HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-04/26/2014 John M.Bredemeyer III,President ��oF So(/ryO Town Hall Annex
Michael J.Domino,Vice-President ,`O l0 54375 Main Road
P.O.Box 1179
James F. King,Trustee Southold,New York 11971-0959
Dave Bergen,Trustee G Q
Charles J.Sanders,Trustee 'Q • Telephone(631) 765-1892
ly`,oU�,�� Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
Wednesday, April 26, 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, May 14, 2014 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:Wednesday, May 21, 2014 at 5:30 PM
WORKSESSIONS: Monday, May 19, 2014 at 5:30 PM at Down's Farm, and on
Wednesday, May 21, 2014 at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall
MINUTES:
Approve Minutes of February 19, 2014.
Approve Minutes of March 19, 2014.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Welcome to our regular Trustee meeting. This evening we
do not have a court reporter/stenographer here.Wayne Galante, he usually does that.
So we specifically request that when you get up to the podium, if you would please
announce who you are, give us your name each time you speak, particularly if we have a
number of different speakers.We have an antiquated recording machine and we want to
make sure we get a proper record for tonight's meeting.
The next field inspection is scheduled for May 14th, at 8:00 AM. Do I have a
resolution?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 2 April 26, 2014
(All ayes).
TRUSTEE BREDEMYER: Our next Trustee meeting to be held May 21st at 5:30 PM.
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(All ayes).
TRUSTEE BREDEMYER: And work sessions for Monday, May 19th, at Down's Farms,
at 5:30 PM, and Wednesday, May 21 st, at 5:00 PM. Do I hear a motion?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(All ayes).
TRUSTEE BREDEMYER: Motion to approve the Minutes of February 19th, 2014.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(All ayes).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to approve the Minutes of March 19th, 2014.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(All ayes).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for March 2014. A check for
$5,598.78 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, April 23, 2014, are classified as Type II Actions
Pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
SEQRA:
They are listed as follows:
Patrick Scollard—SCTM# 123-10-3
Cutchogue 6213, LLC; c/o Stephanie Guilpin—SCTM#82-2-3.1
Cutchogue 6291; c/o Stephanie Guilpin—SCTM#82-2-3.2
Joseph B. Moisa, Jr. —SCTM# 139-1-1
Strong's Marine Inlet, LLC—SCTM# 114-3-1
Patricia Gilchrist Mancino—SCTM# 117-10-15
Diane & Dennis Harkoff—SCTM# 114-1-5.1
Richard &Anne Moore—SCTM# 136-1-38
Patricia A. Coady—SCTM#77-1-1
Richard Blickman —SCTM#23-1-5
Cynthia & Joseph Schafer—SCTM#90-2-3
Board of Trustees 3 April 26, 2014
Cheri Antoniello—SCTM# 122-9-7.20
Lord Shackelford—SCTM# 116-1-9.1
Alexander& Pauline LeDonne—SCTM#77-1-5
William & Patricia Moore—SCTM#52-2-30
Paul M. Konowitz—SCTM# 118-4-11
TRUSTEE BREDEMYER: I'll make a motion to approve all those listed on page one and
two of your agenda. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(All ayes).
IV. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For actions that are administrative in nature or relatively
minor, or for which the Board has an opportunity to either transfer a permit, if they are
relatively minor in scope, the Board will group them together to make the meeting more
efficient. For the items under Resolutions and Administrative permits, item IV on your
agenda, page two, with respect to the first three items, I would move to approve all three
as a group. They read as follows:
Number one, Samuels &Steelman Architects on behalf of JAMES &KATHLEEN
BLACKLEY request an Administrative Permit to construct a new 52sq.ft. water side
deck; and construct an 84 sq.ft. addition for entry foyer onto landward side of existing
(totaling 2,726 sq. ft. first floor footprint) dwelling with attached garage. Located: 415
Harbor Lights Drive, Southold.
Number two, Briarcliff Landscape on behalf of NORTH FORK COUNTRY CLUB
requests an Administrative Permit to renovate the existing waste bunkers at the 15th
hole by constructing a new 10'-20' varying width, 520' long waste bunker; excavate
Approximately 5,000 cubic feet and replacing it with 5,000 cubic feet of new sand; four
(4) gravel pits will be installed, each 4' high by 3' wide and spaced approximately 100'
Apart; and remove the existing non-functional drainage pipes. Located: 26342 Route 25,
Cutchogue.
And number three, MICHAEL & CELIA WITHERS request an Administrative Permit to
replace existing +/186' long by 6' high cedar wood fencing along the west side of
property. Located: 6635 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to approve all three as a group. Do I have a
second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second on that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item number four, Fairweather& Brown Associates on
behalf of DAN & CAROLINA McGOEY requests an Administrative Permit to construct a
9'x30' deck onto the seaward side of existing dwelling; the existing concrete paths and
patios shall be removed and not replaced; remove existing accessory shed; install
gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff; the current basement shall be filled
to create a crawlspace only as required by flood plain elevation code; demolition and
replacement of the seaward side wall, roof, and chimney on dwelling; remove bay
window on southwest side along with side door and deck, and relocate certain windows
on dwelling; and install and subsequently maintain a 5' wide non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of the concrete wall with an access path to dock. Located: 1050 Oak
Avenue, Southold.
I'm the keeper of the file on this item. The Trustees are in general accord with the
Board of Trustees 4 April 26, 2014
project as proposed, that made specific note that they would like to see a ten-foot
non-turf buffer as opposed to the five-foot as proposed. Does anyone want to entertain a
resolution to include the requirement of a ten-foot buffer on that?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make that motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made for a ten-foot buffer. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item number five, KEVIN J. GALLAGHER requests an
Administrative Permit to remove four damaged or dying trees on the seaward side of the
property; reconstruct existing decorative varying in height 2'-4' garden retaining walls
using natural river rock; install a +/-4' in diameter decorative fish pond on the eastern
side of property; install +/-4' wide flagstone walkways with gravel underlays; install a
+/-15' in diameter pervious flagstone patio with gravel underlays on the eastern side of
property; and install landscaping using natural vegetation along property lines. Located:
17975 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
This is another straightforward amendment. I would move to approve this. Do I
have a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number one, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of
NICOLAS ANDREADIS requests a One Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7806, as
issued on May 16, 2012. Located: 700 North Drive, Mattituck.
I would make a motion to approve. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would request a roll call vote, please. Trustee Domino?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Myself, aye. Trustee King?
TRUSTEE KING: I abstain from this because my sister lives right next door to these
folks.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Sanders?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So noted.
The additional items under item V for Extensions, Transfers and Amendments,
they are all straightforward and they are all consistent with the Town's Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program. I would move to approve items two through eleven in that
Section V. They are listed as follows:
Number two, KELVIN KUBO &CARRIE SHIGETOMI request a Transfer of Wetland
Permit#1753 from Samuel Yasso to Kelvin Kubo & Carrie Shigetomi, as issued on
October 28, 1983. Located: 3445 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck.
Number three, PATRICK &JOANNE CONWAY request a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#8257 from Martha Kennelly to Patrick& Joanne Conway, as issued on August 21,
2013. Located: 2000 Deep Hole Creek, Mattituck.
Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of WILLIAM MURPHY& KIMBERLY REECE
requests a One Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7856, as issued on July 18, 2012;
and for an Administrative Amendment to modify the proposed buffer areas to be
Board of Trustees 5 April 26, 2014
approximately 10,140 square feet of existing vegetation will be maintained as a
Non-Disturbance Buffer area and approximately 3,510 square feet of property will be
established and maintained as a non-turf buffer. Located: 1652 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue.
Number five, En-Consultants on behalf of LAUGHING WATERS PROPERTY OWNERS
ASSOCIATION requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8303 for all
of the dredge spoils from both marinas to be placed upland of the tidal wetlands of the
South Marina. Located: 555 & 2360 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold.
Number six, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. in behalf of EDGEWATER I, LLC request an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#5594 for the as-built upper 4'x8' platform
relocated to side of timber stairs; and 4'x25' stairs. Located: 63615 County Road 48,
Greenport.
Number seven, Joshua Horton on behalf of ROSE L. MILAZZO REVOCABLE TRUST
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7054 to raise the height of
the proposed 53' long bulkhead and 4' northerly return by 18"; and substitute the vinyl
sheathing with longer 10' vinyl sheathing. Located: 1165 Island View Lane, Greenport.
Number eight, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of JOAN L. COOKE
requests an Administrative Amendment to raise the dwelling from elevation 8 to
elevation 11; and reconfigure the front entry and rear deck entry to be 3'x6' front landing
with 4'x10' front steps, and 3'x4' rear landing with 3'x8' rear steps. Located: 2205 Bay
Avenue, East Marion.
Number nine, Joe Herzog on behalf of GOOSE NECK PROPERTY OWNERS
ASSOCIATION requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8225 to use
non-treated wood in lieu of the molded polyethylene material on the docking facilities.
Located: 1080&420 Smith Drive South, Southold.
Number ten, RALPH VIVINETTO requests and Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit#8236 to construct a 4'x60' fixed catwalk with a fixed 6'x10' "T"shaped section at
seaward end. Located: 3595 Wells Avenue, Southold.
And number eleven, Patricia McIntyre on behalf of NEW SUFFOLK WATERFRONT
FUND requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8378 for in-kind
repairs modifying the width of the 302 foot long fixed dock from 48"wide to 72"wide.
Located: 650 First Street, New Suffolk.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time I'll take a motion to go on to the public hearing
agenda.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE KING: Number one, En-Consultants on behalf of PATRICK SCOLLARD
requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7954 to construct approximately 189 linear
feet of vinyl retaining wall landward of bulkhead. Located: 905 Willis Creek Drive,
Mattituck.
This was found consistent with the LWRP. And the CAC resolved to support the
application, with no conditions.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application?
Board of Trustees 6 April 26, 2014
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of Pat Scollard. This is
basically a continuation of a repair of Sandy damage on this property. In fact it was the
Board's suggestion when we were here shortly after Sandy for the extension of that
return, that the Scollard's perhaps consider a retaining wall in this location. After they
were able to get that work done, we proceeded with the design and as we had basically
left it with you all at that time. We've come back out here to modify the permit, really,
again, in accordance with the Board's original suggestion. So that's the essence of the
application.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone else here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
(No response).
I went out and looked at this on the 18th. It's straightforward. They really got beat up
pretty good from the storm, and it's a matter of a second retaining wall to help save the
property. I don't have any issue with it at all. If there are no other comments, I'll make a
motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: 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).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next item, number two, 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 above
bottom at low tide; and float secured by(4) 8" diameter piles. Located: 420 Oak Street,
Cutchogue.
This application has been determined to be inconsistent with the LWRP for a loss
of public access for the dock extension. The CAC supported the application with the
condition that the debris be removed from the wetland area.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant
Neil Cooper. Mr. Cooper has actually been before the Board himself back in December
of 2012, and the dock that had been in existence for many, many years had been
toppled by Hurricane Sandy, and representing himself, Mr. Cooper had obtained a
permit from the Board basically to reconstruct the dock in its original configuration.
However, then learning from contractors that other permits had to be obtained from the
New York State DEC, Army Corps, etc., Mr. Cooper came to our firm and asked if we
would seek permission to get permits from those agencies to reconstruct the dock. Long
story short, upon review by the DEC, the DEC, as the Board knows, is often reluctant to
approve floating docks in shallow waters. But here, given the historical nature of the
dock and the various other floating docks that are in this area, the DEC was willing to
grant their approval. Again, due to the pre-existing nature of the floating docks, but
asked us to extend the catwalk by just ten feet, which actually increased the water depth
around the float by almost a foot. So that sounded good, of course, to Mr. Cooper, but
necessitated our then coming back to this Board and asking for permission for the
additional length.
With respect to the LWRP comments, as you can clearly see on the plans with the
survey location of the docks along the shoreline and in aerial photographs, I'm sure
the Board can see the dock remains well within the pier line. So I think the claim that this
would somehow reduce public access along here is spurious. We did propose steps on
Board of Trustees 7 April 26, 2014
the landward side of the catwalk. Originally, the catwalk started in the marsh, so you
could actually walk around the landward side of it. But again that is not really the best
configuration for the health of the marsh itself. So in accordance with the usual practices
of the DEC and the Army Corps, we kept the catwalk elevated and extended it back to
the retained area landward of the dock, and then in order to be consistent with the
LWRP policy nine, added some proposed steps going off either side of the catwalk so
that anybody who might happen to want to dredge through Mr. Cooper's marsh would be
able to get up and over the shoreline there. So we believe the application is consistent
with the LWRP, consistent with the Board's policies and standards in the code and hope
that you will look favorably upon it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak on
behalf of or against this application?
TRUSTEE KING: Rob, was that request for chocks at the DEC's--
MR. HERRMANN: It was, and again, in relation to the water depth. Any time the DEC
now is--they are being a little bit more flexible than they once were in terms of the water
depth, especially with a dock that is historically pre-existing. Even when Karen Graulich
was there under Chuck Hamilton, they did give a little bit more consideration to these
kinds of considerations, but will always, where there is going to be less than 30 inches at
mean low or low, will require the float to be chocked. Typically, Marine Fisheries and
some of the other agencies that coordinate with the Corps will have the same
requirement. But yes, that is where the chocks came into play here,which is what
necessitates the four piles.
TRUSTEE KING: And yet the boat would set on the bottom, even though the float is chocked,
right?
(INAUDIBLE).
I mean, some things don't make sense, you know.
MR. HERRMANN: Their rationale relates to the fact that it's a permanent structure that
is going over public bottom as opposed to the boat, which is presumably a transient
item. But, point taken.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a point of discussion in furtherance of this notion, the
LWRP, trying to articulate that it reduces public access, I think to my mind is spurious
but I think it would launch maybe a little discussion with the Board. I think at the time you
increase the functionality of the dock, or at the time the Board feels comfortable with
increasing the functionality of the dock, we can't exclude the fact that the riparian owners
along the waterfront are also part of the general public of the town, and the additional
beneficial dockage that is afforded to the landowners on the waterfront, it also means
that their relatives, their friends, and any members of the community, boys and girls down
the block, might be in favor of that person are also getting gain of public access. I think to
have a non-functional dock or a dock that doesn't help, that's really a dock that
diminishes the component of the public access. I think it's a slightly different view of that.
This is a town that is rich with docks and rich with a dock history. So I think it's just a
slightly different view of what equates to public access to docks already there. That
nominal, additional amount providing functionality says something for overall net
increase of public access.
MR. HERRMANN: I would agree.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, are there any further comments?
(No response).
I would make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I would make a motion to approve this application as submitted, noting that the
approvals to the structure will increase the likelihood for more public participation and
Board of Trustees 8 April 26, 2014
access on to the waterfront, thereby making the project consistent under the LWRP, and
that the debris as noted in front of some of the old dock materials and some of the
debris in front be cleaned up in due course with construction of the dock. That's my
motion.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Next, under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits, number one,
En-Consultants on behalf of CUTCHOGUE 6213, LLC; c/o STEPHANIE GUILPIN
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for the placement of+/-5,868
linear feet of timber bluff terracing; +/-268 cubic yards of clean fill to be trucked in from
an approved upland source; and re-vegetate a +/-13,040 square foot area using native
vegetation. Located: 6213 Oregon Road, Cutchogue.
The LWRP finds this consistent, however, the CAC of the Town of Southold does
not support the application because hardening of the shoreline will starve the beaches to
the east. The entire area requires a Coastal Zone Management Plan and not a
piecemeal approach. These bluffs are a major source of sediment that are transported
along the eastern shoreline.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of the applicant?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicant.
First, to the CAC comments, I'm not sure I completely understand them, because
Interestingly, we are not proposing any shoreline hardening as part of this project. To the
contrary, they are taking basically what would be referred to as a soft approach, in an
effort, actually, really an effort, the purpose of which stems back to the Planning Board
approval of this subdivision some years ago. There is a condition both on this property
and the adjacent, which are two of the four lots that were created by this subdivision that
actually requires as a pre-condition to the Building Department being able to issue a
certificate of occupancy for the dwelling, the applicant, the owner, submitting to the Town
a plan such as this for a complete bluff restoration and stabilization. There had been
some question at one point when the owners were trying to obtain their C's of O whether
they could just plant some beach grass, and if that would satisfy the condition of Planning
Board resolution, and I spoke subsequently directly to Mark Terry who basically said, no,
the Planning Board is looking for a comprehensive design here that would treat the
entire bluff face and make sure it gets re-nourished and re-vegetated properly. So to that
end, the owners, again, both for this parcel and the adjacent one, next on your agenda,
we worked with Jeff Butler, a professional engineer, to come up with a bluff terracing,
re-nourishment and re-vegetation plan that is before you.
I have not heard from Mark officially in the context of the Planning Board's
requirement, that I'm surmising based on his consistency recommendation that he has
found the plan to be in order, and so we have to get the Trustees' permission to go
ahead with this plan, to execute it to satisfy the Planning Board's condition of approval.
So basically looking to provide the Town what it's looking for here and certainly support
the design. If you have any other questions, I'm happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is there anybody else here to speak on behalf of this?Anybody
from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: I just have a question, not only on this one but on the next one, as far
as access to the bluff, it's just so heavily vegetated, are they going to have to clear
roadways or pathways somehow to get to the bluff?
MR. HERRMANN: Well, I'm trying to see— I have a --
TRUSTEE KING: We couldn't even get to the bluff to see where the stairways are going
Board of Trustees 9 April 26, 2014
to start to go down on this next application.
MR. HERRMANN: We did get it staked. Did you see the stairways--
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. We can't. You know what I mean?We had to walk down the
beach to look up--
MR. HERRMANN: Right. Because ironically they have to maintain the non-disturbance
buffer facing the bluff, which makes it difficult to get access to it. I think where they show
on the location map, Jim, in the upper right-hand corner, that they are proposing access
from Duck Pond Road, which is about a mile up the beach. And otherwise--
TRUSTEE KING: So they are not going to be accessing it from the property.
MR. HERRMANN: Well, they have to clear; again, we are jumping ahead a little bit,
because this is for the next project. But on the adjacent parcel 6291, there is the
right-of-way contained within the property boundaries that actually provides access to the
beach for all four lots; these two and the two lots that are behind them. So that will have to
be completely cleared no matter what. So you are going to have that right-of-way
cleared for access down. I don't think there was any plans to create any other sort of
clearing throughout that non-disturbance buffer because we would not in theory be
allowed to do so. We can certainly review with the owner with the understanding if they
did, they would have to come back to you. But I think the plan was basically be to use
the cleared path through the right-of-way and then bring in heavier materials from Duck
Pond along the beach, which seems to be a common access point for work done on
other lots down in this area.
TRUSTEE KING: Just understand some of my concerns, we see these heavily vegetated
bluffs and the next thing you know, it's all gone. I see a home with all glass windows on
the north side and you can't see anything. What's going to happen down the road.
MR. HERRMANN: Right. These are not, you know, 50-60-year old described lots. I
mean, these are, the non-disturbance buffers on these lots came with the subdivision
approval, and from all of my dealings with the owner of these particular lots, I mean, she
seems to be acutely aware of all of the conditions and restrictions on the property, and
that's why she's kind of continuing the approach in a very formal and logical way. But I'll
certainly reiterate it. But obviously there is nothing inherent in any of the approvals we
have that would allow any sort of carte blanche clearing for letting equipment get
through it. It would violate the covenants and restrictions on the property.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, thanks.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Does anyone else have any comments?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I have a motion to approve the application.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: You're welcome.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number two, En-Consultants on behalf of CUTCHOGUE 6291,
LLC; c/o STEPHANIE GUILPIN requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit to construct a 4'x+/-80' timber bluff stairway including 4'x4' entry steps to a
5.3'x12' platform at top of bluff, four 4' wide landings, benches, a 4'x8' platform, and a
3'x3.5' platform with 2.5' wide retractable aluminum stairs at base of bluff within
boundaries of 10' wide easement; clear a 5'x+/353' on-grade pathway over upland
portion of property to provide access to stairway; the placement of+/-5,832 linear feet of
timber bluff terracing; +/-266 cubic yards of clean fill to be trucked in from an approved
Board of Trustees 10 April 26, 2014
upland source; and re-vegetate a +/-12,960 square foot area using native vegetation.
Located: 6291 Oregon Road, Cutchogue.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC voted not to support
this application. The comments: The application will cause hardening of the shoreline
and will starve the beaches to the east. It requires a coastal zone management plan and
not a piecemeal approach.
The Trustees visited this site on April 16th. Is there anyone here to speak to this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant.
Again, picking up on our discussion from the prior hearing, this is the adjacent property.
The bluff restoration, again, is being presented for the purpose of satisfying the
subdivision conditions requiring the bluff restoration and stabilization of vegetation for
these sites. And of course for the purpose of providing stabilization for the bluffs,
independently, obviously, of the Planning Board requirement. The only difference, really,
other than the mathematics of the design on this one is the addition of the bluff stairway.
It's also related to the subdivision approval which required the establishment of this
right-of-way. Within the property boundaries of this lot, for the purpose of providing a
sole access point to the beach and Long Island Sound for all four parcels which are
depicted on the site plans, including the upland parts behind these two waterfront lots.
So it is worth noting the Board would not be seeing another stairway application for
6213. The only stairway for these two lots will be this one. There had been a stairway
that was previously designed by Jeff Butler and had been the subject of a DEC approval,
but since that was many years ago, and I don't believe that the subdivider ever came
before this Board, that is what the current owner of the lot, he's developed these
properties, this property in particular, is now doing. So again, it's reasonably
straightforward, as you saw in the conditions of approval of the Planning Board's
resolution and I'm hoping the Trustees can grant your approval for it so that the owners
can move ahead with the project.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
I would like to reiterate Trustee King's concerns about the clearing from the previous
application. And I have a question concerning the area of the eastern boundary, it
includes part of the foot path. The contour lines show the water in that area will leave this
property and will enter a gully. My question is, is that where the fill is going?
MR. HERRMANN: No. I think I see where you are talking about. This is, I want to say
just upland of the coastal erosion line, there is a depression that sort of heads off in a
north/northeast direction.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Right.
MR. HERRMANN: And the area along that property line through the right-of-way
inevitably does have to be cleared right up to the access point for parcels three and four
in order to physically have access to the stairway and this property. So that is the clearing
included in the proposal. But there was no fill proposed for that area.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's an area of concern. The Town code requires water to be
contained on the property, and in our field inspection I noted quite a bit of erosion
alongside of where you plan to put the staircase down. That's how we accessed the beach.
MR. HERRMANN: Right. And that area itself is in fact part-- maybe I answered you
partially incorrectly. The plans for the fill terracing stabilization does run right up to the
easterly property line from the toe of the bluff to the top of the bluff. So with respect to
your question, for that part, that will be part of the stabilized area. So that the plan should
not cause any erosion on the adjacent property bluff, as far as the bluff goes. I'm
thinking of what you are talking about farther landward where there is a drop in elevation.
I mean, it's not extraordinary. It seems to run generally down from the 52 feet to 40-- it's
probably a 12-foot drop over--
Board of Trustees 11 April 26, 2014
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It runs approximately from 56 to 48.
MR. HERRMANN: Right. I mean, so as a practical matter they'll have to deal with that
area. Honestly, I don't know if that's been contemplated at this point.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would seem if it's the top of the bluff it's part of a natural
resource feature, so if they wanted to change parts of that they would have to come back
before the Board.
MR. HERRMANN: I would think so. And again, without knowing that spot well, I couldn't
answer you one way or the other whether they would need to do something. There are
no structures proposed in that area. It's anticipating only foot traffic in a three-foot wide
area. So I mean, in terms of the spectrum of overall runoff concerns, I don't think the
three-feet of clearing along that edge is going to really change the hydrologic budget of
the property. It would not be lawn or something that would be going in there. It's pretty
sandy. But I do understand what you are saying. And if they found that was an area that
would need to be filled, that would actually change the natural course of the water
movement. In other words, it seems that, naturally, now, notwithstanding the town code,
water is going to move from this property to the adjacent property just due to natural
topography of bluff. If they do nothing to change that other than remove three feet of
whatever vegetation is there, I honestly don't think that will change the water budget. The
more, perhaps greater concern, would be if they planned to fill it. But I don't think they
made it that far yet. And if they did fill it, as Jay just said, we would be within your
jurisdictional area. But I think any proposal to fill that area would have to be taken pretty
seriously because I don't know what they would retain the fill with, unless they were
going to build a retaining wall along the property line, and that might then start diverting
water straight down toward the bluff rather than moving through the natural gully. So,
standing here, I don't know how to resolve that issue, but I can only say we are not
proposing to alter that grade in any way as it stands. But we don't have a choice but to
provide the access, because that's what the Planning Board requires that we do. That's
the only means of access. So we couldn't leave it vegetated.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: For the record, I don't disagree with your characterization of the
natural water flow. But I would point out that clearing that foot path will in fact change the
situation into the future. It's an area of concern. I'm just pointing it out.
MR. HERRMANN: And I'm not taking your observation lightly. I'll have to bring that back
both to the client and to Jeff and see if we can identify that area in the field and see
what if anything that needs to be done to deal with it. I mean, they don't have a choice,
but they have a choice of how to mitigate it if it needs mitigating. I just can't provide that
answer off the cuff here.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak to this application?Any
other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, 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?
(ALL AYES).
As a point of order, before we go on to the next item, I just want to bring to your attention
there were items that were postponed, and just in case you were here to hear a
postponed item, item number 17 on page nine, item number 18 on page nine and item
number 19 on page ten are postponed. If you've come a long distance to speak to one
of these applications, we could open the hearing just for comments. So if anyone is here
Board of Trustees 12 April 26, 2014
for those,just raise your hand or identify yourself, but otherwise they are postponed for
the evening.
(No response).
They are listed as follows:
Number 17, McCarthy Management on behalf of ALEXANDER & PAULINE LeDONNE
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 3'x39' catwalk with 6"diameter pilings; a
32"x14' aluminum ramp; and a 6'x20' seasonal floating dock. Located: 910 Oak Avenue,
Southold.
Number 18, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of RICHARD &ANNE MOORE request a Wetland
Permit to remove existing storm damaged pier and construct a 4'x101' fixed pier; a
3'x12' aluminum ramp; and 6'x20' floating dock supported by four(4) 8"diameter piles
and 3"x10" cross-bracing to support the float a minimum of 30" off creek bottom.
Located: 790 Oak Street, Cutchogue.
Number 19, Shore Solutions, Inc., on behalf of PATRICIA A. COADY requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a 110 linear foot long by 4.5' high undulating rock revetment
upland of spring high water by excavating a 2' wide by 1' deep row to install toe stone 1'
below grade; lay filter fabric on existing slope; truck in 100 tons of quarry and core stone
and set into place; truck in 100 cubic yards of clean fill to add 6"to 8" of sand over stone
and cover with jute mesh and vegetate with American beach grass; and establish a 10'
wide non-turf, non-fertilizer dependent buffer along the landward edge of the rock
revetment. Located: 2625 Cedar Avenue, Southold.
Okay, the next item is item number three on page six, 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.
This is a carryover from the last meeting. At last month's meeting we heard
concerns of the neighbor for the proposed project. The project is deemed consistent with
the LWRP. The CAC was unable to get to Fishers Island for that inspection. The
Trustees are familiar with the site, having been there a number of times during the
course of the last several years because of homes having been moved back from the
bluff in prior seasons.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. JUST: Good evening, Glenn Just, JMO Consulting, for the applicant.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Glenn, do you have anything you want to add?We had
received the report from the neighbor Mrs. McNair, who is also here this evening, and I
know the Board members did have a chance to look at the report. Have you by any
chance been given a copy of that report at this point, or had an opportunity to review it?
MR. JUST: I got it; I did get it, yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm just wondering if you are in a position to comment on the
report at all or if you had a chance to talk to the engineers that helped you develop your
set of plans.
MR. JUST: I talked to the engineers, both Dick Strauss, the surveyor/engineer and the
folks that designed the plan. I have a few comments. I won't address them unless you
have a specific question.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: When I read the engineer's report, this is one of the things I
pulled out of it. It says the engineer is concerned with the southwest portion of the
Board of Trustees 13 April 26, 2014
revetment, and that's how this proposal will reduce or at a minimum not increase the rate
of erosion of the headlands of the property. Of her property.
MR. JUST: Do you have their photograph? It's on the front of the report.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, we do.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Do you mean the cover photograph of the engineer's report?
MR. JUST: This one.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Oh, okay.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: He's talking about the first page.
MR. JUST: This is the property line, right through here. There has been some erosion on
the adjacent property. The concern is will that happen over here.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right.
MR. JUST: The first thing is by not bringing that revetment to the tip of this little headway
there will be considerable erosion on this property. This is just going to further erode,
this is just going to continue to erode and there is already considerable erosion on this
property (inaudible). The suggestion of the report was to angle the revetment"x" amount of
feet away from the property line.
TRUSTEE KING: 15, 20 feet, something like that?
MR. JUST: Looking at this situation there, that's going to create a weak point.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: A weak point for your applicant?
MR. JUST: A weak point I think for both properties, in the long run. If that's not
protected, that headland is going to go,just like all the rest of the property in front of
Mr. Boswell and possibly Mr. McGillian's. I just think its a potential risk of
erosion at the end of the applicant's property, to further excavate the erosion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Although it's difficult for the record to reflect this, perhaps, to
rephrase what you're saying. What you're saying is if this fails, this section here, is the
likelihood is this headland is likely to go and this is scouring behind it. And the concern of
the engineer's report is of course any more movement northeast or easterly is also going
to be picking up. I guess the question is how do you serve both masters.
MR. JUST: Right. What we could do is we could either continue on the project and put that
revetment close to the property line. We could agree to monitor the situation by
survey, to see the amount of erosion, or I could put in a sacrificial sand dune at the toe
of that revetment, so if there is any question about sand moving down the beach, loss of sand
moving down the beach from the revetment, that could be used.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: What do you mean by sacrificial sand dune?
MR. JUST: Well, at the toe of that little point there, we could put a stock pile against the
revetment. And if the question of the sand dune moves east to west or west to east--
SECRETARY CANTRELL: Glenn, we don't have a transcriber.
MR. JUST: Sorry. Again, a sacrificial sand dune will be there, if the question is will this
revetment be cutting off the supply of sand that is nourishing the neighbor's beach, we
could put a sacrificial sand dune there to make up for that sand that might be lost and
we could monitor that. You know, where's the sand going.
But again, what it comes down to is that both of these houses, well, Mr.
McGillian's house has been moved once already. There is no place for it to retreat. And
if we have a storm, well, the magnitude that we had last year with Storm Sandy, it's going
to go. The house is going to go. There is no place to go with the house, legally.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I don't think there is any question that something needs to be
done. The key is to mitigate for your client and for the neighbor. That's the only question
that I have.
MR. JUST: Quite frankly, we are working with the neighbor to the east of Boswell, which
was approved last month. They want to toe in, get involved in putting in a revetment that
is going to toe in all three structures of properties. That's solutions for the neighbor to
tie in as well, in the long run. To leave that point there open, without protection, it's going
to go. When that goes, we have more and more bluff erosion. It's just a tough, tough
Board of Trustees 14 April 26, 2014
situation. (Inaudible) said that during that Storm Sandy, there is a buoy in Block Island
Sound that registered wave heights at nine meters during the top of the storm, at 12 to
13-second intervals. And if you look at the way the properties are situated, Boswell and
McGillian's are facing more to the south --
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Direct impact.
MR. JUST: (Continuing) and southeast, and the other property is more to the southwest.
So there is that little headland there, that's different. That's all I have data at the time,
if the Board has any questions.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are there any additional questions or concerns?Anyone else
who wishes to speak?
MS. MCNAIR: Cynthia McNair, I'm the adjacent property owner. I can't speak to what the
engineer stamped. But even as a layperson, it was second to the overall project, it was
one of the first things I wondered, because there is no indication on the drawings and so
on just exactly how this is supposed end on the McGillian property at that head there? I
don't think I should have to be the one to take all the risk here.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Are you in a position to try to tie in to your other neighbors and
what they're doing?Are you adverse to that?
MS. MCNAIR: I'm not in conflict, but I don't have the resources that either of the other
neighbors do. And it's, I don't know how to answer that. I mean, it's something that I've
thought about but I don't want to have to be forced into it just so John McGillian can, you
know, can protect his property at the extent of mine. I don't know how else to put it.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: All right. The key is whether or not it is going to be an adverse
effect on your home. And that's the question that really was not able to be teased out in
the engineer's report, or any of the other data that we were able to read. If there was
something that was direct evidence that, yes, this is something that would negatively
impact your property, that would lead me to question their goals. Does that make sense?
MS. MCNAIR: Yes. But I do think the edge there is a real problem and I think it should
be resolved before they start this. Because otherwise I can't count on trust, I don't mean any
offense to this gentleman, but to John McGillian, I know I can't trust anything he says or
has done. I mean, I don't mean to be unpleasant about it, but there is a long, long history.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's really not on point for the discussion here.We are
trying to accommodate the requirements of the erosion code.
MS. MCNAIR: I understand that.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I think a big issue is we cannot, it's a hypothetical situation in
terms of determining the data that would help all of us understand whether or not it
would have an adverse effect on your home. One thing I think one can easily understand
is that if nothing is done, there is dramatic danger to both of those other homes. That's
the one thing that kind of jumps out at me when I look at the data.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It appears also from the aerial photograph a similar storm
strength we've had with Irene and Sandy, the small point there looks to be at risk,
because there is already scouring on the other side of it. So it could very well be quite a
temporary feature. I'm wondering if a detailed plan for that proximal area, including some
of the notions in your engineer's report, possibly with sacrificial sand, I don't know, use of
sand cubes or some other material, to be part and parcel to a sacrificial element that
would absorb some of the energy. Because if we delay on a project, with storm season
approaching, we could be potentially back here looking at houses in the water, you have
lost everything and are set back. And we may end up with a coastal line which resembles
your neighbors. That's why I think we are trying a notion of an accord. You know, the
applicant has offered to provide some sand and some monitoring. I'm wondering if we
could move in that direction quickly to get a revised plan or meeting of the engineers to
move on something quickly that at least you'll have some protection and additional
material that will be buffeting the high-energy waves that will be there regardless. A nine
meter wave is probably a 28 1/2 to 29 foot wave. There is not much that can stop it, but
Board of Trustees 15 April 26, 2014
an offer to do some monitoring and put some sand out there seems like a reasonable
approach, and if we could get a set of plans that would show that specific area of the
property, maybe the engineers can talk to each other.We are not design professionals
but it sounds like time is of the essence for this application.
MS. MCNAIR: I have no problem if the engineer's talk about it but I still don't see how
that edge there, seeing how it drops off like that, how the McGillian project isn't going to
do anything but damage my property. Maybe there is something that can be worked out. I'm
not, you know, I understand why they want to do this but--
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I think the question is whether or not it really is going to damage
your property. And it's all hypothetical. That's the struggle I'm having. If that makes any
sense. And what they are proposing I think is a good -- is appropriate.
MS. MCNAIR: Well, I don't know what to say to that. I don't know what you mean.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Well, an appropriate alternative, in terms of the additional sand.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I think we probably don't have any new information
here. I think we have sized it up quite well. And I appreciate your engineer's report. It
was very detailed. I think it provides some valid information. Are there any other
questions from the Trustees?Any other questions or thoughts?Any additional
comments?
(Negative response).
All right, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Noting that we do have the engineer's report in the record, I
would move to approve this application, subject to the submission of a plan revision
showing a detailed sand reinforcing and the sacrificial sand placement on the common
property line, with a scheduled monitoring that would detail monitoring that sand and
erosion in that location. Does anyone have anything to add to that thought?
TRUSTEE KING: Maintain the amount of sand there that does get lost.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, and to maintain a sufficient amount of sand that is on the
initial revised plan for that location. Possibly employ, I'm not a design engineer, but talk
to the design engineers, possibly, the sacrificial elements that might absorb more energy
behind it, like sand cubes or sand tube, so that the initial sand in play, the stuff behind, if
we are talking about wave heights that are both characterized by both what you've said
and Ms. McNair's engineering report, it's inevitable there will be a tremendous amount of
energy.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: When would you be monitoring and for how long.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A question about monitoring and how long. Annual
monitoring. Does that seem reasonable?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: It does to me.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Annual monitoring in the spring, post-winter, typically you
have some settling conditions. Annual monitoring for at least three years.
MS. MCNAIR: Annual monitoring --
MS. HULSE: Ma'am, I'm sorry, there's a motion on the table.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is a motion and the hearing has been closed. This
discussion is actually amongst the Board. We are trying to move with some degree of
succinctness. We want to really get this down.
So three successive springs.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I agree with that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, so we'll end up with a plan with sacrificial sand,
monitoring for three successive springs.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'm good with that. I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 16 April 26, 2014
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS
TRUSTEE KING: Under Wetland Permits, number one, 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.
This is found consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council
resolved to not support the application, the CAC does not support the application
because the dock is not staked. The CAC made the observation there is potential for
serious drainage problems if the property is developed.
MR. FITZGERALD: James Fitzgerald, and I represent Roger Praetorius.
SECRETARY CANTRELL: We don't have our transcriber today. So that's the problem,
we need to make sure everyone speaks into the microphone and states their name.
MR. FITZGERALD: I will speak into Mr. King's microphone because he is down here.
Okay.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: That's fine. Come over to my mic and I'll use theirs.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. It was staked.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm familiar with this. This is identical to--
MR. FITZGERALD: Indeed it is. It expired for reasons beyond our control, and it's
exactly the same project that you previously approved.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just trying to review something here. It was found consistent the
previous time, but I don't see anything from the CAC from the first go around. They
evidently didn't look at it the first time, the CAC.
MR. YOUNG: We looked at it in March, it was not staked.
TRUSTEE KING: Of this year. This was 2011, there was an application for a dock, it was
approved, but the permit expired. So now they are re-applying for the identical thing that
was already approved.
Are there any other comments on this application?
(No response).
Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application. It's identical to the
previous application, as submitted.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number two, Twin Fork Landscape Contracting, Inc. on behalf of
ROY& DAWN WARD requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built 4'x55' fixed dock; a
4'x10' ramp; a 6'x38' float, and a 6'x14' float; for the as-built 18'x50' patio with a 118sq.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.
REVISED DESCRIPTION AS OF 4/11/2014:
For the as-built 4'x55' fixed dock; install a 3'x15' ramp; install a floating dock to be no
larger than 120sq.ft. with two (2) proposed 10"diameter float piles; for the three (3)
existing piles; add electric and water facilities to the dock; for the as-built 18'x50' patio
Board of Trustees 17 April 26, 2014
with a 118sq.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.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be, the original description, to be
inconsistent, because the float, the 6'x32', whereas the new application, the new
description, the float is 6'x20'. The CAC voted to not support this application. The
Trustees, on their field inspection on the 16th, and noted there was a light which was not
on the application. It should be added to the description. Is there anyone here to speak
to this application?
MR. FABB: Yes. Jonathan Fabb, Twin Fork Landscape Contracting on behalf of the
Ward residence.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Sir, could you address the issue about the light?
MR. FABB: Yes, to get this thing moving forward, either we can remove it or we can
have John Ehlers put it on the survey. It must have been overlooked from his original. I
had been working with John because we changed the configuration multiple times. So I
think it was something that was simply overlooked.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I don't know if the Trustees want to remove this or add it to the
description.
MR. FABB: Whatever the Board wants, at this point.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was a minor issue.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes.
MR. FABB: That light is on the existing 6x14 when you come down the ramp? Is that
where that light is located? Because that's being removed. Or was it on the the 38'float?
TRUSTEE KING: I think so.
MR. FABB: Okay. I might have missed it, too. It must have been pretty insignificant.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's alongside the dock.
MR. FABB: On the 38' side?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes, sir.
MR. FABB: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else to speak to this application?
(No response).
Hearing no further questions or comments, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted, with the
addition of the light on the fixed dock.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As in the revised description.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Right.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This application -- you are voting it as in the revised
description, as a point of clarification, right?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Exactly.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So as revised. Is there a second on that?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. FABB: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Next is number three, under Wetland Permits, 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
Board of Trustees 18 April 26, 2014
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.
The LWRP, according to Chapter 268 Waterfront and Conservation Review of the
Town of Southold, they find it inconsistent. There's a whole litany of things here. I'm not
going to read them all. The CAC resolved to support the application of Diane and Dennis
Harkoff to reconstruct the 4x136 dock, et cetera. Is there anybody here to speak on
behalf of the applicant?
MR. JUST: Good evening, Glenn Just, JMO Consulting, for the applicant.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: You are waiting for us to have questions?
MR. JUST: Yes.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I have a couple of questions. The floating dock is currently 6x24,
but our code is 6x20.
MR. JUST: I think at the last meeting we might have discussed that, you said we'll
reduce the size of that float to conform with the requirements of the code.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay. Then the other question was the two dual pilings, instead
of just two pilings, you have two separate pilings on each section.
MR. JUST: I've talked to Trustee King about this at great length and we've agreed that
we could go with the two piles as long as they are of good size, and then at the seaward end
where there is no vegetated marsh, have three piles across the front, at the seaward end of
the fixed dock, just to secure it.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: So you'd have your three piles where?
MR. JUST: Well, at issue the plans have three piles, the width of the dock, the whole length
of the dock.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay.
MR. JUST: And what we've discussed is moving the center pile that would run down the
extent of the fixed dock and have the two piles on the outer edge, and at the end of the
fixed dock at the vegetated wetlands, have two piles across that.
TRUSTEE KING: This is what they've proposed. Three pile bents.We're only going
to use two. But at the very seaward end, you put three across. But the rest of it is all
two-pile bents. So we need a new set of plans showing the two-pile vents and the three
piles at the seaward end. And, Glenn, I would suggest making that ramp 20 feet long
instead of, I think it's 16 now.
MR. JUST: Is that the landward?
TRUSTEE KING: No, the ramp to the float. The 3x16 ramp, make it 3x20. It just makes
the angle that much less. Because you know, you have a big tidal range at that creek. You
have five-and-a-half foot. It's not going to change the length of anything, it just puts it a
little further out on the float.
MR. JUST: I appreciate that.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Anybody else here to speak on behalf of the applicant on this
file?
TRUSTEE KING: And that's untreated decking on the catwalk.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Anybody else on the Board?
(No response).
Okay, I have a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. Do we have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
(ALL IN FAVOR).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: This is where I want to make sure I get this right. We want to do
a motion to approve the application as amended, correct? Is that the correct
terminology?
So I'll make a motion to approve the application as amended, with the condition of new
plans.
Board of Trustees 19 April 26, 2014
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. New plans showing those two-pile bents, three piles at the
seaward end of the fixed dock and a 20-foot rather than a 16-foot ramp to the float. And
a 6x20 float. And that would bring him into consistency because now the float size is
according to our code.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. I just want to thank you folks again for last month,
taking care of me, with the situation last month. I can't be more grateful.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You're very welcome. How is everything going?
MR. JUST: Cancer free.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Wonderful.
Our next item, number four, 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.
REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AS OF 4/14/14:
To remove existing platform structure from existing dock, remove existing wooden
decking and replace with open-grating style decking and adding any additional support
framing for grating as needed; completely remove existing catwalk and construct a 2' x
+/-43'6" in new location using open-grating style decking and 4"x4" posts; and attach
existing platform onto seaward end of catwalk. Located: 570 Hippodrome Drive, Southold.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application?
MS. POWERS: I'm Eileen Powers, for the applicant.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You've honored all our requests to bring the structure into
conformance. I don't believe there are any questions. Is there anyone who has any
questions on this?
(No response).
MS. POWERS: I just wanted to note, I know you are aware of this because you returned
my telephone call, but we are taking the 19' catwalk and making it a 48' catwalk in order
to comply with the standards which you've seen, since this dock is there for at least 30
years, continuously in place, taking a small dock and making it a bigger structure--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We don't always write provisions of the code. It is really not
our position here when we are actually considering matters to discuss or justify the code,
but it's interesting actually that the upgrade that you have offered will provide probably
more net light for the marsh. So in trade, the fixed catwalk with the solid decking is
probably reducing some of the productivity in the marsh. And specifically also where this
code provisions and the neighbor has pointed out the fact that there was a question of
the property line set off, I guess it's bad form and I know our attorney doesn't like when we
talk like this, but the fact is, is that if we were doing this on a strictly environmental basis,
it's probably a wash. We probably have about the same amount of penetrations in the
marsh, we are letting a lot more light in, we've been able to maintain access, we also
have been honoring our code and we are also honoring the neighbors.
MS. POWERS: The alternative is allowing my client to replace the decking with treated
(inaudible).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's my understanding the Board felt that the standards in
contrast to what the initial application was, and that's what we requested, and we
appreciate the fact that you did make that amendment.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would also like to note that I did a Google search and went back
to 1984, and the dock has not been in continuous existence. There is a stretch in there
when it was a visibly different configuration.
Board of Trustees 20 April 26, 2014
MS. POWERS: I would love to sit down and go over that with you. I did call Mark Terry
following our last meeting here because the first thing you read was a letter from Mark
from the LWRP noting that the dock was constructed some time after 2004, and I know
there was a permit in existence in 1986. My client has owned the property since 1987,
has maintained the dock, and the dock has been there in the same location consistently
since 1987. 1 specifically asked her if there was a storm event that remove the dock prior to
Sandy. They consistently repaired and replaced inplace. I called Mark and asked him where
he got his information. He said, oh, you know, Google. We went over it and then he backed
off his assertion and acknowledged that the 2004 map that he looked at, he could not be
sure. And it is a bad map. You can't really say one way or the other. But you can clearly
see that there is at least a cut out for the dock if the dock isn't there. But he can't say
one way or the other. I asked him, I wanted to come down and meet with him, and he
said it was not necessary, that he acknowledged he couldn't say based on those
photographs whether the dock was there or not. I don't know what you're looking at--
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We'll have to agree to disagree and just leave it at that. I looked at
it, it did not exist in that or in the previously configuration for the period of time, there
were pallets or logs in place so someone could roll a kayak or canoe down, so that's
what I saw. It is clear. I'll meet with you some time and show you. But let's not extend
this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ms. Powers, also the Trustees in discussing it at work
session, the creek in that location is extremely shallow. We don't feel this is a location
for large vessels.We're asking for a vessel limitation of 14 feet or less.
MS. POWERS: My client will not object to that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I think that sums up our requests of you. Thank you,
very much. Any additional comments or questions?
(No response).
If not, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I would make a motion to approve this application as submitted, with the stipulation a
vessel no longer than 14 feet be, as revised. I would move to approve this application as
revised and submitted, with a stipulation no vessels larger than 14 feet be at the dock;
the open grating and the new location on the revised plan bringing this application into
consistency with the LWRP. So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number five, Eileen A. Powers, Esq. on behalf of RICHARD
BLICKMAN request a Wetland Permit for the as-built concrete seawall which is ±180
linear feet in length and ranges in width from ±0.75 to ±4.5 linear feet; install capping
along the top of the eastern ±105' section of the seawall; re-vegetate a minimum area of
80sq.ft. with native wetland vegetation to be located seaward of the central portion of
the existing seawall; re-vegetate 100sq.ft. of an upland area located landward of the
southwestern portion of the existing seawall using native species; re-vegetate 100sq.ft.
of an upland planting area located landward of the northeastern portion of existing
seawall using native species; and re-vegetate 100sq.ft. of upland planting area located
landward of the central portion of the existing seawall. Located: 15345 Route 25, East
Marion.
The LWRP coordinator found this inconsistent and consistent. The inconsistent
part is the as-built concrete seawall. It was built without the benefit of Trustee review.
The consistent part of it is the re-vegetation. This project ended up with a violation, I
Board of Trustees 21 April 26, 2014
believe, from DEC and from the Town on this construction. Is there anyone here to
speak on behalf of or against this application?
MS. POWERS: Eileen Powers, for the applicant. This did originate with a violation from
the Town Trustees,which we resolved in Southold Justice Court. We paid a fine. We
also brought the application to the Department of Environmental Conservation and I
submitted the order of consent with respect to that. They did approve the remaining,
allowing the seawall to remain as built, and also authorized my client to cap the
remaining portion of the unfinished wall, with the understanding that he take the
re-vegetation plan that they set forth and included wetland re-vegetation and also some
upland planting. And then as you know, how we discussed it in a work session, we went
out there on inspection last week, and we agreed to an additional re-vegetation in I guess
that would be the northeast corner of the property. My client did put hay bales in,
although I'm not positive the hay bales were put in exactly the location you guys wanted.
Did you have a chance to go out and look?
TRUSTEE KING: I'm looking at the survey. It looks like they put them where we wanted
them.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think I have what you mean.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay.
MS. POWERS: Okay, so we'll have those moved to the location on the surrey.
Obviously I had a different understanding than our environmental consultant. So they'll
be put in the correct spot. And that extra planting or re-vegetation will also be completed.
And as we discussed at the inspection, the DEC extended our deadline to June 1 st, so if
we get approval here we should go and get the planting underway and get this project
finished. I did speak with two of the neighbors who called me by way of the notice and
both of them told me they were not going to object to it, they just wanted to discuss the
project.
TRUSTEE KING: I think some of that wall was already existing.
MS. POWERS: The wall, the entirety of the length of the wall was already existing. It
was also a cement seawall. My client had lived here and essentially had the wall
replaced inkind/inplace. There was one, small, triangular portion that was clear four feet
seaward of the original wall, the small triangular area, so that was the reasoning the
DEC requested that wetland remediation, because of that one, small, triangular portion.
But otherwise the wall is exactly in place. They also took out a lot of brush, so that's--
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone to speak on behalf of or against this application?
(No response).
Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Any comments from the Board?
(No response).
We all went out and looked at it. We requested additional plantings in that northeast
corner along with what the DEC had requested, so we did a little more than the DEC.
We are consistent with the DEC on the other plantings, and we also have the additional
cleaning in that corner. So I would make a motion to approve this as submitted, with the
additional plantings, and I think by doing more restoration, brings it more into compliance
with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number six, 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
Board of Trustees 22 April 26, 2014
patio, 5' wide walkways around pool, and associated pool fencing. Located: 2200 Sound
Drive, Greenport.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. He cited a previous 1986
ZBA variance for a construction of the pool, noting that the application of 18x40 sized
does not comply with recent changes to the code that require the Trustees be cognizant
of any danger and the structure should be at a maximum distance from the coastal
hazard areas. This application does not match that. The CAC voted to support this
application. The Trustees' most recent visit to this site was on March 12th, 2014,
requested to downsize the pool to 15x36', and move the pool closer to the existing
covered porch. Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MS. MILLNER: Yes. Eve Millner, from Swim King Pools, and the homeowner is here as
well.
MS. HULSE: Could you keep your voice up, please, ma'am?
MS. MILLNER: Sure. Since we were last here, the homeowner and I discussed and we
made changes and submitted them to the Board, exactly as it was granted in 1986. We
changed the pool size to an 18x36. We also changed the walkway around the pool
closer to the top of the bluff; instead of five feet, we made it three-feet away. It was
granted in 1986 from ZBA at 30-feet from the top of the bluff, and we now changed it to
33 feet away from the top of the bluff, with the walkway being 30 feet or not in the
coastal erosion line. We showed where the pool equipment is going to be. The others,
we couldn't change anything with the walkway closest to the screened patio, because
the screened patio is a structure that has columns and cement, and it's part of the
house. I think those are all the changes that we made.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Ms. Millner, I have a question. This Board had asked for an
engineer's report, which you referenced in your letter of the 16th, and we asked for an
engineer's report concerning the possible loading on the bluff due to the potential
construction of this pool. I note in the file a test hole data sheet, but I don't see anything
addressing the question of loading.
MS. MILLNER: I had Lab Crew Engineering, Chris Leboeuf, he did an engineer's report,
and I submitted it after the last hearing we had. Prior to that last hearing. And his
determination, that based upon geo-science, the test hole that he found the soil to be
suitable for the construction. And so I have another copy of it with me, but it's in the
report that was submitted not this past meeting, but the meeting prior. And we did that
because that is what was requested on February 19th. It was requested, and so we
received it on March 4th. This letter is to certify the swimming pool design. Do you need
a copy?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes, I do. I cannot find it in the file.
MS. MILLNER: So on February 19th when I was here and the Trustees asked for an
engineer report and a test hole, and it was tabled. On March 19th when I came in here, I
had all that information. But we still did make changes. That was sent via e-mail the first
day that I got it, then it was mailed to Amanda in the Trustees department.
MS. HULSE: Can we have this form?Would you like a copy?
MS. MILLNER: I'm sure I have another copy in the office. And I can always get another
copy from the engineer.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll note that we have a report from Lab Crew Engineering dated
March 4th that references the suitability of the soil for bearing capacity. Are there any
other questions or comments from the Board?
(No response).
MS. MILLNER: I also submitted the new location of the pool showing the smaller sized
pool with the smaller walkway, if you need a copy of that.
TRUSTEE KING: Last time we talked about narrowing this to 15 instead of
18. Here is the top of bluff here.
(Inaudible).
Board of Trustees 23 April 26, 2014
MS. MILLNER: The water's edge will be 33 from the top of the bluff, at its closest point.
But the top of the bluff kind of bends a little bit.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I want to note on the record that by shortening, reducing the
walkway near the top of the bluff, did not make an attempt to move this closer to the
screened patio as per the request at the previous hearing. And to address our concerns
about the distance from the top of the bluff.
MR. SADIK: My name is Luan Sadik, I'm the owner of the property at 2200 Sound Drive.
I understand with regard to moving it closer to the screen, and I would do so. But the
problem is that people will get hurt. There are columns that are holding up the roof, that
are holding the structure of the roof. It's not just removing screens. That's not my issue.
It's the columns. If people, a five-foot walkway, a handicap accessibility is four feet. When
you bring it to four feet to accommodate you guys, I understand that. But again, I can't
go any further than that without anybody being hurt walking around the pool.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would like to ask a question. Is it possible we could get,
since we only now got that engineer's verification, we did see in your prior
communications alluding to it, is it possible we could get an original stamped copy for
the record? I think the primary concern of the Board is the soils loading, because I think
as we explained at the last public hearing, that since the original Zoning Board
determination for this property, it's come to light in a number of determinations,
particularly by the Zoning Board, of concerns over soils loading in close proximity to The
Sound, in line of changing environmental conditions. So if we could just get that as an
original for the file.
MS. MILLNER: Absolutely.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The only thing I'm thinking about is we do have the regulation of
50-feet away for any structure. And that's the one thing that makes me wonder if the
pool can be modified. You have 18x36, correct? If you reduce the 18 feet, you still get it
a little further away without coming too close to the screened porch.
MR. SADIK: I already reduced it two feet.
TRUSTEE KING: I think that's what we had talked about originally.
MR. SADIK: I already reduced it another five feet off the bluff. It was permitted for 30.
I'm down to like 35 now.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: You are permitted for a pool, but the issue is still you are--
MR. SADIK: I understand that. But I'm just telling you, you asked me to reduce it, and I
have reduced it. I reduced it already by three feet for the walkway. Now I reduced the
pool to 33 feet.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: We aren't worried about that. We are worried about this.
MR. SADIK: You are talking about the width, not the length.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Yes.
MR. SADIK: And that's exactly what' I've done. We are talking I already moved it, it's
gone back to the screen porch by one foot. Now I have four feet to the screen porch.
Then we have off the bluff another 34 feet. So you are talking about 35 feet from the
pool to the bluff.
MS. HULSE: The minimum setback as to the code is 50 feet. That's what the issue is.
MR. SADIK: I understand that. If I could move the house.
MS. HULSE: The problem is this Board is not a board of variance. They have to follow
the code.
MS. MILLNER: Right. But the Zoning Board of Appeals in 1986, it used to be 100 feet.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I know. And that's a struggle when you have laws that extend
back in time, when you have to create the new laws, it's to help the future. That's the
primary issue.
MR. SADIK: I think the primary issue was for the cliff not to collapse or be a reserve,
which we have done, correct. Which we have brought all the necessary information for
Board of Trustees 24 April 26, 2014
you.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: There is really two things going on. There is that. We obviously
don't want you to build a pool and have it end up in The Sound.
MR. SADIK: Obviously I don't want my cliff to fall off. My property is worth a lot of
money.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is it within your capability to make it 15 feet? I think that was
the original thought. We wanted to reduce both mass and volume in this pool. We are
still greatly concerned about it.
MR. SADIK: In other words you are concerned about the 15x36 pool?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You requested 1806.
MR. SADIK: How about we do 15x40 and keep my length.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't have a problem with that.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: It would increase the volume by weight of water, but it gets it
away from the bluff.
We are trying to--we want you to have a pool. I mean, if I had your house, I
would want to have a pool there. Honestly.
MR. SADIK: I understand. And I can deal with 15x40.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else to address this application?
(No response).
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 with a change in the
dimension of the pool to 15x40' at the location four-feet from the screen patio.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Four feet or five feet? It's currently at five.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I have four. I'll say five, if you want.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: In terms of safety from the screened porch, I agree with him on
that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right. The motion is to approve dimensions change to 15x40', to
getting five-feet from the screened-in patio.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With the submission of and subject to new plans.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: With the submission of new plans.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, the motion has been made.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. SADIK: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, En-Consultants on behalf of JOSEPH B. MOISA, JR.
requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 180 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead
in place of existing timber bulkhead; construct two (2) 10' vinyl returns; and backfill with
approximately 20 cubic yards of clean sand/loam fill to be trucked in from an approved
upland source. Located: 1225 Westview Drive, Mattituck.
This is found consistent with the LWRP. And he suggests the Board requires a
vegetated non-turf buffer be installed landward of the bulkhead. The CAC resolved to
support the application as it was submitted. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of
or against this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. This is a
pretty straightforward application to replace an existing timber bulkhead in the same
location with vinyl bulkhead. Both of the adjoining properties have been previously
permitted by the Board to replace timber with vinyl. And those adjacent walls are shown
on the survey and the plans.
Board of Trustees 25 April 26, 2014
TRUSTEE KING: I went out and looked at this. It's on the east side of Mattituck Creek,
one of the earlier developments. And the bulkhead has just lived its long life. It's shot. I know
the owners, I've spent some time talking to them. We'd like to see a 15-foot non-turf buffer.
And in my discussions with the owners, Mrs. Moisa was very concerned because she doesn't
like the idea of just sand or gravel. And I told her, plant it with American beach grass. She
was very happy with that suggestion. So I don't think we have to make it part of the permit to
require her to plant. But I don't think she realized she could plant it with American beach
grass. So I don't know which way to go with it,just say 15-foot non-turf buffer or 15-foot non-
turf buffer planted with American beach grass.
MR. HERRMANN: I don't think I addressed the buffer. What I was trying to see, Jim, is I
was trying to see what, I remember thinking about this and it just looks in my rush to get
everything filed, I never got back to it. I know there were buffers that were required on
both of the adjoining properties. And I don't remember whether they were ten or 15.
TRUSTEE KING: She was happy with 15. The one to the south is much more than that.
It's a huge, sandy area. It's probably 25 or 30 feet.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay. Well, I mean, if you discussed this with the owner.
TRUSTEE KING: I have. I've known her for many, many years.
MR. HERRMANN: Then that's all that matters. I'll just give you a revised plan for the 15
feet.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else have any comments on this project?
(No response).
Being none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with a 15-foot non-turf
buffer planted with American beach grass.
MR. HERRMANN: Jim, before you completely close that, you had just previously said
that she would have the option to plant it, but I think if you condition it to be planted, then
it will be a covented condition, so I would just ask you to consider whether you really
want to include that.
TRUSTEE KING: Let me withdraw that motion and I'll make a motion to approve with a
15-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion withdrawn, new motion made. Do I have a second to
that motion?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Just relay to her that she can plant it, not that she can't. There was a
misunderstanding on her part.
MR. HERRMANN: I understand. Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Great.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number eight, En-Consultants on behalf of STRONG'S MARINE
INLET, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 24'x32' pool pavilion (covered and
unenclosed)with (2) attached 14'x20' pergolas, (2) enclosed 10'x15' changing areas,
and a 10'x28' pool equipment storage shed. Located: 2255 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck.
The LWRP has found this to be consistent. The CAC has also resolved to support
this application. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of the applicant?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of Strong's Marine LLC.
Jeff Strong, managing member of the LLC and owner of the property, is also here.
As I'm sure the Board is well aware that the former Matt-A-Mar Marina and the
current ownership has been in the process now of basically revitalizing this commercial
Board of Trustees 26 April 26, 2014
site. I'm happy to hear that the LWRP coordinator had recommended a determination of
consistency because I wrote a pretty longwinded LWRP application, because we actually
hit a lot of the policies in the LWRP that speak not only to the maintenance and
revitalization of these type properties in the Town of Southold, but within this area of
Mattituck Creek specifically. So this would almost be perceived really as a target site by
the LWRP for these kinds of efforts in the Marine-2 zone. There is an existing swimming
pool that is located on the property. This application does not speak to the pool but to
the proposed pool pavilion, which is going to be a completely unenclosed structure--
roofed structure, but unenclosed, with no walls, with two completely open pergolas on
either side of it. There is an existing pool equipment shed that basically sits sort of in the
middle of the property, middle of the view of the adjacent waterway from the restaurant
that's being proposed, to be relocated. That is not part of our application because it is
actually outside of, the existing shed is outside of the Board's jurisdiction, so it's not
proposed as part of our project description. But just for context, the site plan does
indicate that existing shed will be removed and the new shed is being located over here
much closer to the swimming pool and in association with these other structures.
Other than that shed, the only enclosed components here are the two changing
stations. These are not stations that contain bathroom facilities or any sort of plumbing.
They are really just dry stations for people to be able to change clothes with some
privacy in that area.
With respect to any potential for runoff, there is a storm drain system, two
eight-foot diameter by three-foot effective depth drainage pools that are proposed and
indicated on the site plan. And that's really it. If the Board has any questions, again, Jeff
is here, the engineer, to answer them.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Good project. Anybody else care to speak to this application?
TRUSTEE KING: Nope.We were all there.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMYER: The next application, number nine, En-Consultants on behalf
of PATRICIA GILCHRIST MANCINO requests a Wetland Permit to demolish and
remove existing 6'x44' porch and associated wood landing and steps and construct a
new 8'x53' roofed over porch and 4'x6' landing with 4'x11' steps; and install a drainage
system of gutters to leaders to drywells to collect roof runoff from existing 2-1/2 story
dwelling. Located: 15 Fourth Street, New Suffolk.
The project has been determined to be exempt from the LWRP. The project was
inspected by Trustee Bergen who found no difficulties with the proposal as submitted.
The CAC supported the application however the property illegally blocks public access
and the seawall groin has destroyed the end of Fourth Street, which has accelerated
erosion to the east. The CAC recommends a narrow walkway along the seawall to allow
for public access in accordance with the public trust doctrine. With respect to that
comment on the CAC there is a staff meeting within Town Hall this next Monday evening
of different departments because the Town has a plan to amend the road end and to
diminish the infringements on the right of public access and the public trust doctrine who
in the process of trying to have discussions with the Mancino's that are, at this point, is
open, but the Town has a DEC permit and the requirement is to remove the concrete
material. So the CAC comments in a sense are already being taken into consideration at
Board of Trustees 27 April 26, 2014
higher levels of Town government. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the owners of the
property. Really, if you have any questions, I can answer them. It's a pretty
straightforward application. It's a project that proposes a reconstruction and quite
enlargement of an existing porch that is just about outside the Board's jurisdiction. It has
received approval from the ZBA which is required not because of the bulkhead setback
but because of the existing side setback to the Goggins property next door. Again, there
is a covenanted buffer on the property. That would be maintained. If the Board has any
questions, I can certainly address them.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's pretty straightforward. And hopefully we'll be able to
move forward with those amendments to the road and abutting property. So, I don't think
there are any questions. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application?
Any questions or comments?
(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.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: If we could take a five-minute recess.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We'll take a five-minute recess.
(After a recess, these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, we'll reopen the meeting. I don't believe we have any
matters that require the attorney for the foreseeable next couple of items on the agenda.
Next item?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number ten, Nicholas Johnson on behalf of LORRI
SHACKELFORD requests a Wetland Permit to remove all sod (±8,OOOsq.ft.) previously
installed in the non-turf buffer area and install 66 cubic yards of organic, non-treated
mulch in a 2" layer in the non-turf buffer area; establish and subsequently maintain a 25'
side non-turf buffer area no further than 25' off of seaward side of dwelling; establish and
subsequently maintain a Non-Disturbance buffer area seaward of the non-turf buffer
area and no further than 50' off of seaward side of dwelling to edge of wetlands; install
approximately 657 linear feet of 4' high black iron fencing separating the non-turf buffer
area and the Non-Disturbance buffer area; and install six (6) 8'-10' tall Juniperus
virginiana 10' on center along the northeast side of property. Located: 4370 Moores
Lane, Cutchogue.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent, noting that two permits
were issued in the past, 1992 and 1999, for the construction of a single-family residence.
Both permits required a 50-foot buffer to mitigate the construction due to the severe
environmental constraints in Down's Creek. The CAC voted to support this application.
The Trustees most recently visited this site on April 16th, and there were no comments.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. JOHNSON: Nicholas Johnson, on behalf of Lord Shackelford. If there are any
questions from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No questions. And thank you, for your cooperation. You
have been a regular in the office, I know, in trying to work with us.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application?
Board of Trustees 28 April 26, 2014
(No response).
Hearing no further questions or comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted, noting
that the re-vegetation plan and non-turf buffer and mulch will address the issues as will
address the inconsistency.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number eleven, WILLIAM & PATRICIA MOORE request a Wetland
Permit to remove existing platform and stairs and construct a 10'x10' wood platform at
top of bank with a set of 4'x6' steps to a 4'x4' landing with 4'x9' steps to bottom of bank,
using flow-through material for steps; install a kayak rack onto lower stairs; add
approximately 100 cubic yards of clean fill to restore bank, re-grade and stabilize slope;
re-vegetate with natural vegetation along bank and install a 10'wide non-turf landscaped
buffer along top of bank; install an egress window into the existing 43.4'x30.4' one story
dwelling with attached 27.5'x14' deck; and for the existing 11.3'x19.4' detached garage.
Located: 850 Ruch Lane, Greenport.
The LWRP found this to be consistent. The CAC supports the application with the
condition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer be depicted on the survey.
Is there anyone to speak on behalf of or against this application?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore, on behalf of the applicant. The project description was
changed. I just want to make sure that is read into the record.
TRUSTEE KING: It's been downsized quite a bit.
MS. MOORE: It's been downsized, yes. I'm going to need more money and time and
energy towards the plantings, so. The rest of the structures are existing, they pre-date
the Trustees'jurisdiction. We just added it to the permit so they'd be permitted. If
you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE KING: Just for a little clarification on exactly what's going to be done here,
Pat, compared to what was in this description,just to clarify things a little bit.
MS. MOORE: Sure. No problem. There are now some steps from the top of the bank
down to the bottom of the bank. Not the platform. We are eliminating the platform. So
the steps are three-feet-- excuse me, the steps go to a 3x4 landing, and then the 4x7
steps, another 4x4 landing, to a 4x10 steps. They have to be three feet above grade for
DEC purposes, so they have to be somewhat elevated. I'll try to attach kayak to the
steps so with some kind of a rack system. I need approximately 100 yards of clean fill to
restore the bank and regrade and stabilize that slope. And I plan to plant it with natural
vegetation along the bank and up through the ten-foot non-turf landscape buffer at the
top of the bank. So there are now dilapidated stairs there that I have to remove, and
everything else is existing. There is an existing house, existing deck, and an existing
garage. It's within 100 feet of jurisdiction. There is also a proposed egress window well
that I have to put on one of the side windows. And that's just for egress. I have a
description that is written out that should be in your file. But if you need another.
TRUSTEE KING: We have the new drawings.
MS. MOORE: You have the new drawings?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. I think we have everything. And this is open-grate decking on the
treads?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: That's nice. Okay, any other comments from anybody?
(No response).
Board of Trustees 29 April 26, 2014
Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Any Board comments?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Just that this does not reflect--
TRUSTEE KING: This has been completely downsized.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay. I just wanted to be sure.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay. I'll make a motion to approve this as its been submitted, with the
new description.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number 12, Michael Kimack on behalf of CYNTHIA&JOSEPH
SCHAFER requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the porch/deck on the existing two
story dwelling; demolish existing detached garage; raise the dwelling and construct a
687.6sq.ft. two-story addition on the landward side; construct an attached
two-story,1-car garage on the westerly side; and construct a +/-562sq.ft. covered porch
with two sets of steps to ground on seaward side of dwelling. Located: 1030 West Lake
Drive, Southold.
The LWRP deemed this to be consistent, as well as the CAC resolved to support
it. Is there anybody here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. KIMACK: Mike Kimack on behalf of the applicant. In a general statement, the house
basically would be moved while the piling structure is replaced, raising the house to a
14-foot elevation on the first floor. And then put back in place and the additional pilings
would be put in place on the north side (inaudible). And on the northern boundary of the
property, on the eastern side of the boundary will be a retaining wall raising that portion
of the property to a ten-foot elevation in order to incorporate the newly-designed septic
system. That's the south side of the east side (inaudible).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Anybody else here to speak on behalf of the applicant?
TRUSTEE KING: Did he say he's raising the grade?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Can you repeat what you said regarding the grade?
MR. KIMACK: The grade, basically, on the northeast corner of the property, Jim, is
where the retaining wall is being placed and we are going to raise the grade up to a ten
in order to accommodate the new septic system, because of the high ground water.
TRUSTEE KING: How much fill is being brought in?
MR. KIMACK: On that particular one, I'm saying an average of two feet across there.
Probably, the elevation looks to be about 35. Probably a couple thousand square foot in
there, at an average of two foot. So 4,000 divided 27, you'll probably have about 600-700
yards.
TRUSTEE KING: That should be part of the permit, bringing in fill.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Yes?
MR. SCHAFER: Hi, my name is Joseph Schafer, I'm the homeowner. When I spoke to
the engineer and the architect, and the gentlemen who I choose to use to install the
system, they all had an average of about 800 and no more. So I would rather give you
the higher number.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay.
MR. KIMACK: Mine was a quick, off the cuff calculation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do we have an engineer review by the Town Engineer on
the runoff on this one?
MR. KIMACK: The stormwater has been approved.
MR. SCHAFER: The answer would be yes. On the plan that we had provided at the
hearing date he had an additional drywell and it has a special cover on it because of the
driveway area location.
Board of Trustees 30 April 26, 2014
MR. KIMACK: It's reinforced within the driveway. But that permit has already been
received also, the storm water permit.
TRUSTEE KING: Just put that in the description, 800 cubic yards of fill to be delivered.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Other than that, I didn't have any questions.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is there anybody else here to speak on behalf of the applicant?
(No response).
Any further comments from the Board?
(No response).
All right. I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve, with the amendment of 800 cubic
yards of fill to be added to the application. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 13, 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.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application?
(No response).
Is there anyone here for Chris Mohr?
(No response).
This project has been deemed to be consistent under the LWRP. The Trustees have
been out several times, having requested additional staking. The CAC supported the
application with the condition of a formal site plan is submitted for the project. We
actually have a formal site plan, two sets of surveys showing the property and the stairs
in relation to The Sound and the Town road. It's pretty straightforward. There is no one
here to speak to this application. Are there any questions from the Trustees in this
matter?
(Negative response).
I didn't think we had any questions. Hearing none, no further discussion,just let the
record reflect Trustee Bergen is now present.
So at this point, hearing no further comment or discussion. There is no one here
to speak on behalf of this application, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number 14, Paul Pawlowski on behalf of CHERI ANTONIELLO
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 15'x24' detached garage on a slab with gutters
to leaders to a drywell. Located: 2404 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck.
This was found to be consistent under the LWRP. The CAC resolved to support
Board of Trustees 31 April 26, 2014
the application. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application?
MR. PAWLOWSKI: Paul Pawlowski on behalf of the applicant.
TRUSTEE KING: I went out and looked at this. This is a project that came before us a
long time ago. I think it was for the garage and pool. It never went anyplace. And now it's
back for just the garage.
MR. PAWLOWSKI: Actually, it was approved in 2011 by both Zoning and the Trustees. I
just let the permit expire.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay. I couldn't remember if we moved on it or not.
MR. PAWLOWSKI: It's just the garage portion. We decided against the pool at the time.
TRUSTEE KING: This is in the same location as what was previously approved. I didn't
have any issues with it. Is there anyone else to speak on behalf of or against this?
(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 as it's been submitted.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 15, DKR Shores, Inc. on behalf of PAUL M. KONOWITZ
requests a Wetland Permit to replace existing upper retaining wall with new 150' upper
retaining wall using vinyl sheathing in-place; construct two (2) 10' returns using vinyl
sheathing; reconstruct existing 4'x26' stairs and platforms in-place; reconstruct existing
3'x5' platform, 3'x10' steps and 20'x24' deck in-place; backfill area with +/-35 cubic yards
clean fill; add jute-fabric and re-vegetate any disturbed areas with Cape American beach
grass. Located: 8425 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency derives
from the fact the stairs and deck were constructed without Trustee review or permit.
Furthermore, that it's a 480-square foot unpermitted deck/platform is not a permissible
action pursuant to Chapter 275-1(a)(6)(b)that says platforms may not exceed
200-square feet and must be landward of the top of the bluff. The CAC voted to support
this application. The Trustees' field inspection on April 16th noted that the deck is to be
downsized to 200-square feet, and questioned the use of helical screws to support the
bulkhead so as to minimize disturbance. Is there anyone here to speak to this
application?
MS. RIGDON: Good evening, Dina Rigdon, DKR Shores. I'm here to represent Mr.
Konowitz. Would you like to start with questions?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Well, one question, would you consider, we noted the bluff has a
very steep angle of repose there. And we noted that there was room to put the retaining
wall seaward, without removing the existing wall. That would definitely mitigate, or
minimize disturbance, and give you an opportunity to reduce the angle of repose. Is that
something you might consider?
MS. RIGDON: I'm not sure if the DEC would go for that. It had already received the
appropriate permitting through the state. They generally don't allow to go in front of an
existing structure and more seaward than what is already there. Inkind/inplace or with
vinyl replacement is generally the standard. But moving any more seaward would
probably be inconsistent with the policy.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Even for retaining walls? Because I understand that for bulkheads,
but I didn't know for retaining walls.
MS. RIGDON: It's pretty much for everything, inkind/inplace is the standard.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because it sure seemed like it would be beneficial for the applicant
Board of Trustees 32 April 26, 2014
to move this, as Trustee Domino stated, to move it a little more seaward.
MS. RIGDON: A couple of inches probably wouldn't be a big deal.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, we were thinking more than a couple of inches, probably a
few feet out there so that you would have a better angle of repose. And also, right now,
you've got a tremendous load coming down on that retaining wall, and it would help
release some of the load.
MS. RIGDON: I didn't approach the homeowner with that. We hadn't even considered it
with the contractor. It was just a basic, run-of-the-mill reconstruction that I was retained
to get.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Another notion that we had, would then avoid the
disturbance of the well-vegetated bluff, you might be able to construct with helical
screws, most of the construction, and preserve most of the bluff, and quite possibly,
depending on what your engineering or construction company, you could say, you could
possibly take the existing and reduce it a little bit in height so you'd have basically just a
small grading and re-vegetation of the bottom. So, net, you might save some money as
well.
MS. RIGDON:We could do that. I don't know the helicals would hold back quite as well
as the traditional system. Sometimes they do tend to fail, which is why the wall is
probably failing right now and bowing out. We could reduce the amount of fill and reduce
the grade a little bit. As far as it being vegetated, there is really nothing that exciting
there. It's just kind of scattered grass.We'd like to actually do it correctly and stabilize it
properly.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm not an engineer, but I know we've had some of the dock
builders in here who have actually said those helical screws, when properly installed, will
help hold better than the traditional lay logs. It's something to talk to the contractor
about, because, as you've heard --
MS. RIGDON: It's a little more expensive, but, yes, it's possible, I could ask them if they
would consider it at that time.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it would be a good direction to go in, myself.
MS. RIGDON: Okay, I think that's acceptable.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We can table it subject to talking to her client.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you need to talk to your client?
MS. RIGDON: No, I'm here to talk for them. Helicals are fine.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: If she's not comfortable, we can table it
MS. RIGDON: I'd rather not table it.
TRUSETE BERGEN:Well, if we are going to move it, the whole structure seaward, I
think we are going to need a new set of plans to reflect that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So we could approve it as is with the recommendation that
she come in with a revision.
TRUSTEE KING: Subject to revised plans showing the new location and the use of the
helicals.
MS. RIGDON: How far forward are we talking?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm not sure, not being engineers, it wouldn't be a lot, but
from here, because of the conditions of construction that would make it more stable and
work the best with the new angle of repose, I don't think we can stipulate that from here.
MS. RIGDON: Okay,just briefly going back over the angle, approximately three feet,
tops, I would be able to go. I would be more comfortable with more like an 18-inches, 24
inches.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We still have to address the issue of the deck. We still cannot, by
code, approve replacement of the deck in that location, a platform of that size.
MS. RIGDON: I'm sorry, can you talk a little bit louder?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I said we have to address the issue of the deck.
MS. RIGDON: The 200-square feet.
Board of Trustees 33 April 26, 2014
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We cannot, by code approve--
MS. RIGDON: I already advised the owner of that. Unfortunately, he's not the one that
built the deck. He bought the house with the deck on it.
TRUSTEE KING: Just make it no more than 200-square feet.
MS. RIGDON: Right. I already warned him. 200-square feet. I'll get you new plans
moving it 24-inches seaward, helical anchors and 200-square foot deck. Good?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right. Is there anyone else to speak to this application?
Questions or comments from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application subject to submission
of new plans reflecting the movement of the retaining wall seaward to reduce the angle
of repose and to reduce the size of the deck to 200-square feet. Doing so will address
the inconsistency, and that the plans reflect the use of helical coils to reduce the impact
of the existing slope.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. RIGDON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, the next hearing, number 16, in the matter of 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.
For this application, I presume there will be a number of speakers. If you would
kindly identify yourself for the record, since we don't have the benefit of a recorder this
evening, other than our old electronic one. And also, try kindly not to either talk over
each other or create a confused record, since we do have that limitation. Thank you.
This project has been determined to be consistent with the LWRP. The CAC has
voted to support this application. The Trustees have been out to the site a number of
times. There has been a large amount of material submitted to our files for consideration
for this application.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MR. FLOTTERON: I'm Joe Flotteron, President of the Lagoon Association, here on
behalf of the permit. I wanted to state for the record that after the last meeting we had
some questions concerning the application in a letter dated April 1st, and we've
addressed those questions, and on the letter of response, the letter of April 14th, and I'm
here to answer any further questions you might have.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Have you had a discussion with the DEC over the proposed
changes, since you have to minimize the dredging to essentially somewhat half of your
original DEC approval?
MR. FLOTTERON: No, we have not had any discussions to reduce the dredging after
that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Did the Department of Environmental Conservation issue a
ten-year maintenance permit for the project?
MR. FLOTTERON: Yes.
Board of Trustees 34 April 26, 2014
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What's the dredge window on that, from the DEC?
MR. FLOTTERON: You have the permit, but I could pull it out of the file.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was just curious.
MR. FLOTTERON: The prohibition period is June 1st through September 30th of each
year to protect spawning, shellfish and spawning activity.
TRUSTEE BERGEN:Wow. That's very good for the permit. The lagoon entrance is
located in a critical environmental area and usually those dredge windows end
mid-December. So that's a very positive thing that they gave you a dredge window
through to June 1st.
MR. FLOTTERON: This has been the way it's been with prior permits.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But the DEC changed their dredge windows, from, probably now,
from about six, seven years ago. And as people know, in that area, they've greatly
limited the dredge window. So, like I said, that's a good thing that they left it to June 1 st.
MR. FLOTTERON: We're most concerned that it's currently blocked.
SECRETARY CANTRELL: Could you just put the microphone up a little bit.
MR. FLOTTERON: Sure. I just said that the current situation is that it's blocked.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional questions for Mr. Flotteron?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: With the proposed dredging going to the middle of the lagoon,
correct, which is approximately 15 feet; I believe it's a 30-foot width?
MR. FLOTTERON: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So 15 foot. And the slope the DEC usually requires is 3:1. In other
words, off of both bulkheads, if you were going from both bulkheads, a 3:1 slope so that
you are not dredging all the way over to the edge of the bulkhead. So with the 3:1 slope
going to the middle, I know you are asking for five-foot depth of dredging, but I don't
know where that's mathematically possible. Because if you come 3:1 slope off the
bulkhead, 3:1 slope off the midpoint, the 15-foot line, that gives you, your deepest area
is going to be 7 1/2 foot away from the bulkhead, it's going to be about two-foot deep, is
about the maximum you'd be able to go, with a 3:1 slope.
MR. FLOTTERON: Right now we don't have any entrance. No fish can get in and out.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You have your chance.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In consideration of the fact that you might have the DEC
inspection to comply with the depths and angles, conceivably you would have a very
shallow dredging for larger draft vessels, and it might be a concern that a subsequent
storm would render the channel rather useless for navigation.
Any additional questions?Would anyone else up here like to speak to this application?
Trustees?
(No response).
MR. CARDINALE: Good evening. I would like to speak in opposition to the application.
Phil Cardinale, Jamesport, speaking on behalf of Dr. And Mrs. Perry, who will also
address you. I want to be brief. I want to provide you with information you need. I do not
want to inundate you with information you do not need. What you have is a voluminous
file and I want to cover five points and then Dr. Perry will speak in specifics.
First of all, in your voluminous file you have a lot of information on that lagoon
bottom, but what is relevant to this application is of course a couple of hundred feet in
the inlet, at the opening. Furthermore, our opposition to this, as at the initial hearing,
which is very straightforward and central to it, is that the application requires, as I
understand it, is the consent of the owner of the area to be dredged. And that file is not
contain the consent of the owner of the area to be dredged. In fact the area to be
dredged is assessed by this town to my client, and has been for over 40 years. It is
reasonable for the assessed owner of the property to expect the town that assesses
them to recognize those assessments. And that is exactly what we are asking that you
do.
The third point I want to make, in addition to that this is a central question of
Board of Trustees 35 April 26, 2014
ownership and this is a central question of cumulative feet of dredged area assessed to
my client, is to point out to the Board that this Board and other town agencies, notably
the assessor's office, have taken previous actions in regard to this property, and that
precedent has to be considered. For example, this area has been dredged before. Every
single previous permit issued by this Town had the consent of the owner, Mrs. Perry and
Mrs. Furman, her family at that time, and Dr. Perry and Mrs. Perry at this time. So those
are a part of the record.
The fourth point I want to make, if there were actually a legitimate issue regarding
ownership, this Board can not determine it. It can only be determined by the Supreme
Court of New York State. So if you have an assessed owner and he's been assessed for
40 years in the state taxes on the area to be dredged and there is no consent in your file,
it strikes me that the best you can do for the applicant is refer him to the Supreme Court.
The last thing I want to say, and Dr. Perry will pick this up, as he's reviewed the
file very carefully, that there is nothing in the file that I've found or that he's found, that
establishes ownership in the applicant. In fact I don't see in the file the survey that you
requested of them in January. I do see in the file a deed which they presented to you in
January alleging that it showed ownership of the bottom land. But it doesn't. And they
therefore purported to hand you a deed which shows it, but it doesn't. So I think you
have to be careful of that, considering what is being said. So I ask you, in conclusion, I
ask that you reject this application on the basis that there is no consent of the owner to
the dredging of the land which the application seeks to dredge. Dr. Perry will speak to
that.
DR. PERRY: I want to go through, and this will be brief. Everybody is looking at this as
we go through it, otherwise it will be difficult to follow and understand what I'm saying.
SECRETARY CANTRELL: If you could introduce yourself so Wayne can transcribe this.
He's not here tonight.
MR. FLOTTERON: Can we get a copy of this as well?
DR. PERRY: I don't think at this point you can.
MS. HULSE: Mr. Flotteron, you are not recognized right now.
DR. PERRY: And I'll request them back after the meeting. You have a copy in your file.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
DR. PERRY: So I would request those back afterwards.
So the first point I want to make is with regard to the DEC application. That was
addressed at the January 22nd meeting, and, as it was noted, the application was
granted by the DEC. However it did not indicate that they had the right to dredge on
somebody else's property. So they saw this as environmentally sound project, but under
the proviso they are doing this on property that they either have permission to dredge, or
that they own. Which that is a critical point that the DEC made. They said you guys fight
it out. It's okay from my point of view in terms of an environmental statement. The
second point I want to make is that the application, as Mr. Cardinale said, this
application is limited to the channel. So any reference to, by the applicant, to the internal
aspects of this channel, are irrelevant. It doesn't matter what they say in terms of what is
occurring inside the lagoon. And if there is a dispute about that, that's also fine. But
that's not the topic at hand today. The topic is the channel, and the channel only.
Third point, on the second page of your, meaning the Trustees Wetland Application, is a
series of requirements. Requirement number one, and I quote, reads that the"name and
address of the applicant, and the source of the applicant's right to perform such
operations, e.g., whether applicant is the owner, lessee, licensee, contractor, etc. In all
cases where the applicant is not the owner of the premise where such operations are
proposed to be conducted, the notarized consent of the owner duly acknowledged must
be attached to said application. Now, I have been to the Trustees office twice. The last
time was this past Monday afternoon. Prior to that I reviewed Ms. Hulse's file in regard to
this application. In all three of those reviews, I didn't find a single document, when I say a
Board of Trustees 36 April 26, 2014
single document, I mean a deed, I mean a survey, showing ownership of this channel.
There is not a single document in that file. And if I'm incorrect, I would ask you at this
point to tell me what document shows their ownership, so that I could be aware of that.
I'm not aware of it. Okay, so I would assume we've all had plenty of time to review this,
so I would assume that--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm not sure--that's a question we need some assistance
from Lori because I'm not sure we are entirely knowledgeable of what constitutes
ownership here.
DR. PERRY: Well, I mean, therein lies the crux of why we are here tonight. So if you
can't determine who owns ownership, then you have to walk away right now.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Continue, please.
DR. PERRY: Okay. So I'm assuming, as I'm getting no response, that nobody is aware
of any document, I don't care what it is, that shows their ownership of this town,whether
it be legitimate or illegitimate. But, point number four, that my family, and now my wife
and I, have been the recognized legal owners of the lagoon bottom including the channel
in question for the last 40 years. And what we'll do now is go through this very quickly to
show consistent history and sequence from this town, of legal documents showing our
ownership. So if we can go through, the first page is a Supreme Court decision made in
1991 which has to do with a lawsuit that the lagoon association brought against Mr.
Sturdy for failure to pay his share of the rebuilding of the bulkhead at that time. And the
real key to this document is the last three lines, where it says that the association does
not have any-- and this is, by the way, this is written by the judge making the decision
on the case, okay? It says the association does not have any written membership
requirement or bylaws. The association does not own any real property. Okay, and does
not provide any services to its members. So the basis, the fact of whether Sturdy won or
lost is not the issue. The issue is that it's recognized by the Supreme Court that this
lagoon association owns no property, which means that the permit that had been issued
historically had been tied in to our tax lot, tax ID number, tax lot number, from the get go.
And you can confirm that by looking at the permit and checking them again as far as the
numbers that changed over the years, as far as from 11-2 to 11-3 to 11-4, but it's always
tied into our ownership. Very important. The next page, number two, this is a letter from
Mr. Bredemeyer dated September, 1987, and it's written to my father-in-law George
Borell, who was the current owner at that time. And it says: The Town Trustees would
like to advise you that if you were to quit claim of any interest in the bottom of the lagoon
to the Trustees, the Trustees would be glad to move your request from dredging along
as it would be public bottom and may receive better consideration from the county for
dredging. Recognized by this Board is ownership of the lagoon. The next two letters are
written by Mr. Krupski, both with the same date. The first one is to William Shannon,
Department of Public Works, and it reads, the highlighted areas, another concern which
recently arose, was the desire by the Wunneweta Lagoon Association to have the
county maintenance dredge the inlet mouth. Inlet mouth. Our reaction after a view of the
file by the Board and the Town Attorney is that it is inappropriate to do work on private
property using public funds. The second letter, same date, from Mr. Krupski, is Mark
McDuffy, who at that time was the President of the Lagoon Association. And it says after
a review of the six files of Wunneweta Lagoon by the Board, the Town Attorney and
myself, our conclusion is consistent with the information contained in the file. That is the
lagoon and entrance are privately owned. So we have now three documents showing
private ownership and addressing them, first one to my father-in-law, the second one to
the acting President of the Lagoon Association. And just for the record, I would like to
request the ability to review those six files. I don't know where they are stored, but I
would like to review those and I would like access to those files so I can indeed review
them.
Next we go to page five, which is the Trustees Minutes, from January 28, 1998, and if
Board of Trustees 37 April 26, 2014
you look at number 16, it's Richard Corazzini, the same Richard Corazzini who is sitting
here tonight, requests a permit to do some work on his bulkhead and to build a floating
dock. And if you go down, you'll where it says Trustee Krupski, he says: And you have to
get a letter from Mr. Borell, meaning my father-in-law, who owns the underwater
property. Mr. Corazzini responds, we spoke to Mr. Borell, and for liability reasons, he
would rather deed me a piece of the bottom. The next page is the deed where this, the
property underwater was given to Mr. Corazzini and his family so they could build their
dock. Okay.
Next are three police reports dated 2010, 2011. The first one, July, 2010, has myself
filing this complaint against Mr. Corazzini and Mr. Flotteron, who are here in this room
tonight. And if you go to page eight, it says this is written by the responding officer who
received the call of clammers on private property, upon arrival spoke with the clammer,
Corazzini, who did not believe the area was private. The same Corazzini who was deeded
the underwater rights to build his dock, now suddenly doesn't recognize the private
ownership where he's trespassing. Okay?
MS. HULSE: That is not appropriate for this hearing.
DR. PERRY: I think it's clear the circumstances of what occurred.
MS. HULSE: I understand what your point is. It's just not appropriate to comment in that
matter, sir.
DR. PERRY: Okay. Well, I'll just keep reading then. Thank you. The complaint says Mr.
Flotteron was also clamming. Flotteron and Corazzini were both advised to keep off
Perry's property. First warning. Then we go to August of 2010, includes Nora Flotteron,
Nicole Flotteron, Iona Perry, my daughter who was 12 at the time, myself, and a guest,
go down to the report, it says Flotteron stated that Perry thinks he owns the lagoon.
Well, that's probably true. And I do think that. Absolutely. He said Perry stated he does
own the lagoon bottom and the little islands in the lagoon. The undersigned informed
Senior Bay Constable Desinkowski of the incident and looked up the tax map numbers
of the above. Perry does in fact own the property. Number two, okay, of recognized
ownership by the police of this town. Number three occurs May 11 th. I file a report,
Joseph Flotteron is once again clamming on the bottom of the lagoon. Read again on
12, undersigned spoke with Senior Bay Constable Desinkowski. Desinkowski did confirm
that Perry does own the land under the water in front of his home. And that Flotteron has
been advised of this and to stay off Perry's property. This resulted in an arrest of--
MS. HULSE: Sir, that's not appropriate to this hearing.
DR. PERRY: It clearly says it. A criminal summons was issued and forwarded to
Southold Town Court. Same thing, yes?
MS. HULSE: Sir, I'll ask that you keep your comments as it pertains to this public hearing.
DR. PERRY: I believe they do.
MS. HULSE: You are ad libbing from an incident report, and I'll ask that you not do that.
DR. PERRY: Agreed. Now we go to the April 1 st, 2014 letter, to Mr. Flotteron from Pres.
Bredemeyer. Point three. A photocopy of a survey of the Brennan property made in
2000 was left for inclusion in the file by Mr. Corizinni, presumably on your behalf, is not a
current licensed survey as specifically requested by the Board of Trustees at the public
hearing and does not appear to extend into the one-half of the inlet you propose to
dredge as requested by the Board. So now, page 15, this is a survey of Mr. And Mrs.
Brennan's property, dated 1994, performed by Van Tuyl, guaranteed to Ms. Brennan as
well as TiCor Peddle Guarantee. If you look at this you can once again see that the
property line goes to the northern bulkhead of that channel. That's 1994. Now we go to
the 2000 survey. This was the survey that was initially submitted to the Board that was
recognized as not showing extension into the channel and also was recognized as not
being signed and official at the time. The only difference between this survey that we are
looking at today and the prior one is that it's signed. It's exactly the same date and it's
exactly the same survey. The only thing that has changed is the signature has been
Board of Trustees 38 April 26, 2014
added to it. Okay? So this still has not met your Board requirement of a current survey.
This survey is 14-years old. Next is a map of the lagoon. This map is unsigned, which
means it's not an official document. It also has no bearing on ownership. It clearly is just
a map of the lagoon. This was supplied, I presume, to satisfy the need of a survey. I
don't know, but it is nothing more than a nice map of the lagoon. It has no bearing on
anything we are talking about today. The next, page 18, is a letter dated June of 2011.
Note the Suffolk County tax map 118-2-11-4. That's our property. And it says the Board
of Trustees will not challenge the private ownership of the underwater land referenced
above. Okay? Next page is from the town assessor, the same tax map number,
118-2-11-14. Jennifer Day Borell and Jonathan Perry are listed as owners on a Town of
Southold assessment roll for the above-referenced property. For certification of
ownership, please contact the title company. You'll see in the next couple of pages,
schedule A from the title company, which shows and indeed endorses this particular
letter. The next page is the current Suffolk County tax map, you can see highlighted is
number 11.4, is the lagoon underwater land, and also encompasses a number of the
upland lots, which is not really at hand today, but it shows 11.4 is indeed associated with
the, almost the whole of the bottom of this lagoon, including the channel. The next is
taken off the Suffolk County GIS viewer, and what it shows highlighted in blue is the
property that is associated with our street address, which is in the right-hand corner, 750
Aborn Lane. If you look where it says identify, it has the tax number of our property. It
has the owner listed as my wife, Jennifer Borell. Checked off on the map layers is 2013
aerial. So if you look at this, you'll see we own almost the complete bottom of the lagoon
and own pretty much, I would say 98% of the channel. The only piece that Ms. Brennan,
I believe does own, is a little sliver, when they rebuilt the bulkhead in 2000, was a little bit
of setback on that bulkhead. So that little strip is probably their property, but it's depicted
on this map, as far as I can tell. And this is from the County's website. Getting close to
the end, this is our survey of our property that was performed in 2007. It's hard to see,
but if you look closely, it's guaranteed to myself, my wife and Fidelity Title. I apologize, I
can bring a large-scale version so you can look at it. It's all --this is not signed. The
original survey is indeed signed. The last document is the deed transferring the property
from my wife's name and from my name and my wife's. And if you look at page 24,
that's a schedule A from Fidelity Title. If you go through the meets and bounds, it
corresponds with the survey on the previous page, showing ownership of the channel
and the lagoon bottom. On page 27, the documentation is that the deed was indeed filed
with Suffolk County. So, a few minutes ago I asked if there was any documentation
supporting Ms. Brennan's ownership and there was nothing presented to show that she
had any ownership. I just presented you with multiple documents showing my ownership
rights to the channel and the lagoon. And I ask you if you feel that there are any
documents lacking that you would support my position, I would ask that you inform me
now, and I'll supply it for you. I don't know if anything else exists. I don't know what else
one can do to prove their ownership of property. So, in conclusion, Mr. Flotteron has not
presented any documentation to prove Ms. Brennan's ownership of the channel in
question. And apparently, from what I can gather, you are lacking no documents from
me to prove my ownership. Therefore there is only one decision that can be made
regarding application, and that is that the application must be rejected, as Ms. Brennan
does not own the property she wishes to dredge. Thank you. Are there any questions?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are there any comments or any questions?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I do have a question for Dr. Perry. If the ownership was not an
issue before us today, would you want to see the lagoon dredged?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Great question.
DR. PERRY: The answer to that question, as that question was asked at the previous
meeting, I think we do not want the channel to close. That's not the issue. What this
application has turned into, unfortunately, is an attempt to usurp ownership of property
Board of Trustees 39 April 26, 2014
through an application process. And that, I believe, is what is occurring. And
unfortunately my first obligation to myself and my family is to protect my property rights.
And that's what I'm doing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that.
DR. PERRY: That being said, if we could come to, which, you know, I made multiple,
multiple attempts over the last seven to eight years to try to come to an amicable
conversation and determination of how to fix this problem. And my comments were
deemed inappropriate so I will not make them, any additional ones. But there are
numerous other examples that are similar to what has occurred. And it is clear to me at
this point that the ability to resolve this is going to be quite difficult. I would like to see the
channel dredged --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. You just answered my question.
DR. PERRY: I don't gain anything by it being closed. I don't want it closed, it's not good
for me. But I can not assume the damage to my personal property that is going to occur,
which occurred last year when, again, rights were usurped, a dredge was done without
my permission and now I have washout areas on my side, which is a potential legal
liability for me.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sir, you've answered my question, but--don't go away--you
know, what I was trying to determine here is if the ownership was off the table right, and
I understand, I heard what you just said. My question was would you like to see the
lagoon dredged and that entrance be maintained and dredged.
DR. PERRY: Absolutely. But not at the cost of a personal, legal liability.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that.
DR. PERRY: And damage to my property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that. And from what I understand, what you are
referring to is a bulkhead, that I'll call it the southeastern side, of the bulkhead that's on
your property, that there is a concern that if it was dredged to that bulkhead, that
bulkhead would collapse.
DR. PERRY: There's no question. It's already--
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's all I wanted to make sure. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just an observation on my part. The Trustees, for our part,
setting aside concerns about property ownership and that particular important aspect,
we have ten standards by which we have to administer the tidal wetlands code that are
very specifically dealing with the environment and adverse impacts. In a sense we are
an outgrowth of and a slightly different interpretation as to what the Department of
Environmental Conservation does, and Trustee Bergen's question is very pertinent,
because I went out with the constables to take a picture of the inlet on the 22nd of April, I
believe, it's in the file, and at this time the inlet is almost entirely closed off. Of the ten
standards in the wetlands ordinance, I've examined them closely, with quite a bit of
experience in marine biology, having worked in the county's marine section for 25 years,
and fully six or maybe even seven of those standards immediately affecting the health
and welfare of that waterbody and also the benefits to the town will be potentially greatly
impacted with a very small shifting of sand that could result in the blockage there. And it
goes to the point that nobody wins if it gets totally blocked. I had an occasion to respond
to a marine complaint years ago with the county health department's marine section, the
office of ecology, when West Lake out in Bayview, the entrance had been totally
blocked. And that's been a contentious inlet also. And at the time, the eels and the crabs
were actually leaving the water because they thought a better space to live was
atmospheric area, contrary to their basic biology. And it would seem it would be a real
shame and we won't be meeting our environmental mandate to not consider the fact that
maybe the property issue is certainly not for this Board, but the environmental issue is,
much like the Department of Environmental Conservation. And that's why I think Trustee
Bergen's question is most pertinent. And I believe, from what I've heard, there are
Board of Trustees 40 April 26, 2014
probably some real issues. Bulkheads don't age out at the same time,just like fellas that
have been on the Trustee board for a while. And the fact is that there should be some
accommodation between adjoining bulkhead owners in conducting these operations.
DR. PERRY: Well, there was. Which is why I presented the first page of the documents,
which is that in 1986, the people who lived on that lagoon recognized the importance of
the bulkhead being maintained and were willing to contribute. The position now that has
been taken that it's on my property so therefore it is my problem to maintain.Which it's
my position everybody benefits from that bulkhead being present and therefore
everybody should contribute. That's not a question you can answer, nor do I expect you
to. But in regard to your last comment, I think that it's nice now, 30-years later, when the
town took the position that it's your property, you dredge it. Now you can't come back to
me and say, well, there is an environmental impact on not dredging, when the town
washed their hands. And at that particular juncture it would not have cost the town any
dollars. They took the stand that it's private property, therefore they would not support
the county to dredge it. Okay?That's what happened here.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I certainly don't wish to argue with you because I was the
vice-president at the time.
DR. PERRY: And you switched our position.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, it's not a matter of switching. We are not taking
positions here. That was a former board. But you have to understand, the county has a
dredge policy based on criteria that it has to have public ownership and public access.
So it's not a matter of my position. It was a matter that was fixed by others and not
something that we simply chose to do instance.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I have to admit, this one was tough for me. Because what I did, I
spent hours reading all this stuff, and I took two columns. I put two on one side and two
on the other side. And I listed everything. And the one thing I realized is it sounded very
much to me like a legal tennis match. And as I was reading, I got into this, I think this is
an amazing presentation you gave. It's very, very well done. The one thing that popped
out as I was reading all this stuff. There is one thing that I'm not. I'm not an attorney. And
I really struggled with the legality of saying yes to a permit when there is an issue of
ownership. That's really what popped out in my head. I need to make sure that I
verbalize that, because I did spend a lot of time studying this. And that's what I am
personally struggling with. What I would love to see, because I know you want it
dredged, you want it dredged, I would love to find out something to make you guys
happy so you guys could get over the bickering. Because I think that is really what is
going on in many essences. It's just a conflict of you guys going back and forth, back
and forth. The end state, to use military terminology, the end state is that nothing is
getting dredged. You guys both want it to be dredged.
DR. PERRY: That's true. But your first criteria of your application process is ownership
of what is to be done.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'm not in any way--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, gentlemen, before we probably go further, you've had
very good time to present and maybe we should move to get other individuals who wish
to speak.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And you'll have a chance to come to answer any questions.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on behalf of or
against this application?
MR. POMERANTZ: My name is Lance Pomerantz and I'm here to speak in support of
the permit. I'm an attorney. My practice focusing entirely on land title law and title
disputes. I'm appearing tonight as an expert witness on behalf of the applicant. And I've
done extensive analysis of the title underlying the lagoon as a whole and including the
area that is the subject of the permit application. I understand my CV has been
submitted to the Board, but for the record if you'll permit, I would just like to run down my
Board of Trustees 41 April 26, 2014
expert qualifications. I'm a graduate of DU Law School. In the 1980's I was special
assistant corporation counsel for the City of Boston. I worked on a wide variety of
municipal issues. I then moved back to Long Island. Starting in 1990, 1 opened my
practice wherein I provided expert consultation and expert testimony in connection with
land titles and land title disputes. I have prepared and submitted affidavits and testified in
numerous cases involving land title disputes and title insurance coverage disputes. I'm a
member of the Suffolk County Bar Association Real Property Committee, New York
State Bar Association Real Property Committee. I've served on the title and transfer
committee of the State Bar and I'm a member of the New York State Land Title
Association where I've served on the law committee; member of the American Land Title
Association, which is a national organization concerning land titles in the US. I served on
the Real Property Records Committee and the National Title Council Committee of that
organization. I'm a regular columnist for the Suffolk Lawyer on land title law. The Suffolk
Lawyer is the monthly newspaper of the Suffolk County Bar Association. And I also
publish regularly in The Title News and The Docket, which are both national publications
focused on land title matters and title insurance issues. I'm also a frequent lecturer in
continuing legal education programs on land title, real estate and municipal law topics,
and I also publish my own constructive notice newsletter, which is a subscription --
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Sir, I've actually read your resume. I'm curious how it's relevant.
MR. POMERANTZ: I'm about to get to that. As I said, I publish a monthly newsletter,
which is a subscription newsletter for, which has nationwide distribution for people who
practice in the land title area as well as the title insurance area.
The reason all this is relevant is I was retained on behalf of the applicants to do a
complete analysis of the land records. This is going to the ownership issue, that seems
to be of such concern and such contention in this particular matter. And the analysis
covered from the period when this entire area, the entire Nassau Point area was owned
by a company called Nassau Point Club Properties, Inc. I imagine it's well known that
this company filed a number of maps, subdivision maps, covering the entire point in the
early part of the 20th Century. I don't think there is a dispute that they owned all the real
estate at that time prior to the subdivision. Beginning in 1919, the Nassau Point Club
Properties, Inc., started making deeds that are relevant in this particular matter
concerning what we would all call the Brennan parcel. The Brennan parcel actually
consists of four lots on one of the maps filed by Nassau Point Club Properties. And that
is amended map A of section D of Nassau Point Club Properties, Inc., filed in the Suffolk
County Clerk's office as file number 753 on October 21st, 1920. In particular, there is the
area in question abutting the, the area of the dredge canal that is in question specifically
abuts lot 108 on that map. And I have copies of the map for the Board to look at.
(Handing).
In 19-- I took the liberty of putting a red arrow pointing to lot 108 and that should be
apparent to everyone that that is the southwesterly portion of the Brennan property and
directly adjoins the area that is the subject of the application. That particular lot, 108,
was included in a deed out of Nassau Point Club Properties, Inc., in 1920. It was deeded
along with lots 109 and 110, which are not particularly relevant to the application, but
they are included in the deed. Again, I have copies for the Board, and for counsel as
well. (Handing).
As I stated, since that deed includes lot 108, it is the source deed out of the common
owner, Nassau Point Club Properties, Inc., for the upland abutting the area that is the
subject of the present application. I had done, and I'm not going to burden the Board
with this, but I have done a complete analysis from that deed all the way down to the
present day, and there is a complete, unbroken chain of title from Nassau Point Club
Properties Inc., down to the Brennan Trust, that includes lot 108. Now, that deed, feel
free to read thoroughly at your leisure. I have read it thoroughly. That deed does not
contain an explicit reservation of the rights of the ownership of the lands underwater
Board of Trustees 42 April 26, 2014
adjoining lot 108. Neither does any of the deeds subsequent to that down to the present
day. Under precedent set by the New York State Court of Appeals, in fact it was fairly
recent, it was only in October of 2012, the New York State Court of Appeals in a case
named Knapp v. Hughes, the citation is 19NY3rd 672, the court explicitly says that when
someone sells property that adjoins underwater land, the underwater land is deemed to
be conveyed along with the upland, unless, and I'll quote here, one sentence, he or she,
meaning the grantor, must say that land underwater is not conveyed, in those words or
in words equally clear in meaning. Meaning there must be an explicit reservation of the
lands underwater adjoining the upland. That deed, as dense as it is, clearly does not
contain any reservation, vague, let alone an express reservation, of the ownership rights
of any of the lagoon bottom. As a result, I have concluded that the initial common owner
who clearly owned everything at that time, by that deed, conveyed not only the upland of
108, but the underwater land adjoining 108, which includes the area that is the subject of
the application. So I think it's unequivocal, despite all the additional material that has
been brought to the Board's attention, the land records themselves make it clear that the
ownership came out of Nassau Point Club Properties, Inc., in 1920, and has devolved all
the way down since then to the present day into the grants.
MS. HULSE: Is there any other documentation you wish to provide for the record?
MR. POMERANTZ: Well, I do have the source deed for the fourth of the lots, lot 111.
That does not directly adjoin the area in question, but if the Board would like to see that
and the map to which it refers, I do have copies of that as well. I think the Board really
just needs to focus on, and you have, is the materials for 108. Because 108 is the lot
that directly adjoins the area in question.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have a question for you regarding this map that you submitted.
It's dated October 21 st, 1920?
MR. POMERANTZ: Yes, sir.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It shows that the entrance to the lagoon, which at that time fed
both the lagoon and Wunneweta Pond, ran toward the west. In other words, it didn't go
straight out into the bay as it does now. The natural channel at the time, because there
wasn't any bulkhead, went to the west. Or more specifically the southwest, as you can
see on that map, correct?
MR. POMERANTZ: (Perusing).
TRUSTEE BERGEN:Well, you could see it's not a straight channel going out to the bay.
It goes to the, it turns to the southwest. Since then, it was bulkheaded, and it goes
straight out. So the property line you are telling us, matches this map, which is 1920.
You follow where I'm going here, then the property is even landward of what some of the
subsequent claims are. The property line itself, the property line according to this map,
in 1920, ended at the entrance of the lagoon. And when the lagoon was straightened out
with bulkheading, then that property actually should have continued on out to the
southwest. So what I'm saying here is that I don't see where this shows that Brennan
would own more property going toward the east, if we were looking at this map.
MR. POMERANTZ: (Perusing).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You're telling us that this is the map you are saying we should
base our decision partially on, and what I'm saying is I don't see where it supports the
Brennan property going to the east. It supports Brennan's property line actually farther to
the west than what the subsequent survey shows.
MR. POMERANTZ: Well, I'm not suggesting the map itself is dispositive of the location
of the specific property lines. Obviously this map does not have sufficient detail or
courses of distances, et cetera, to be able to say where a particular line is. That's not
what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that to the extent the inlet adjoins 108, that the
owner of 108 owns to the center line of the inlet pursuant to the original Nassau Point
Club Properties deed, which I provided.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And if we were to take that as being true, that center line, since
Board of Trustees 43 April 26, 2014
the whole inlet has migrated to the east, that center line would not migrate to the east.
The center line would stay, because it was a property line, would stay where it originally
was.
MR. POMERANTZ: Well, no. The center line would be where the center line is, even
after the action of natural forces. I mean, if the water level rises and falls, then the
property line, is what is considered an ambulatory property line, and moves concurrently
with the change of the water level. There is also case law that establishes that. Most of it
is litigation on the south shore, but it's apropos here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
MR. POMERANTZ: Are there any other questions?
MR. CARDINALE: I would just like to reiterate what I said in opening. This town, over the
course of the last 40 years or more, has acknowledged the ownership of this property.
The assessors, the police, this Board. I don't know what Mr. Pomerantz just said. It
might even make sense. But referring to the Supreme Court will see in that. But I
believe, and speak to your own counsel on this, that you as a Board can not legally issue
a permit to dredge privately owned land without the consent of the owner. That is why
you seek the consent of the owner. That is why it's a requirement of your application
process. So you can't dismiss this. But you can say, sure, get a Supreme Court order
and come back. Just as you would say to an owner of a piece of upland who contended,
come back and talk to us. We'll be glad to tax you once the Supreme Court says you
own it. But this is the fellow you have been taxing for 40 years. So I would ask that you
refer Mr. Pomerantz to the Supreme Court and I ask that you acknowledge and
recognize the long assessment of this property and your own actions over the last 40
years. Thank you.
MR. POMERANTZ: If I could just respond briefly to Mr. Cardinale's remark. It's
absolutely clear from a legal point of view that the assessment of a particular piece and
who the named quote assessed owner is, is immaterial in determining ownership. I
understand Mr. Cardinale is trying to basically say, well, one department of the town
government has said something and now the Trustees are bound by that, that's clearly
not the case. And the assessment roll in no way determines ownership. I realize that it
seems, could seem to be fundamentally unfair for someone to pay taxes for a long
period on time on property that they ultimately are determined not to own, but in fact that
is the law in New York State. And it's not binding in terms of determination of ownership
what the assessment says or what the tax map says, for that matter. The tax maps are
designed entirely for use in assessment and collection of real estate taxes.
DR. PERRY: Still, after this discussion, after you've all been held up late, and I apologize
for that, there is still nothing in your file, not a survey, not a deed, nothing, that
establishes ownership in anyone other than your assessed owner. So I ask that you
follow your own rules which requires consent of the owner and reject the application on
that basis. And I urge you to do that. And I would like to add one other thing. It is clear, I
have been authorized to resolve this and to have this thing dredged, as long as our
property is protected. There is absolutely no question, in regard to Trustee Bergen's
question in regard to whether we want it dredged. We'd love it dredged. But we need to
make certain that our property is protected. And I say that publicly to Mr. Pomerantz, if
he's representing them, I've spoken Mr. Corazzini and asked for some kind of discussion
of how he's going to protect our property at the same time as he dredges. That's all that
we care about. And there is no response. Thank you.
MR. POMERANTZ: Just for the record, I want to make it clear, I'm not here representing
the applicant. I'm here as an expert witness to testify as to the ownership. Mr. Flotteron
is representing the applicant. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional questions or comments from the Trustees?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Jay, I'll make one point, that I find it difficult when we receive a
28-page memorandum at essentially the eleventh hour, the public doesn't actually have
Board of Trustees 44 April 26, 2014
an adequate time to review this. Obviously a lot of work went into making it. I would have
hoped it was submitted earlier.
DR. PERRY: The 28-page document was not just submitted now. It was e-mailed
Monday morning at 8:00 to Ms. Cantrell. It was then e-mailed again to Amanda, sorry, I
don't remember her last name, yesterday, because apparently it had not been
forwarded. So I made every attempt not to do it at the eleventh hour. I also, for the
record, made an attempt to present a Power Point presentation so we could all see it
clearly and easily without having to go through 28 pages. That was also denied. So I
understand your concern about the last moment, and I tried to avert that by sending it
Monday morning. And I didn't recognize or realize that this was going to be on until the
eleventh hour, either. So I didn't have a lot of time to prepare that document to submit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jay, did you see if there was anybody else who wants to comment?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak at this time?
I(No response)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm inclined to think it would be in the best interest of the
health of this body of water to table for a month, to just hope and pray that there could
be some discussion about at least honoring the creek and its biological diversity, without
this Board trying to perform a slam dunk one way or the other. It seems that the liberal
dredge window is there, we are coming up on a summer season when people would like
to get in their boats. We are also coming on the summer season where the warmer
water temperatures depress the dissolved oxygen, and it would be so much in the best
interest to have some sort of a discussion, if only for that section that is going to need
dredging in the future.
You know, understanding a little bit about property, I understand that other town
departments and even this own Board may have made statements in the past that may
or may not be correct. But we all will stand,judged incorrect, if we have massive
environmental degradation in this body of water and nobody gets the use of it for another
season. That's sort of my thought. I don't know if that stands--
TRUSTEE SANDERS: My struggle is that I don't think a month from now, all we are
doing is postponing an issue that is going to come back the same way next month.
That's my opinion. Until the issue of ownership is addressed and agreed upon by both
parties, all they are going to do is come back next month and say the same thing over
again.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone presenting here tonight want to in any way
address my thoughts on this? Board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jay, if I could, for a second -- if you'll pardon me for just a second,
Mr. Cardinale. I just want to point out one point from an environmental perspective, and
that is there is another entrance and exit to this lagoon, for environmental reasons, for
flushing, and that's down at the, I guess I'll call it the westernmost part-- Let me finish,
sir--the western part of the lagoon. As many people in the audience and this Board
know, I have more experience with that lagoon than anybody sitting in this audience, I
believe, today. Because of being very familiar with the area. That lagoon was shut off
completely for a couple of seasons. Back in I believe it was the very late '60's or early
'70's, the entrance was completely closed off. Completely. High, low tide, it was
continual beach, because the bulkheads collapsed. And that lagoon continues to live
because of the flushing that comes through on the other end. There were crabs, there
were clams. All the wildlife was there. I am not saying that, advocating that this should
not be dredged. Absolutely it should be dredged. Absolutely, it should. And all I can say
to the parties here is that, as I learned today through a personal experience, life is very
short. And I would strongly urge-- I would also support tabling this for a month. And I
would strongly urge both parties to please, try to get together and resolve this. It was
resolved for years. The people residing in the lagoon resolved these issues for years so
Board of Trustees 45 April 26, 2014
that it was dredged. There is no reason why these issues could not be resolved. Just
look at the past history of what people in the lagoon did in order to get that dredged.
Follow that same pattern. I think that will work. That's all I can suggest.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: One last comment from me, reading Chapter 275 of findings and
purpose, I don't see anywhere in this purpose, having re-read it several times, where it
gives the Trustees the power to adjudicate property ownership. And also under 275-12
there is standards for issuance of a permit, I'm not going to read them all, but again,
there is nothing there concerning property ownership. There is adversity affecting the
wetlands of the town and the environment, the health and safety and general welfare of
the public. It's not our purpose.
TRUSTEE KING: I agree.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): The DEC agreed with you, it's--
MS. HULSE: Sir, you have to be recognized by the Board and come up and introduce
yourself please, for the record.
MR. CORIZINNI: Sorry. Rich Corazzini. I just didn't understand Mr. Domino's comments, if
he could explain it. I couldn't hear you, is really what it was.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: In a nutshell, our purpose is to protect the environment and the
health and safety of the people, not to decide ownership of a property.
MR. FLOTTERON: Joe Flotteron.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll tell you what, I'm going to limit it to maybe two more
comments of about two or three minutes.
DR. PERRY: If you transfer that part--
MS. HULSE: I'm sorry--
DR. PERRY: But as regard to the last--
MS. HULSE: Dr. Perry, the Board president recognized the speaker. If one of the Board
members is speaking, please hold your comments until you are recognized. It's as
simple as that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mr. Flotteron.
MR. FLOTTERON: Thank you. To the standpoint of where the lagoon is, last year we
had a hurricane called Sandy. This Board recognized 30, 40, if not 50 permits along the
eastern side. They also recognized many along the western side with washouts and
damage. That bulkhead, the described damage, has a fist-sized hole in it. That is it. So
for 25-30 years old, concerning the build up, the dredging last year, because of his
complaints, we only dredged to the middle, which is part of why the block, at this point, a
year later, happened so quickly. We had actually gone two years when we fully dredged
in the past. The DEC completely agrees with Mike Domino, and put their verbiage very
similar to what he said, in the permit. We are just looking to dredge. Again, he also
stated that he wants to dredge. He has not provided a permit, he has not put anything to
this organization. I originally went for a permit for the whole lagoon. I held back two
months. I then issued the permit as requested, on behalf of the lagoon, is willing to
accept that, and here we are today. I know it's not going to help this situation but--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we are getting a little bit off topic here. Are there any
further comments? I would like to conclude this hearing as quickly as possible.
(No response).
Hearing none, are there any further comments from the Board of Trustees?
(No response).
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 table this matter for one month, to give the opportunity for both
sides to possibly come to some sort of an accord, to give everyone a chance to think
about how, in Dave Bergen's words, how truly short life is, how we would all be better
Board of Trustees 46 April 26, 2014
served getting out on our boats, you know, enjoying clamming or crabbing this summer.
I know I don't do much of it anymore, being the chairman of this Board, and I know the
members of the Board don't get many opportunities either. They are few and far
between, because we are working hard trying to keep it available for everybody. That's
my motion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just a point of order. I'm not sure if you want to close the public
hearing, if you want to table the application. Because if you are tabling it, then we are
tabling it for future discussion at another hearing, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I was tabling it for determination, to possibly hear both sides
got together.
MS. HULSE: I mean, you can close and then just render a determination.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's what, I wanted to close it and just render a
determination. That was my thought.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you want to give the applicant additional time to submit
anymore information to us or do you just want to close it and then we'll render a
determination in the future?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Render a determination with the expressed hope that we
would hear that both sides had come together.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just want to make sure it was clear.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, it's a good clarification. Those were my thoughts when I
entered, I felt that--
MS. HULSE: There is a motion on the table now. There is a motion on the table.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The hearing is closed and there is a motion on the table to
table for one month for determination.
Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Well, that was fun.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, very much.
MR. CARDINALE: Thank you, for your time.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and seconded to adjourn, then we'll go into
executive session. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
_ Respectfully submitted by,
� a -,_ -
John M. Bredemeyer III,15resident
/D;416/AA( Board of Trustees
1