HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-03/19/2014 John M. Bredemeyer 1I1,President ��Of SOU�yO Town Hall Annex
Michael J. Domino,Vice-President ,`O l� 54375 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
James F. King,Trustee Southold,New York 11971-0959
Dave Bergen,Trustee G Q
Telephone(631) 765-1892
Charles J.Sanders,Trustee
�yComm Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
�rFi:le lrn `�
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES APR 14
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
buthold Town C
Minutes
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
5:30 PM
Present Were: John Bredemeyer, President
Michael Domino, Vice-President
Jim King, Trustee
Dave Bergen, Trustee
Charles Sanders, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Clerk Typist
Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 at 5:30 PM
WORKSESSIONS: Monday, April 21, 2014 at 5:30 PM, and on
Wednesday, April 23, 2014 at 5:00 PM
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of November 13, 2013, Previously Adopted
on March 12, 2014.
Approve Minutes of January 22, 2014.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good evening and welcome to the regular
monthly meeting of the Southold Trustees for Wednesday, March
19th, 2014.
1 would like to move the next field inspection for
Wednesday, April 16th, at 8:00 AM. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Our next Trustee meeting, move to have it
Board of Trustees 2 March 19, 2014
April 23, 5:30 PM. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And work sessions to be scheduled, we have a
work session April 21st at 5:30 PM at Downs Farms, and on
Wednesday, April 23rd at 5:00 PM here in the main meeting hall,
town hall. So moved. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to approve the Minutes of the
November 13th, 2013, meeting, previously adopted at our
worksession on March 12, 2014. 1 have a motion, does anyone want
to move that?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And motion to approve the Minutes of January
22, 2014. I'll move that. Second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee King,
aye. Trustee Sanders, aye. Trustee Bergen, abstained).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Note for the record that I abstain since I
was not here for that meeting.
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for February 2014. A check for
$5,615.56 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the
General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for
review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold
hereby finds that the following applications more fully
described in Section VI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee
agenda dated Wednesday, March 19, 2014, are classified as Type
II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not
subject to further review under SEQRA:
Hulsmann Living Trust, c/o Robert &Ann Hulsmann — SCTM# 26-2-24
Mary Desetta — SCTM# 35-4-10
Neil J. &Ann M. Cooper— SCTM# 136-1-47
Board of Trustees 3 March 19, 2014
Hay Harbor Club, Inc. — SCTM# 9-12-8.1
John F. McGillian —SCTM# 11-1-11
W. Luke Boswell — SCTM# 11-1-12
Diane & Dennis Harkoff— SCTM# 114-1-5.1
Nicholas & Barbara Pallante — SCTM# 111-14-30
Willem Kooyker & Judith Ann Corrente—SCTM# 3-1-5
New Suffolk Waterfront Fund— SCTM# 117-8-18
Roger Praetorius—SCTM# 139-1-4.2
Henry Kelly— SCTM# 135-1-18, 135-1-17 & 135-1-19
Gardiners Bay Estates Homeowners Association —SCTM# 37-1-23
Bonnie Jean Robertson—SCTM#67-3-10
Souna Koolik— SCTM#43-3-10
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And those are not subject to further review.
I move that. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under resolutions for administrative permits, the first one.
TRUSTEE KING: Number one, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of
NORTH FORK INVESTORS, LLC requests an Administrative Permit to
replace in-kind existing 6'x16' and 6'x18' wrap-around covered porch;
remove chimney, not to be replaced; install new pervious driveway; and
install and maintain a 5' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the
wetlands. Located: 1200 Westphalia Road, Mattituck.
I went out and looked at this. This was an older cottage on
Mattituck Creek that is being renovated. Quite a bit of work has
been done on it. I would move to approve the two other additions
to it. Gutters, leaders to drywells for the roof runoff, there
has been extensive renovations, now is the time to bring it up
to date. And this is right along the creek where there is a DEC
water sampling station. And I don't think a five-foot non-turf
buffer is good enough for there. I would recommend a 20-foot
non-turf buffer. Basically that whole lot has been pretty much
undeveloped. There is a nice buffer there now. I would like to
see it remain at 20 feet. That would be my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A formal motion is made to increase the
buffer to 20 feet and to provide gutters, leaders and drywells.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item two, Albert Jespersen on behalf of
MOELLER FAMILY TRUST, c/o MARGARET JESPERSEN requests an
Administrative Permit for the as-built±21' wide by ±16.7' long
reconstructed deck with ±6' wide steps attached to dwelling; the
installation of gutters to leaders to drywells onto the
Board of Trustees 4 March 19, 2014
dwelling; and install a non-turf buffer varying in width along
the top of the bluff. Located: 1155 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion.
The Board conducted a site inspection and noted there were
questions concerning the size and the dimensions of the non-turf
buffer, as well as the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program
coordinator evaluation made a determination that the project was
inconsistent, also noting questions concerning the buffer.
Based on the field inspection notes of the Trustees, we
felt there should be a minimum of eight to ten-foot buffer. Since
the slope, it doesn't downslope severely and there is the
beginning of buffer there, I think probably an eight-foot buffer
would be sufficient. And I would move that the stipulation, that
this proposal be approved with an eight-foot non-turf buffer,
and that would bring the project into consistency with the LWRP
coordinator. So I would move that with an eight-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: To expedite the meeting, we have a number of
administrative actions the Board has put under review and
inspected the sites, and we'll be able to provide an approval as
a block of these projects, which are minor actions and relative
to the town wetlands ordinance, and as such I would move to
approve items three and four under resolutions for
administrative permits. They are listed as follows:
Number three, CEDARS GOLF CLUB LLC, c/o PAUL PAWLOWSKI requests
an Administrative Permit to remove approximately 14 dead trees;
remove vines from remaining trees; and remove brush and add
mulch within two areas on the property. Located: 305 Cases
Lane Extension, Cutchogue.
And number four, JOHN & JUDITH LYNCH request an Administrative
Permit to remove 12 dead pine trees within an established lawn
area. Located: 1020 Glenn Road, Southold.
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And under the applications for extensions and transfers and
administrative amendments, I would move that we approve items one through ten as a
block. They are listed as follows:
Number one, ANTHONY CAMPO requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit
#7808, as issued on May 16, 2012. Located: 1165 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue.
Number two, Docko, Inc., on behalf of U.S. DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY PLUM
ISLAND ANIMAL DISEASE CENTER requests a One Year Extension to Wetland
Permit#7743 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7743C, as issued on March 21, 2012.
Located: 40550 Route 25, Orient.
Number three, Fairweather & Brown Associates on behalf of ISLE OF CEDARS, LLC
requests a One Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7774 and Coastal Erosion Permit
#7774C, as issued on April 18, 2012. Located: 2450 Peter's Neck Road, Orient.
Board of Trustees 5 March 19, 2014
Number four, ANDREAS KARACOSTAS, c/o THEODORE ERMOGENOUS requests a
One Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7761 and Coastal Erosion Permit#7761 C, as
issued on April 18, 2012. Located: 21275 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
Number five, Bruce D. Kinlin on behalf of PENN duPONT SANGER AND HOUSE
57LLC requests an Administrative Amendment for the as-built +/-639 sq. ft. on-grade
bluestone patio on the seaward side of the dwelling.
Located: Peninsula Road, Fishers Island.
Number six, Barnes Coy Architects on behalf of LISA GRATTAN requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7647 to install a 5' tall by 16' wide steel
driveway gate with two (2) 6'-11" wide gate leafs. Located: 11860 New Suffolk Avenue,
Cutchogue.
Number seven, JAMES ABOTT requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit#8011 to replace existing 4' high safety fence atop the retaining wall with 8 feet
along east and west side yards. Located: 8810 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
Number eight, John Travlos on behalf of MIKE & ELLEN FEINBERG requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7618 to replace the seaward end of
damaged bluff stairs consisting of a 4'x12' set of steps leading to a 4'x6' platform with
4'x9' steps to beach. Located: 62445 North Road, Greenport.
Number nine, DAVID TURNER requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit#8244 for the as-built in-place 10'x30.5' foundation at the north section; removal
of 28' of existing interior foundation not to be replaced; existing east and west sides of
foundation to remain; new concrete foundation added to the south of existing foundation;
the foundation is to be no closer to the existing bulkhead than 58.4' at the northwest
corner and no closer than 57.1' at the northeast corner.
Located: 640 West Shore Drive, Southold.
Number ten, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of JC MILLER MANAGEMENT requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8355 for the existing bulkhead to remain
and to install a new bulkhead directly behind existing using vinyl sheathing and with new
tie-back system installed; install a 4' wide top-cap deck in lieu of the 2' wide top-cap
deck; the 10' wide non-turf buffer to be comprised of 3' deep of bank run sand/gravel
with 3" to 4" of pervious stone/gravel on top. Located: 5675 Mill Road, Mattituck.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Before we open the public hearings, those of
you who may have not be aware, there are a number of items that
have been postponed this evening.
On page four we have item number two, MARY DESETTA requests
an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7779 to construct a ±312 sq. ft.
first-story addition and ±160 sq. ft. porch addition onto the
landward side of the dwelling in lieu of constructing the
second-story addition and lantern addition; and install a
drainage system of gutters to leaders to drywells.
Located: 1325 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport, has been postponed.
On page five, we have item number three En-Consultants on
behalf of NEIL J. & ANN M. COOPER request an Amendment to
Wetland Permit #1869 to replace dock with 4'x42' fixed catwalk
equipped with (2) sets of 3'x4' steps at landward end, a 3'x16'
ramp; and a 6'x20' float equipped with chocks to support float
Board of Trustees 6 March 19, 2014
above bottom at low tide; and float secured by (4) 8" diameter
piles. Located: 420 Oak Street, Cutchogue, has been postponed.
And item number four, Fairweather & Brown Associates on
behalf of VASILIOS FRANGOS requests an Amendment to Wetland
Permit#7388 & Coastal Erosion Permit#7388C to replace the 809
square foot decking on the seaward side of the dwelling.
Located: 55755 County Road 48, Southold, has been postponed.
On page eight we have items eleven and 12; on page nine we
have items 13, 14, 15 and 16, which goes from page nine to page
ten, have all been postponed. They are listed as follows:
Number eleven, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of ROGER
PRAETORIUS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x15'
landward fixed ramp leading to a 4'x75' fixed dock using
open-grate decking supported by 6" diameter piles seaward of the
ordinary high water line and 4"x4" posts landward of ordinary
high water line; a 3'x20' hinged ramp; and a 6'x20' floating
dock secured by two (2) 8" diameter piles. Located: 975 Westview
Drive, Mattituck, has been postponed.
Number 12, Chris Mohr Landscaping & Landscaping, Inc. on
behalf of HENRY KELLY requests a Wetland Permit to remove the
existing storm damaged bluff stairs and construct new 4'x20.5'
walkway to a 4'x4.5' stairway leading to a 4'x12' walkway to a
4'x4' landing leading to a 4'x12' set of steps to beach parallel
to the bulkhead using untreated decking. Located: 22165, 22145,
& 22185 Soundview Avenue, Southold, has been postponed.
Number 13, Lark & Folts, Esqs, on behalf of ELLEN F. EMERY
1999 REVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built
1 00' 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, has been postponed.
Number 14, Twin Fork Landscape Contracting, Inc. on behalf
of ROY & DAWN WARD requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built
Board of Trustees 7 March 19, 2014
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.
Number 15, 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.
And number 16, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on
behalf of JOAN SHANNON requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct
the existing 69' long timber retaining wall with 12' return
using vinyl sheathing; repair existing 12' wide x 67' long lower
decking landward of the retaining wall; repair existing 6'x8'
beach shower; re-vegetate all uncovered ground seaward of the
bluff crest with Cape American beach grass except for an 8' wide
access way to the bulkhead. Located: 7080 Great Peconic Bay
Boulevard, Laurel, has been postponed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time we'll open our public hearings.
We request that you keep your comments as organized and brief as
possible. It will make things easier for the Board to gather
data and make a reasonable determination.
At this time I'll take a motion to go to our public hearings.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, HULSMANN LIVING TRUST, c/o ROBERT &ANN
HULSMANN request an Amendment to Wetland Permit#5-88-26-24 and for a Coastal
Erosion Permit to excavate on landward side of existing 132' long bulkhead; add vinyl
sheathing, replace all dead-men, lay logs, and tie-rods; add new face piles adjacent to
existing face piles, add 4"x6" clamp timber, new 2' wide timber cap; and maintain a 15'
wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead. Located: 1290 Willow
Terrace Lane, Orient.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory
Council did an inspection on March 12th and recommend supporting this application,
with the conditions the bulkhead remain at the same height; removable stairs as
depicted on the plans; and the 15-foot non-turf buffer installed along the landward side
of the bulkhead.
Trustees had a field inspection on March 14th, and the notes indicate that the
project appeared to be okay as submitted, again, with a 15-foot non-turf buffer.
Is there anyone here to speak to this?
Board of Trustees 8 March 19, 2014
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): I'm here but I don't have anything to say.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are there any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was pretty straightforward. I took a look
at it. The bulkhead construction as proposed is in keeping with
the line of homes there that need that protection from coastal
erosion on Orient Harbor, and this is a very standard repair that is proposed.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion
to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as submitted noting it is in compliance with LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next item is a public hearing under Wetland and
Coastal Erosion Permits. It's item one in that category, 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.
The project has been determined to be consistent under the LWRP.
The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the proposed
aggressive re-vegetation plan.
The Board of Trustees went out to the site several times. On account of the
winter weather we had to postpone several of the site visits because of it being a rather
difficult site to inspect, and we found that the project is in keeping with the current
standards we have. There was a question about the steps maybe didn't have to go out
on to the beach so far.
Is there anyone here wishes to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. WOLPERT: Good evening, members of the Board, my name is Thomas Wolpert,
from Young & Young, for the applicant. We are the agent for the applicant Oregon Cliffs,
care of Martin Soja. I'll try and answer any questions the Board may have.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: One question that came to mind; the stairs,
once they go over the bulkhead, are parallel to the bulkhead on
the beach front, that they seem to take another dogleg down.
There was a question whether they had to go out further or
whether a set of retractable steps might be something that the
applicant might want to consider, given storm and tides there; a
single set of steps that might be cantilevered off the platform
or could be elevated might be something that the applicant might
want to consider
MR. WOLPERT: I'm sure the applicant would be happy to consider
the recommendation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional questions or concerns?
Board of Trustees 9 March 19, 2014
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted, and
if the plans are modified to have retractable stairs and a
design changing platform, that we get a brief, amended plan for that
MR. WOLPERT: Sure, no problem.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. Second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. WOLPERT: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KING: Number two, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on
behalf of HAY HARBOR CLUB, INC., requests a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit to reconstruct approximately 270' of an
existing storm destroyed rock revetment; and to install
approximately 800' of new revetment by excavating the area at
the toe of the existing bluff 5'; install compact fill as
needed; install geotextile filter fabric and erosion control
matting; install a 3"-4" layer of crushed stone as a filter
layer; install armor layer rip-rap revetment; at the top of the
revetment install 4"-6" of topsoil; install stone slope (minimum
2' diameter) to provide an interlocking mass and to fill voids
with topsoil and seed. Located: Heathulie Avenue, Fishers
Island.
This was found consistent with the LWRP. The CAC did not
make an inspection, therefore no recommendation has been made.
One of the comments from the LWRP coordinator was the stones and
boulders naturally occurring on the beach will not be used for
the proposed action. That is just common sense. As a matter of
fact I think it's a DEC violation if you take stones from the
beach and use them for a project, so. I think everybody is aware
of that. We have all been out there, not recently, but we have
been there.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We were there last summer.
MR. JUST: Good evening, Glenn Just, JMO Consulting, agent for
the Hay Harbor Club. I think this was back in 2006 when the
original revetment was put in, and much to my chagrin it was cut
down by height by the DEC. And what happened, it happened
before Storm Sandy, but Sandy excavated the erosion. The
revetment was not built high enough. There was topwash and 15 to
20 feet of bluff lost behind the old revetment, and the plan is
just to go back and, basically go back to the original plan.
I E-mailed over some photos today. 1 don't know if you have
them up there or not.
MS. CANTRELL: We didn't get them.
Board of Trustees 10 March 19, 2014
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The planned cross-sectionals had photos at
each cross section. They were pretty descriptive.
MR. JUST: I had additional photos as well, but--
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had any issues. We reviewed the
plans pretty carefully. There was one, you were not here, Glenn,
the comment was made from the LWRP coordinator not to use any
boulders from the beach for this.
MR. JUST: No, they'll bring the stuff in.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
(No response).
Are there any comments from anyone in the audience?
(No response).
Seeing none, I'll make a 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
submitted
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you want to do the next two together?
They both abut each other on the same beach front.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jay, I have a letter in the file that has to go
with the other one, so let's do one at a time.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number three, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting
on behalf of JOHN F. McGILLIAN requests a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit for the proposed stabilization of
approximately 660' of storm damaged bluff by excavating an area
approximately 20' wide to a depth of 6' and temporarily
stockpile material; install geotextile filter fabric; install a
6%1' filter layer of crushed stone; and construct a rip-rap
slope of two layers of armor stone; a bedding layer of crushed
stone will be installed and several layers of 9" lifts of
granular fill will be installed and galvanized wire forms with
filter fabric will be installed; the forms will then be filled
with plantable soils and then planted forming a reinforced
vegetated slope. Located: 1777 Old Mallory Road, Fishers Island.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not inspect this.
There is no recommendation. The LWRP found it consistent.
Is there anybody here to speak to this file?
MR. JUST: Glen Just, JMO Consulting, agent for the applicant.
It's a situation where, in your files is a survey that I
submitted that showed, I think the bluff line and the total
bluff in 40s, 60s, the previous sets. This house has been moved
once already. The photographs show that the original foundation
is now exposed at the edge of the bluff. This site and the site
next door have significant erosion. And I think it's a well-engineered
Board of Trustees 11 March 19, 2014
plan as well as restoring the bluff. It's rock, and when it goes up a little
higher, it will be natural plantings to stabilize the top.
Unfortunately I have photographs that I E-mailed today that I guess
Liz couldn't open up, she didn't get.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: We have a letter dated March 17, 2014, to the
Board of Trustees from Cynthia McNair. I'll read this letter on
your behalf.
I own the property adjacent to the McGillian property that
includes my section of the continuous bluff traveling all three
properties. I received a copy of the applicant's proposal dated
11/26/13 from JMO Consulting Services with attached notice of
your meeting on 3/19/14, on March 14th. I now know that the
applicant is only required to give me seven-days' notice, however
the timing has left me with no time to hire my own engineering
consultant to provide a professionally informed evaluation of
the possible and/or predictable negative impact upon my
property. This proposal constitutes massively invasive
destruction/construction into the delicate and eroding bluff.
I'm very concerned that my part of the bluff will be further
weakened, undermined and damaged. Unlike either of the other two
property owners or applicants, my family has spent 84 years
diligently establishing, increasing, replacing and maintaining
natural, indigenous growth of pines, brushes, vines, grasses and
flowers on the face of the bluff to create as much erosion
control as possible. Hurricane Sandy destroyed almost half of
the growth and advanced the soil erosion throughout the bluff
face. I did not lose property at the top of the bluff.
The second specific concern to me consequence to the
proposal is that my house, property and landscaping would be
covered by layers of dust, dirt, sand and even salt. I have
already and have directly experienced all of this when the
Harvey house was moved back in the Fall of 2011. Every day
during the two months that I was there, clouds of the above
billowed over to settle on my property. By December, on a day
trip to the house, you could barely see out of the many house
windows. I respectively ask that the Board of Trustees consider
giving me the time to obtain an engineers impact review and
report for my property before making a final decision on the
applicant's proposal.
Thank you, very much, for your attention, sincerely, Cynthia.
Do you have any further comments? If you would like to speak
directly, ma'am.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you would just step up to the microphone so
we can get it on the record.
MS. MCNAIR: I understand of course why the two neighbors
McGillian and the Boswells --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ma'am, could just speak a little louder?
MS. MCNAIR: I understand very well why Mr. McGillian and the
Boswell-Harvey house property owners want to do this. But I'm
obviously most concerned about the possible damage to my part of
the bluff, which is not as damaged as theirs is, for a number of
Board of Trustees 12 March 19, 2014
reasons, including those that I mentioned in the letter. And I
do feel that I should have the ability to get my own evaluation
made of the impact on my part of the bluff. It's a very
sensitive, delicate area. Because this really is a huge project
that they are applying to do. I'm sorry, I'm nervous. I have
never done this before
TRUSTEE SANDERS: That's okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A question. Have you had an opportunity to
contact any coastal engineers or anyone who you might want to
rely on to get a report?
MS. MCNAIR: Well, I only got the notice last Friday, and I
spoke with Elizabeth on Monday. Um, and she, I wrote the letter
to you and driving here today, so I haven't. The only engineer I
have any experience with, I think is the same one who did the
engineering design for this proposal. So I would have to find
somebody else. I mean I think rightly or wrongly I would not be
comfortable because of the possible conflict of interest.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Understood. The question that comes to my
mind, your request seems very legitimate and it comports with
the requirements of approvals we give under the Coastal Erosion
Hazard Act to protect the lateral support of land. Other items
as you mentioned probably can be discussed with the Board during
the course of reviewing the application.
But what comes to mind is also that time is everyone's
enemy on the coast, where there has been extremely severe
erosion after Irene, and then Sandy. So obviously there would
have to be some sort of time limit that we would probably want
to seek in getting that engineering report into us.
MS. MCNAIR: I would call the, I don't know if you are familiar
with BD Contractors on the island. That's the contractors that I used.
I'll call the manager there tomorrow and try to get recommendations.
I'm sure he can help do that. And whatever it takes to speed it up, I will.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think under the circumstances in what you
have provided, any information, I think the Board would consider
tabling the application for one month. It would enable you to
get in contact with and get a professional opinion well
underway, and ideally you would be able to report back to us
either with a report at that time or significant headway.
MS. MCNAIR: Okay.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is there anybody else who would like to speak
to this application at the moment?
MR. JUST: I would like to. This is something I downloaded off
Google today. I couldn't blow it up any bigger. But if you see
the situation -- John, I'll give it to you. This is Ms. McNair's
property, this is McGillian and this is Harvey. You could see
the brown. There is 60 to 70 feet of bluff was lost. It's
significant. The house is very close to the bluff. When we get to the
Boswell application, that house was moved back 47 feet three years ago,
and it looks like the house never moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, it did move. I did the final inspection
on Boswell.
Board of Trustees 13 March 19, 2014
MR. JUST: We were all there. You could see the brown line.
That's how much bluff is eroded. And I think it's the way the
property faces. Ms. McNair's faces more to the south and these
two properties face more to the southwest. And she is correct,
she has a very nice, vegetated bluff there, and at one time
Boswell and McGillian did, too.
But between 2011 and 2013 is an average distance of 20-foot
loss of the top of the bluff. I mean five to ten feet at the top
of the bluff and 20 feet at the toe of the bluff, at the site.
This is just in the last few years. If we have another storm
event, those houses are going. I appreciate Mrs. McNair's
concern, but.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Are there any other comments from anybody?
(No response).
I would like to make a motion to table this and revisit this next month.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With the condition that we'll revisit it
for a determination because of the precarious nature of the
properties, and so if there is no engineering report by next
month, we'll go based on the information that we have. The
motion has been made.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number four, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on
behalf of W. LUKE BOSWELL requests a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit for the proposed stabilization of
approximately 660' of storm damaged bluff by excavating an area
approximately 20' wide to a depth of 6' and temporarily
stockpile material; install geotextile filter fabric; install a
6"-1' filter layer of crushed stone; and construct a rip-rap
slope of two layers of armor stone; a bedding layer of crushed
stone will be installed and several layers of 9° lifts of
granular fill will be installed and galvanized wire forms with
filter fabric will be installed; the forms will then be filled
with plantable soils and then planted forming a reinforced
vegetated slope. Located: 1299 Old Mallory Road, Fishers Island.
This has been reviewed under the LWRP and found to be
consistent. The CAC did not make an inspection, so they have no
report.
We also have received the letter, the identical letter
dated March 17th, 2014, from Ms. McNair. So I'll stipulate that
letter is entered into the record for this particular application.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. JUST: Glenn Just, JMO Consulting, as the agent for the
applicant.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Glenn, just as a clarification, the survey that
is submitted has this as the Alexander II and Robert Harvey.
And the application is for W. Luke Boswell. I'm assuming --
MR. JUST: There is a bunch of siblings, and Mr. Luke Boswell is
the one putting the whole package together.
Board of Trustees 14 March 19, 2014
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, for that clarification. We have had a
chance to review this, and as has been noted in the previous
application, there is significant erosion that has taken place
in front of this residence over the last several years, the
bluff line has moved landward quite a bit, so that the residence
-- and the pictures indicate here --the residence is very, very
close to the edge of the bluff.
So are there any comments that you would like to make, Glenn?
MR. JUST: There is no place for the house to go. It was moved a
couple years ago. Another storm event, that house will be in the
ocean.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I had heard under the previous application the
concerns that Ms. McNair has outlined in her letter. And I note
we have here a case where we have a piece of property, the
McGillian property, between the McNair property and the Harvey
property. So with that, based on the information that I have
here, I don't have a problem with what has been applied for tonight.
Is there any comments that anybody has in the audience?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
As such, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Luke Boswell as described and has been found consistent under
the LWRP.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Wetland Permits, number one, Robert Barratt on
behalf of VERNI FAMILY LLC requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing
dwelling and sanitary system; construct new 3,000 sq. ft., 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 coordinator found this consistent. However he raises a question
concerning the drywells, noting that the dimensions of the drywells were not indicated on
the plan, and since the groundwater was encountered at four-and-a-half feet below
grade level, he has some concerns with that.
The CAC voted to support this application, with four conditions, one of which that
the driveway remain pervious. There is a letter submitted in the folder file now, on
February 21st, addresses all of those concerns.
Board of Trustees 15 March 19, 2014
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on March 12th and noted no
complications or serious conditions with this application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. BARRAT: Robert Barratt, I'm present.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mr. Barratt, do you have anything to add to
that? It's fine with you?
MR. BARRATT: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Do any members of the Board have any questions
for Mr. Barratt?
TRUSTEE KING: It was on last month. We just tabled it because
there was no LWRP on it, correct?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Correct.
MR. BARRATT: I wrote to Mark Terry, gave him a copy of the
revised site plan which shows the drywells, also shows the
runoff calculations. And it's a very conservative design, and of
course the driveway will remain pervious.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It says noted on in the February 21st letter.
MR. BARRATT: So as far as I know, there is no other concerns.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion
to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as submitted
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee King,
aye. Trustee Sanders, aye. Trustee Bergen, abstains).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Note for the record I abstained because when
this field inspection was done, I was not a Trustee.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Duly noted.
MR. BARRATT: I would just like to say Mr. and Mrs. Ryan, who are
now the owners of the property, send their thanks from Florida,
and they were very grateful for all your work. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You're welcome. Thank you. At this time I
would like to announce we'll take one item out of order. We'll
take the next item, item number three, JMO Consulting, on behalf
of Diane and Dennis Harkoff, on account of an emergent medical
request, so Mr. Just can have his matter concluded tonight and
be able to leave.
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KING: The next item, number three, J.M.O. Environmental
Consulting on behalf of DIANE & DENNIS HARKOFF request a Wetland
Permit to reconstruct an existing 4'x25' ramp at landward end of
fixed dock; reconstruct an existing 4'x130' fixed dock; replace
piles; reconstruct existing 3'x16' ramp; reconstruct existing
6'x24' float; and replace two (2) existing dolphins. Located:
1605 Point Pleasant Road, Mattituck.
This was found consistent and inconsistent by the LWRP
Board of Trustees 16 March 19, 2014
coordinator. I think it was because the float, yes, it has an
oversized float. That was the reason. The original permit
included a 6x20 float, and there was a 6x24 float there now.
That's the inconsistency.
And the CAC supports the application with the condition the
docking facility is reconstructed using best management
practices, and the floating dock is no larger than 6x20, in
accordance with Chapter 275.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The LWRP coordinator had it both consist and
inconsistent?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, inconsistent because of the oversized float.
MS. HULSE: I don't see a consistency.
TRUSTEE KING: The proposed action is inconsistent with the
policy below. That's the reason for the inconsistency, is the
float size.
MS. HULSE: Right. Just inconsistent then. It's not consistent
and inconsistent. It's just inconsistent.
TRUSTEE KING: I read it off the agenda.
MS. HULSE: Okay. I think the finding was of inconsistency.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm sorry, yes. You are right. 30 lashes for Jim.
I looked at this. It's an existing dock. It's been there for
many, many years. What's happened, it somehow, most of the
docks when they get lifted up, it's always at the seaward end.
For some reason this dock, right in the middle of the wetland
area, is all hiked up. And I met Mr. Just out there, too, and we
looked it over. My feeling was that it was just the construction
that caused that to be lifted up. I don't think you need the
three-pile bents.
MR. JUST: Mr. King, I spoke to a couple of contractors today. I
quizzed them about it. They say they think the substrate is very
muddy. I can't argue. Maybe those original piles were not sunk
deep enough. This dock has been reset quite a few times since
1984 when it was originally constructed, or '86.
TRUSTEE KING: I notice the dock to the north is fine. And that's
just two piles. It's not that far away from that. I don't know,
I don't understand why this has happened to this dock. Other
than the fact those piles are so close together.
MR. JUST: For the life of me, I can't figure it out either.
I went back yesterday afternoon to drive around to look at it.
It's like the only dock in the whole area that is like that.
The applicant does want to go with three piles, and if you
would like me to come back, if you want to table it and come
back next month. There are concerns it will be jacked again.
That's why they want to go to three piles. We could reduce the
size of the float, that's no problem. That grew, somehow, since
1986, so.
TRUSTEE KING: It happens. And there is an osprey nest down at
the end. I guess if it's not being used it can be removed, at
the end of the dock.
MR. JUST: It blew away. It's gone.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, so that is not a concern anymore. This would
Board of Trustees 17 March 19, 2014
be a good piece of property for a platform.
MR. JUST: Maybe we could do something like that. I built quite a
few over the years.
TRUSTEE KING: Looks like they like the spot. How do you guys
feel about the three pile vents?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a lot.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Could I see a copy of the plans, please?
TRUSTEE KING: My feeling, if it's properly constructed, the two
piles are enough. That's my feeling.
MR. JUST: Again, if you would like to table it, I can come back
next month on this one.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I would like to table it.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you guys want to take a look at it? We can
table it and take a look at it next month.
MR. JUST: I'm in no mood to argue tonight. So table it.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll table the application until next month. We
can all go and look at it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next item, 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.
This project has been determined to be inconsistent with
the town's LWRP, particularly in that it is not, it does not
comport with a prior determination of the Town Zoning Board of
Appeals, which limited the size of a proposed pool to 18x36
feet. The determination of the Building Department stated it
will have to conform with all ZBA conditions. That's a standing
approval of the Zoning Board.
The Conservation Advisory Council had advanced concerns
concerning the drainage. They supported the application with the
condition detailed drainage plan for the pool backwash and paved
areas, and recommending a geo-land survey because of the
proximity of the pool to the top of the bluff.
Similar concerns were noted by the entire Board of Trustees
during field inspection this month, where we felt that the pool,
to comply with the ZBA, at a minimum, should be reduced in size
to probably 15x36 to address both the ZBA and LWRP
determination. And we felt the pool should be moved much closer
to the existing covered porch, or possibly even be incorporated
into a porch, a modification of the porch.
So those are a number of details that the various boards
and determinations have made as a part of this review.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MS. MILNER: Good evening. Eve Miller on behalf of Swim King
Pools, for Luan Sadik.
Board of Trustees 18 March 19, 2014
So it seems a lot transpired from the last time we were
here until now. And so I was bringing in my letter from my test
hole, which I have, and you have as well, saying the conditions
are reviewed.
So in 1986 ZBA had this and they determined, they granted
it, as long as we were 30 feet from top of the bluff, which we
are. And so that was granted, 30 feet. And that's where we moved
the pool. And we actually made it even farther away. It's 35
feet from the top of the bluff. And then we made the pool 18
feet, like it was before, but we just made it longer by four
feet. And so now they are saying 15 by --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was a recommendation based on our field
survey. We had the engineering report, which we appreciate you
got that in. And that was a concern, that there would be too
much surface loading from the weight of the pool, with the
soils, might not have been suitable for that location. But the
ZBA determination is a fixed determination, and the Board of
Trustees doesn't have the authority to change that, so that we
felt that given the ZBA determination, given the history of
recent storms and erosion on the bluff, was a field
recommendation, but that it would be somewhat smaller than even
the ZBA determination. But that would remain to be a
determination of the Board when we would vote. But in no case
would we be in a position to approve a pool if it was more than
the ZBA determination of the 18'x36'.
MS. MILNER: Okay, so if it was still kept where I proposed it,
at 30 feet from the top of the bluff, with the five-foot walkway
and make it from 18x40 to 18x36, would the Board of Trustees be
okay with that? Because it's still the same size pool, 18x36.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board would have to consider this as
part of our determination. That's basically what you are
requesting at this time.
MS. MILLNER: If the Board wants to look back at the ZBA, and
they approved an 18x36, then that would be okay for us to change
it to 18x36.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think rather than the size, once the
determination was made by the ZBA, we are concerned, still
concerned with the closeness of the bluff. Is there any
possibility of modification that would bring it closer to the
house? We would be willing to table the application to give you
an opportunity to talk with the owners to bring it a little
closer to the home. 50 feet, we have a bluff setback of 50 feet,
which we try to honor.
MS. MILLNER: Right. So I have 35 feet. 30 to the bluff and the
five-foot walkway. The only thing I could change is the walkway
right off the screen patio. There is a five-foot walkway there.
I'm just trying to think --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would ask the applicant to consider both the
five-foot walkway and to further decrease the width of the pool.
Because the Board does have, in the code, a 50-foot requirement
there. And so there will have to be some work done by the
Board of Trustees 19 March 19, 2014
applicants to bring it down close to that 50-foot setback.
MS. MILLNER: Okay, so change the walkways, definitely make the
pool 18x36, and change the walkway around the pool.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. what I'm suggesting is to decrease the width
of the pool also from 18x36 to maybe 15. So, just go back to
your client again and explain that we have a code, a 50-foot
setback requirement, and so to understand what we are working
with here, and to do what your clients can do to try to comply
with the code.
MS. MILLNER: Okay. So the 18x36 pool, you just want-- I just
don't want to come back-- I'm coming back again in a month. I
just want to make sure when I come back, I'll do what you are
suggesting.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was suggested on the field inspection
that might be modified to go to 15x36, so that along with
modification of the walks, again, tucking it in closer to the
house, would provide more protection for the bluff, the pool and
the homeowner, ultimately.
MS. MILLNER: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you want to ruminate on that with the
owner? We can table the application in the meanwhile.
MS. MILLNER: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I'll move to table the application
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just looking at the code. I think it's 100
feet off the bluff, unless we changed that
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's been changed.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of
BONNIE JEAN ROBERTSON requests a Wetland Permit to maintain
the existing irregularly "L" shaped ±470sq.ft. Front deck with
±4.5'x6' steps; a 4'x5' platform with 3.5'x4.5' steps off main
deck; and an irregularly "L" shaped ±9.5'x12' rear deck (±123 sq. ft.)
with ±2.5'x4' steps attached to existing single-family dwelling and with
an irregularly shaped ±210 sq. ft. walkway between decks; a ±1.5'x8'
wood bridge; a ±4.5'x6.5' concrete bridge and ±4'x16' wood walkway
for pedestrian use over bounded stream; and an 8.2'x14.5' shed.
Located: 55 Dickerson Street, Peconic.
This was reviewed and found to be exempt under the LWRP.
The CAC supports the application using best management
practices. The Board did go out and looked at this.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
applicant. Generally, this is a story I could tell you for a
couple of hours, but I'll try and limit it to about 30 seconds.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
MR. HERRMANN: Ms. Robertson has been trying for quite some time
to merge the adjoining vacant parcel to this piece, which of
Board of Trustees 20 March 19, 2014
course will have benefit for the town, under all codes,
extinguishing what one might pursue as a buildable lot. And
during the process of review with the Planning Board which I
think stems back to the end of 2012, Ms. Robertson was required
to obtain a certificate of occupancy for all structures on the
property, most of which date back to the 1980s.
So we have been following the process, including recently
going before and receiving approval from the ZBA, as ironically
this merger will triple the size of Ms. Robertson's lot we are
still creating a nonconforming lot under code. So we had to get
permission from the ZBA to do that. They were obviously very
much in favor of the application, and also to grant any setback
relief that would be required for the existing structures, some
of which would be rendered moot by the merger.
But we are in front of your Board tonight really just to
get permits for the structures that postdate the 1978
certificate of occupancy so that we can continue on to the
Building Department, obtain our building permit and certificate
of occupancy and then finally kick it back to the Planning Board
so this merger can finally be finalized and Ms. Robertson can
purchase and merge the vacant parcel.
So that's -- it went a little over 20 seconds, but that's
the background for the entire application of what is before the
Board tonight.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, I noticed we have a copy of the ZBA
determination from December 19th, 2013, and they issued the
following conditions: Use of pesticides and fertilizers are
prohibited on the site; a 50-foot wide perpetual non-disturbance
buffer landward of the freshwater wetlands on lot number 74-1-2.
The applicant must obtain the lot modification, and an updated
survey with the buffer is submitted to the ZBA.
So what we are looking at is to impose the same, identical
conditions as the ZBA. Would the applicant have a problem with
that?
MR. HERRMANN: Well, procedurally, the only thing, and we'll
probably have to ask Lori on this, the buffer that was
recommended by the LWRP coordinator, further by the ZBA and
agreed to by Ms. Robertson, actually applies to the wetlands on
the vacant parcel, that is not the subject of this application.
So whether your Board can require a buffer on a separate parcel
that the applicant doesn't yet own, I don't know. It was allowed
by the ZBA because what was before the ZBA was the merger of
that parcel. That parcel was actually in front of the Board, so, Lori.
MS. HULSE: The answer is no, not if it's not before this Board.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay, the other part, with respect to the, I think
it was prohibition of fertilizer, Dave?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, the use of pesticides and fertilizers.
MR. HERRMANN: I think that was stipulated by the Board, it was
agreed to by Ms. Robertson. If you look at the property, it's
not a property that is really being maintained in that kind of
way anyhow, so we would not have any issue with your Board also
Board of Trustees 21 March 19, 2014
conditioning the permit similar.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Yes, the confusion that I had is the
survey that is here has lot numbers on it other than the tax map
number.
MR. HERRMANN: What adds to what is already a confusing
situation, is that in Mark's original recommendation there was a
typo on the tax map number that we brought to the ZBA's
attention during a hearing, but despite our efforts to correct
that, it carried through the resolution. Mark just basically
jumbled the two lot numbers together. So the subject parcel is
the 67-3-10, and the buffer is required on 74-1-2. And if my
memory serves me, I think Mark calls it 74-1-10, something like
that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: He calls it 1-10, but it's noted here as crossed
out and "2" is in there.
MR. HERRMANN: That should be "2," and that's the vacant parcel.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, but the point is that is not a parcel that
is subject to this application.
MR. HERRMANN: Correct. I know this one in my sleep at this
point.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. Is there anybody else in the audience
who wants to speak for or against this application?
(No response).
Not seeing anybody, are there any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Bonnie Jean Robertson with the condition of the use of
pesticides and fertilizers will not take place on this site.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And in doing so it is found exempt under the
LWRP.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number five, En-Consultants on behalf of
SOUNA KOOLIK requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing
Dwelling down to existing foundation (to remain) and construct partial
24.3'x39.8' second-story addition; 5.8'x10.1' two-story
addition; 2'x9.75' two-story addition; 5.1'x22.3' one-story
addition; 22'x24.2' one-story attached garage addition; 14'x4.7'
front porch addition with 14'x2.8' steps; 16'x40' attached deck
with 5.8'x36.5' roof overhang and 2.8'x12' steps; 4'x8.4' cellar
entrance/steps within existing footprint; and 3.8'x6.7' outdoor
shower; install drainage system of leaders, gutters and
drywells; remove existing concrete walkway; remove existing
Board of Trustees 22 March 19, 2014
sanitary system and install new upgraded sanitary system and
public water service landward of dwelling; and remove existing
impervious concrete driveway and install new pervious gravel
driveway. Located: 1200 Sandy Beach Road, Greenport.
The CAC supports the application with the condition that
the docking facility is repaired, restored and is consistent
with Chapter 275 of the town code. And the LWRP has found it
consistent pursuant to Chapter 268. The Board of the Trustees
shall consider the recommendation. Is there anybody here to
speak on behalf of this file?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
the applicant. This is a pretty straightforward site
redevelopment application. Most of the proposed work, in fact
most of the proposed house is actually located outside the
Board's jurisdiction. They are proposing to take down an
existing house that is outside of Chapter 275 jurisdiction, the
existing foundation, reconstruct it and then add on various
additions and a deck. And the corner of the deck and corner of
the one addition poke a little bit inside your jurisdiction.
There is a drainage system with leaders, gutters and drywells
proposed, and the existing, nonconforming sanitary system that
is located in your jurisdiction will be removed in favor of an
upgraded system that will be located as far from Sterling Creek
as possible, and adjacent to Sandy Beach Road, again, also
outside of your jurisdiction. And actually as the result of the
removal of various asphalt surfaces and concrete surfaces on the
property, the site will actually result in a net reduction in
lot coverage by the time -- not lot coverage as defined by
zoning code, but overall impervious lot coverage that is of
interest to this Board and the DEC.
It should note that the property was determined to be
outside the DEC's jurisdiction due to the pre '77 bulkheading,
which was recently replaced pursuant to a prior permit issued by
your Board. And the project includes the maintenance of the
previously covenanted non-turf buffer that was required by the
Board in association that bulkhead permit. And that non-turf
buffer and the liber page is depicted on the site plan that is
before you.
MS. HULSE: Rob, is there anything in your description that is
outside of the Trustees jurisdiction as written on the agenda;
anything outside the Trustees'jurisdiction that's described
here?
MR. HERRMANN: The driveway and the sanitary system, new sanitary
system would be physically outside the Trustees'jurisdiction.
MS. HULSE: So that should be removed from the description. Would
you consent to that, Rob?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, as long as it is somehow noted or maybe
provided in a separate letter. That's what I used to do, I would
ask for a separate letter of non-jurisdiction, but then it
seemed through conversation with Liz that it was just somehow--
MS. HULSE: The Board can't grant a permit for something outside
Board of Trustees 23 March 19, 2014
their jurisdiction.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay, so if you could maybe indicate through a
separate letter that any activities --we just don't want to end
with up with a problem when we go to the Building Department
that there is some elements proposed to them that they say are
not included in the permit otherwise.
MS. HULSE: I understand what you're saying. All right, so what
language are you requesting to be stricken that is outside the
scope of their jurisdiction?
MR. HERRMANN: I have to grab the agenda.
TRUSTEE KING: Upgraded sanitary system and public water service.
And remove existing impervious concrete driveway. Almost
everything after"remove the existing sanitary system."
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, starting with "remove existing sanitary
system and install" --yes.
MS. HULSE: So "remove the existing sanitary system" is now being --
MR. HERRMANN: Removing --the legal description, Lori, the
phrase "remove existing concrete walkway," would be the last
item.
TRUSTEE KING: You want to keep "remove the existing system" in
the description, because that is in jurisdiction.
MR. HERRMANN: Correct. Yes. Everything after that.
TRUSTEE KING: Everything after that gets deleted.
MS. HULSE: Do you want to make a motion to so amend the
description before you consider it?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just make a motion to amend it before we
consider it.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I would like to make a motion to amend before
we submit.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: The only question I have on that, Lori, is would
the Board want to make an indication, since you are referencing
the removal of the existing septic that is within your
jurisdiction, and the house you are approving has to be serviced
by a septic system, would you want the permit to make a notation
that a new system is being installed outside their jurisdiction?
MS. HULSE: The permit shouldn't have that in it, but it
certainly can be part of their record.
MR. HERRMANN: Great.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We can provide a letter or note for the
Building Department or Health Department, if you need it.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is there anybody else who would like to speak
on behalf of the file at hand?
(No response).
Any notes from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: We are amending this language to delete everything
after"removing existing sanitary system."
TRUSTEE SANDERS: How do you approve that?
TRUSTEE KING: Just say we are going to make a change to the
Board of Trustees 24 March 19, 2014
description and delete everything after"remove existing
sanitary system."
MR. HERRMANN: If the last phrase is remove existing sanitary
system as depicted on the site plan, et cetera, last revised
November 21 st, 2013.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I would like to -- I'm not sure of the
language.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We already did it. By virtue of the
resolution we did it. You're all good.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I would like to make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I would like to make a motion to approve based
on the removal of the existing sanitary system from the --
MS. HULSE: No. Wait. Just make a motion as amended.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I would like to make a motion to approve as
amended.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number six, Doug Fisher on behalf of
GARDINERS BAY ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing boat ramp
by installing permeable pavers in place of the existing impervious
surface on the boat ramp itself; install approximately 12' long by 4'
wide by 8" tall concrete slabs to the seaward end of the ramp; install a
concrete curb border along the new ramp in addition to removing
a tree stump; the installation of ten (10) catch basins and
seven (7) leaching pools to be installed landward of the
permeable pavers to collect runoff; remove and repair existing
wood retaining walls on either side of ramp (approximately 30'
long by 2' tall) to install new catch basins; new asphalt
pavement will be installed on Dogwood Lane for approximately 35'
until it meets the beginning of the permeable pavement on
the boat ramp; re-vegetate the area landward of the wetland
boundary with native plantings; and install educational signage
(40"x30") to be posted at the top of the road. Located: Dogwood
Lane Road End Accessing Spring Pond, East Marion.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. I cannot
find the CAC report on this particular application. The Trustees
have visited this site in the past. On the 12th they did an
in-house review and found this application to be okay.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. FISHER: I'm Doug Fisher, I'm a board member of Gardiners Bay
Estates Homeowners Association.
This is just essentially phase one in a larger project. We
are looking to control the runoff in our area, which is
significant. And we had a larger company, Enviro Trac, a large
Board of Trustees 25 March 19, 2014
engineering company, put the plan together for us. And, um, with
the help of the Group For The East End and so on. And we
identified this as the most egregious contributor.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a point of information, you might like to
know, Mr. Fisher, the town shellfish advisory committee is in
the process of scheduling additional wet weather base water
sampling there, in cooperation with the DEC, and we believe
there is a very good chance we'll be able to get a change in the
shellfishing status so that we'll be able to shellfish there.
Administratively, the name "Spring Pond" actually had resulted in
a confusion with another body of water that had a different type
of problem, but after a review of the files, the DEC
acknowledged that water quality there has been generally good,
and we are hopeful to provide the additional data from
additional wet weather sampling this spring. And ideally, it
will take some time, but we are hopeful. So this particular
sort of project will also amplify the water quality improvements
and will go a long way to possibly help, particularly with wet
weather base sampling. The proper reconstruction of a boat ramp
to eliminate urban and street runoff into that pond will be very
beneficial. So hopefully it will be something that will not only serve
the members well but you'll be able to go clamming there again.
MR. FISHER: That will be well received, I can assure you. Just a
quick question. I know it's within the pond, I'm not sure, when
I was a kid I would swim there, but in any event, that is also
five-hundred feet adjacent to either side of the inlet?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They run a radial closure on those. So once
the pond is deemed to be cleaned up, the radial closure would
also disappear.
MR. FISHER: I mean, we are motivated, again, to control the
runoff. We are also thinking in the future of privatized, people
have their own land with their cesspools, we are looking of
offer alternatives, to do the research and so on. We really want
to take care of the place.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Very good.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else to speak to this application?
(No response).
Any further comments or questions from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing none, I would make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next, item seven, Michael Kimack on behalf
Board of Trustees 26 March 19, 2014
of NICHOLAS & BARBARA PALLANTE request a Wetland Permit for the
partial demolition of existing dwelling, deck and patio;
renovate and expand first floor by ±1,995 sq. ft.; renovate and
expand second floor by ±2,010 sq. ft.; new two car garage (±681 sq.ft.)
with storage above (±530 sq. ft.); an outdoor shower; new
±1,732 sq. ft. covered porches on north, south and west sides of
expanded first floor; abandon existing and install new septic
system and storm water systems; and reconfigure existing driveway
and parking areas. Located: 4302 Wunnewetta Road, Cutchogue.
The project has been determined to be consistent with the
LWRP. There is a Zoning Board determination which keys into an
approved set of plans by the ZBA, which is also in the files,
the basis for this application last dated November 13th, 2013,
with a little drainage calculations of February 7th, 2014.
The LWRP coordinator had suggested in his consistency
review that a 20-foot non-turf buffer be considered for this
proposal. A 20-foot naturally vegetated buffer.
The Trustees also, during the course of field inspection,
noted a preference for at least a ten-foot non-turf buffer. And
we did note that there was some cutting of vegetation on the
southerly bank, on the south side of the dwelling. It appeared,
the vegetation that had been cut appeared to be maybe to create
an eye view toward Wunneweta Pond. But that will have to cease.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Mike Kimack, for the applicant. Good evening,
everyone.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good evening.
MR. KIMACK: It's basically an existing house which is
nonconforming because it sits 67 feet from the bulkhead at the
present time. The proposed plans call for it to be 59 feet for
the bulk of it, and I think 54 feet for the little bit of a
shower. It's a partial demolition primarily of the second floor.
Renovation and expansion of the first floor to include an "L"
shaped attachment to the garage on the first floor, containing a
mudroom and laundry, two-car garage; on the second floor, a
master bedroom with a bath, laundry and staircase going from
there to the first floor, with a wraparound porch, enclosed
porch on three sides, south, north and west.
It's a basically, it's a difficult site from the prospect
that most of the land slopes away and there is just one high
point, where the existing house sits. And everything basically
has to be in that high area, especially the septic system, which
you'll note where it's located, which is just off part of the
old driveway. It's the only part on the property that has enough
depth in order to get a decent system in. The old system, and
it's still rather close to the back side, you can see is about
56 feet from Wunneweta as it comes around on the eastern side of
the property. The septic system as it sits now is on the south
side, and that's only about 40 feet away. That slopes away too
quickly. And the water comes up pretty high at that particular
Board of Trustees 27 March 19, 2014
point. So it's an area that was difficult to design on,
basically, and to be able to get everything in, especially the
storm water aspects of it, in order to meet the requirements of
the setbacks.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. The sanitary system as proposed,
similar to a previous discussion we had on another application,
is actually beyond the jurisdiction of the Trustees. So we can
amend that.
MR. KIMACK: Is it because it's within a hundred feet of the back
side, the pond swings around.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is it really? Did I miss that? (Perusing).
Okay, you establish a maximum distance, you could, from the back
side, the east side.
MR. KIMACK: It's 101 feet from the west side but I lose the
game on the back side.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, for that clarification. That was
the -- okay. All right. Thank you.
MR. KIMACK: You're quite welcome.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are there any questions from members of the
Board?
(No response).
Does anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted
pursuant to the ZBA approval and the set of plans last dated for
the ZBA approval of November 13th, 2013. So moved.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KIMACK: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KING: Samuel W. Fitzgerald on behalf of WILLEM KOOYKER &
JUDITH ANN CORRENTE requests a Wetland Permit to remove an
existing two-story garage, pool house, storage shed, swimming
pool complex and terracing from the property; construct
additions to the existing dwelling consisting of a 191 sq. ft. one-story
addition on the north side of dwelling; a +/-2,200 sq. ft. two-story addition
with garage on the south side of dwelling; and a +/-693 sq. ft. second-story
addition to be built over a portion of the house's existing footprint.
Located: 7832 Claypoint Road, Fishers Island.
This was found consistent under the LWRP. The CAC did not
make an inspection, therefore no recommendation has been made.
It looks like they were granted a variance from ZBA on this.
They made a couple of conditions, one of them being faulty lawn
irrigation system. Either discontinue it or certify that the
necessary repairs are made to the system in order to prevent any
excess fresh water runoff from the seaward slope of the bluff.
Board of Trustees 28 March 19, 2014
And utilize best management practices.
We reviewed this in the office. Is there anyone here to
speak on behalf of or against this application?
MR. FITZGERALD: Sam Fitzgerald, agent for the applicant. And
also I have with me Mary Lou Folts from the law firm of Lark & Folts.
TRUSTEE KING: We looked at this. It's pretty much of a
downsizing, if I remember right, the removing --
MR. FITZGERALD: That's right. We are actually, we are proposing
some additions to the existing house. However, with all the
demolition of the accessory structures, we are actually reducing
the overall building area.
TRUSTEE KING: That was our feeling. I don't think we had any
real issues.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't believe we had any issues with it.
It seemed straightforward. It was a very concise set of plans.
TRUSTEE KING: You can see there has been a lot of reduction of a
lot of structures, so. I don't think we need any more information on it.
MR. FITZGERALD: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone else who wants to comment on this
application?
MS. FOLTS: Mary Lou Folts, of Lark & Folts. If you have a copy
of the Zoning Board approval and the Soil and Water that had
given their recommendation, and I think everything you have seen
in the application addresses all of that, taking care of fixing
the irrigation and just doing the best for the erosion that they
can, reducing everything. It would be helpful if you could
approve it tonight, if you are going to, because then it would
give you time to get in to do the seeding and grading.
MR. FITZGERALD: That's right. Actually one of the
recommendations in the Soil and Water report is that the seeding
of the filled-in swimming pool be done in April-May planting
season so we would have grass quickly, so it would be able to
stabilize that filled area.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
(No response).
I'll make a 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.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number nine, Patricia McIntyre on behalf
of NEW SUFFOLK WATERFRONT FUND requests a Wetland Permit
for in-kind repairs to the existing 48" wide by 352 linear foot long fixed
dock which includes the reconstruction of 60 linear feet at
seaward end; the ten (10) existing finger docks at 30" wide (7
docks-19' long, 1 dock-16' long, and 1 dock-15' long), and
Board of Trustees 29 March 19, 2014
reconstructing one (1) 30"x19' long dock; any existing
free-standing 10"-12" diameter pilings that are structurally
unsound are to be replaced in-place; and to repair the existing
352 linear foot stone jetty by adding one large rock up to 30"
in height to the top row. Located: 650 First Street, New Suffolk.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be exempt. It
was reviewed by the CAC. The CAC supports the application,
however questions whether the proposed 30-inch increase in
height of the stone jetty is necessary.
As I said, the Board did go out and looked at this. It's a
very extensive project as proposed. Is there anybody here to
speak on behalf of this application?
MS. MCINTYRE: Yes, Pat McIntyre and Greg Rivara on behalf of New
Suffolk Waterfront Fund.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I didn't know, first, if you have any comments
to make before we have some questions for you from our field inspection.
MS. MCINTYRE: No, go ahead.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We noticed out there between the remains of the
stone jetty and the remains of the dock, there is a wave break
presently, but we didn't see that indicated on the plans at all.
So is there the expectation that this old remains of a wave
break that is presently between what remains of the stone jetty
is going to be removed and not replaced?
MS. MCINTYRE: I didn't realize it was between it. That's when
you look straight east? Okay. I thought that was kind of part
of the jetty. Yes. The intention is to make this look like a
nice place. That's pretty messy.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So the intention is to remove that wave break
that is out there, or the remains of a wave break out there. I
know everything is remains right now.
MS. MCINTYRE: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We also noticed you are looking to replace what
was lost, that being the last 60 feet --we didn't get out there
and measure it, but I'm going by your survey here, your plans
here, about 60 feet of dock; is that correct?
MS. MCINTYRE: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: On the plans there shows on the, I'll call it
the northern side of the property, a floating wood dock that
would be adjacent to the bulkhead. And I didn't see that in the
description at all. I'm just wondering if it's not in the
description, why it's on the plans here.
MS. MCINTYRE: That's north of the bulkhead?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MS. MCINTYRE: That's leftover from plans, and there is no way to
put that in anymore because Captain Marty built that dock. So
that is not being requested and that should probably be removed
from the next set of plans.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. I also noticed, or we noticed, on the
set of plans submitted tonight, it has what is stated here as
the one-and-one-half story frame building, that I think that was
known at as the Galley Ho, relocated from its present location
Board of Trustees 30 March 19, 2014
up close to probably where it was originally. But again, that
is not in the description here at all.
MS. MCINTYRE: That's left over. We used these plans when we came
here for the bulkhead and other things, everybody said
we didn't have to redraw that because we are not applying for
the new Galley Ho. And the Galley Ho will be back about, oh,
more than 75 feet from the water.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, so you are looking at down the road
submitting another application to us for the relocation to some
location of the Galley Ho.
MS. MCINTYRE: Right. We are just starting the whole Planning
Department process, so somewhere in the next few months we'll be
back here as they kick us back from Planning Department to the
Trustees.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: A question. Where are you with the DEC at this
point in time?
MS. MCINTYRE: We have DEC approval for everything except for the
revetment, the stone jetty. So we are complete on DEC for all
of the decking, all of the docks, and all of the piers. We are
actually complete on Army Corps on everything including the jetty.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Really?
MS. MCINTYRE: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
MS. MCINTYRE: So we have DEC one thing to do, and the way we
requested our proposal is we want to get the marina done first
and then wait for our final approval on the DEC, which we don't
think will be too much further out.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, again, you have in the description, it
looks like nine new, I'll call them finger docks?
MS. MCINTYRE: Replacements, repairs, right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yet on the plans there is more than --
MS. MCINTYRE: There is ten total. One of which is new. Maybe the
English is not too great there. There is nine that are
replacements, and one that is near that extra 60 feet that we
are replacing on the --that's the new one there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: At the end.
MS. MCINTYRE: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I see it. It's listed as new 30-foot wood dock,
where the others are not listed as new. I see a 5x60 foot
floating dock on this set of plans.
MS. MCINTYRE: That was from a couple years back. We had the
approval for that. We took out for Sandy, that's all.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think you can see part of our confusion. I
think really what needs to happen is we are going to have to get
a set of plans submitted had comports with the description here,
so that we know exactly what we are approving.
MS. MCINTYRE: The floating dock does exist already, but is just
not in the water at this point in time. That has been approved.
So we drew the marina as it is, with what has been worked on
already. Like the floating dock was from a permit from 2010, 1
want to say.
Board of Trustees 31 March 19, 2014
MR. RIVARA: It's been removed seasonally.
TRUSTEE KING: Do we have a set of approved plans from DEC that
we could look at?
MS. MCINTYRE: DEC approved everything except for the revetment.
We have the whole marina approved by DEC.
TRUSTEE KING: I mean did they give you a stamped set of plans?
MS. MCINTYRE: Yes, that was done 2010. May, 2010, for ten
years. It's good until 2020. It's the same set of plans we used
for our bulkhead approval that we did last fall.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking if we had a set here in the file. I
don't see it.
MS. MCINTYRE: The DEC stamped should be in your bulkhead file
from last summer.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's not in this file here tonight.
MS. HULSE: It's a different file.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: With the construction of the last 60 feet of the
dock, what we are doing now is we are expanding the facility out
farther than what it currently is, because that was destroyed,
and I know in the Town Code when we add dock on like this, or
expand a marina facility, there is a requirement of a pump out
facility to be included in the plans. I can remember a
conversation that this Board had with the previous application
about this condition. So I'm hoping this was something that the
applicant had considered, coming forward tonight, from the
previous discussion that took place with the Board; that being
the need for some type of pump out facility there.
MS. MCINTYRE: No, we have not. If we have to do a pump out
facility, we would rather forego the remains, the last 60 feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And as I recall, and I'm reaching back into the
memory bank, that is what came up last time and that was the
answer that was given to us last time, that we'll just forego
the last 60 feet. And I can recall last time there was the
urging of this group to at least, if that's the decision made,
to consider a port-a-john or some facility there because the
Trustees are concerned with the dockage of boats there, and no
facilities provided at all on the site, we are concerned about
what happens with the waste from those boats.
MS. MCINTYRE: Of course, right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we would urge you to consider if you are not
going to do a pump out facility at least some port-a-johns or
something there that people at the dock, boat owners at the dock
could use.
MS. MCINTYRE: In another year we'll actually have real toilets
in a real building. We already have the whole, actually as of
tomorrow, we are submitting that to the Suffolk County Health
Department with the whole new system.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, you said with the DEC, right now, the
application for the stone jetty is still pending?
MS. MCINTYRE: We had not submitted that originally. With the
ten-year maintenance plan it was not put in, and so when Greg
submitted that a couple of weeks back, the same time we
Board of Trustees 32 March 19, 2014
submitted to you, they said it was no longer an amendment, that
it had to be a new application. So our intention is to work
immediately on the marina and follow-up with the jetty after we
get the approvals.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Given the extent of that structure, would there
be any thought given as to having a joint inspection set up with
possibly the Trustees and DEC out there so we can look at this
together? I remember doing this on this particular piece of
property, has to be now six years ago, way back -- and it was a
very productive meeting, and we came away with the DEC saying
yes, we'll approve this, the Trustees saying yes, you know,
pending a public hearing, we'll give serious consideration for
approval to this. And it was very productive. So I'm just
wondering --
MS. MCINTYRE: We are amenable to whatever works that makes it
the proper thing to do. But from what I gather from DEC, I'm
probably only weeks away from them approving. The other thing is
we are going to be doing, you know, pending approval from here,
we want to do the marina right away, and then we want to do the
rock revetment, stone jetty, in time before the next storm
season. Because we'll build out the marina as soon as we can so
we can maybe have it for the summer, is our intent. We already
have a contractor lined up that I can sign the contract in the
next few days, if we have approval to go ahead.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: A question for the Board members here tonight.
How would you feel about pulling out of this description the
stone jetty so that we can consider approval for the rest of it,
and the stone jetty then can be an amendment to a permit
application for which we can have a joint visit with the DEC to
talk about it. That would enable us tonight to move forward with
all the dock work which would assist the organization, but would
hold up the stone jetty.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And amending the whole to 60 feet
because it seems at this time they don't want to commit to --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. I just wanted to ask the Board first
what they thought of that idea.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sounds reasonable.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Not hearing any objection from the Board, would
the applicant be willing to do that? Because our concern is,
this rock jetty is very extensive, what you are talking about.
And I think if we could meet with the DEC out there also onsite
at our next field inspection, which is on Wednesday, April 16th,
that that could produce, that could be a very productive meeting.
MS. MCINTYRE: That's fine. Now what about the 60 feet--
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I heard you say is you wanted to remove
that from this application.
MS. MCINTYRE: We'll do that if we need to.
MR. RIVARA: Just a quick comment. The actual 60 feet will not
have any more finger piers on it. It's just an extension of what
is there now. Or was there. My take on it, it's really just a
walkway to go out and look at the inlet. Not like there will be
Board of Trustees 33 March 19, 2014
more boats in the marina.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand what you are saying, but the code
says any expansion of the current marina facility requires the
inclusion of a pump out facility of some type. That's in the
Town Code already.
MR. RIVARA: Even though it was there at some point in the past?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's totally gone; except for some pilings, it's
gone.
MS. MCINTYRE: Yes, it's underwater somewhere.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Or upland someplace.
MS. MCINTYRE: It was there before, but, yes. What about Greg's
point that it is, there is no more finger piers out that way?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand. But again, we are looking at the
town code, and the Town Code would say that's an expansion of
the current marina facility. That's my interpretation. Again,
I'm just one of five.
TRUSTEE KING: They've added one dock, also. Ten instead of nine?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: They've added one new 30-foot dock there at the
end. Finger pier.
MS. MCINTYRE: 19 feet.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: What's the primary reason you want that extra
60?
MS. MCINTYRE: We are basically restoring it to what it was. It
might be used for a boat to pull up next to it, but any other
reasons, Greg?
MR. RIVARA: If we could save a little bit of it for a boat that
will be on the south side of that finger pier. You know what I
mean? Because it's kind of short there. We certainly don't need
60 feet.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is a shellfish closure there
presently. The DNA reports, I don't know if it would be
sufficient evidence to make a determination whether or not it's
caused by the animals or the people or whoever. And that the
area will always probably be subject to a marina-based closure
once it's back up and running. So it would seem that, you know,
it's reasonable to try to have these facilities have pump outs,
but we understand the logistics are hugely difficult, but could
always revisit the site addition and the pump out at a future
date when either technology or you have a formal approval from the
Health Department for your onsite waste water system.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I can tell you that there has been a program
co-sponsored by the state and Suffolk County where grants are
available to pay for the cost of pump out plus pay for some
portion of the operational cost of pump out. So you might,
don't know whether those grants are currently in place. I know
they have been in the past. So it's something the organization
might want to look into. Because you might find out all the
costs can be picked up through a grant.
MS. MCINTYRE: Yes, and we obviously, we are all environmentally
sensitive there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know you are.
Board of Trustees 34 March 19, 2014
MS. MCINTYRE: What about Greg's point of can we just do a little
bit so the people in the last finger pier don't fall off the
edge? What do we need, five or ten feet?
Ten. Like ten feet. Just so there is some cushion there for that
last boat.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In other words if we extended it ten feet beyond
where the current proposed new 30-foot wood dock is.
MS. MCINTYRE: Yes, ten instead of 60. And that way --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: How do the other Board members feel about that?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's a lot. It's quite a reduction
from what they want.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, I don't think the Board has any objection
to that at all.
MS. MCINTYRE: Okay. Any other questions?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't believe so, from the Board. Were there
any other questions or comments from anybody in the audience?
(No response).
Any other comments from any Board member?
TRUSTEE KING: I think we covered everything.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, so in a second I'll close the public
hearing, but just to go over, what we'll obviously have to do
is get a new set of plans to reflect what is being proposed here
tonight. So that way you are clear, we are clear, and there
won't be any problems in the future as to exactly what was or
was not approved.
MS. MCINTYRE: Can those plans be submitted after approval --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. We would have to receive a new set of plans
in order to actually give you a permit. I don't want to jump
ahead of the game here because we have not approved anything
yet.
MS. MCINTYRE: If I were to get a permit, I have to give you a
new set of plans --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, before you receive the permit.
MS. MCINTYRE: Okay. So we are taking off things like the north
floating dock that doesn't exist anymore.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The north floating dock, the moving of the
Galley Ho.
MS. MCINTYRE: That going to be a whole survey and --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just asking for a set of plans, that's all.
Not a new survey, but a set of plans.
MS. MCINTYRE: Okay, I got that, yes. New set of plans.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And then also in the description here, we are
not including the proposed stone jetty. That's something we'll
consider later on.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the reduction of the --
MS. MCINTYRE: All right. So that will be 60 down to ten. Okay,
great. And once, if we get approved tonight with those
contingencies, once we submit those new set of plans, how long
would it take to get a permit? I'm asking because we already
have someone who is willing to start the work.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You would have to work with our office staff on
Board of Trustees 35 March 19, 2014
that.
MS. MCINTYRE: Okay. But it's not required to wait for another
meeting, it's something that will happen in between.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MS. MCINTYRE: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there are not any other comments, I'll make a
motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Patricia McIntyre on behalf of New Suffolk Waterfront for inkind
repairs to the existing 48" wide by 302 linear foot long fixed
dock, which includes reconstruction of ten linear feet at the
seaward end; the ten existing finger docks at 30" wide;
reconstruction one 30"x19' long dock; any existing freestanding
10"to 12" diameter pilings that are structurally unsound are to
be replaced inplace. And there will be a new set of plans
submitted to reflect what has been approved here tonight.
That's the motion, as amended.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And again, contact the DEC and see if they would
like to meet with us at our next field inspection out there.
We'll work with you on that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And have someone being able to coordinate
that, if we have to get an area Trustee or a couple of Trustees
together, if they can't be on the same survey date, contact the
Trustee office we'll try get someone out to meet with you.
MS. MCINTYRE: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number ten, Eileen A. Powers, Esq. on behalf of
KATHRYN A. CAMPBELL requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built
replacement of existing with new 2'x19'2" fixed catwalk to a
5'6"x4'10" fixed dock with 4"x4" posts. Located: 570 Hippodrome
Drive, Southold.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency derives from the fact that the town records
indicate the structures were constructed without the benefit of
review of the Board of Trustees somewhat after 2004 and before
2006. In addition, requests that the usage of this dock and any
vessel tied to it be described.
The CAC voted to support this application.
The Trustees, on March 12th field notes, consider moving
the dock, doesn't specify, and using open-grate decking on the
surface.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Move it to the right. I can't remember the
distance, though. Because it's too close to the other property.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The 15-foot set off, yes. Is there anyone here
Board of Trustees 36 March 19, 2014
to sneak to this application?
MS. POWERS: Yes, Eileen Powers. I'm here for the
owner/applicant Kathryn Campbell. I'm really not sure where they
got the idea the dock was built after 2004 and before 2006. This
dock has been there for 30 years, in that location. It was a
permit under a separate name in the past. I have some
photographs showing the damage from the storm of the dock as it
existed prior to Sandy. And the dock was replaced inplace at
that time. So I'm not really sure where they got the idea this
is a new dock.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll read again from the LWRP coordinator's
memorandum. The aerial analysis shows that the dock structure
was constructed after 2004 and before 2006.
MS. POWERS: I'll suggest they are mistaken and perhaps they
should produce that. I don't understand. I have a copy of the
permit. The dock was there when my client closed on the property
in 1986. It's an existing dock.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Small docks do come and go where they get
iced out and broken up. So the possibility is the dock we saw
on field inspection is all brand new construction.
MS. POWERS: Brand new after Sandy, but I can show you
photographs of the dock. You should have them in your file. The
dock was there prior to Sandy.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there a drawing with the old permit?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Actually, the permit is for October 30th, 1986.
Permit 2230. It shows a two-foot by three-foot catwalk, and an
eight-foot by three-foot dock. It's completely different.
MS. POWERS: Obviously the dimensions, it's been repaired over
and over under the permit over the years, after storm damage. I
don't know how or when it was expanded.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: It was modified from its original permit
though, correct?
MS. POWERS: Well, it appears to be. I can only go by the plans I
had drawn and the notations in the permit. It didn't appear to
be any other records in the Trustees' office on it, so.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's in the file, to answer your question, a
2'x3 catwalk and an 8'x3' dock.
MS. POWERS: So the dock was smaller and the catwalk was longer.
So I'm assuming they shortened it and lengthened the catwalk.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Correct. Should I read this?
MS. HULSE: You don't have to read it. You can summarize it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: To summarize the letter received February 18th,
2014, from Elliott Heath, and to summarize it, it says the
structure was built with no permits, no postings, and
constructed last winter, which would be 2013. There's a good
chance it did not come to someone's attention, had they not
written the letter. It goes on.
MS. POWERS: That just supports my client's position that the
dock existed. I have photographs of it. It was damaged by Sandy
and it was repaired by my client in good faith. She believed the
permit was good for the repair. Her contractor told her it was,
Board of Trustees 37 March 19, 2014
she did the repair in good faith. Really, it is not that
different than it was prior to Sandy. The Heaths have been
there, believe me, if my client had constructed the dock, you
know, new, with nothing there before, we would have heard about
it before this.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The code stipulates that dock and vessel should
be no closer than 15 feet from the property line. And using the
scale for this, it shows five feet. So it's very unlikely that
this Board would have had approved this application, if it was
submitted in this form.
MS. POWERS: The dock was existing. It was simply a repair.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: According to this, this dock is not
pre-existing. We have a permit for a different dock.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This was 100% reconstruction on the site.
MS. POWERS: I actually take issue with whether it was 100%. In
lieu of making an argument over that, we filed this application
with your office.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: When we were there, it looked like every single
aspect of that dock was brand new.
MS. POWERS: You can look--
TRUSTEE SANDERS: If you look at the photograph that I took when
we were there on inspection, those are all brand new pilings.
MS. POWERS: The pilings looked brand new in the photograph
beforehand, too. It's been improved, in part, over time.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Can I see that?
MS. POWERS: Sure.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Because those pilings are, they jet out over--
TRUSTEE SANDERS: (Perusing). When was this photograph taken?
MS. POWERS: I don't know. Some time last year. Before the
repair. I didn't take the photograph.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The other issue is the pilings could have been
done since the other original application.
TRUSTEE KING: This shows a couple of new pilings have been put
in.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: These are not the original pilings from the
first permit.
TRUSTEE KING: No. No.
MS. POWERS: They have been replaced over the years, under the
theory that she was maintaining that dock.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the key issue for the Board to
reconcile this, is this dock is a simply built in open style 4x4,
can be easily moved and get open-grate and be brought into
compliance so that it is under the current code requirements.
And would also allow more light to get through to the meadow
underneath so it would be protecting the wetland grasses so it
would then be an improvement.
MS. POWERS: You are suggesting move it to the north?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, off the property line. So it would be
15 feet--well, the vessel determination here really affects the platform
in the creek, but it would basically be at least 15 feet off the property line.
Ideally in an area that would have minimal disturbance coming from the
Board of Trustees 38 March 19, 2014
grassy lawn area out, and then have an open-grate, and that would bring
it into compliance with the current code requirements, and it would also be
better for protecting the wetland.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else to speak to this
application?
MS. STEIN: John Stein, Conservation Advisory Council. Can I just
shed some light on this? I inspected this property but I had to recuse
myself because I live in Beixedon, in the area. But just to give a little
insight on this, because I've lived there since 1980. Those houses there
were only, the one, the next property south of it, had a catwalk just as you
were referencing, Mike, and that's what that originally had in the '80s and '90s.
Just by the amount of attrition, the platform has enlarged and it was completely
just redone, posts and everything, within the last year. But the concern that I
think the neighbors had and other people saying that this is a dock, this is
on Hippodrome Pond, it's only about a foot-and-a-half deep with the silt that has
been in there now, vessels other than a kayak, could get to, possibly, but to
be construed as a formalized dock is not anything that is going to be tied up,
there is no motorized vessels allowed in there.
But referencing the Heath letter, I believe that the wideness and right now
it's sitting in the wetland area with the Spartina grass and also we called out for
at least a 20-foot non-turf buffer, and the slope is a berm going right into that.
So, I just question the legalization on it.
MS. HULSE: Was the catwalk in the same location as the old permit?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It appears to be in the same general
location as the old permit but having been 100% rebuilt.
MS. HULSE: It's the same distance from the property line, and
that's the same, that is what was granted in the old permit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There was no established set off in
established property line in the old permit.
MR. STEIN: At the time people were just putting concrete cinder
blocks with 48's and just going as far as they could on it. And
there wasn't any permitting, but I didn't think it was addressed
by the Board in the last 20, 30 years.
MS. POWERS: There is really no harm to the property owner by
this result. With my client having replaced it inplace.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's not, this is not a large dock to move
and bring it into compliance. It's the workings of a couple of
stalwart young people and a couple of hours.
MS. POWERS: So are you going to approve it in a new location
tonight or should I adjourn this?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Would you be willing to accept it in a new
location?
MS. POWERS: I would have to talk to my client about it. Because
she is of the opinion it's not a complete reconstruction, so I
would want to discuss it with her. You know, a complete
reconstruction, last year, after Sandy.
TRUSTEE KING: What was the size of it, Mike, on the original
permit?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I was just going to ask to enter that into the
record. The original permit, dock and catwalk, is a total length
of ten feet, whereas this structure is 24'6".
Board of Trustees 39 March 19, 2014
TRUSTEE KING: If she wants to reduce this structure down to the
original permit size, that would be acceptable to me.
MS. POWERS: I'm not sure that's practical, given the topography
there.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I guess my inclination is to table this and give
you an opportunity for you to get back to your client and
discuss the situation and come back to us with a new set of plans.
MS. POWERS: A new set of plans showing the new location?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Addressing, in my way of thinking, the 15-foot
setback required by code from the property line. And the
flow-thru grating.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would need to have flow-thru grating to
allow for the marsh.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mike, one other comment. Table it for one month.
So the applicant would be required to come back to us next month.
MS. POWERS: Absolutely.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's a good point. Hearing no further comment,
I would make a motion to table this application for one month.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's it. Take a motion?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to adjourn.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
00,
"John M. Bredemeyer 111, President
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED i
4,45 �w
APR 2 4 201-�i��
S utholdTownClerk