,
ethics is an important thing, in most professions.
Okay, I'm here to present a little here tonight concerning
the background of what is happening at this dock proposal. My
brother remains recused throughout this matter.
On the other hand, my parents who live in their home at
2660 Village Lane are in their 90s. They look at my brother and
me, and he's a recused official. I would have expected quite a
Board of Trustees 36 February 19, 2014
lot more from your panel, by the way, those people that are not
recused. I have not received it from anybody. Right now, I do
not live close enough to be here hands on. But let me bring some
background known already to Mr. King and Attorney Hulse. If not
others that do not recuse.
I brought to the attention of former Pres. King and
Attorney Hulse as early as last September that the applicant
here tonight was apparently helping themselves to a large swath
of my parents' side yard, on a survey, and then using it in
their application. All I asked of Mr. King and Ms. Hulse was
assistance in contacting and determining who was acting for the
applicant, because this matter had lapsed for so long it was
very difficult to tell who was in charge. Mr. King never called
or wrote. Ms. Hulse did not answer my questions. I have
certified mails in here, certified receipts. I could show you
more, but I would get ahead of myself. I just want you all to
know that my parents are the ones that drink the water and live
there before this massive junk pile of a dock.
It is my elderly parents' civil rights that were
disregarded or diminished by the town, not those of the
applicant. I ask you to remember this as we proceed with my
comments.
Let's look at how this matter unfolds. Let's read the legal
notice I got for tonight: Perform ordinary and usual
maintenance activities on existing fixed "J" shaped pier, which
predates 1955, and you all can read what you have in the notice.
How does this current predicament start, really? It's
Tropical Storm Irene. It's not a hurricane. Tropical Storm
Irene. It was a hurricane back in the Virginias and New Jersey.
But it went up toward Vermont and New Hampshire as a TS.
I know what the Hurricane Irene was, that was in 1999, 1 rode it
out in a boat in Miami Harbor. That's in Florida. But the matter
here with the Town of Southold goes back earlier than that year,
back to 2011, as your Board knows, and as does someone for or on
behalf of this applicant.
So basically, early in 2011, before the storms, I must
thank the town constable, bay constable, code enforcers, because
they are the ones who saved my parents drinking water and the
like because it appears there was problems with the basement and
pit at 2440 that was being pumped out into the street and into
drainage. I was under the impression or I'm under the impression
there was forbearance in this matter with no sanctions, and
during this situation of forbearance that the other storms then
happened later on. So while the matter of a prior problem is in
forbearance, a storm occurs. So we are forbearing our way to
compliance, it seems. Anyway, I guess the matter of drainage has
been lost in a file cabinet or with the storm.
So now comes Tropical Storm Irene. As I already told you,
my brother is recused, and your records show that. Within months
Board of Trustees 37 February 19, 2014
of the drainage problem, a large barrier fence shows up. And if
you go through my tabbing, you'll see pictures of my parents,
you also see a tab three, the barricade fence. You also see it
in a different perspective from the applicant, who made it look
like he's looking down the stock. But if you look across the
foreshore, it's a complete blocking of the foreshore. That's
what brought the bay constable and the whole issue of the
unpermitted. I'll get to the permitting thing a little later.
More problematic is the unpermitted construction.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't even know if this is relevant.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mr. Bredemeyer, are you intending to read
through this entire thing?
MR. BREDEMEYER: I would want to bring up a few things of real
import. Because if I can make it part of the record in its
entirety, so you can read that into the record, if you'll attach
it, but I do want to bring a few of things of importance up.
During the course of the survey --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would just urge you to be relevant to the
application that is before us, which --
MR. BREDEMEYER: Part of this is the taking of the swath of the
land as the result of false survey. If you notice, during this
process, there has been a correct survey that has been
presented, so that old survey gives me great pause because you
see there is a south property line that is in error, and if you
look at it, it makes the setbacks of the dock look like they are
totally compliant, when they are not, as well as they were
taking land from my parents. And also there has been a
corrected survey filed, I have not seen it withdrawn from the
materials of the applicant in your package, and I would want to
make sure that this previous survey never sees the light of day,
never get FOIA'd, never gets part of some court record
somewhere. And I would, to make sure, is an errata sheet. I
prepared a model one. I'm sure your attorney can prepare a
better one. Because you have an erroneous document in your file
that shows the applicant is asserting ownership to lands that
they do not own. That's upland. That's not the water. But that
is also going to affect the setbacks of the structure that is
not compliant with your current code.
If I could approach, I have some extra copies of the errata
sheet if you would like to use it. I would also bring to your
attention it is your town code, and it is your town code that
suggests when there is a filing submission that has falseness in
it, that your application should be denied. Not mine. The filing
of second survey that shows correction in and of itself on its
face shows there is false information that is in this
application. Your town code testifies that it should be denied.
It's not my town code, it's your town code.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: What specific violation are you speaking of?
MR. BREDEMEYER: False information.
Board of Trustees 38 February 19, 2014
TRUSTEE SANDERS: What specifically?
MR. BREDEMEYER: The survey. The original survey that they have
in the file, and, by the way, I wrote as early as September,
nobody wrote me back. I wrote again in October, nobody wrote me
back. I sent certified letters to both Mr. --
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The original survey is incorrect in what
manner, specifically?
MR. BREDEMEYER: They corrected it. The survey has property --
they are asserting ownership to my parents' property. Now the
Trust property.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The current survey you are talking about now,
is that in compliance or is that not in compliance?
MR. BREDEMEYER: There is a correction of survey that has been
filed.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is the correction of survey that has been filed
in compliance, in your thoughts?
MR. BREDEMEYER: I'll say it this way. The prior survey has not
been withdrawn and the correct survey does appear to be the
proper property line, correct.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay.
MS. HULSE: Just to answer your question, Mr. Bredemeyer, because
in your letter you said "how did that go for you, Attorney
Hulse?" The violation that you are alleging that took place in
reference to your third page of your letter was investigated by
the code enforcement officer who went out there on numerous
occasions, and it was unsubstantiated. So there was no finding
of a violation as per the matter you are referencing in 2011. So
I want to just clarify that aspect of it.
MR. BREDEMEYER: But am I correct that I wrote you in September
and October and nobody responded to me?
MS. HULSE: You did. The questions that you asked me regarding a
pending matter, I'm not at liberty to call you up and discuss
with you. If you wanted information, I think you could properly
FOIA for it and receive that information. However I'm the
attorney for this Board and for the town. I can't speak to you
about the questioning that you were asking about back in
September.
Subsequent to that, you did get a response through FOIA; is
that correct?
MR. BREDEMEYER: It had nothing in there that showed anything
except the bad survey, and ignored me.
MS. HULSE: I'm sorry, did you get your FOIA request filled?
Did you get that back in a timely manner?
MR. BREDEMEYER: I had five FOIA requests in order to keep up
with what I don't get from you all.
MS. HULSE: I understand. But, sir, there is a proper way to go
about this. There are certain procedures that have to take
place.
MR. BREDEMEYER: Nobody told me that I had to do a FOIA request
Board of Trustees 39 February 19, 2014
to find out who was the agent for the applicant. I was trying to
figure out -- Mr. Herrmann ignored me, as I told you.
MS. HULSE: Mr. Herrmann has --
MR. BREDEMEYER: And Mr. King. I don't know if he has the same
limitations that you do.
MS. HULSE: I just want to make it clear that Mr. Herrmann has
always been the agent, and the conversation that I had with you
over the phone, he has always been the agent. That has not
changed. So I don't think anybody was trying to withhold
information or not give you information or not provide you with
anything, but specifically, when it comes to removing something
that the Trustees' office has received, we can't remove it
without the request and consent of the applicant, because it's
something that has been received.
MR. BREDEMEYER: And that's why I'm suggesting the errata sheet
needs to go into your file, because it has the bad survey or
false survey has not been removed at some point, and that errata
sheet goes with it, so from now into perpetuity we know what
happens, because your permits run with the person, not with the
land in this office. So it's very important to understand how
documents come out of the past and are used out of context.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Specifically, this survey that we are utilizing
now, what is your --
MR. BREDEMEYER: I don't know which one you are using. Can I come
up and see it?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Sure.
MR. HERRMANN: Charles, would you just give me 30 seconds and I
can clarify this so Mr. Bredemeyer can move on?
MR. BREDEMEYER: I don't yield the floor yet.
MS. HULSE: One second, Mr. Herrmann.
MR. BREDEMEYER: I also wanted to talk about a few things, but if
you are going to limit me in time, I want to make sure I get
additional time.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: This is it, correct? Can you approach? Is
this the one you said that has been modified to --
MR. BREDEMEYER: (Perusing).
MR. HERRMANN: Charles, if you could give me 30 seconds, I could
help us all move on. It's in your record already.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Do you mind yielding for 30 seconds?
MR. BREDEMEYER: The only thing I can tell you is I had an
updated FOIA request for Attorney Hulse and I have yet to have her
response. But I see this has the requested information.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: So if this is correct --
MR. BREDEMEYER: As to the south property line, I would say, yes.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: All right, if this is correct, again, what
specifically is your argument against their ability -- let me
finish --what specifically is your argument to not allow them
to make repairs on this dock?
MR. BREDEMEYER: First of all, there is the submission. Next,
Board of Trustees 40 February 19, 2014
there is other false submissions. The false submission of the
earlier survey, they didn't go back and re-do everything, they
just keep piling it on with a correction. It was only motivated
by me contacting them, I can only assume.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: But if this, according to you, is correct, this
survey is correct --
MR. BREDEMEYER: Now. As to that one property line.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Let's leave the past in the past and talk
specifically to the issue. What specifically on this survey
is --what is it specifically that you are against them to repair this?
MR. BREDEMEYER: Okay, let me move on. The survey as far as the
south property line has been corrected. It was not corrected up
until moments ago.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Now it's corrected. So what is the argument --
MR. BREDEMEYER: Let me continue on beyond the survey, as far as
my presentation, if I may, please.
The permit, there is no grandfathered permit. Let me
repeat. No grandfathered permit. There is no grandfathered
permit. You have to have ownership in the property at the time
of the permit. The permit has to be issued to the owner. At the
time that that quote unquote grandfathered permit was issued,
the property was not owned by Gerald Dorman, it was owned by
Gerald Dorman and his wife Lois. She does not appear on the
permit. So at that point in time that is not a grandfathered
permit. It is not in the owner. So at the time an in personam
type permit is issued, it has to be in the owner. And it was
not even transferred between them and themselves. They never
reconciled between Mr. and Mrs. Dorman. So you don't have a
grandfathered permit at the time. If you check your Suffolk
County tax records, at the time of that permit issue, the
property was owned by Gerald and his wife, not Gerald
exclusively. He has a second wife. So we have a second wife type
issue. All I'm saying is your permit is not a grandfathered
permit in Gerald Dorman, let alone it has not been transferred
to subsequent owners. And Gerald Dorman lives across the street
in a manor house. This is his beach property we are looking at
here. Let me point this out here. Where Gerald Gorman and his
wife live, is over here. See, that's where they live. There is a
house. They had another two-story home, a caretaker's cottage, a
fish pool, a three-car garage, another shed. Let me just
comment. The reason the dock is built is so he can keep his boat
over there and he can watch his grandchildren there.
THE SECRETARY: We can't hear you on the mic.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Can you hold for one second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mr. Bredemeyer, we are trying to give you a good
deal of latitude here, but I ask you again to keep it relevant
to the application before us.
MR. BREDEMEYER: The function of the dock no longer exists. If
the function of the dock no longer exists, number one; number
Board of Trustees 41 February 19, 2014
two --
TRUSTEE SANDERS: What do you mean by the function of the dock no
longer exists?
MR. BREDEMEYER: You are having an issue here. There is no
permit. In order to do repairs, you have to have a permit in
order to have your 75 percentage exclusion, relative to repairs,
is only for permitted docks. If you read your code, that 75%
requirement, in order to not have a permit is -- excuse me. Let
me gather my thoughts. The issue is this. You have a requirement
in your code that says, and if I may be specific, your code --
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I know exactly what you are saying.
MR. BREDEMEYER: What it is, is you have an unpermitted dock
here. It was unpermitted in the Dorman's, it was unpermitted and
never transferred forward. So therefore to sit there and say it
meets a 75% exclusion, it doesn't. Therefore, from the get-go,
this dock does not have a permit. It never had a grandfathered
permit.
MS. HULSE: Mr. Bredemeyer, it was permitted with the Dormans. It
was permitted. The issue of transfer is correct, it was not
transferred to this particular client, but the point is it's up
to the Trustees to decide whether or not that permit is legal
and whether they are going to recognize it as a di minimis
change from what the permit says to what is out there now.
MR. BREDEMEYER: Gerald Dorman is dead, as is his wife.
MS. HULSE: I'm not arguing that point. What I'm saying is, is
that this Board will make the legal conclusions and determine
whether or not that permit is valid. And I think they understand
your points.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I fully understand your point. Unless you have
something else to speak of specifically regarding something
outside of the survey, or outside the permit, that is what I
would like to hear.
MR. BREDEMEYER: The thing is, even on that survey, if you
notice, it's basically, the survey they are doing, has become
more like project plans, and it appears that the applicant is
parsing your code. When he doesn't like the code he uses the
number of your code so you don't read such things as "permitted
structure." He leaves that part out and references the number.
Then he talks about the 75% situation. And if you also look at the
photos that I provided you, this not a routine maintenance and
repair. And the concept of whether your coastal hazard permit is
also required is another thing that's in here. You have other
types of permits that are being waived here, and the issue of
whether this meets any of those requirements is just -- the
purpose of this dock no longer exists. There is no person across
the street. The people who bought it live next door. It's on the
far periphery. If a child is going to be playing on that dock,
it's not in front of the dwelling house of the current owner.
It's not in front of them. A child could get hurt on that dock.
Board of Trustees 42 February 19, 2014
No one is watching it.
MS. HULSE: I understand your point about the 75% and ordinary
and usual maintenance. However, if there was a permit on this
structure, then it is a permitted structure. He could come in
and ask for this to be transferred now, and the Board could
consider transferring the permit. So the issue really is not
whether or not it's transferred so much as whether or not it's
permitted. And if the Board finds that that permit is something
they are going to recognize, then the whole 75% ordinary and
usual maintenance goes out the window. We are done with that.
MR. BREDEMEYER: The other thing is the setback. So the property
line, assuming the south property line is correct now, the
situation if you extend the new perpendicular -- and only for
the purpose of this application -- the perpendicular out, they
don't meet the setbacks of your code. You have a 15-foot
setback. And I believe the diagram using the new corrected
survey, which, by the way, if you use the old one, it fools your
eyes because you think it's all within it, but if you use the
new corrected one, it doesn't.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Can I take one other tact, to be kind of blunt?
MR. BREDEMEYER: Sure.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Why don't you want them to have this dock?
MR. BREDEMEYER: Why don't they want to build it in front of
their house? They have two of them.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: That's not the question. What harm or injury
does this dock pose to you?
MR. BREDEMEYER: I would like to show that, first of all, they
don't do regular repairs on it.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: They are trying to get them repaired, that's
the whole point of the hearing. What do you personally, why do
you not want them to have the dock?
MR. BREDEMEYER: I would like them to have the dock further over.
If you would please look, according to the, there is a
proportional property argument that goes with how -- do you
understand --
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I understand the legalities. I'm trying to
tease out from you why you don't --
MR. BREDEMEYER: My family is limited in their access to the
navigability line. If you look --
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I don't see how in the world you don't have the
ability to navigate.
MR. BREDEMEYER: The navigability line is not the same as
navigable waters. The navigability line is a construct that goes
back in New York law to the 1850s.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay. I understand where you are going.
MR. BREDEMEYER: I would like you to read my 44 pages, which most
of them are photographs. If you look at the diagram -- I have a
Google Earth picture, too, and it shows how little access I
have. That picture does not show it.
Board of Trustees 43 February 19, 2014
No one has ever contacted me, Mr. King.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mr. Bredemeyer, could you wrap it up, please,
and we'll allow Mr. Herrmann to speak.
MR. BREDEMEYER: Seeing as they have never written me or
corresponded back to me, I would certainly like him to address
you, please.
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you. I'll just try to be brief.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Please.
MR. HERRMANN: I'm not going to question Mr. Bredemeyer's
feelings about the dock or any of his knowledge of the history
of the site. But there seems to be this repetition that we have
tried to do something falsely, that we submitted false surveys
and false representations, and parsed the code; and a lot of
references also to his brother who is on the Board and has
recused himself. And I have been working with his brother for a
long time. And I would like to think his brother Jay knows me to
be a lot better man and a lot better professional --
MS. HULSE: Can we just keep the personalities out of this. It's
really not appropriate.
MR. HERRMANN: But it's relevant.
MS. HULSE: No more comments on that, okay, Rob?
MR. HERRMANN: Okay. The reason I mention it is because we
received a letter from Mr. Bredemeyer when we had submitted our
original application in May of 2012. And at that time we had a
survey from Nathan Taft Corwin that apparently had an error in
the property line, which has now been discussed for the better
part of past half hour. That error was brought to our attention
by Mr. Bredemeyer's letter. I immediately, the same day,
contacted Mr. Corwin, and asked him to look into it, that there
had been an allegation at that time that the survey was
incorrect. Mr. Corwin did some additional research and he found
that Mr. Bredemeyer's claim was correct. And in a letter dated
December 30th, 2013, 1 submitted to the Board, still in
connection with the same application from May of 2012, and I'll
read only one paragraph from it: Please note that the survey
has been revised to correct an error in the angular southerly
property line as it was previously depicted on the survey
originally submitted with our application, a matter that was
brought to my attention by a letter from Eric Bredemeyer dated
September 11, 2013, which is copied to you. After reviewing
additional deeds from the 1978 survey, the adjacent southerly
property provided by Mr. Bredemeyer, Mr. Corwin concluded the
angle of the southerly property line did in deed require correction.
So this is not something that was just sort of slid under
the rug to you a few minutes ago. This was submitted in
December.
The other point of clarity, for the record, is a lot of Mr.
Bredemeyer's comments in relation to that survey are in
connection with that application that was submitted in May of
Board of Trustees 44 February 19, 2014
2012. We submitted this as a supplement. Subsequent to which Ms.
Cantrell contacted me and said that the town was requiring us to
submit an entirely new application, which is the application
that is currently before you, with the survey that has been
corrected and seems to be accurate.
So with respect to Mr. Bredemeyer's concern that there is
some sort of survey floating around in this file that would
somehow be attached with this permit, because we have for
perhaps some insidious reason not withdrawn it, is really not
relevant. Because that is not, those are not the materials that
are before you. I don't know what Ms. Cantrell does with the
applications that are considered void and, I don't know, I'm
sure they are on record somewhere. But the application that is
before you is with this survey and has only ever been with this
survey. And nothing has been done, obviously, with any intention
to mislead or present anything false. That's all.
MR. BREDEMEYER: I have attached information -- excuse me.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is it my understanding, Mr. Herrmann, that had
you known that permit existed before submitting the application,
you would have asked for an amendment rather than a new
application?
MR. HERRMANN: What we would have done -- and obviously I'm
sitting here wishing I had found this permit two years ago, let
alone in December. What we would have done is probably asked
your office for an opinion, given the fact that within that
permit, the permit reads 100 feet, but the applicant project
description reads 150. 1 mean it would not be the first time
there was a clerical error on a permit. So we would have asked
at that time what did we need to do. Would we need to get a new
permit, would we need to transfer the old permit. I mean, in
effect, and this would not be the first nor probably the last
time. We are in effect asking the Board for a full Wetlands
Permit dated 2014 for these repairs. The fact that this
grandfathered permit exists, obviously changes the rules of the
game a little bit, based on my experience with the Board, with
respect to what are nonconforming, completely unpermitted
structures, versus a non-conforming permitted structure.
So that is what we would have done. We would have handled
it differently, and, I mean, that issue was raised. Somehow we
are playing with the notion of the grandfather permit. I didn't
know it existed. I mean, I wish I had.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I understand that.
MR. BREDEMEYER: May I ask a question?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: One second.
MR. HERRMANN: Is that it, Mike, for me?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: I would just prefer to move ahead with this
application.
MS. HULSE: Mr. Bredemeyer, you had marked one for the record and
Board of Trustees 45 February 19, 2014
the other ones you wanted returned?
MR. BREDEMEYER: Yes, I want one for the record and the others
can be returned. Although your court reporter, in order to
assist him in perhaps attaching it, completing it, is certainty
given latitude for time.
MS. HULSE: Are you going to accept the submission as part of the
record?
He submitted one of these as part of the record. Are you
accepting it as part of the record?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes.
MR. BREDEMEYER: May I ask a question?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes, sir.
MS. HULSE: You have to put that on the record.
MR. BREDEMEYER: May I ask a question. May the owner of a lot who
is not the --who own a dock permit, if their name does not
appear on the permit; I'm thinking now, we have Mr. and Mrs.
Dorman who own the property, upland lot, how are they able, the
permit was never in their name. The issue is can an upland owner
that appears on an upland lot, can they own a dock permit, if
their name does not appear on the permit?
I mean, there is a slippery slope here of how your personal
permits are. They don't run with the land. We have two dead
people, Doctor and Mrs. Dorman, and to be sitting there saying
there is an applicant name on that permit and it doesn't agree
with the owner of the property that is across the street,
creates a whole new way your properties are being --
MS. HULSE: Your question about an upland owner is, yes, there
are upland owners in the Town of Southold that have dock
structures. There is a number of them, actually.
MR. BREDEMEYER: Are all the names of the owners on the permit?
MS. HULSE: That I don't know. But if the owner is on the permit --
MR. BREDEMEYER: But doesn't it have to be the owner that appears
on the deed?
MS. HULSE: No, it does not.
MR. BREDEMEYER: So any owner--
MS. HULSE: I can answer any other questions for you if you want
to call me in the office, if it pertains to the potential legal
question. This is not really relevant to this hearing.
MR. BREDEMEYER: The issue is the permit does not appear in the
name of the owner at the time, which was Doctor and Mrs. Dorman.
Not just Gerald Dorman. It's not a solo permit. So therefore the
question is as to not only is the transferability outside of
that, I'm not even sure Dr. Dorman was given a permit, because
he himself at that time, it's void from the get-go.
MS. HULSE: I understand your argument but the permit can still
be recognized as valid.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I have no way of determining whether that's
correct at this point. I'm attempting to --
MR. BREDEMEYER: I hesitate to say, and I understand. I have
Board of Trustees 46 February 19, 2014
heard nothing -- the permit only came to my attention literally
within the last day. So it's like no one communicates with me.
Mr. Herrmann makes it sound like he's communicated with
President King, literally on the last day of his presidency, but
I also look for a response for assistance, I'm trying to figure
out my parents' situation since September.
MS. HULSE: Mr. Bredemeyer, I need to clarify one thing. If I
could just clarify, you had a continuing FOIA request that was
honored. You continued to get the information that you
requested, and in fact came in and viewed the updated
information. Isn't that correct?
MR. BREDEMEYER: I saw the permit yesterday for the first time.
Quote permit unquote.
MS. HULSE: As this information has come to this Board, you have
gotten --
MR. BREDEMEYER: No, I have not gotten it timely.
MS. HULSE: Okay, I don't agree with that. But, thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else to speak to this application?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. The question I have is what is before us is
an application for this dock. A new application under a new
name. Am I correct?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: So all this other talk is really irrelevant. And I
have been on this Board quite a while and I have never heard of
a complaint about this dock before. Why is this all of a sudden
coming up as a complaint?
MR. BREDEMEYER: I was looking to speak with you, Mr. King, since
November 3.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm talking about ten years ago. Why didn't you
complain about it ten years ago? It's been there forever.
MR. BREDEMEYER: The disrepairs have been since about 1998.
TRUSTEE KING: If you are concerned about the dock, I would have
complained about it a long time ago. That's my personal
feeling. All of a sudden now, this is really blown out of proportion.
MR. BREDEMEYER: The issue -- I don't believe that you have an
as-built application, also. And this is an as-built situation,
not a grandfathering. If you look at the pictures as to the
unpermitted work that was done there, it was certainly not just
a few repairs.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Sir, you are repeating yourself. We understand
that argument.
TRUSTEE KING: I've heard enough.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments from the Board?
MR. BREDEMEYER: May I ask whether there is a coastal zone
erosion 30-year maintenance plan? Because that's a situation,
if not acted upon, we'll have this situation ongoing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to make a motion to close this
hearing
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
Board of Trustees 47 February 19, 2014
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I would like to make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, noting that the measurements have not changed, and
that addresses the inconsistency as put forward by the LWRP
coordinator. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee King, aye. Trustee Sanders, aye.
Trustee Bredemeyer, recused).
MR. BREDEMEYER: I respectively ask for revote, also to give time
for anybody to read the 44 pages in front of you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The hearing is closed at this point.
We'll take a five-minute break.
(A recess is taken).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are back on the record. The next item
number eleven, Lark & Folts, Esqs, on behalf of ELLEN F. EMERY
1999 REVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built
100' timber pile vinyl sheet bulkhead; as-built 80' timber pile
tongue-and-groove sheet retaining wall with two 8' returns
located ±25' landward of bulkhead; as-built 80' mid-bluff timber
pile tongue-and-groove sheet retaining wall with two 8' returns
located ±55' landward of bulkhead; as-built 85' timber pile
vinyl sheet retaining wall with a 12' return and a 25' return
located ±10' landward from top of bluff; as-built bluff stairs
from top of bluff to beach consisting of a 4'x7'
access platform leading to a 4'x28' set of stairs with
associated 75 sq.ft. platform to a 4'x7' set of stairs with
associated 95 sq.ft. platform to a 4'x17' set of stairs leading
to a 4'x13' walkway with a 4'x10' set of stairs to beach
parallel to bulkhead, supported by 8" timber pile posts and
composite materials on stair treads and decking; as-built 1,800
cubic yards clean fill spread evenly between retaining walls to
replace lost bluff material with placement of erosion control
jute matting on bluff; for a proposed rear-yard drainage
system to direct roof rain and surface water away from house
foundation and upland retaining wall by providing a drainage
swale with 4" PVC pipe to a drywell in the front
yard area; and for a proposed 200 sq.ft. deck of composite
decking supported by 6"x6" posts located 10' landward from top
of bluff. Located: 5925 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
The Board is familiar with this job, having been out on it
numerous times. It was the subject of two violations that have
yet to be completely satisfied.
The applicant has submitted additional plans reflecting
what they have done. There is a pending indemnification
agreement between the town and the applicant. There is a pending
drainage review in the Office of the Town Engineer. There is a
Board of Trustees 48 February 19, 2014
question about, there remains a question among the Trustees
concerning the drainage and possible impacts as far as soil
eroding of the project.
The CAC made no recommendations. The project was completed
prior to inspection. The project has been determined to be
inconsistent with the town's LWRP. I will go through the
inconsistency now.
The actions do not comply with Wetland Permits previously; does
not conform with permitted structures, in other words the prior
permits, the 95-square foot square landing was not included in
the approvals; the wetland permit allows the installation of
10x10 observation platform at mid-bluff landing. It looks like a
75-square foot platform would comply with this condition. The
as-built retaining walls do not conform to the permit
specifications of permit number 8222; the as-built bulkhead does
not conform to the permit specifications of 8049 which reflects
the change over the prior permit activities of this Board.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. LARK: Good evening, Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New
York. I'm the attorney for the applicant. The applicant, Ellen
Emery on behalf of the Trust, Ellen could not make it tonight.
She is home sick with the flu. The engineer who I had hoped to
have here, Mr. Seligmann, you have all his reports in your
application, he's away.
And Mr. Bredemeyer, you alluded to the storm water drain
off. I have been in contact with Jamie Richter and he has given
me what he wanted. I forward them on to the engineer, and they
will be complied with. Unfortunately, to get them fully complied
with, we need what they call a vertical survey, and when I got
that translated for me, it was nothing more than a topographical
survey, which we do not have of the property landward from the
top of the bluff backwards toward the street. I contacted the
surveyor, John Ehlers, who is also away, and he assures me he'll
get it done as soon as the weather permits, due to the immense
amount of snow on the property. He wants to do it not by
satellite, but he wants to do it accurately, actually going out
there in the field. And so that is pending and that will be done.
As to the indemnification, I've discussed it both with the
owner and with the contractor, who did make it through the mist
of the fog tonight to be here, to do the explanations, if you
have any questions, and he's agreeable to it, too. There was
just a couple of language changes in the description, which I
have given to Ms. Hulse, and she was away, so I was only able to
furnish them tonight, and those will be revolved probably within
the next day or two.
There is nothing to resolve. If she is agreeable, then
they'll be signed and we'll be done with that feature.
I have one other question I wanted to ask you before I ask
Board of Trustees 49 February 19, 2014
for the permit, and it's a question to the Board. Due to the
matting that we put on, that they put on the property, the jute
matting --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm sorry, could you repeat that?
MR. LARK: I have a question for the Board. The jute matting that
we put on, I have not been able to obtain, soil and water has
given me, department, in the county, has given me some
recommendations, people to do. Because of the way the jute
matting is, that will remain, that is a permanent situation,
which I'm told could last as much as five or six years. But the
plantings we hope to put in in the Spring, and what it is, it's
a wire structure with the jute matting and they go down between,
the squares are like four-inch squares, and they go down. So my
question is, when I get that planting schedule, due to the
length from the water up to the top of the bluff, to do the
whole thing properly and get the correct plants and so on and so
forth, does the Board want a copy of that planting, that plan,
if you would, a landscape plan? Because I don't have that
because I have been unable to do it. Because when we got the
jute matting in and got everything done, the weather has not
exactly cooperated. But I do have some names of some competent
people that can give recommendations, and I just did not know if
you wanted to have that also. That's just a question I had.
Because I'm trying to get a complete wetlands application so we
don't have to come back and have any problems. So that was my
question.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ordinarily, we would specify a planting plan
for a project of this size. I would think that would be appropriate.
MR. LARK: Okay, I intended to do that, it's just not able to be
accomplished due to the -- because when I have one guy go out,
he says I can't tell you because one of the things they are
waiting to happen also, and now with the severity of the weather
and the frost penetration, we'll be able to determine what if
any settling has been. Remember there is 1,800 cubic yards put
on here, and it's all engineered sand and soil. So they are
waiting for that. But so far everything has held up good. But
then when the weather conditions turned sour in December we have
not been able to do too much. But I will get that to you if you
Board does request that for their approval. That was just a
loose end I was not able to get finished, if you would, for lack
of a better word.
Okay, now, I brought the contractor is here and he will
explain what has happened and why we were not able to completely
adhere. We started to adhere. The bulkhead is proper and the
first retaining wall is proper, but things started to go south
on us during the construction. You have the pictures and I'll
let him explain what happened. Because it was unknown to him
until started the bulkheading as to why this property suffered
such extreme damage in Sandy and the nor'easter that occurred a
Board of Trustees 50 February 19, 2014
week or so afterwards. Because the properties on either side,
the one to the north, suffered no damage, and the Krupski
property to the south suffered a little, which this contractor
did repair on the bulkhead. But this property got decimated.
And it was not until he was into the job probably two, three,
maybe four, about three weeks when he realized that this thing
was getting away from him. So I'll turn it over to him and he
can do the explanation as to what happened. This is Christopher
Gentry, from Sea Coast Construction.
MR. GENTRY: Hi, my name is Chris Gentry from Sea Coast
Construction, in reference to the Emery project.
Initially I signed a contract, I think maybe 45 to 60 days
after Hurricane Sandy. And I monitored it. We didn't get there,
do you remember the start date? June, we got there, and by then
there was so much scouring, and that's a term, the foot of the
wall was so taken away, the property, to simply put it, this was
the angle that it started out say the day after the storm. By
the time we got there to do the construction, the repose was
much steeper. So we got there and laid out the first initial
wall, which we had permits for. When I say the first wall, we'll
call that, the numbers meaning one offshore. So the number one
wall we started. And as soon as I did any drilling, any pumping
any excavating, the slope continued to fall down on me, on the
property. I worked in the city. I worked in Miami. I work up and
down the east coast of the United States. If this was any kind,
I know this is a residence job, so it's a little different. If
it was any other kind of job, they would have made us do all the
retaining walls, lag everything in and stabilize it so it was
not collapsing. The machine got covered on us twice, with men
in it. So I was in dialogue with the engineer and the attorney
and that is when I subsequently did the other walls, to
stabilize the property. As we were working. We had to work our
way up with the walls. They kept collapsing down.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: How long did it take you to do those other two
walls, in time?
MR. GENTRY: I ganged it up. We put a double gang on it. We had
set the shoulder piles, which are the face piles, within the
first 48 hour shift. Then the framing, then the sheathing,
probably five days. And we had each wall in place. Then we had
to drill the horizontal, in essence, they are a big screw that
goes into the earth called helicals. We drove them in and
stabilized the property.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: So there was time for you to contact the
Trustees before the other two were built. It was five days, you
said?
MR. GENTRY: It was five days of labor per wall, basically. On the
upland wall. And I had reached out to the attorney and reached
out to the engineer, but to answer your question, yes, there
probably was. And it was my mistake for not doing it. But I
Board of Trustees 51 February 19, 2014
have to tell you --
MR. LARK: Let me interrupt. The owner panicked. Because during
July, when she was, it's a summer home, when she was in the
house, the house started to shake. And when the engineer and the
contractor got there, they found that there was fissures in the
soil. Then they inspected the foundation and found out that it
in fact had settled, and panic set in as to how much it was
going to continue to settle. Because, and no lie, within one
week, a good 20 feet of land from the top of the bluff, just
fell. Just like calving of an iceberg. It just fell. That's when
he talked about machines got buried and stuff like that. And the
engineer said something has to be done right away. And that's
when they designed the final wall ten foot landward. Which was
not permitted. That's the thing. That's not permitted. The other
walls were basically permitted. That was not. But panic set in
to save the house. And the house did settle. And we have a
permit now to buoy it up after all of is completed.
MR. GENTRY: To underpin the structural dwelling, the existing
dwelling, we have a permit from the town to put helicals under
it. But as he jumped in, in essence, if you were looking at the
house from the south, I'm not an artist, but if you look at
this, and this was the side profile, one day the distance from
the house to the edge of the bluff was 28 foot. A day later I
come back and it was 26 foot. And I'm of the school of thought,
my concern is, and maybe it was selfish on my business
standpoint, but I didn't want to lose the house. And I knew it
would have gone. I have seen structures fall completely over.
This was a very compromised situation. And, you know, I kept
looking at it and looking at it, and I knew what we had to do.
We brought fill in during the construction. We had to put these
walls in, you know, I even had to put temporary walls in and
take them out just to stabilize the place. At one point we had a
machine pinned down, plywooded in place to get the walls in
place.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I totally understand your fear, but you do
understand what it looks like to the Trustees, correct?
MR. GENTRY: Yes, sir.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: That work was done and then we were contacted.
MR. LARK: No, I contacted the Trustees as soon as everything was
stabilized and the engineer told me it was stabilized and we
didn't have to do anything more. That's why the drainage was not
put in or anything like that. We stopped, because he assured me
that everything, that upper retaining wall had stabilized the
house and he put stress crack tapes on the foundation and
everything to monitor it. And I did contact them. And I guess
it was in early, mid-September, and the Trustees did come out.
TRUSTEE KING: We were not contacted until the work was all done,
the stairs were all in place, beach stairs were all in place and
the whole retaining wall.
Board of Trustees 52 February 19, 2014
MR. LARK: Oh, that part. He'll talk about the stairs.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: By your own admission, the owner panicked in
July but you didn't contact us until November. So that is a long
time. I agree something should have been done, but honestly I
don't think this discussion is relevant at this point in the
application. I have concerns about the drainage calculations and
whether this will remain stable in the future.
MR. GENTRY: The structures will remain stable. I have 30 years
in this industry and I don't want to insult anybody from out
here, but at present, tomorrow morning at 0800 I'll be on the
Tappan Zee Bridge, I've worked on the Wantagh Bridge, I worked
on the GW. I work for the biggest marine contractors in the
world. I have an engineering background. The wall is not going
anywhere. It's overbuilt completely. A lot of these structures
on Long Island are under-built. I have seven years' worth of work
rebuilding top name contractors in the New York areas. We have
over eight-hundred structures before this storm and no failures.
I understand soil and geo-tech and all that, and I have a
licensed engineer that signed off and stamped everything we did.
So as far as the stabilization -- and I brought in the proper
soils. The soils, there is a whole science to the soils, also.
And this property took a direct hit. If you look at what I did,
is, you know, I was thinking about it and I was trying to figure
it out. I have a sixteen-hundred ton New York Coastal license
with total endorsement. This took a direct hit, the properties
here. This is the west side. This is the west side of Shelter
Island. The water is 82 foot deep. The fetch here is 4.7 miles.
This house could not have been in a worse place for this storm.
Could not have been in a worse place. A direct line.
TRUSTEE KING: Could have been in Jersey.
MR. GENTRY: You're right. It could have been in Long Beach. But
as far as the stabilization, the house is stable. I have
calculations on all the helical piles, I have the proper toe
penetration on all the pilings. Everything has been set. It's
been overbuilt. As far as if you questioning any of that, you
know, I have a long resume of work I have done. And we took
photos and I can give you all the drawings on this, all the
materials that was supplied, everything that was used here. And
we didn't bring this, we brought the fill in with the telebelt
machine from in front of the house, and we belted it over the
roof of the house, all the fill. So we didn't come down the beach.
My point is, I don't have any questions on the structure of
this, at all. You know. I know you said that, Mr. Domino.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I share Trustee Domino's concerns with
respect to the drainage plan and that it's linked with the
structure that you built, that there is no issue with excessive
loading from water damning up behind structures and others. I'm
not an engineer, so my concern is that the drainage review is
also tied in with the structure review to make sure it is not
Board of Trustees 53 February 19, 2014
somehow going to result in excess of weight loading on the
bluff. That's a concern that I have.
MR. GENTRY: May I. The first six-hundred yards of backfill were
loamy material, for the base of the wall. Then the remaining
thousand to 1,200 yards were sand. Which sand has a great
leaching capability and doesn't surcharge the wall. The drainage
that the engineer designed will work. We have to cut it toward
the house. We have to make a swale, bring it around, and bring
it into a catch basin in the driveway. And I saw your request
for the elevations and the slopes on the drainage. As far as
that goes. The best way, on all of this, and I have been out
there to inspect it, and I have not been out there since the
snow, but I have been watching it during these storms, and
nothing has, there has been no excessive runoff, any leaching,
any stuff going on. And I know that area gets a lot of
horizontal rain, and when it comes out of the northeast, it just
hits that property.
So I'm willing to go there to explain the drainage, to go
back over the whole drainage plan, to monitor the drainage after
it's installed. You know.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We did in-house discussion on this job. The
actual inspection date -- you are talking about when you and Jim
and I were on the site?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: No, after that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I know, I had done a separate line drawing
of the platform subsequently. But that was 1/29. We were there
in January.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm trying to determine dates. In November, when
we met with you, we walked around the building, I did a close
and careful observation of the foundation, on the Emery house,
and I did not discern any cracks in the foundation. However in
the subsequent inspection, which Mr. Bredemeyer is looking up
the date now, I noticed numerous cracks. So I'm just trying to
highlight my concerns for this. And I respect your
professionalism and your expertise, but I have serious concerns
about that. And particularly the returns on the neighbors'
sides. As it stands right now, I feel, I'm very uncomfortable
voting for this unless I know additional information.
MR. GENTRY: May I explain, what happens, and I'm sure you people
are aware of this, in lay terms, there is the term densification
and engineered soil. When all this soil removed by the storm, we
bring in new soil. It's compacted to a certain grade, okay, over
time. The old soil is much denser, much stronger. This soil has
been put in place, whatever, five months ago, and it is still
locking up, and the foundation of the property is moving. And I
have been monitoring it, and it has not moved in, you know, I
think I was out there two months ago. We have been measuring the
cracks in the foundation. And my point is, is that when
engineered soil is put in place, without, you know, in the
Board of Trustees 54 February 19, 2014
Midwest they don't even drive piles. They go around with big
seven to ten-thousand pound hammers and they pound the soil,
they densify it. And what it does is give the soil a strength
characteristic. On Long Island, we put engineered soil in and
plate-tamped it, but that only gives a certain amount of weight
in certain areas. But as it settles up there will be no more, I
can't say there will be no more cracking; I suggest we at least
underpin the house with some helical piles.
But the characteristics of an engineered soil and existing
soil are completely different. The strength of it. It's like
there's two types of concrete. There is concrete that is going
to crack and there is cracked concrete. Concrete always cracks.
And this house was built -- half the house is ten-inch block and
half the house is 12-inch block. I'm not saying the storm didn't
help it, you know. The only worse thing, it could have been in
Jersey. But half the house was built different ways. There were
old cracks before the storm also in the foundation. But I share
your concern, and my explanation of the settling is the house
did move. And that's what I was afraid of. I didn't want to be
on the cover of the Southold Press or the paper out here because
the house fell down the bluff.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just to recap the discussions the Board has
had on the two recent work sessions that we have had, we
obviously need to see the fines, the settlement with the court.
We need to get the drainage review of the town engineer. I
think based on the concerns of Trustee Domino and myself, we are
going to want linkage to that with a review by the Suffolk
County Soil people so there is an engineering review that ties
into the types of soils and type of material you put down that
meets up with the type of construction.
I know the Trustees have discussed that the stairs at the
beach are not in conformity; with the platform out over the
beach and down to the beach, below the bulkhead, does not
conform with the type of construction we'd like to see along
Nassau Point, because it is rather massive and doesn't allow for
seasonal removal or moving so that maintenance could be
conducted on other properties up and down the beach.
Previously mentioned is a final execution of an
indemnification agreement to the satisfaction of our attorney.
And I believe we may have modified the description here, we
wanted to have everything on the as-built and then make sure we
hold the proposed upper deck, it's just a separate matter, after
we include the permitting for all the as-built activities that
took place. I don't know, is there anything else the Board can
add to that?
MR. LARK: I have one comment on the stairs to the beach. The
engineer designed them specifically, and historically the owner
had informed the contractor that almost after every northeaster,
the stairs that were always there historically since the late
Board of Trustees 55 February 19, 2014
60s early 70s, almost after every northeaster they were gone,
they were washed away. That's when he did his study as to why
this is a target zone, this particular property. So the way they
designed it, with the reinforced plastic and the flow through
stairs and side-wise, is to have minimal impact so they just
don't completely get destroyed every time we have a northeaster.
That specifically is the reason to do it that way. And they put
in all that grading any everything else to protect the
splashing. So it was well thought out and designed by the
engineer.
Chris, do you want to refer to that, on the stairs?
MR. GENTRY: We carried the strength of the soldier piles on the
face of the wall with the onshore stringer because every time
the actual stairs, I had dialogue with the owner, every time the
actual stairs were faced into the weather, which basically let's
say zero three zero heading, if you look out the back of her
house, give or take ten degrees, every time the stairs would get
wiped. So we built it with the strength of the soldier piles
and we cantilevered it out and put a pile here and pile here to
hold it, where only the offshore string would take the hit
versus both the stringers taking the hit and the stairs taking
the up lift of the waves. That's why we built those stairs that way.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think particularly for this location,
where it is subject to inundation with tides of the bulkhead
face and the difficulties that all property owners have along
that shoreline for maintenance, that platform and stair
construction seaward of the bulkhead is not going to be
acceptable. We are going to have to have it as a seasonally
removable stairs, as was there with the prior construction, it
could be made of aluminum, it can be hinged so it can be hoisted
up, or constructed in such a fashion it could be pulled up. But
the current construction will really not be acceptable. It will
diminish neighboring properties from maintaining their
structures, and I think it's a precedent we don't want to set on
this beach.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Again, the problem with this application is, and
I respect your ability, your construction abilities, but you had
a dialogue with the owner when you should have had a dialogue
with the Trustees.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm uncomfortable moving ahead with this on
any kind of approval, but I think we may have enough of a shop
list here for the applicant to return with the items that we
discussed. We table the application and get a return on the
drainage report of the town engineer and soil conservation
service and a description of how the soils and the structure
will work together so there is not excessive flowing down the
bluff, a new set of plans for the platform and the stairs below,
at and below, on the seaward side of the bulkhead, conclude
working with our town attorney on the indemnification, and
Board of Trustees 56 February 19, 2014
settling the issue of the fines before the Court; and the
planting plan that Mr. Lark spoke of. And the proposed
200-square foot deck, we would amend to strike from the current
application, and that can be brought in as a separate matter
when we conclude the as-built permitting. That can be an
amendment to the permit at a subsequent date.
MR. GENTRY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is that clear enough?
MR. GENTRY: That's crystal clear, thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to table this application
pending receipt of this additional information
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to adjourn
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
�- 600" Jr-
John M. Bredemeyer III, President
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED
APR 2 44 ?014
S6Uthold T n Clerk