HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-06/18/2014 John M. Bredemeyer III,President �*Of S�UryO Town Hall Annex
Michael J.Domino,Vice-President �� lQ 54375 Main Road
P.O.Box 1179
James F.King,Trustee Southold,New York 11971-0959
Dave Bergen,Trustee G
Charles J. Sanders,Trustee 'Q �Q Telephone(631) 765-1892
Iycom Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
Wednesday, June 18, 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, July 16, 2014 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:Wednesday, July 23, 2014 at 5:30 PM
WORKSESSIONS: Monday, July 21, 2014 at 5:30 PM at Down's Farm, and on
Wednesday, July 23, 2014 at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of April 23, 2014 and May 21, 2014
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Welcome to our June 18th, regular monthly
meeting for June. This evening we have the pleasure of having
Jack McGreevey as the representative from the Conservation
Advisory Council, providing us with their advisory opinions on
the jobs that we've looked at this month.We have Wayne Galante
who is transcribing the Minutes of the meeting. The Trustees are
so named on little placards in front of us, and we have our very
able clerk, Elizabeth Cantrell providing us support this
evening.
Some motions for next meetings and work sessions and field
Inspections; I move to have the next field inspection Wednesday,
July 16, at 8:00 AM. Is there a second?
Board of Trustees 2 June 18, 2014
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to have the next meeting on
Wednesday, July 23rd, at 5:30 PM, with a work session at 5:00.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make that motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Another motion to schedule work sessions
on Monday, July 21st, at 5:30 PM, at Down's Farms, and the
preceding was already rolled into the last motion. And the one
at 5:00 PM and the May meeting on July 23rd, I'll move that. Is
there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll motion to approve the Minutes of April
23rd and May 21 st monthly meeting.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jay, can I make a request, since I was not
present for most of May 21 st, can we make a motion first to do
April and then a second motion for May, so I'll abstain from the
May motion. Do you understand what I'm saying?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'm abstaining as well, since that was also one
I missed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's fine. Motion to approve the Minutes
of April 23rd.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to approve the May 21st meeting, I'll
move that. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee King, aye.
Trustee Bergen, abstains. Trustee Sanders, abstains).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for May 2014. A check for$6,499.10
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 VIII Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, June18, 2014, are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
SEQRA:
Gary & Kathleen Zuar SCTM#53-4-9
Stephen Mitchell SCTM#86-7-8
Board of Trustees 3 June 18, 2014
Wamsley Family Trust SCTM#78-5-10
Jay P. & Karen Quartararo SCTM# 111-14-27.1
Peter Boger SCTM#87-4-4
Thomas Zoitas SCTM#40-1-7
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move those as Type II actions under SEQRA. Is
there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a rule, to keep the meetings flowing
along, for minor applications for administrative actions for which
the Board has reviewed during the course of field inspection, we
will often move them as a group. The first item, though, I have
to abstain on, so if Mike Domino, if you would take that
particular item.
IV. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under resolutions, number one, John Bredemeyer on behalf of
JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, JR. &JEANNE R. BREDEMEYER FAMILY TRUST, c/o
JOHN BREDEMEYER requests an Administrative Permit to expand the non-turf buffer
area on north of dwelling; install a +/-3.6' high architectural picket"village style"fence
along north property line; install a 4'wide dual purpose French drain/access path along
northeast corner and north side of dwelling; install a +/-12' long kayak rack along south
property line with seasonal cantilever kayak slide over bulkhead. Located: 2660 Village
Lane, Orient. SCTM#26-1-18.
I'll make a motion to approve this transfer.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Clarification, it's an Administrative Permit.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes. Clarification. It's an administrative permit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, a motion has been made and seconded. Roll call vote
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Abstain.
TRUSTEE KING: Aye.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Going back to what I indicated,
where we have these items that the Board has put under review,
administrative actions that are so entitled under the Wetland
Code, we are able to vote these as a block.
For that, items two, three and four, are listed as follows:
Number two, Beixedon Estates Association, Inc., on behalf of
GRACE R. LEWIS requests an Administrative Permit for a 10 Year
Maintenance Permit to add +/-60 cubic yards of clean fill/sand
to the eroded beach area landward of mean high water on an as
needed basis. Located: 885 Rogers Road, Southold. SCTM#66-2-39.
Number three, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of EDITH &TODD
FREED request an Administrative Permit for the demolition of the
existing dwelling, add fill and re-grade the area. Located:
12400 New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 116-6-12
Number four, ELIZABETH CANTRELL requests an Administrative Permit for a 10 Year
Maintenance Permit to hand cut the phragmites to not less than 12" in height on an as
Board of Trustees 4 June 18, 2014
needed basis. Located: 2125 Grathwohl Road, New Suffolk. SCTM# 117-1-7.
1 would move that we vote all three as a block. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Likewise, we have a number of mooring permits that are
replacements of existing stakes. A number of them are
individuals I contacted concerning getting a stake at the Narrow
River boat ramp where previously permit holders had abandoned
their renewal, and there is also an additional one for Little
Creek. I would move that we approve all the mooring permits as
applied for under item five, mooring permits requests, one
through seven. They are listed as follows:
V. RESOLUTIONS -MOORING PERMITS:
Number one, THOMAS BYRNE requests an On-Shore/Off-Shore Stake & Pulley
System Permit in Arshamomoque Pond, replacing Stake#S17. Access: Private.
Number two, FRANK SCHLECHT requests an On-Shore/Off-Shore Stake & Pulley
System Permit in Narrow River for a 16' outboard motorboat, replacing Stake#S17.
Access: Public.
Number three, WILLIAM L. GILLOOLY requests an On-Shore/Off-Shore Stake & Pulley
System Permit in Narrow River for a 13' row boat, replacing Stake#S28. Access:
Public.
Number four, RONALD RUTHER requests an On-Shore/Off-Shore Stake & Pulley
System Permit in Narrow River for a 12' outboard motorboat, replacing Stake#S13.
Access: Public.
Number five, CARLETON RAAB requests an On-Shore/Off-Shore Stake & Pulley
System Permit in Narrow River for an 18' outboard motorboat, replacing Stake#S29.
Access: Public.
Number six, ELLEN ATHANAIL requests an On-Shore/Off-Shore Stake & Pulley
System Permit in Narrow River for an 18' outboard motorboat, replacing Stake#S25.
Access: Public.
Number seven, STEPHEN GERACI requests a Mooring Permit in Little Creek for an 11'
outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring#65. Access: Public.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have requests for permit extensions,
transfers and administrative amendments which are minor
amendments to administrative permits. I don't believe we held
any out for additional discussion. We had performed inspections
or filed reviews on all of these. Does anyone see any we need to
discuss? I don't.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number six, the field inspection notes said
that they had not filed original plans for field inspection.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Oh, they had flipped them over on West Shore
Drive. We'll hold that out and vote that separately to request
Board of Trustees 5 June 18, 2014
an amended drawing. Let's do that. Thank you. Any other comments?
(No response).
Any other concerns?
(No response).
Okay, I would make a motion under item six, motion to approve
one through five as a block. They are listed as follows:
Number one, Garrett A. Strang on behalf of THOMAS MALONEY
requests the Last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7599, as
issued on July 20, 2011. Located: 1475 Smith Drive South,
Southold. SCTM#76-2-3.2
Number two, Garrett A. Strang on behalf of KENNETH HEIDT
requests the Last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7594,
as issued on July 20, 2011, and Amended on November 16, 2011.
Located: 8530 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM: 126-11-22
Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of ROBERT& KATHLEEN
LAWRENCE requests an Administrative Amendment to install a single
handrail along the proposed 4'x82'fixed timber dock and 4'x8' steps.
Located: 800 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 103-13-6
Number four, SCOTT D. &JULIA A. OSLER request a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#1708 from John Kosloski to Scott D. & Julia A.
Osler, as issued on October 25, 1983; and for an Administrative
Amendment for the existing 4'x40'fixed dock with a 4' long ramp
to dock; a ladder on southern side of dock; a +/-20"x40" bench
and a railing with rod holder at seaward end of dock. Located:
880 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 115-12-13
Number five, CYNTHIA&JOSEPH SCHAFER request an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit#8399 to abandon existing septic
system; install a new septic system with retaining walls +/-3'
above grade and approximately 170' combined length around new
septic system; remove/replace existing privet hedges for
construction; add beach stone 4"-6" in diameter along the
landward edge of the bulkhead framed with 4"x4" posts; create a
wall of boulders in a single row against the top of the
embankment; and re-vegetate areas with native vegetation.
Located: 1030 West Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM#90-2-3
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Number six, Charles, do you want to take that? Make a proposal
with respect to the stairs?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: That's something that was brought up by Mike. I
actually need his advice on that as well.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number six, VINCENT& LAURA MANETTI
request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8294 for the
as-built bluff stairs consisting of a ±50" long by±38"wide
upper landing to a 4' wide by 226" long set of stairs leading to
a ±98" long by ±38"wide bottom landing partially cantilevered
with a 4' wide by 112" long stairs to beach. Located: 150 West
Shore Drive, Southold. SCTM# 80-5-5.1
In this situation, they are requesting an as-built. But
what is depicted here does not--we have a concern with the
stairs which were not built according to the permit that was
Board of Trustees 6 June 18, 2014
approved, parallel to the bulkhead, but at a 90-degree angle
straight out-- rather, I have that reversed. Sorry. They were
not built at a 90-degree angle out from the bulkhead, which
would have allowed access beneath them, but parallel to the
bulkhead. So it was just a concern on our part.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay. I just wanted to see a clarification on
that. I was not sure if you wanted to talk about it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you want to move that to a requirement
of the amendment?
TRUSTEE KING: Actually the stairs are even closer to the
bulkhead than they would have been had they gone out.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, the way they built it, it's closer to
the bulkhead, there is less obstruction for foreshore, and there
is a decent amount of beach there that persons at ordinary high
water have good room to move. So if anyone wants to move it with
respect to as permitted drawings, is probably what we should get
from the gentleman.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make that motion. According to the as-built
description and the diagram that is now--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. And the as-built does show the turn to
the left.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Correct.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. So there has been a motion made to
approve it to the scale drawing that has been submitted in the
application. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. RESOLUTIONS OTHER:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next item under Resolutions-Other, is a return after
inspection in the field for a request for an emergency permit. I believe several
went out on it-- no,just Mike. Okay, Mike Domino was out on it. Were you out on
this too, Jim?
TRUSTEE KING: No, I didn't see it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, this is for PETER A. MOESEL requests
an Emergency Permit to temporarily relocate the existing 32'x16'
cottage 15' landward from its current location at the edge of
the eroding bluff. Located: 1450 Salt Marsh Lane, Peconic. SCTM#68-3-1.
This was the house that was basically going over the bluff.
Mike was on this one. We had discussed this during our work
session. This was the case where the house was out over the
bluff, and the initial request to inspect included, and
discussions in the field, that Mike Domino had, that the owner
indicated that they had lost the bluff and the house is in
danger from Tropical Storm Sandy. Our thinking during the
course of the worksession was that it was really not appropriate
to ask for an emergency permit if in fact it was from Tropical Storm
Sandy, which was almost two years ago. However, upon further
discussion with the Town Attorney Lori Hulse, she suggested that
we might want to consider the fact that if the house is truly in
danger, that we could provide some sort of ability for the
Board of Trustees 7 June 18, 2014
individual to move the house back and allow them to stabilize it
while they seek governmental permits. This house is so old that
it predates the town's certificate of occupancy record, the
property card system, so that there is also a question that,
Lori said there is a question of whether or not it might need
ZBA or other approvals. So she thought we may wish to simply
grant an emergency approval for the house to be moved and put on
cribbing, you know, back from the Sound, and of course to do
that we also have to consider the fact that the applicant has
not given us a current licensed land survey. We don't have a
survey that shows the coastal erosion hazard area line, so that
any emergency provision we would give we'll have to condition on
some sort of licensed survey and distances.
So I just want to open this up for discussion and get your
thoughts on how we might move on it.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: My concern would be if we were to move it and
give it permission for 15 feet, is most likely is that is
exactly where it will stay. So if we were to give permission for
anyone to build a home, how far away do we want to be away from
the bluff? .
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That is the big issue. Because his request
for 15 feet, without an accurate survey of the coastal erosion
hazard line, we don't even know that it would even be hazard
area compliant.
TRUSTEE KING: It should be moved landward of the coastal erosion
hazard line, in my mind.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: By a significant amount.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I did the inspection roughly three weeks ago.
The bluff is so steep there, and the angle of repose, normally,
42, 45 degrees, indicates that approximately ten or 15 feet of
this bluff is going to fail in the very near future. So if we
allow this person to move it just 15 feet, it's very much in
danger. It's so, the slope there is precipitous. And the home
is, it's precipitous to the point where the people who have been
contacted to raise the house are afraid of putting any stress in
jackings that will make the bluff fail. So the point is 15 feet
is not sufficient. Not at all.
MS. HULSE: The engineer who was initially,just to give you the
information, associated with this application, had made the
recommendation of I think it was approximately 50 feet. So the
15 feet I don't think was ever something that was a viable
option in terms of the engineer who officially reviewed it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Correct.
MR. MCGREEVEY: John, would the septic system be part of this
overall consideration?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would appear because of the lack of town
records on this, I think everything is a consideration. In other
words a full Building Department and if necessary a Zoning Board
of Appeals review, referral to the County Health Department for
water supply.
TRUSTEE KING: What kind of shape is the cottage in?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: If you recall, we inspected the house
immediately to the west of this--
Board of Trustees 8 June 18, 2014
TRUSTEE KING: The lady that was there.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes. It's virtually identical. Same sort of
construction, on cedar posts and brick piers. There is no
foundation.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: John, if I could make a suggestion. I'm noting
the size of this cottage is 32x16. An engineer had looked at
that and calculated the weight and determined it should be moved
back 50 feet. So I would recommend, depending on coastal zone,
I'm guessing the coastal zone line is closer than 50 feet to the
bluff. So I would recommend that this emergency permit be
approved to a minimum of 50-feet back. We know that the lot is
deep enough to handle that also, so you are not going to have
any setback issues with the town with moving it back there.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Can you clarify, is it 50 feet back from the
bluff or from --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: From the top of the bluff, the existing top of
the bluff, 50 feet back.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, in the form of a motion I would take
that. I just want to make that a part of the motion; do we want
to condition that to have a current licensed survey placing the
bluff line? He'll need a survey for all the government owned
approvals.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: He'll need that for when he comes in for any
type of permits for this home. He'll need all those things to
get permits to reestablish this house.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So I think what I'm hearing you say, maybe
it will be acceptable to just, we'll go 50-feet back from the
bluff at this time.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And it's a temporary relocation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Time is of the essence. And then we are
granting an emergency approval for a true emergency condition
and we are not holding him up for a licensed surveyor, so he can
immediately contract-- do you want to make that in the form of
motion, Dave?That was quite elegant.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. I'll make a motion, resolution, for Peter
Moesel, requesting an emergency permit to temporarily relocate
the existing 32x16 foot cottage, 50-foot landward from its
current location at the edge of the eroding bluff.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. RESOLUTIONS—OTHER:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next, resolutions-other, the Trustees
reviewed the new waterfowl blind regulations, which have come up
during the course of-- sorry, I stand corrected. We were going
to add in the Lyons permit transfer after discussing his
application during worksession.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you want to read it into the record since
it's not on the agenda?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. Mike, if you can read it into the
record.
Board of Trustees 9 June 18, 2014
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is in reference to KEVIN M. & CAROL LYONS
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#2161 from T.W. Horan to
Kevin M. & Carol Lyons, as issued on July 31, 1986. Located:
2085 Bayview Avenue, Southold. SCTM#52-5-3
Mr. Lyons is requesting to transfer the permit, and we are
adding into this permit the dimensions of the catwalk, ramp and
float, to further legitimize this transfer. The catwalk is
30'x3', and it commences at the end of the walk and concrete
wall that exists there presently. There will be 12x3' aluminum
or approved-material ramp down to a 20x5' floating dock.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With all decking --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All decking to be approved, non-toxic materials.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, a motion has been made and with the
amendments read into the record. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Resolutions-other, RESOLVED that the Board
of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby increases the annual
waterfowl application/renewal fee to $75.00 per year effective
June 19, 2014.
The Trustees met and discussed the duck blind regulations
which will come up subject to public hearing, but also we
discussed a fee increase for the duck blinds. There has not been
a fee increase in about 22 or 23 years. The onshore/offshore
stakes in town, the basic mooring costs $150 a year for a
year-round permit. Given the choiceness and the opportunities
that we still have for sportsmen here in town, the Board felt
it's not likely we'll have fees raised on duck blinds or waterfowl blinds
again for another 20, 25 years. So the Board is considering that it will
be appropriate to raise the fees for a half-year permit on duck/waterfowl
blinds consistent with what we do with boats and other structures for
year-round permits.
So therefore I would take a motion to approve the application of
a renewal fee of$75 for duck blinds.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could just make a point of discussion. In
preparation for a vote on this, I'm going to be voting no on
this. The reason I'm going to be voting no on this is because to
triple this fee from 25 to 75 dollars without some planned use
of that money towards a program, I just don't think it's
appropriate. I don't think we should be just raising fees just
for the sake of raising fees. I know when we raised the mooring
fees, we did it because we wanted to establish a mooring plan,
and that will cost money to establish a mooring plan. So we
raised the fees to cover that cost. So for that reason I'll be
voting no.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I appreciate that sentiment. And it is
certainly something that weighs on my mind. Now that you bring
it up, maybe I have to abstain from this motion because I'm a
duck blind permit holder and I like what you are saying.
But the other thing is if the new regulation passed mustard
at the public hearing, we've also broadened the definition of
Board of Trustees 10 June 18, 2014
when the blinds can be out there, so they are actually having
more user days, if you will, more access opportunities, which
also brings it in line with the early goose season where the
state is actually encouraging us to harvest more geese because
of what happens with the water pollution aspects. So I just
want to say that there was a little additional effort put forth
here to upgrade the current duck blinds consistent with that. So
I would just like to say that, and I appreciate Dave's comments,
and realize the funds go to the general fund of the town.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: There is a motion but not a second on it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is a motion, not a second. Yes, we
still have a discussion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have a motion that has been made and
seconded. All in favor?
(No response).
We'll do a roll call vote.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Aye.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Nay.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Nay.
MR. MCGREEVEY: John, can I personally make a suggestion. I don't
know if there is a system in operation where when something like
this comes up, and it sounds like a very good thing, maybe there
can be an amendment to the present thing you are voting on, that
it be considered by the powers that be, the Town Board, that
that be added to that new regulation or rule, that there be a
designated worthwhile fund that it be applied to. I don't know
if there is an apparatus to do that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The only apparatus is the Trustees working
directly with the Town Board.
MR. MCGREEVEY: I think it be a good suggestion that it not go
into the general fund but that it be used for worthwhile purpose
in conservation.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think there is any mechanism for
earmarking funds. You have to go to the Town Board and present
your budget and maybe put something in the budget line.
MR. MCGREEVEY: I'm being educated, I hope.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, at this time we'll go off the regular
meeting agenda. I'll take a motion to go into public hearings.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make that motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one under Wetland Permits, Shore
Solutions--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm sorry, we are under Resolution-Other for
the public hearing for the duck blinds. I'm sorry. No, we just
did the fee. The fees are set by the Board for access to
underwater lands but there is the change in the next item, will
be the duck blinds regulations that we re-authored.
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold
Board of Trustees 11 June 18, 2014
hereby adopts the revised Waterfowl Blind Permit Regulations as
written effective June 19, 2014:
Waterfowl Blinds on or over Town underwater lands must have a
Mooring Permit from the Board of Trustees pursuant to Chapter 96
of the Town Code.
1. Said permit shall be in force from August 25th through March
31 st.
2.Permitted functional blinds shall be in place by November 1st
each year or the permit may be rescinded. Blinds must be
removed no later than March 31 st.
3. A copy of said permit must be posted inside the blind.
4. No more than one blind permit will be issued per person.
5. A blind may be no closer than 500'from another blind and
provide at least a 500' unobstructed safety zone for firearm
discharge in front of the blind, including navigation channels.
6. It is a violation of the Southold Town Code to store a blind,
boat or floating dock on wetlands as defined in Chapter 275 of
the Town Code.
7. Town may remove or cause to be removed any blind that is in
violation of the Town Code with the cost associated with removal
and storage borne by the owner/permittee.
8. Waterfowl blind permits may be revoked at the discretion of
the Board of Trustees upon resolution at a noticed public
meeting.
9. The Board of Trustees reserves the right to regulate the
placement of waterfowl blinds, and days and hours of operation
to minimize user conflict and promote safety.
The Trustees came up with essentially a revisiting of the
blind regulations that existed about 20, 22 years ago, to
increase the functionality, to promote additional safety on the
creeks, and to provide a tool for the bay constables who had
felt that individual permittees of waterfowl blinds were not
removing them in the spring as they should, and there were
issues with the potential for damaging the wetlands, and there
were complaints coming in concerning user conflicts, with
individuals stealing the material, the existing rules should be
enforced. It's the intention of the Trustees upon review of
public comment in considering these for approval that we at some
point in the future will also wrap these into the mooring code
so it will be further codified under town law.
So at this time we'll open it up for any comments,
specifically to the waterfowl regulations.
MR. LEHNERT: Rob Lehnert. Two questions. One question and one
comment. Number five, you have the five-hundred foot like it's
always been. Can you explain "including navigation channels"?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. This would be sort of on a one-on-one
review. Because the September goose season in particular, which
some of us simply won't engage in because we were still busy
boating and fishing and other reasons, there might be blinds in
the town where it would be inappropriate to have the blind set
up for that season, so the intention would be, number nine where
we would reserve the right to minimize user conflict. So it's
not to say we say you can't have a blind, but if someone came in
Board of Trustees 12 June 18, 2014
for an application, we would review the existing applications;
I'm thinking some of the smaller creeks where there is no
problem with waterfowl activities that usually take place where
there are no vessels around.
MR. LEHNERT: Mine in East Creek would fall into that. I've been
shooting over the channel.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right. So we would take a look at all the
permits and,just that, we don't want any, occasionally you get
some young kids that are more like yahoos than sportsmen, and we
don't want them sending any BB's out over the sailors.
MR. LEHNERT: Well, the other is, kind of like you said, you
might want to rethink the August 25th. I mean, we've had
problems Thanksgiving weekend with kayaks.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, the August 25th, there is a few
locations where you might want to--you know, the state calls
it a coastal, Long Island coastal goose season. So it was
trying to accommodate that.
MR. LEHNERT: I've done shoots in the field but I don't know
about the water. Thank you.
MS. HULSE: Just to clarify, number one through eight are hard
and fast policy, and number nine refers to anything other than
what is not indicated in one through eight.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, so, all right, so with respect to
navigation channels, you are saying unless we modify that, we
would be prohibiting it, so current blind holders that are not,
they would then be disadvantaged, they couldn't have it with a
navigation channel during the later season when no one is on
vessels.
MS. HULSE: Not unless you grandfather them in.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, that would be something to consider,
because we don't want to make this for just all new permittees
we want to grandfather.
MS. HULSE: You can do either/or.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The issue was safety. So not to have any blinds
in the vicinity of the navigational channel is a safety issue.
That's why it was included.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there any other questions or comments?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Has someone been injured in those locations in
the channel in our history?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, I'm unaware of any. It's generally been
very safe. It's just proactive, you know, protection.
Hearing no additional comments, I'll hear a motion to close
the hearing with respect to the new duck blind regulations.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make the motion to close.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would like to make a motion approve these
new regulations subject to grandfathering existing permits that
may be in or adjacent to the navigation channels, provided there
is a limitation that those operations will be restricted to the
regular waterfowl season, so that this early goose season does
not create potential user conflicts or injuries.
Board of Trustees 13 June 18, 2014
MS. HULSE: Is that grandfather going to pertain to the
applicants only? In other words, upon renewal, they'll be
grandfathered in upon renewal until they cease to be -- because
that's the way it would work.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's a good question. That would be the
way it would work. Since we have not had any issues there during
the regular duck season.
MS. HULSE: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Can I ask a question?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Go ahead. The motion has been made. We
should have a second and discussion, I guess.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and seconded. Open for
discussion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: A qualification for me. Does "grandfather" mean
the permittee has it now about when that expires it doesn't
transfer to someone new?
MS. HULSE: That's correct. So even though the location might be
the same, the applicant ceases to hold the permit, then the
person would not be grandfathered in.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But the permits are seasonal. In other words
every year someone has to re-apply for a permit. So nobody has a
permit to grandfather right now.
MS. HULSE: That's the issue. If you are renewing as opposed to
issuing a new permit, and you are grandfathering them in,
presumably you'll grandfather them until they cease to be
holding the permit.
TRUSTEE KING: Then they would renew the permit, right?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They would renew the permit.
MS. HULSE: If you want to just grandfather them in for one year,
you have the option to do that as well. That's within the
Trustees' purview.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, this was brought in as a safety concern,
sol --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was brought in as a safety concern
specifically dealing with that early season. That's why I made
the motion has I did, so that we would preclude, you know,
operations in and around the navigation channel for that early
season.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The fact that there has not been an accident is
great, but nobody can say what the future holds. That's why I am
not in favor of grandfathering or amending this language as
listed here. I think we put this language in specifically to try
to address the safety concern and --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right. That said, I think it was really
because the activities, historic activities, have occurred in
and around waterways where navigation channels are not
necessarily specifically set. The constables have already
removed the navigation aids, so it's in reliance upon the
individual hunters which all involve training and licensing from
the state. So I guess I have, we have a slightly different view
on that issue. And I actually have some experience in this
because I'm a hunter coordinator with the DEC. The idea was to
Board of Trustees 14 June 18, 2014
afford additional access opportunities and making them safe.
But in no way do I want to abridge or reduce the current users
out there, because by and large, other than noise complaints,
which are always ever present with waterfowl activities, it
remains a very safe activity for the participants. So, anyhow--
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I would be willing to go for a year, to give
them a chance to modify their current location without the shock
of going, oh, now all of a sudden I been doing for years and now
I can't do this anymore. So I'm in favor of a year or two.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's a good compromise.
SECRETARY CANTRELL: At this point we have this issue there is
no way to relocate them to.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right, there is no way to relocate them.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: When you say there is nowhere to relocate them,
there is a lot of water bodies around.
MR. LEHNERT: Can I speak.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We actually closed the hearing.We can't
really open it for any additional discussion at this point.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't see what the problem is in putting a
seasonal envelope in there, where it's okay after a certain
date.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, and that is simple. It's
straightforward. And we don't have to revisit any. That's why I
said the regular waterfowl season, not the special season. So
I'll stand on my original resolution. We had a motion made and
seconded.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I need some clarification as to what the
resolution is.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The motion was to approve these as they
stood but with a grandfathering of existing blind positions and
that there can be no blind use in or near or, in other words,
within five-hundred feet of navigation channels, excepting
during the regular waterfowl season. The regular waterfowl
season starts in November, starts around Thanksgiving. So
navigation aids are out by then.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Right. So I think you need to make something a
little more specific in your--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, it's very specific. In other words,
the rules stand, as I made them, the rules, the new rules are
promulgating would stand excepting there shall be no blind use
near navigation channels excepting during the regular waterfowl
season.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Which is what specific period?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That specific period as set by law every
year, typically starting --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, so we set it like the scallop season, by
resolution, we'd set--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's set by the federal government and state
government and it's considered the regular waterfowl season and
it is typically around Thanksgiving.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because I would be comfortable with exactly with
what you are saying, setting it by Trustee resolution,just like
we do with the scallop season. So we control.
Board of Trustees 15 June 18, 2014
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, setting it by Trustees resolution to
conform with the regular waterfowl season as determined by the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which
sets those seasons. So it's parallel, exactly to the scallop
season.We have a resolution every season as to which way you
can use the waterfowl blind in the vicinity of channels in open,
you know, those waters.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Do you have to amend the original motion?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would have to amend the original motion. I
withdraw my motion.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it's just extra fluff.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think it's extra fluff.
TRUSTEE KING: Just say the regular season and so be it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And everyone knows what the regular season
is.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I think you should go with the original motion.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, we had a motion and it was seconded.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We had a motion made and seconded. Let's
have a vote on it. Roll call vote.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Aye.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Aye.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm not clear on what the motion is. So I would
ask Wayne to read back the motion so it's clear on what the
motion is.
(The reporter is searching for the requested portion).
TRUSTEE KING: Would someone just shoot me.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Me, too.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Or just reword it in a very succinct, clear way.
That's all.
(Inaudible).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Keep the vote going, then. So I vote no.
TRUSTEE KING: Motion carries four to one.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, 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. SCTM#77-1-1.
The Trustees visited the site on May 14th and reflagged the toe of the
revetment. Subsequent to that I attempted to meet with Donna Myers to explain the new
flagging and give her a hardcopy of our notes, and was unable to set a time agreeable to
both parties, that was workable. That's where we are at at this point.
Is there anybody here to speak to this application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KING: Maybe we should just table it.
Board of Trustees 16 June 18, 2014
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: She was very confused last time.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: She couldn't meet with me Monday because of some
sort of procedure she was having, so perhaps that explains why
she is not here. Perhaps it's best to table it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments or questions from
the Board, I'll make a motion to table this until the next meeting.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, Lehnert Construction
on behalf of JOSHUA KELINSON requests a Wetland Permit to remove
the existing 4'x33'wood catwalk and replace with new 4'x52' catwalk with
flow-through decking, new 4'x10' ramp, and new 6'x20' seasonal float.
Located: 560 Oak Street, Cutchogue. SCTM# 136-1-44.
The project has been determined to be inconsistent under
the LWRP. The reason behind that is inconsistent with policy
standards concerning tidal wetlands. I'm a bit confused because
that area has docks in the whole area. The proposed action does
not identify the purpose of extending the dock structure and
details of the proposed vessel. That we might discuss. The
applicant currently enjoys access to public waters via a 33-foot
long dock. The proposed structure increases the length to the
dock by 49 feet. Further encroachment of the private dock in
public waters does not meet policy concerning covering of public
underwater lands.
So we'll have to discuss the potential needs and the vessel
to make a determination under the inconsistency.
The CAC supported the application. At the time they
initially visited, it was not staked. Subsequent to our initial
inspection when it was not staked, the Board did go out and
found it staked. The Conservation Advisory Council did recommend
gutters and drywells for the property, for the house, and
removable piles and removal of the skip and floating dock from
the shoreline, and provisions made for lateral access.
The CAC had specific environmental concerns, other than the
dock application, which they otherwise supported.
The Trustees performed a field inspection on the site, on
the second visit, it having been staked. There was a question
was the outside stake at the seaward end, the outmost stake, was
that the seaward end of the float and inside stake the end of
the catwalk. There was a question about the staking.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application that
might be able to address those?
MR. LEHNERT: Yes, Rob Lehnert from Lehnert Construction. Yes,
John, the outer stake is the outer float and the inner stake is
the edge of the ramp. And the boat in question has a 28-foot
outboard power boat. So we are just looking to get some depth of
the water. The dock is not going any further than any of the
neighbors. Even the new one being constructed just to the
south. And the channel is on the other side of the creek.
Board of Trustees 17 June 18, 2014
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The channel is on the other side. And
basically, we have a dredging ban, so as far as the public lands
have to stay intact. The lands underwater have to remain intact.
It did appear it was in the pier line, the proposal. I don't
think anyone had a question with that. It seemed pretty
straightforward. As far as the inconsistency, there was a history of
dock use, and to maintain access for the individual --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: John, can I see the survey with depth?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Maybe that would address the inconsistency.
MR. LEHNERT: In reality we would like to go a lot farther, but I
know we can't.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The public policy purpose is strictly that
the use or extension of riparian rights over public waters, to
declare that contrary to public policy, I have a big problem
with. Because net sum total, all the private dock access that
this community affords and also the benefits that accrue to
neighboring kids, keeping that addition a safe, suitable access
to the water, I think trumps that notion provided the dock's
non-toxic, and particularly where you don't want dredging, you
don't want disturbing of native bottom. These activities are
relatively minimal. I always felt if you put a hook out in the
creek, or mooring, and you have the anchor rope constantly
revolving around, you are chewing up all the vegetation.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I was looking at was trying to address the
inconsistency with the depth issue, and I'm noticing this dock
is approximately how much longer than the old one, 19 feet?
TRUSTEE KING: 20 feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, so you are going from 1.2 foot depth to
1.4 foot depth. You are gaining about 0.2 feet. And again, I was
just trying to look at ways to address the inconsistency.
MR. LEHNERT: Like I said, we would love to go further but can't
go past the neighbors.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anybody else wishes to speak to this
application?
(No response).
Any additional questions or concerns from the Trustees?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I would make a motion to approve this application, addressing
the inconsistency by noting that allowing for even a minimalist
additional depth, reduces the possibility of siltation through
crop wash. There is a stated policy of not dredging creeks that
don't have a history of dredging in the navigation channel.
Therefore, I believe it addresses concerns about the need to
extend the structure additionally over public lands and Trustees
lands. And accordingly, since the application is within the pier
line and the applicant has made efforts to maintain it as
consistent with the neighboring use provisions of docks, I would
move to approve this application.
Board of Trustees 18 June 18, 2014
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. LEHNERT: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Michael Kimack on behalf of GARY &
KATHLEEN ZUAR requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing
one-story dwelling and deck; construct a two-story
+/-1,904.6sq.ft. dwelling with +/-703sq.ft. enclosed covered
porches, a +/-450.9sq.ft. deck, and +/-344sq.ft. outdoor shower
area; new sanitary system; and install stormwater management
systems. Located: 1905 Bayshore Road, Greenport. SCTM# 53-4-9
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the Zuar family.
TRUSTEE KING: I believe this was found consistent with the LWRP.
MR. KIMACK: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: He recommends installation of a non-turf buffer
landward of the retaining wall, and show storm water control,
gutters, leaders and drywells. That's the recommendation from
the LWRP coordinator.
And the CAC supports the application with the condition of
a drainage plan, and vegetated area should be defined. I guess
there was also zoning relief-- I guess for setbacks on the side
yard, you had to go to zoning for?
MR. KIMACK: They are not to change.
TRUSTEE KING: Because they granted the variance.
MR. KIMACK: The setback from the bulkhead will remain the same.
Setbacks from the sides will remain the same. The foundation
will stay in place, raised two feet added on to the front of the
house. It's a two-story house constructed on top.
TRUSTEE KING: This was pretty straightforward.We all went out
and looked at it. I didn't have any issues with it, and I think
we all, we felt the same, it should be a ten-foot non-turf
buffer behind the retaining wall. Landward of the retaining
walls. And if you could show us drywells on the plans for the
roof runoff.
MR. KIMACK: What I'll do is get those plans in and resubmit a
drywall plan. We have to get a storm water management permit
anyway.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay. Is there anyone else to speak on behalf of
on against this application?
(No response).
Does the Board have any questions?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: What about a hay bale line.
TRUSTEE KING: All right, why don't we put a hay bale line in,
too, during construction and deconstruction. Make it on the
landward side of the non-turf buffer.
MR. KIMACK: Okay, got it.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 19 June 18, 2014
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with
hay bale line being installed, ten-foot non-turf buffer behind
the retaining wall, and gutters and leaders to drywells for roof runoff.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number four, Raymond Nemschick, RA on behalf of
STEPHEN MITCHELL requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing
residence and abandon existing sanitary system; construct new
two-story dwelling with an approximate 5,625 square foot
footprint which includes an attached garage and a +/-1,200
square foot attached deck on the seaward side of the dwelling;
install new sanitary system; reconfigure existing driveway; and
the installation of a line of staked hay bales with silt fencing
to be installed prior to and during construction. Located: 7132
Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM#86-7-8.
The Board did go out and looked at this application. It was
found consistent under review of the LWRP. I'm looking for a
Conservation Advisory Council recommendation here.
MR. MCGREEVEY:We support the application with the storm water
management plan.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Here we go. Thank you. The CAC resolved to
support the application, with the condition the project is in
accordance with storm water management plan, which is required
as part of the permitting process.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. NEMSCHICK: Ray Nemschick, Nemschick Silverman Architects.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Like I said, the Board did go out and looked at
this. The only question we had on here was the location of
drywells we didn't see on here. Unless I'm missing it, I don't
see a location of drywells on the plans.
MR. NEMSCHICK: No, we haven't put the drywells on it yet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. The other,just to clarify, in the
description it says an approximate 5,625 square-foot footprint.
So the footprint of the building is 5,625?
MR. NEMSCHICK: The entire structure, including the decks.
Because it says inclusive. So the entire footprint: garage,
house, decking is 5,625.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And then we were looking also to include a
non-turf buffer at the top of the bank, plus a hay bale line
during construction, which I don't see on the plans at all
MR. NEMSCHICK: We listed it in our written description. We
didn't list the non-turf buffer, but we listed --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. We appreciate obviously that
the house is being moved back. That's great. Thank you, very
much.
MR. NEMSCHICK: Sure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I ask the Board in their opinion what they
feel is an appropriate non-turf buffer from the top of the bank
to the house. It looks like, I'm looking to see how far back the
house is going from the current house location.
MR. NEMSCHICK: About 20 feet, approximately.
Board of Trustees 20 June 18, 2014
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Looks like about 20 feet. Is there any
recommendation from the Board for a non-turf buffer at the top
of the bank?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ten feet. It's had a well-established
vegetated bank that's already functioning non-turf.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So, all right, if we were to include a ten-foot
non-turf buffer and then your hay bale line could go just
landward of the non-turf buffer, would that work for you as well
as enough room for construction in there?
MR. NEMSCHICK: Absolutely. Ten foot is fine.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else here that wants to speak
for or against this application?
Feel free to come up to the microphone and just introduce yourself.
MS. PRELLWITZ: My name is Wendy Prellwitz, I'm the owner of the
house just to the east of Steve's. So I got a notice of hearing.
And I guess I only have a couple of questions and that is that
the structure that is going to be built to replace the house
there is substantially larger, so if the footprint is 5,600
square-feet, then if it's a two-story house, it could be
potentially a ten-thousand square-foot house, and there was a
fairly modest house there before. So I guess my question, is
that consistent with town laws? And I'm wondering, I couldn't
tell on the plan, whether or not he's going to have well water
or town water. And I just kind of wonder about the aquifer and
that size house with a well. Because we have issues with saline
influx into some of our wells anyway. So I imagine it will have
quite a few bedrooms and quite a few bathrooms. And that's
really my main question, also related to maybe the lot coverage,
and I know the runoff needs to be kept on the lot, and you
mentioned drywells. So I guess my, really, my main question,
has to do with water and, um, whether the size of this is
consistent with town laws.
MR. NEMSCHICK: Do you mind if 1 speak on that?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just have one question first. What is the
square footage of the dwelling itself? In other words, minus
decks, minus the garage, block curb, etcetera.
MR. NEMSCHICK: The liveable area, about 6,500 square-feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As far as the building codes, I believe this
Board's responsibility, it's really not relevant to the workings
of our Board. There are other town agencies which have to do this
review in due course for their jobs. And the drainage reviews is
also a separate review now, that the Building Department does.
With respect to water usage, number of bedrooms, is a
controlling factor for applicants that have to go before the
Suffolk County Department of Health. So that's another agency
that handles that issue. And specifically with water and sewage
approvals that we are confined in the town wetland ordinance
which has to do with 100 feet that is landward of the tidal
wetland vegetation and/or dunes, bluffs and so that the
regulatory responsibilities of this Board in situations such as
this, go to making sure that the other agencies are,
applications are before the other agencies, and that we look at
Board of Trustees 21 June 18, 2014
such things as to confirm that we are going to have proper
drainage. The hay bale and silt fence, to immediately protect
the wetland area, and to try to promote expansion of where they
don't exist or enhancement of existing non-turf buffers or
non-disturbance areas. So really, for this kind of application,
our responsibilities are confined in that respect.
MS. PRELLWITZ: Okay, and it was good to see the house was moved
back. That's a good thing.
MR. NEMSCHICK: If we can offer just a quick blurb, we are not in
front of the ZBA or anything, we are not going in front for any
setback issues or lot coverage. We are applicable to all that.
In addition, Mr. Mitchell is currently looking to bring town
water through the entire section of that, past your house, so
you'll be availed to hook up as well.
MS. PRELLWITZ: Okay, well, I hear that's another, that's later.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Those issues are not really relevant to what
we've got to deal with.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, if we can bring this discussion back here.
Just so you know, you said you didn't know on the plan where the
water is coming from, there is a proposed well here, well
outside of jurisdiction, but there is a proposed well on the
plan here.
MS. PRELLWITZ: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You're welcome. I also have a fax that we
received from the neighbor Greg Cukor, dated June 15th. And he
asked the following general questions to be raised. Are there
any exceptions to the code requirements for setbacks, et cetera,
that would be an issue for the ZBA. And this has already been
reviewed by the Building Department and there is no need for
ZBA.
What will be the impact for the water table given the roof
area household water, irrigation system, septic systems. Again,
we are addressing that with it has to meet the new Town Code
drainage code as well as will have to meet Suffolk County codes
for Health Department codes for the septic systems.
Will it be noisy utilities such as air conditioner
compressors and backup generators to be located.
Ray, do you know, I'm not seeing it on here, unless I'm
missing it, where the generator will located here?
MR. NEMSCHICK: There is an existing backup generator now on the
site.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So you'll continue using the existing generator?
MR. NEMSCHICK: Yes, we are.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And air-conditioning compressors, will be
located adjacent to the house?
MR. NEMSCHICK: Correct. If we can we'll locate them where there
is no noise filtration. We are trying to be good neighbors.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, the last question raised, with regard to
the driveway, will the driveway be paved or is it going to be a
pervious driveway?
MR. NEMSCHICK: It will be a pervious driveway.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, that answers all the questions raised in
Mr. Cukor's letter. Are there any other comments from anybody in
Board of Trustees 22 June 18, 2014
the audience?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Ray Nemschick on behalf of Stephen Mitchell, with the condition
there will be a ten-foot non-turf buffer, with hay bale line
located immediately landward of that non-turf buffer. And
gutters, leaders and drywells will be included with the house.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number five, En-Consultants on behalf of WAMSLEY
FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to construct+/-122' of
vinyl bulkhead and +/-7' return in-place of and 12" higher than
existing timber bulkhead and return along southerly canal;
construct+/-120' of vinyl bulkhead and +/-33' return in-place
of existing timber bulkhead and return along westerly canal;
backfill with approximately 55 cubic yards of clean sand/loam
fill to be trucked in from an approved upland source; construct
a 10'x10'wood platform on-grade in existing clearing along
southerly bulkhead; provide water and electricity to
platform/bulkhead; and replant 10'wide vegetated area behind
southerly bulkhead with Spartina patens (18"o.c.) to be
maintained as part of a 10'wide non-turf buffer. Located: 490
Williamsburgh Drive, Southold. SCTM#78-5-10
The Trustees did a field inspection on the 11th of this month,
and noted that the-- requested they raise the canal side 12
inches, the bulkhead on the canal side 12 inches, and put in
place a low sill on the creek side, which is the southwesterly
part of the property.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent,
suggesting that a ten-foot non-turf buffer be planted with
native species.
The CAC did an inspection on June 12th and voted to support
this application with the condition that gutters, leaders and
drywells are installed to contain roof runoff, and suggested a
15-foot non-turf buffer landward of the reconstructed bulkhead.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicants. This is a fairly straightforward maintenance
application except for the issue of the southerly bulkhead,
which right now is about two feet lower than the bulkhead that
runs inside on to the west side of the property, and through
that interior canal.
The Board had a similar application from the property that
is located opposite the canal to the west, the Hansen property.
And you allowed the walls around both sides to be raised
Board of Trustees 23 June 18, 2014
substantially. We did not propose a substantial raising of the
southerly side here, but only a foot, which would still leave it
actually a foot lower than the wall on the inside that is shown
on the photograph there on the screen. Because at that elevation
we could still maintain a ten-foot non-turf buffer planted with
Spartina patens.
Basically, right now, the existing wall elevations-- and
this is a survey done in 1929 NGBD--the existing wall
elevation ranges from about 3.3 to 3.5. So you have a situation
where you are basically getting overtopping at least a couple of
times a month. If we raised it to four feet and change, it
should stop the constant flooding at that part of the property,
but still certainly keep the wall low enough that the high marsh
will be maintained. The patens will definitely thrive at that
elevation. We see it very, very commonly in walls around that
elevation, both here and on the South Fork, because patens
doesn't really have to have constant inundation. It just has the
ability to out-compete the upland grasses that would otherwise
be there.
So we wanted to drive to give some relief to the homeowner,
and in terms of how low that wall is elevated, but not to the
extent that would preclude the ability to maintain patens there.
So the ten-foot buffer that is mentioned by the LWRP
coordinator basically exists almost on the nose on the south
side of the property now, and we would propose to maintain that.
There is some phragmites and other stuff that is mixing in
there, so we would try to keep a pretty clean area of patens.
And then add a non-turf buffer on the other 120 feet on the
other side, which right now is obviously just lawn.
There is an area that is clear along the southerly bulkhead
that has been maintained for years as an access point for boats
and all, and we are proposing 10x10 foot platform on grade at
that location. That would be incorporated inside the buffer.
And the only other real wrinkle to the application is that the
33-foot return to the north, I don't know if have you a photo of
it, we submitted some with the application, which is also abuts
the Hansen property to the north, is actually located a little
bit to the north of that property line. So we submitted, I
think I E-mailed to Liz a letter from Cheryl Hansen, where she
basically agreed that she had no objection to that return being
replaced, but with the caveat that if any of the decking
associated with that boat ramp was damaged, that it be repaired
at the applicant's expense. So we didn't include that as part of
the proposal but we would ask if the Board would stipulate that
to satisfy the neighbor's request that basically, again, I think
in the normal course of operating procedure if something was
damaged next door, they would fix it. But we would want that to
be explicitly noted.
I think that's it. If the Board has any questions, I can
answer them.
TRUSTEE KING: The ramp is staying? Because there is a wooden
launching ramp there.
MR. HERRMANN: The ramp is Hansen's ramp. So we are not proposing
Board of Trustees 24 June 18, 2014
to rebuild it or replace it or anything else. That has to be her
decision to do that or not do that.
MS. HULSE: Rob, can I interject; did you get an approval or
authorization from the Hansen's for that? In writing?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, we E-mailed that. I have another copy of the
letter here. I have only the original copy of it, though.
MS. HULSE:Well,we can make a quick copy.
MS. CANTRELL: I don't recall getting that E-mail. I'll make a
copy.
TRUSTEE KING: So what you are saying is the ramp is on the
neighbor's property?
MR. HERRMANN: Correct. The boat ramp on the north side is not
part, it's not owned by Wamsley. The return is just, I mean the
return is, I'll put it this way. The southerly wall that bounds
of the ramp retains Wamsley's upland property. That's why
Wamsley would have the interest in replacing it as part of the
bulkhead replacement, because when they come down that 120 foot
stretch, they'll hit that corner, and that return will have to
be replaced. Since it is whatever it is, 1.2 feet over the
line, we asked Hansen to provide her authorization to replace it
as part of the application. And the only caveat I just handed Liz,
she just stated that if in the process of doing that you damage
some part of the ramp, she would not want it left like that.
Which is a reasonable request. If you want to keep the original
and give me a copy. Thanks, Liz.
I mean it's not an unusual -- I mean we have had that in
many permits before where a bulkhead return or something like
that happens to be off a little bit, and typically when it is,
we obtain a letter from the neighbor, you know, because of the
work that would occur on some portion of their property.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Just as a note, that the letter from Cheryl
Hansen dated June 3rd, referring to the northerly return will be
entered into the file.
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you, Mike.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Rob, during the course of the inspection, we
noticed that the southern bulkhead replacement is a pretty
healthy marsh there already and, we were there at high tide, and
we could see where quite regularly it overtops, and the question
that came to my mind was a low sill bulkhead, if it were to, in
other words overtop anyway, in other words would promote the
health of the marsh in that location, we were wondering if that was
considered, if that was part of any discussion.
MR. HERRMANN: We talked about the height of the bulkhead at
length, discussed with both the homeowners and also with Ian
Crowley, who I hoped would be here tonight. This is not, to me,
a property that lends itself to doing what is a real low sill
bulkhead, where the bulkhead would really be below average high
tide, so that you'd actually be able to get an intertidal marsh
behind it. You can't just drop a property-- I mean, this whole
area is canaled, bulkheaded, filled. It doesn't lend itself to
that.
So, I mean what we are trying to accomplish is actually to
reduce some of that blooding of the upland, but still keep it as
Board of Trustees 25 June 18, 2014
a non-turf buffer with Spartina patens. You know, if the Board
insisted on it, I mean you could just maintain the height of the
wall that is there. Um, but again, it seems here that the
character of these properties and these canals is that they are
raised, their filled, they are historically bulkheaded, you are
not really getting a project where you are creating some real
natural marsh area. It's just the composition of the vegetation
versus lawn. And recognizing that, that's why we proposed a
buffer that would still, I mean you could see in the section and
on the plan, that would actually be planted with patens as
opposed to being the type of non-turf before where we would be
proposing gravel or beach grass or something else. It's really
an issue of whether the wall would stay at its existing height
or be allowed to be raised at all. I don't think you can go any
lower here. It's not going to lend itself to that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You mean relative to the upland elevations.
MR. HERRMANN: Right. Because the elevation, I mean, even there
you can see the elevation of this property is even higher than
that wall. And that wall is two feet higher than the wall you are talking
about. So I think you would have a situation where it would not be stable
and you would not get any bang for your buck ecologically.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As you face the water, facing that south
bulkhead piece to be replaced, the homeowner to the east, it
would be, I didn't think they were bulkheaded.
MR. HERRMANN: That parcel is not, I don't think. You can see in
the photograph, but you can see mostly what is there is
phragmites.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. That question came up because we saw it
at high tide, and if the fetch is so much, we were maybe
wondering if there was an attribute here to enhance a lot of
wetland. If you go a foot higher, the patens, it's not really
going to create, in other words, there was an idea of
communicating. But with the elevations, the point is well taken
and that was a question we were looking at it. You'd have to
drop the existing one down to a foot-and-a-half, then we would
have erosion and other problems.
MR. HERRMANN: I don't think it would work here. But again, there
was not, you know, going into setting the elevation, it was
discussed a lot and we had talked about the fact, because at one
point they were saying, I think the property next door,
everything was raised up to whatever the height was, and I said
two feet, raising two feet to match that wall, you are not going
to have any communication. And then they talked about well, what
about 18 inches? Because that's typically what the DEC would
allow, what they are allowing in the emergency permit et cetera.
But I think at that height you cut it off, too. At 12 inches
you'll be right at about that point. You could raise it six, it
would help some and also be conducive to maintaining the patens.
I just said a foot because the homeowner was actively trying to
reduce some of the frequency of the flooding, and I think the
patens, it won't have that regular interaction, but the patens
doesn't really need it. I mean we see it, it's very similar to
actually what we see in Westhampton a lot. Where you get walls
Board of Trustees 26 June 18, 2014
that are not regularly flooded, but they are overtopped and over
sprayed enough.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have one of those myself.
MR. HERRMANN: That the patens will hold.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: My family property has the same
thing, it overtops.
MR. HERRMANN: So we expected the Board would have some input on
it. Whatever you think, whether it stays the same, goes six,
goes 12, 1 don't know that it makes a huge difference.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What if we split the difference between the
existing height and the foot six inches, so it would reduce a
little bit of regular overtopping and not bring it so high as to--
MR. HERRMANN: That would give you an elevation of around 3.9.
And an NGBD, you typically see the edge of the tidal wetlands
boundary right around four. So it might reduce it a little bit,
but you would still have some movement back there and keep
connected. It's just as reasonable an alternative as what we
proposed. So I think we could live with that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We still have the request to raise that bulkhead
along the canal 12 inches. As you can see, the slope here, as
you pointed out, the land is higher than the bulkhead. And one
of the Trustees was concerned that you might reduce runoff in
heavy storms by raising the bulkhead on the canal a foot and
then reducing that slope. That was one of the comments I made
originally. Would you care to speak to that?
MR. HERRMANN: The bulkhead is so much higher than the other
wall, I don't think we even thought about it. It is high on that
side, and if we raise the southerly bulkhead half a foot less
than we planned, and then raise that a foot, it's going to be
even more of a disconnect at that corner.
TRUSTEE KING: There is no non-turf buffer there now so once you
get a buffer there, it will be an improvement.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If it's agreed that six inches on the
seaward side is doable, if we go too much higher there, if the
disconnect would be huge, with a turf buffer, I don't know, I'm
rethinking that. I think that we'll stick with the 12-foot
non-turf buffer would be huge there.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this
application?
MS. HULSE: Rob, did Cheryl Hansen hand you that letter
personally?
MR. HERRMANN: Did she hand it to me personally?
MS. HULSE: Yes. I'm just asking, because it's not notarized.
MR. HERRMANN: She actually E-mailed it to me. And that's what I
thought I forwarded it to you, Liz.
MS. HULSE: I'm just asking because the letter itself is not
notarized, which is required. As long as you can attest to the
fact that it's her.
MR. HERRMANN: I can attest to the fact that it came from her
E-mail. But for the future I'll know to get these notarized. I
appreciate that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you. Any further questions or comments
from the Board?
Board of Trustees 27 June 18, 2014
(No response).
Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
noting that, plus or minus, the, sorry, the bulkhead along the
southerly canal will be raised six inches rather than the 12
inches as noted on the application. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number six, En-Consultants on behalf of JAY P.
& KAREN QUARTARARO requests a Wetland Permit to remove and
replace in-place +/-182' of timber bulkhead forming boat basin
and +/-33' of timber bulkhead outside boat basin with vinyl
bulkhead; remove and backfill (2) existing dilapidated step-down
platforms and bulkhead on seaward side of platforms to be raised
to same elevation as adjoining walls; remove and replace
in-place +/-27'timber jetty with low-sill vinyl jetty (+/-24"
lower than existing); dredge up to 10' off boat basin
bulkheading and east side of jetty to a maximum depth of-36"
ALW and use approximately 75 cubic yards spoil as backfill
together with approximately 25 cubic yards of clean sand/loam to
be trucked in from an approved upland source; install a 3'x14'
hinged ramp, and 5'x24'floating dock, and 4'x52'wood boardwalk
landward of bulkhead in northeast corner of boat basin; and
provide water and electricity to dock. Located: 4294 Wunneweta
Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 111-14-27.1.
The LWRP finds this to be consistent; and the CAC supports
it. When we went out and inspected on the 11th, we suggested an
add-on of ten-foot non-turf buffer. Is there anyone here to
speak on behalf of the applicant?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. This is, again, a pretty straightforward maintenance
application to maintain and restore the use of the existing boat
basin. The ten-foot non-turf buffer would be agreeable, and we
can provide that. Unless the Board has any other specific
questions about it, I can end my comments there and let the
application stand as it was submitted.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Any thoughts from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: What were the Conservation Advisory Council
comments?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The CAC supported it, correct?
MR. MCGREEVEY: Yes. Full support. We didn't mention the non-turf
buffer, I think we should have.
MR. HERRMANN: That's agreeable.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay. Not seeing anybody else here to speak on
this, I have a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 28 June 18, 2014
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I would like to have a motion to approve this
application with a ten-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made, is there a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number seven,
En-Consultants on behalf of PETER BOGER request a Wetland Permit
to demolish and remove existing one-story, 928sq.ft. single
family dwelling with attached decks and steps and construct new
two-story, 824sq.ft. single family dwelling on raised foundation
with covered entry, masonry walkway, and steps; raise existing
shed; remove existing sanitary system and install new sanitary
system raised 2 feet above groundwater with concrete retaining
wall and approximately 328 cubic yards of clean fill; install a
drainage system of gutters to leaders to drywells to dwelling;
remove existing driveway and install new pervious gravel
driveway and parking area; and establish in place of existing
lawn areas located more than 4' seaward of proposed driveway
approximately 1,790 square feet of landscaped buffer areas to be
planted with native vegetation and approximately 500 square feet
of non-turf buffer to consist of un-vegetated clean sand.
Located: 717 Private Road #12, Southold. SCTM#87-4-4.
The project has been determined to be consistent with the
LWRP. The CAC voted not to support the application with concerns
that the nutrients be released into the water from the sanitary
system; concerns about the enormity of the leaching field
affecting groundwater; and concerns about the setback of the
structure 100 feet from the wetland.
The Trustees have been to the site twice; once for a
pre-submission conference, when it felt like it was Alaska, and
another to perform the monthly field inspections on June 11th.
The Trustees' primary concern during the course of field
inspection was whether there would be an opportunity to get a
greater separation between the bottom of the leaching pools and
the groundwater. And that essentially were the concerns that the
Trustees paralleled the CAC. Is there anyone here who wishes to
speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant Peter Boger.
Yes, it seems like many moons ago we had met on the
property with the Board, and at that time we discussed the fact
that we would have to, I had a bit of a row to hoe with the New
York State DEC and the Town ZBA before we got back in front of
you. I think when you left, Dave said something like if you get
through all that, we'll see you on the other side. So --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sounds like something I would say.
MR. HERRMANN: So having gotten through that, we are seeing you
on the other side. I just remember leaving that meeting very
ominous.
But actually, we think it's a pretty good project,
actually. It's basically a property that is three-tenths of an
Board of Trustees 29 June 18, 2014
acre. It's been in the applicant's family continuously since the
1940s, the original C of O for the cottage was issued in 1957.
The existing cottage has a dwelling footprint of 928
square-feet, and also contains a shed very close to the property
line, which had previously been approved by variance by the ZBA
in 2003.
Basically Mr. Boger is in front of the Board now because he
wishes to transform the cottage that has been used seasonally by
his family for about six decades into a dwelling that be used
and enjoyed as a year-round residence. The property, as the
Board knows, however, is highly constrained not only by the size
and configuration, but by the presence of tidal wetlands along
Corey Creek, which leaves only 9,500 square-feet of the property
usable as buildable land under Town Code.
Once you apply to a prior town or state wetlands setbacks
to the maximum extent possible, the house has to remain as far
east on this property as can be, which is what necessitated --
well that and a couple of other things--what necessitated
going to the ZBA.
As part of the design we did have to address what we knew
would be concerns with the DEC, ZBA and this Board. To address
those concerns, what actually ended up happening is we reduced
the overall zoning nonconformity, because the house was shifted,
and we actually decreased the nonconformity under the zoning
code, and in terms of issues relating to Chapter 275 and Article
25 of the State Tidal Wetlands regulations, we are actually
downsizing the house footprint from 928 square feet to 824
square-feet, and including all the changes here, the overall lot
coverage, even with the little slate patio out front, increases
by only 15 square-feet.
The septic system drives a lot here. It is, you know, what
I think happens often with these kinds of applications is in --
and Jay, you are certainly aware of this--that in an effort to
upgrade the system, you have to put in lots of shallow leaching
pools. And sometimes the perception is that this is going to
somehow be worse than what is there when in fact typically the
opposite is true. I mean the existing septic system sitting
there now is absolutely 100% guaranteed sitting in groundwater
and feeding Corey Creek every time the toilet is flushed. So
what is being proposed here really at great cost and great
effort is this retaining wall that is required by the Health
Department that will raise the entire system so that the bottom
of the leaching pools are raised two feet above ground water, as
it also required by the DEC. Part and parcel of that, the house
gets lifted to conform to the FEMA requirements. And in the
usual effort to mitigate, basically the change in an older
seasonal cottage to a new house, isn't always an opportunity to
establish some sort of non-turf or non-disturbance buffer. And
what we have proposed here, there is going to be a bit of a
shift in the location of this driveway in order to accommodate
the location of the sanitary wall, and basically the entire area
on the seaward side of that driveway would become a landscape
buffer, which is that term that is defined not in your code but
Board of Trustees 30 June 18, 2014
in 268, where the purpose of it is not like a non-turf buffer
that you could just put gravel or sand or something like that as
you could under 275, but an area that has to be actively
planted, and then there are specifications set forth in 268 as
to maintaining the viability of the plantings over a long period
of time. There is an area that is proposed in that area to be
maintained as an area of sand, so there is still at least some
area in the property where you would have recreation near the
water, and those areas are called out on the plan, and I forget
what the exact areas are. I'm having trouble finding it on the
map. But I think it's included in the project description that
you read.
As to the question of whether the sanitary system could be
raised any higher, that would necessitate really exceeding what
our, the code requirements of basically all of the agencies that
are involved, raising the house higher, raising the wall higher,
bringing in more fill.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Have you acquired a Suffolk County
Department of Health Permit?
MR. HERRMANN: We have not yet. I would say almost consistent
with Dave's comment, that we sequenced this in a certain way to
make sure that we could actually get through one agency before
making it to the next.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I understand. The Suffolk County Health
Department will rely on this Board's determination before
they'll grant a final approval.
MR. HERRMANN: Well, they don't rely on this Board for their
technical review, but the application will be deemed incomplete
until the wetland permit is issued.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Here is a question I have for you. The
problem with trying to build the retaining wall higher, changes
the aspects of the property. The question I have, in looking at
your cross-sectional diagram of the septic profile, they are
showing approximately, well actually, if you do the numbers, one
foot of soil fill over the top of the septic tank and leaching
pools, the question that comes to my mind is there an
opportunity to pick up an additional one foot of leaching; in
other words go to the three feet below the pools by having those
leaching pools closer to the surface and maybe having filter
fabric and gravel or non-turf unvegetated non-turf area such as
gravel base or something filter cloth or something; because
trying to establish a lawn over this would be difficult. And
with the one foot to leaching pools in a dry, sandy area, it
would be difficult to maintain vegetation, and I'm just
wondering is there a possibility with the existing wall size,
the existing sanitary could simply go up one foot and see if the
Health Department would approve a non-turf solution for covering
that, that would be acceptable to the homeowner. Because the
real concern here is that, you know, with the configuration of
the properties, being closeness to the water, again, showing
leaching, is just a thought.
MR. HERRMANN: I know, unfortunately Tom Samuels who designed
this system is out of town and can't be here tonight. But I do
Board of Trustees 31 June 18, 2014
know from our work that the Health Department requires to have a
foot of cover. So that's the way the system was designed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't want to encourage your paving or
such, but I know that they have new paving structures that are
pervious. Is this before the Board of Review at the Health
Department or is it in straight up administrative review.
MR. HERRMANN: Well, I don't know the answer to that because the
relief that would be required from the Board of Review would be
100 foot separation from surface waters. But if there is no
other septic to well separation relief required, they'll
sometimes deal with that in an administrative fashion, in other
words as opposed to having a hearing, they acknowledge there is
an existing development that predates all the codes including
theirs, there is a nonconforming system there now, that is as
short of code as it can possibly be, and there is nowhere else
to put the system. So they would not typically make someone go
through a hearing process with that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So I guess the points with the concerns of
the CAC and the concerns of this Board, it would seem that if
the Health Department is meeting their separation distances, but
there is some engineering discretion through an administrative
review, would you be adverse to, the question being posed to
them from this Board can the engineering review include--
MR. HERRMANN: No, they don't--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Does that kick it over to the review board?
MR. HERRMANN: Right. They don't-- I don't know whether they
don't have or have chosen not to have, but based on recent
experience what they used to do is if there were minor changes
in a design, they could handle it administratively. They don't
do that anymore. The only time we see it is if it is just a
straight up separation to surface water where there is no other
option. Because, I mean, if it was a vacant parcel, that would
be different. But an existing parcel and how substantial of an
upgrade the proposed design is relative to the existing
condition, it becomes a no brainer for the Health Department. I
mean, why wouldn't they grant it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, the thing is, the foot of soil is
based on providing insect and rodent barriers, it seems to be
this day and age, you know, particularly. It won't look pretty
there in August when all those vessels are heating up down below
grade, doing what they are supposed to do to treat the sewage,
there will be no lawn there, no plants.
MR. HERRMANN: We could ask the question, Jay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I just a little uncomfortable we couldn't
get a little more elevation above ground water with this job
without buffering the walls up.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Rob, I have been on the site. I noted on the
plans that McDonald Geo-Science, noted he encountered water 1.8
foot below the surface. And if you factor that in with the plans
submitted, it's a section in septic profile, which is noted not
to scale, and if there is one foot above the leaching pool, and
the pool is two foot in depth, that puts-- and your existing
concrete retailing wall is three foot, that puts you down below,
Board of Trustees 32 June 18, 2014
an inch below.
MR. HERRMANN: But the test hole is dug on the other side of the
property. You can't go by what the distance is below the
surface, you have to go by elevation.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes, the point I'm trying to make is the
existing grade on this is 2.9 feet. So this southernmost
leaching pool is going to have less than two feet separation to
the groundwater. So I'm asking you to consider what Trustee
Bredemeyer suggested and somehow get a greater separation there.
Because I'm very much concerned that it's been brought to the
attention of this Board just today, we have to consider rising
sea levels. So this is so borderline that if I were to approve
it now, I could see it failing in the near future. And that
won't be an improvement.
MR. HERRMANN: To the numbers, Mike, the elevation to ground
water is one. And the bottom of the leaching pool is designed at
3.25. So two and a quarter feet above groundwater by design. The
minimum required by under the state tidal wetlands regulations
and Suffolk County Health Department code is two feet. I
understand what you are saying, but to me it's not an issue of
whether it's borderline or not borderline. It meets the code
that drives it. If this Board wants to seek to impose something
else, that's up to you, but it's, I mean, we are meeting the
code that we have to meet.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I dispute your math because this is very, very
close to being less than two foot separation from existing grade
2.9 feet. The wall is three feet and the pool is two. Again,
this is not to scale. So I couldn't even scale it out. I believe
if you scale is it out it's going to be very, very close.
MR. HERRMANN: You don't have to scale it out. The numbers are on
the septic profile.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Would the Health Department in the course of
doing a review ever do a test well to actually determine the
ground water elevation in a pipe in the vicinity of the
sanitary? I'm just thinking maybe we should consider tabling the
application and request the Health Department do an in situ
assessment of the water depth in the exact area that the
leaching pools are going, instead of relying on the test hole. I
mean I think we are talking about, you know, splitting --we are
not talking splitting hairs, we are just talking about doing it the right way.
MR. HERRMANN: You are talking 50 feet. The elevation of the
groundwater will not vary over 50 horizontal feet.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, but I'm concerned about the accuracy of
the elevation over time. In other words what I'm saying, we see
it on some jobs whether Geo-Science or whoever is doing that,
puts in PVC pipe so the elevation can be monitored by the Health
Department during the course of their review to actually measure
ground water depth in relation to the proposed elevation.
MR. HERRMANN: I mean we can --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we are all speaking the same
language here. You are trying to meet code. We are trying to get
it up as high as possible. Since you still have a pending Health
Department application, it seems this is something where this
Board of Trustees 33 June 18, 2014
Board can make a reasonable request and then hold for the Health
Department just to review and visit this, so if it's going to go
two feet we are absolutely sure the ground conditions, that's
what engineering says, that's what the follow-up assessment is,
so we can get the maximum possible.
MR. MCGREEVEY: John,just a question. I don't know if it's a
factor, but is there public water being brought into this
community?
Is there public water accessible from these homes?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Now the adjoining homes, would that be a factor
if they are connected to public water or they have wells instead
of public water? Is that a factor?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's a factor for Health Department
approval. It's not a factor for us.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Okay.
MR. HERRMANN: So John,just so I'm clear, what about the data
that we have provided by McDonald Geo-Science and has been
designed by Tom Samuels are you questioning?Are you questioning
it's inaccurate?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, I'm not. I think the situation such as
this probably has tremendous variability time to time, depending
on when the test holes were done. The test hole could have been
done basically at a tidal cycle where the data may not be
representative. It's not that it's not truthful.
MR. HERRMANN: In other words, so you would be looking to have,
for instance, I think what I'm hearing you are getting at, like
to install a monitoring well so you could over a series of time
determine--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would say that is not this Board's general
area to get involved with. To request the Health Department to
put a monitoring well, in the ordinary course of their--
MR. HERRMANN: The Health Department won't put in a monitoring
well.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm talking about the applicant, so it gets
reviewed by the Health Department in the ordinary course of
their review. I do believe they look at those things when they
are requested or when they are brought up. Otherwise I mean, I
just think it's the right thing to do here, to get hard facts in
the exact area where the sanitary is going, particularly with
all the concerns. And it shouldn't take you much time.
MR. HERRMANN: I'm not fighting with you, I'm just trying to get
for the client, who is here, I'm trying to get some outside
vision of what you are imagining to happen here.
So if the Health Department comes back to us and says
everything is approvable as it has been proposed except for the
fact we have not submitted a copy of the Trustees permit, do you
want us to come back to you and present you with that?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would say wouldn't it be a little more
efficient if we simply communicated with the County Health
Department our concerns that we have an actual physical two feet
of separation in that location, that would they consider in
addition to the engineering data provided a test well that they
Board of Trustees 34 June 18, 2014
would monitor with their professionals. I mean, I know this
because I used to do this. And they will go out and put a line
down in a drinking water well or in an area of concern with the
groundwater, I think short of forcing this to a board of review
where it seems like everything here is going in the direction of
doing everything you possibly can, if we pose the question we
would like to see this as part of their review, I think it's
something that would go neatly toward addressing the concerns of
the CAC and this Board.
MR. HERRMANN: So you'll contact the Health Department?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We would write a letter to the Health
Department voicing our concerns there be an actual engineering
assessment in the vicinity of the leaching pools. And then if
you needed to modify by whatever, if there needs to be any
changes, you would be in the position to make those assessments
directly addressing that with the Health Department. This is a
concern. We are not designing your sanitary. If it's supposed
to be two feet, I think it's appropriate for this Board to see
there is two feet in this area.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay. And you are looking for more information
that would establish that more to your satisfaction.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right.
MR. HERRMANN: Understood.
TRUSTEE KING: My feeling is that is a vast improvement over what
is there now.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Mine, too.
MR. HERRMANN: Unquestionable.
TRUSTEE KING: So, I mean, what's a system like this cost, Rob,
do you know?
MR. HERRMANN: Unfortunately, Tom is not here, but with the
pouring of a retaining wall and filling the system, it's up
there. 20, 25, $30,000, 1 don't know the exact cost of it.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'm just a little confused here. If the Health
Department would, it seems like it's out of our, that's the
question, it seems like it's out of our--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It might be out of our hands, but here is
the situation. The concerns over groundwater where this house
will be here for another 50, 60, 70 years, if the sanitary goes
in and the assessment for the test hole was done at a day or
time, say a hard northwest wind, very low tide, it could well be
the data, even though it is honest and true to what the engineer
did at that time, you could end up having a septic system here --
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I totally see that logic.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: But the Health Department won't go back
after the fact and check. It will get constructed and no one
will ever know whether this truly has that separation. So all
the good intentions of a system that will arguably be better,
but if you are only six inches or a foot to groundwater,
effectively, you haven't done much better than a cesspool in
groundwater. It's just a matter of--
TRUSTEE SANDERS: But isn't that up to the Health Department to
determine whether that is indeed correct.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, what we are doing is essentially
Board of Trustees 35 June 18, 2014
asking an additional question. So that our concern is answered
to that ahead of this being constructed. Once the sanitary
system is in, it won't be moved, I don't think, it won't do
anyone any good. We can't condition this on the final inspection
to see if we have two feet of groundwater. A Trustee going out
here and digging in the bottom of a pool and finding it's only
one foot will not really please the applicant.
I mean, we can put that as a stipulation to our C of C. I
have been known to get in pools and dig to the bottom of them.
I've had a lot of people rip them out. That's what I used to do
for a living. But I don't think that's the time to do it. I
don't think they'll like that.
MR. HERRMANN: Jay, if we offered, I mean without, again, because
I'm still not totally certain what the logistics are because we
were never asked for this before. But, I mean, if we just
offered to pad this design with another half foot on top of what
has been indicated, would that satisfy--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't know if it really means it will be two
feet above the ground water elevation.
MR. HERRMANN: The problem that I'm having, Jay, is, based on the
test hole and the design, we are more than two feet above groundwater.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, so how about this, we put it on the C
of C. I'll go down there and when I go dig in the bottom of the
pool, it's less than two feet, we agree to raise it. That's the
offer I'm making.
MR. HERRMANN: As long as you do that with every other
application you approve, sure.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If you are here, sure, I'll be glad to. If
the Board so deems. That's why, you have not got a County Health
approval yet, that's why I think this is the time for us to
communicate with the County Health Department.
MR. HERRMANN: Just for the record, we've never had a County
Health Department approval before we come here because we can't
get one before we come here. So this is no different than any
other application.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Can we request another test hole be done at
that location, for them to do that and then come back to us?
Is that what you are saying?
MR. HERRMANN: That's what I'm getting at. The only thing we can
do that I think would get at what Jay is asking for would be to
actually install a monitoring well, where we would have Mark
McDonald -- Peter Boger to pay Mark McDonald to go out every
week or every two weeks, for some period of time the Board would
stipulate, and take a reading,just as this reading was done on
October 4th, 2012, which was right before Hurricane Sandy, and
check that groundwater elevation. I mean that has been done
before. Jay, what you are saying is, it's not foreign to me.
It's been done before.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's up to the applicant to, I think you
represent. Would it just be easier if they just raised the wall
and raise this system another foot, based on the plans; in other
words just bring it up a foot and proceed in that fashion so it
would not be tied up with us asking McDonald Geo-Science or
Board of Trustees 36 June 18, 2014
Health Department for additional look at this?
MR. HERRMANN: I would have to ask the architect how that would
impact the entire design. I can't answer that off the cuff.
That's why I said six inches, because I would think that's a
small enough change. But another foot, the concrete retaining
wall as it is now at a sample, there is about two-and-a-half
feet high, so that would make it three-and-a-half foot high,
that would be almost a four-foot exposed concrete retaining wall
around the entire side of the property. I mean, it's quite a bit
of a difference. Um, and, we would have to raise the house
higher. I actually don't know. I mean, Lori would that require,
do you know, would that require us to go back through the entire
Zoning Board process? I mean if the house that was granted a
variance for a given elevation were raised another foot, you now
have a foot, a house that is a foot higher at those approved
setbacks, would we have to go back?
MS. HULSE: I mean, was the elevation was not part of the
variance of the setback, right? I mean they do consider that de
minimis. But that would be up to the ZBA.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are you saying the house cast iron going to
the septic is going to affect the height of the building?
MR. HERRMANN: I'm saying if you are going to raise the pools,
you'll have to raise the tank, which means you have to raise the
invert, which means you have to-- again, Tom has designed the
system, and he's not here, so I can't.
MR. MCGREEVEY: The CAC, as you remember, we follow-up on the
with the Trustees on these applications. Let's take, for
example, this is not a unique situation. You'll find it more
and more prevalent with what took place where Sandy and rising
sea levels. Take for example, in East Marion, Rabbit Lane, those
cottages along there, each one of them is a very different
situation here. But very similar to this. They're going to have
to elevate their homes. Are they going to elevate all those
cesspools, too?They are all on small lots. So use this East
Marion/Rabbit Lane as example to what the situation you are
facing here.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we are getting away--
MS. HULSE: We are really far afield.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, any additional comments?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would just like to say your offer of raising
it six inches I think is moving in the right direction, Rob. I'm
suggesting you consider 12 inches.
MR. HERRMANN: I think the only thing we can do, Mike, I can talk
to the applicant. I can talk to Tom Samuels. If raising it a
foot would provide the comfort for this Board that was needed to
approve this and it would work, then I would say we could do it.
I think we would like to try to find out if that would force us
to have to go back to the ZBA. I know we would have to go back
to the DEC. I mean basically the cost and the length of this
project actually, truthfully, had Mr. Boger very close to
quitting on this about a year ago. And I thought it was a good
project, the DEC approved it, granted a variances, the Zoning
Board approved it. We are coming to you with a code conforming
Board of Trustees 37 June 18, 2014
design. So my only fear is that if this now ends up in some way
snowballing into another eight or ten or 12 months or however
additional cost, we may abandon the project, and then it will be
the same cesspool that is sitting in groundwater now. So I
just, and I'm not trying, that's not a threat. I'm just trying
to balance this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you feel the six inches is totally
doable, from your perspective, at this point? Another six
inches on the wall?
(No response).
What if this Board directly requests of the Engineering
Department and the Health Department that the six inches we
request relief in terms of the soil cover that would allow you
to use filter fabric; in other words request relief in
accordance with their approval, if they even give you half a
foot of relief, we are talking about you thereby gain a foot of
elevation through no major project change.
MR. HERRMANN: Why don't we table it so I can go back to Tom,
perhaps Tom can have a conversation with Ed Lyons with the
Health Department. Because again we are, obviously a lot of
effort has been put in here to do the right thing. So I'm not
trying to argue that we should not do the right thing. I'm just
trying to understand how to make it right for you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we would feel comfortable if we
table it and bring another foot out of it whether it's soil
filled and a type of cover over the top and half a foot--
MR. HERRMANN: Let us look at it for a month and we'll get back
to you and let you know what is doable, whether it's six inches
or 12 inches or whatever it is.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you think it would be helpful if all us
communicated with Mr. Lyons of the Health Department?
MR. HERRMANN: I mean, we can make the initial communication.
Again, it's very frustrating to me because I'm handicapped by
the person who designed the system not being here. But if we
can, if I can speak to him, look at the design, see if it will
work, we can have an initial conversation with Ed, and if it's a
situation where it will just work, then we don't have to go
through all that. If he says, well, to make that work, you are
going to have to go to the Board of Review and this, that and
the other thing, then I can relay your concerns and maybe he can
speak directly with you or whatever.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's fine.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I, personally, I like the idea of what you just
mentioned of go ahead and taking the month, take the time to get
the information and come back to us with all the information. I
prefer at this point that this Board is not involved in writing
letters to the Health Department.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, Dave do you want to make that in the
form of motion, it sounds like we have a consensus of the table
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The motion would be to table this application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right. Do you want to make it a motion --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure, I just want to find out if there are
anymore comments first.
Board of Trustees 38 June 18, 2014
TRUSTEE KING: If this meets the Health Department standards of
today, I'm not that uncomfortable with what has been presented
tonight. If new standards need to be imposed, I think the Health
Department should be the ones doing it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: But will the Health Department approve of
it. That's the key issue here.
MR. HERRMANN: But we can't get Health Department approval
without--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the offer to table is a good one. I
think the conversation, we are not that far part.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm not making that motion at this point in
time. I want to know if someone would like to make a motion to
approve this application.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I make a motion to approve this application as
is.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: I'll second it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second. Roll call vote.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: No.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No
TRUSTEE KING: Aye.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Aye.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Personally, I wish we had gone ahead and
approved the six inches more, because I would have gone for six
inches more. Given the discussion that we've had at this point
in time, I'm going to vote yes. Aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, motion carries. Okay.
MR. HERRMANN: We'll still look at it. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, Briarcliff Landscape on behalf of
THOMAS ZOITAS requests a Wetland Permit to re-establish and
subsequently maintain the buffer area by planting a 40'wide by
+/-112' long buffer with native plantings along the top of the
bluff; the existing T wide walkway through the buffer to
remain; remove the existing 4' high fence and erect a new 4'
high fence along the landward edge of proposed buffer area.
Located: 62555 North Road, Greenport. SCTM#40-1-7.
This was found consistent with the LWRP. This was a wetland
permit to reestablish a buffer area. The CAC supports the
application, however the fence should conform to Chapter 275 of
the Town Code, and the swimming pool should have a drywell to
contain the pool backwash. I'm just trying to think of what the
275 fence code is--
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Fence is not allowed near the top of bluff.
TRUSTEE KING: Jack, do you know what the reason that was in
there for? The fence should conform to Chapter 275 of the Town
Code?
MR. MCGREEVEY: From my own knowledge I thought hurricane fences
of that type were not allowed by 275 when they ran perpendicular
to the water on the property line. This, if I'm not mistaken, I
made the inspection, this runs parallel.
TRUSTEE KING: This is running along the top of the bluff right
now. It's going to be moved landward.
Board of Trustees 39 June 18, 2014
MR. MCGREEVEY: I don't know if that was a concern. Their concern
was they didn't think the fence might meet code. It's a
hurricane fence that runs along the top of the bluff from
property line to property line.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think there is anything in the code.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Am I correct, if it's on the property line going
down to the water?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, that's a different story.
MR. MCGREEVEY: I think that was the question. They were not sure
if it was up on the top of the bluff running from property line
to property line.
TRUSTEE KING: This is a piece of property that's got a long
history. I think we started it back in 2008. There has been some
violations on it.
MS. HULSE: There still are violations on it.
TRUSTEE KING: It's been one of the most troubling applications
that I have seen since I have been on this Board. I don't even
know where to begin. We are trying to get it straightened out.
Initially, the permit was for a pool and fence. There were some
issues about clearing and there was not supposed to be any
clearing. To make a long story short, the whole area was
cleared. Violations were issued. The area was substantially
restored. I don't think it was restored to the condition it was
originally. But anyway, the C of C was issued for it. After the
C of C was issued for it, for the restoration and everything,
the entire area was sodded and the fence was moved out to the
top of the bluff after the C of C. And Trustees made an
inspection on an adjoining piece of property, and that's how we
came to find all the changes that have been made. So now we are
here to try to reestablish some of the buffer area and move the
pool fence landward from where it is. So, that's it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And there had been a meeting between you
Trustee King, and the Town attorney and Mr. Zoitas.
TRUSTEE KING: More than one meeting.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the final agreement set the terms of the
fence location.
TRUSTEE KING: Originally the fence was very close to the pool.
They come in and amended the permit. We gave them the amendment
and moved the fence, I believe it was 25 feet seaward from its
location. And now we'll be moving it back. And I think it's
supposed to be 40 feet landward from the coastal erosion hazard
line.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right. As a matter of a point of
correction, the letter that I sent out from my hand which
attempted to reiterate the agreement between Trustee President
King and Assistant Town Attorney Lori Hulse and Mr. Zoitas that
the line is supposed to be, the fence is supported to be 40 feet
landward of the coastal erosion hazard line, and my
communication inadvertently misstated what was the prior
agreement. And a new set of plans that we have submitted by
Briarcliff apparently used that miscommunication. It's really
supposed to be 40 feet from the coastal erosion line. There was
no agreement for 40 feet from the bluff.
Board of Trustees 40 June 18, 2014
MS. GRIGONIS: Joyce Grigonis. I'll have to tell that to my
client.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, his reliance in my letter, my letter
did reiterate it was based on the agreement of the Town Attorney
and Trustee Jim King and Mr. Zoitas. It simply was a scrivener's
error. It was a writing error. I did outline in my letter that
it was based on the prior agreement. And that's what is operant
here. So I'm just bringing that up as a point of correction.
It's understandable your client might try to interpret it
differently, but there was a prior agreement that the
representatives of this Board had made.
MS. HULSE: Let me just explain, all of that is also further
seaward than what was authorized by the permit. So the Trustees
are basically making allowances that are much less restrictive
than what the permit authorized. So in terms of the foot path,
in terms of where the fence is located, in terms of the
vegetation that is required, all of those were relaxed by this
Board.
MS. GRIGONIS: He is not changing the foot path.
TRUSTEE KING: So right now I have these plans dated 23rd of May.
He shows the fence at 35 feet landward of the coastal erosion
hazard line. It should be 40. So just to clarify that on these
plans, it's a five-foot error that has to be corrected.
MS. GRIGONIS: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: As far as the plantings go, there has been a lot
of discussion. I think the majority of the Board feels there is
not enough plantings being developed, particularly in trees. We
show three black cherries. Personally, I don't feel that is
enough. By a long shot.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: One of the photographs in the file shows, we
counted seven black cherries that were removed. I think we have
a goodly number that were stumps. The first inspection I
performed on the property some five years ago, I remember
uncovering wood chips and finding black cherry stumps.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Do we have the old Google shots at all?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't know if it's the file.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Joyce, have you been before us, yourself, with
this application, the Zoitas application, before?
MS. GRIGONIS: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So you are aware of the history.
MS. GRIGONIS: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
MS. GRIGONIS: I sat here with Pat Moore.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: This is looking seaward. Here's what it looks like.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What's the date on that?
We are just looking at are pictures from 2008 in the file when
we were out there, which shows how heavily vegetated this was,
with lots of fully grown and mature trees there that have all
been, obviously totally against what this Board wanted, had been
cut down, cleared and sod has been put in, irrigation has been
put in. And, you know, as I'm sure you can understand, this
Board is very upset at what the client has done.
Board of Trustees 41 June 18, 2014
MS. GRIGONIS: Yes, it was the client prior to.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand. It was the client, and you are now
here trying to come up with a fix.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have an issue, we relaxed the distance on
the fence, we worked that out. I don't have an issue with that.
I do have an issue with not enough trees being planted. That's
my big concern.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And you were there for the prior agreements
so that it was understood that this was going to have a serious
revegetation plan, and as proposed, the plan in front of us is
relying heavily on various grass species, which is not replacing
what is there. Some restorations often rely on the canopy or
amount of cover, and I think a reasonable number of trees, not
just three black cherries but a reasonable number of trees that
provides a canopy, and not just grass species is really what the
Board is looking at.
MS. GRIGONIS: I did discuss this with Jim King in the office,
but there was Rosa Rugosa there and the deer jumped the fence
and ate it down to nubs. I did go about two weeks after we did
the plantings and most of the plantings were to nubs. Absolutely
chewed, like I cannot tell they were there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree with you and that's why, for me, I don't
even want to consider that type of planting. I personally feel
we need mature trees put in. I think it's tough, and I'm not in
the business, but I think it's tough to get mature cherries to
go in there. But Oaks we could get.
MS. GRIGONIS: Plus you have to keep them for two or three years
secure so they don't blow over. You are better putting in a
smaller tree.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well what we talked about the other day, we
talked about Oaks and what other species?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Maple.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's right, Oak and Maple. And we are looking
at a dozen of each. So we are looking at two dozen trees,
six-inch caliper trees. Two dozen of them. We figured it out by
square footage, it would all fit in there. It would then create
a canopy that would have really been there if your client had not--
MS. GRIGONIS: So do you want me to tell him 24 six-inch caliper
trees in there?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what we are considering right now, yes. I
think what you are hearing very clearly is we are not
comfortable with grasses. Absolutely not. This was heavily
vegetated. As you know, you saw it before. And so it needs to be
returned to that the best that we can. We know we can't
instantly do that, but you can over a few years' time create that
canopy again by planting appropriate trees. Grasses won't do it.
Grasses can sit there for 50 years. They won't create a canopy.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In deference to the wild trees, you can get
native cherries or something, you can't get in that caliper but
trees that might be 25-years old that caliper, but that might be
something with your experience, I know the deer problem is ever
present. What about beach plumb or laurel species, bayberry,
things like that, are they more deer resistant? So there could
Board of Trustees 42 June 18, 2014
be an understory mix that might go with some trees.
MS. GRIGONIS: Bayberry is one of the more deer-resistant plants
I've seen. Even beach plumb gets chewed to nubs. Anything that
starts with prunus.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any of the prunus species.
MS. GRIGONIS: Yes. And we also have to deal with deer antler
rub, too, on anything. If we put up 24 six-inch caliper trees,
the very next wind storm will blow them over in that
environment, the next nor'easter, the next hurricane, the next
tropical storm, no matter how much we stake them. I mean that's
just brutal; that exposure right there is brutal.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It is, you're right.
TRUSTEE KING: Especially when you clear all the native stuff
out.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, that's it. Your client created this
problem, not the Board.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: If it hadn't been cleared, it would not be an
issue.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is a problem we deal with all the time. The
client creates a problem, comes to us and says what you are
asking us to do is unreasonable. Well, you created the problem.
So let's come up with a solution, I agree, that will work. I
don't want to see anybody putting in a whole lot of trees that
everybody knows will just come down. Like Locusts, they'll come
right down.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A question for you, because you are the
design professional. If your client puts in trees with a smaller
caliper, let's say two-inch, two-and-a-half trees with deer
guards, how long would they have to be monitored before they
would have sufficient size and stability? Is that a proposition
of three, four, five years? Because they would have to have--
MS. GRIGONIS: No, they'll grow all twisted and blown like the
ones that were originally there. They just grow that way because
of the wind.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I also want to suggest that any planting plans
that are developed don't cluster the trees on the perimeter to
maintain a view. 24 trees on this area gives you about
200-square foot per tree, evenly spaced with stakes, will do what we
want to do, and that is protect the environment. We are less
concerned about the applicant's view of The Sound.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I'm saying. They could fit in there.
MS. GRIGONIS: I'll let him know that's what you want. I don't
control what he does after.
TRUSTEE KING: I'd like to see some bayberry, black cherry and
any other--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sure, anything that is appropriate to that
exposure, more suitable. But, I think the Board is looking at
two dozen trees. So evenly spaced or does it matter understory
of the shrubs replacing them with suitable sized shrubs that
might be deer resistant. I think the concept here is to recreate
the natural buffer.
MS. GRIGONIS: Okay, so 24 more shrubs and trees.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, 24 trees.
Board of Trustees 43 June 18, 2014
MS. GRIGONIS: Because bayberry will turn into a tree.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If you replace with good size, say laurels,
bayberries, I don't have a problem with that because then you
start having a space thing. If you want to specify shrubs in
addition to trees; do you want to have 24 trees and 12 shrubs?
TRUSTEE KING: That's fine.
There is a sticky note here, you talked about leaving the
fence footings in so there is no ground disturbance. All that
sod will have to be removed anyway, so I'll just say no, take
the footings out.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, and the irrigation system will have to come
out also.
TRUSTEE KING: And anything in the buffer area has to be removed
anyway, so. My feeling is we have to take a hard line on this
because it's just been so outrageous. Really.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Were there fines imposed, Jim?
MS. HULSE: There would be if he came to court. Their attorney is
adjourning it routinely and not coming in, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Obviously the violations have to be taken care
of before anything can happen.
MS. GRIGONIS: There is still outstanding violations?
MS. HULSE: Yes. Two.
TRUSTEE KING: It's been an extremely troubling situation. So I
would just make a motion to table this and come up with a new
planting plan; change that one fence distance to 40 feet from
coastal erosion, and go from there.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And again, mention to your client, the
violations, we all know the violations have to be taken care of
before this Board will approve anything.
MS. HULSE: I can mail the paperwork to him if his attorney can't
appear. Because that seems to be what the issue is, his attorney
is from the city and is not appearing here in court. So if he
wants me to mail them to him, I have no problem doing that, if
his attorney consents to that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't know how the rest of the Board
feels, but a strict 24-foot count on the plants, more or less,
it says here the landscape architect, whatever your title is, I
guess if you show the canopy and we have coverage of suitable
shrubs and trees and we spoke of deer resistance, and we are
getting that canopy approach, personally, I don't want a tree
count of each individual tree. But a mixture of shrubs and trees
that provides for a reasonable canopy over the area is what we
are looking for. And you can probably state the availability of
those sizes, particular we would like to have suitable size
trees that will handle wind and at the same won't lean, and you
mention the probability of blowing over, so we'll rely on your
professional ability to help find that suitable caliper to give
us a canopy.
MS. GRIGONIS: Could we have a one-year guarantee--
TRUSTEE KING: The motion was to table it.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 44 June 18, 2014
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
John M. Bredemeyer III, President
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED
JUL 8 2014
Q
So hold twn aerk