HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-07/23/2014 John M. Bredemeyer III,President �'0f soyo Town Hall Annex
Michael J. Domino,Vice-President '`� l0 54375 Main Road
P.O.Box 1179
James F. King,Trustee Southold,New York 11971-0959
Dave Bergen,Trustee G
Charles J. Sanders,Trustee Telephone(631) 765-1892
`,oU��yFax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RECEIVED
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - '-A.A
AUG 2 1 2014 C 1a:1()Pft,
Minutes 6 _2e c �
Wednesday, July 23, 2014 Sou hold Town Clerk
5:30 PM
Present Were: Michael Domino, Vice-President
Jim King, Trustee
Dave Bergen, Trustee
Charles Sanders, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Clerk Typist
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 at 10:00 AM at Fishers Island,
and on Wednesday, August 13, 2014 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 5:30 PM
WORKSESSIONS: Monday, August 18, 2014 at 5:30 PM at Down's Farm, and on
Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of June 18, 2014.
TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to our July meeting. We have
Wayne Galante with us here. He keeps track of what everybody says. So when we get
to the public hearing section, please come to the microphone and identify yourself. And
if your name is difficult, if you can spell it for him, please.
We are a little shorthanded tonight. The chairman has had some serious
operation done on him. He'll be out of commission for a while, so he won't be here. I'll be
running the show tonight, I guess.
Mr. Peter Meeker is here from the CAC. He is the representative from the
Conservation Advisory Council. They go out and look at many of the projects we look at
and give us their recommendations.
We'll set the date for the next field inspection. We'll be going -- is everybody
going to Fishers Island on the 6th of August?
(Affirmative response).
Board of Trustees 2 July 23, 2014
We have field inspections on Fishers Island on the 6th of August, at ten o'clock in the
morning, and again on Wednesday, August 13th, we'll be on the mainland.
Do I have a motion on that?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Motion to approve the next field inspection.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Our next Trustee meeting will be Wednesday, August 20th, at 5:30.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: And we have a worksession on Monday, August 18th,
at 5:30 at Downs Farm, and again on Wednesday, August 20th, we
have another worksession at 5:00. Make a motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a motion to approve the Minutes of June
18th, 2014?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I make a motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for June 2014. A check for
$5,925.54 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, July 23rd, 2014, are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
SEQRA:
Morandina Living Trust— SCTM# 136-2-12
Patrick & Joanne Conway— SCTM# 123-4-2
Ralph Carbone, Jr. —SCTM# 1-2-6.5
Lisa Gillooly— SCTM# 27-4-7
Brain T. Frawley—SCTM# 112-1-2
Firm Foundations Partners LLC —SCTM# 113-6-23
Edgard EI Chaar— SCTM# 137-1-1
Margaret Pisani —SCTM# 126-11-9.1
Cedars Golf Club, LLC, c/o Paul Pawlowski —SCTM# 109-5-16.3
Robert Pellegrini —SCTM# 137-3-4
Robert J. Musco— SCTM# 76-1-15.3
Board of Trustees 3 July 23, 2014
Nitin P. Desai & C. Barsi, LLC —SCTM# 51-1-15
First East End Holdings Corp. — SCTM# 139-1-18
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make to a motion to approve that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: On page two, under resolutions and administrative permits, what we
try and do to move things along, if these are fairly simple and there are no issues or
problems with them, we can group them together and approve them all at once. So on
page two, I would make a motion to approve numbers one, two, three and four in one
shot. They read as follows:
Number one, LYNN FAUGHT 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
needed basis. Located: 425 Lakeside Drive, Southold.
Number two, Michael Kimack on behalf of DOME LUCA, LLC requests an
Administrative Permit for the renovation of the existing dwelling, and for a series of
proposed walkways, gardens and terraces as follows: East Side: 10'wide walkway east
to property line, 6'x53.2' walkway with stairs and landing, 24.1'x27.7' garden with
22.1'x10' staircase and landing on the gardens south side; North Side: 29.8'x6' walkway
with stairs and landing, 4.11'x16.7' garden, 30'x23' terrace, 42'x6' walkway with stairs,
4.11'x33' garden; West Side: 42.2'x12.8' garden, 23'x60' terrace, 31.5'x31.1' garden,
12.8'x6' stairway; South Side: 4'x33' garden, 6'x33' stairway, 30'x18' terrace, 22'x7.1'
garden, and 22'x9' landings and stairs. Located: 14909 Main Road, East Marion.
Number three, GEORGE & STAVROULA PROTONENTIS request an Administrative
Permit to construct a +/-20'x12' deck attached to dwelling. Located: 215 Tarpon Drive,
Southold.
Number four, L.K. McLean Associates, P.C. on behalf of MATTITUCK PARK DISTRICT
requests an Administrative Permit for the excavation and installation of concrete
drainage structures; repaving of existing asphalt and re-striping of existing parking lot;
and restoration of site with non-fertilizer dependent, non-invasive plant species. Located:
11280 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Mattituck.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number five, HOPE SCHNEIDER requests an Administrative
Permit for a 10 Year Maintenance Permit to apply roundup to weeds in driveway
and backyard; installation of an in-ground sprinkler system; and re-vegetate areas
along the west side and in front of the dwelling using native vegetation.
Located: 1960 Mill Lane, Peconic.
This is a request apply to round-up and do an inground
sprinkler system and re-vegetate areas. The Vice-chair had talked
to this owner, because we are uncomfortable with applying
roundup, because it's very near the water. And she agreed to withdraw that.
So this would be an Administrative Permit for the installation of an inground
sprinkler system and to re-vegetate areas along the west side and in front of the
dwelling, using native vegetation. And the request for maintenance of roundup is
Board of Trustees 4 July 23, 2014
withdrawn. So this is only for the inground sprinkler system and to re-vegetate
those two areas.
I would make a motion to approve that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: On page three, number six, Dwyer Design Consulting
on behalf of DORIS L. WILLS TRUST requests an Administrative
Permit to replace windows and doors in new locations on existing
dwelling; construction of a front entry porch with roof over;
removal of existing roof overhang around attached garage and
construction of decorative trellis; and construct an outside entrance
into crawl space. Located: 1815 Bayshore Road, Greenport.
We all went out and looked at it. We have no issues with
that. But we want to see a ten-foot non-turf buffer behind
the retaining wall. And that would be stipulated in this permit.
And there was a deck expansion, so this is just -- I don't think
it's in the description either. So this is just for the modifications listed,
and there will be a ten-foot non-turf buffer behind the retaining wall.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Note for the record it's also exempt under the
LWRP. And I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Before we go any further, I apologize. We have had
some postponements. I don't want to see anyone sitting here
waiting for something to come up that has been postponed.
On page five, number 12, David W. Olsen, Esq., on behalf of
MICHAEL KOKE, GARRETT KOKE &TRACEY MELVIN request a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#2062 from Jean Koke Holman to Michael Koke,
Garrett Koke &Tracey Melvin, as issued on August 28, 1985; and
for an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#2062 for the
existing 4'x50' fixed catwalk. Located: 875 Calves Neck Road,
Southold, has been postponed to next month. The owners were just
in here, so they are aware of it.
On page nine, number eight, John C. Ehlers on behalf of
FIRM FOUNDATIONS PARTNERS LLC requests a Wetland Permit to
install a 16'x36' in-ground swimming pool with 16" bluestone
pool coping; a 10'x16' bluestone pool patio; install a pool
equipment area; and install pool fencing. Located: 1060 Fox
Hollow Road, Mattituck, has been postponed.
And on page ten, number nine, Michael Kimack on behalf of
ROBERT J. MUSCO requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing
wood decks and steps; construct an irregularly shaped
(+/-26'x16') in-ground swimming pool with a +/-500sq.ft. pool
patio and associated pool fencing; construct a short retaining
wall along northerly line of patio; install a drywell for pool
backwash and pool equipment area. Located: 497 Ripple Water
Lane, Southold, has been postponed.
Board of Trustees 5 July 23, 2014
Is there anyone here that was here for any of those that
have been postponed?
(No response).
V. RESOLUTIONS - MOORING PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: On page three, Resolutions - Mooring Permits. As we did with the
amendments and transfers, if they are pretty straightforward, I would move that we
approve numbers one, two, three and four on the mooring permits. They are listed as
follows:
Number one, PAUL FITZGERALD requests a Mooring Permit in Gull Pond for a 26'
sailboat, replacing Mooring #20. Access: Private
Number two, BRYANT P. McELROY requests a Mooring Permit in Gull Pond for a 35.7'
sailboat, replacing Mooring #26. Access: Public
Number three, GORDON LAU requests a Mooring Permit in Jockey Creek for a 26'
outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring #890. Access: Private
Number four, BURKE LIBURT requests an On-Shore/Off-Shore Stake & Pulley System
Permit in Narrow River for a 14' sailboat, replacing Stake#S24. Access: Public
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, we'll do the same thing under Extensions and Transfers. I'll
make a motion to approve number one and two on page three; number three through
ten on page four; number eleven on page five; number 13, 14 and 15 on page five. And
page six, I don't really know why that's on. Let's just go as far as 15, the ones I just
talked about, I'll make a motion to approve those. They read as follows:
Number one, JUDITH HOCKEMEYER requests a One Year Extension to Administrative
Permit#7864A, as issued on August 22, 2012. Located: 245 Bayview Avenue, Southold.
Number two, VIVIAN V. EYRE requests a One Year Extension to Administrative Permit
#7865A, as issued on August 22, 2012. Located: 759 Orchard Road, Southold.
Number three, JOSEPH ZALNER requests a One Year Extension to Wetland Permit
#7892, as issued on August 22, 2012. Located: 700 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue.
Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of BARBARA STROKOFF request a One Year
Extension to Wetland Permit#7895, as issued on August 22, 2012. Located: 1345
Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold.
Number five, En-Consultants on behalf of STRONG'S MARINE, INC. request a
One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7912, as issued on September 19, 2012.
Located: 2402 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck.
Number six, DROUZAS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORP. requests a One Year
Extension to Wetland Permit#7891, as issued on August 22, 2012. Located: 54120
County Road 48, Southold.
Number seven, Docko, Inc. on behalf of MARGARET ROBBINS CHARPENTIER
requests the Last One Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7375 and Coastal Erosion
Permit#7375C, as issued on August 18, 2010, and Amended on August 24, 2011.
Located: East End Road, Fishers Island.
Number eight, Robert Barratt on behalf of SUBURBAN RENEWAL, LLC requests a
Board of Trustees 6 July 23, 2014
Transfer of Wetland Permit#8379 from Verni Family, LLC to Suburban Renewal, LLC,
as issued on March 19, 2014. Located: 160 Inlet Lane, Greenport.
Number nine, BRADFORD WINSTON & SANDRA POWERS request a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#5562 from Robert Sommerville to Bradford Winston & Sandra Powers,
as issued on May 22, 2002. Located: 485 Breezy Path, Southold.
Number ten, STEPHEN & BARBARA FRIEDMANN request a Transfer of Wetland
Permit#678 from Thomas Palmer to Stephen & Barbara Friedmann, as issued on
August 9, 1971, and Amended on May 31, 1994. Located: 2140 Deep Hole Drive,
Mattituck.
Number eleven, Jennifer Gould, Esq. on behalf of GEORGE J. HOSSENLOPP
REVOCABLE TRUST and LINDA L. HOSSENLOPP REVOCABLE TRUST request a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#E26-2-7.2, as issued on December 21, 2002, and Coastal
Erosion Management Permit#26-2-7.2, as issued on January 28, 1993 from Edwin
Gerrity to George J. Hossenlopp Revocable Trust and Linda L. Hossenlopp Revocable
Trust. Located: 194 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient.
Number 13, Paul Pawlowski on behalf of MICHELLE &TIM MCMANUS request an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7883 for the as-built +/-24' long "U"
shaped outdoor kitchen area on top of slate patio, with all equipment connected to the
dwelling's existing electric and septic. Located: 7725 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
Number 14, Swim King Pools on behalf of LUAN SADIK requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit#8405 to move the proposed pool 5' to the west side;
install a channel drain (lineal drain) leading to drywell; and install an impermeable patio
using concrete and pavers in lieu of permeable patio. Located: 2200 Sound Drive,
Greenport.
Number 15, Fairweather& Brown Associates on behalf of PETER & MARY KORNMAN
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7742 to install a 6'x24' brick
in sand patio area along the seaward side of the dwelling. Located: 1077 Bay Home
Road, Southold.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number 16, Thomas McCarthy on behalf of ALEXANDER
& PAULINE LEDONNE request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit#8430 to make the seasonal ramp and float a year-round
ramp and float. Located: 910 Oak Avenue, Southold.
Now this Thomas McCarthy, this was never part of the permit
to make it a seasonal ramp and float. It was already permitted
as a year-round. So this doesn't even have to be on the agenda.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I believe that was explained to the applicant in
the office but the applicant insisted it would be put on the agenda.
TRUSTEE KING: It doesn't make any sense. It's already there. How can you
make a wetland permit a wetland permit? It's not a seasonal permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't disagree with you.
TRUSTEE KING: So I think it's a moot issue. They have a wetland
permit for a fixed catwalk, ramp and float.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are you suggesting that we remove this from the
agenda and offer to refund them their fees for this application?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I have one quick question. They already have a
permit to make something seasonal to be year-round?
TRUSTEE KING: No, it's already year-round.
Board of Trustees 7 July 23, 2014
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: A seasonal permit, the float is removed in
November and put back in the water in April. That's seasonal.
We never issued this as a seasonal permit. We issued this as a
regular wetland permit. I don't know why they have this on. They
already have what they are asking for. We can approve it and
just do nothing. It's your call.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, Liz, it's my understanding this was
explained to the applicant and he insisted it remain on the agenda.
MS. CANTRELL: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Fine, I'll make a motion to approve it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Makes no sense. It's his money.
TRUSTEE KING: So the only one we have to talk about is number
17, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of JAMES MAINO
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7155 for
the as-built modification to the upper retaining wall by
constructing 81' of new retaining wall varying in height between
4'3" high to 3'9" high in-place; a 137' varying height angled
wall section at east end and 21'4"wall 6" high at west end;
constructed a 5'3"x9'6"x6'9" stairway; constructed a 43'3"
of additional retaining wall varying in height from 3'9" to 1'0"
as a return wall east of west property line running north to
south; and for the as-built stone filled area between the return wall
and west property line. Located: 655 Albacore Drive, Southold.
This was found inconsistent, and I think it was found
inconsistent because some of the construction was not exactly
the same as what is on the plan.
We all went out and looked at this. I believe the property
is being sold or has been sold, and they need to transfer it.
So they need a final inspection on it. It's just, there were
some minor changes that never came in for an amendment. I don't
think anybody had any issues with anything. As a matter of fact
some of it was an improvement on the one side of the property
that they put in, it's better than sod or anything else, so.
I would find this, seeing what's been out there and what
has been built, I would find it consistent with the LWRP because
everything there is what we would recommend. So I would make
that motion to approve this, finding it consistent with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll second it.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. RESOLUTIONS —OTHER:
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under part seven, Resolutions, the Suffolk
County Department of Public Works asks each year of the five
east end towns to submit a dredging priority list to submit to
Board of Trustees 8 July 23, 2014
the county. I want to make it clear this does not mean this is
the final priority list. The county then takes all five towns,
east end towns' priority list and puts it together, and the
county then comes up with a priority list for the five east end
towns comprehensively. So we are doing what the county is
asking for here, with a resolution:
WHEREAS the Southold Town Board of Trustees are requested by
Suffolk County to provide a priority list for Dredging Projects
within the borders of the Town of Southold, and,
WHEREAS the Board has made its annual review of the creeks and
ponds within the Town and now makes the following
recommendations,
BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Southold's 2014/2015 Dredging
Priority list and spoils placement to be provided to the Suffolk
County Department of Public Works shall be as follows:
1. Jockey Creek Spur with material to be placed on adjacent sand spit.
2. Budd Pond with material to be placed on barrier island.
3. Wickham Creek with material to be placed immediately to the
northeast of inlet.
4. Mudd Creek with material to be placed to the west.
5. Little Creek with material to be placed on Nassau point beach
just south of park district beach.
6. James Creek with material to be placed to east.
7. West Creek with material to be placed to east.
I so move that resolution.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Under resolutions, we have another one, number
two:
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees RESCINDS
Resolution Adopted June 18, 2014 regarding the Annual Waterfowl
Application/Renewal Fee, and AMENDS to read as follows:
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees hereby
increases the Annual Waterfowl Application/Renewal Fee to $50.00
per year effective July 24, 2014.
1 think the original fee increase was to $75 from $25. And
there was a lot of dissatisfaction tripling of the price. So in
rethinking it, the Board felt it would be appropriate to drop it
back to $50. So I would make a motion to approve that resolution.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would ask for a roll call vote, please.
TRUSTEE KING: Roll call vote on this one. Trustee Sanders?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bergen?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm going to vote no. The reason I'm voting no
goes back to last month. My rationale that I explained last
month against the increase is I didn't see any plan of where
this increase in money would go for. When we upped the mooring
fees it was to develop money to be used directly to develop a
Board of Trustees 9 July 23, 2014
mooring plan, and so, for myself, I don't see any reason to up
the fees from $25. So I'm going to vote no.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm voting yes on this. Trustee Domino?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I vote yes.
(Trustee Domino, yes. Trustee King, yes. Trustee Sanders, yes.
Trustee Bergen, no).
TRUSTEE KING: Three to one vote. Motion carries.
I'll make a motion to go off our regular hearing and on to
the public hearing section of the meeting.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know we have a question from somebody first
off, before we go to the public hearing.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): As a point of order, I had a question
about the resolution from last month's meeting. Since you are
amending it, I was wondering if I could ask it, but if it's not
a proper rule of order--
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's not part of the public hearing. The public
hearing was last month.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): I understand.
TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a second on that?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I seconded.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, under Amendments, William Garbarino, Esq.
on behalf of MORANDINA LIVING TRUST requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit
#1859 for the as-built 2.5'x89.5' fixed dock with a 3.5'x6.5' wooden locker and a 1.5'x4.1'
wooden bench at landward end; a 2.5'x12' ramp; an 8'x20' floating dock; and two piles
located in the wetlands; and to Transfer Wetland Permit#1859 from Almaron F. Bennett
to Morandina Living Trust, as issued on August 31, 1984. Located: 3715 Stillwater
Avenue, Cutchogue.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency stems
from the fact that this grandfathered permit was issued in 1984, authorizing access to
public waters, but did not, subsequently didn't expand it to include the as-built locker and
bench, and the applicant fails to prove that the extension and so forth does not impede
navigation, that the cumulative effect of the dock will not impact the environment
and that the facilities are available --that doesn't apply so I won't read it.
The CAC voted to support this application. The Trustees visited the site last
Wednesday and noted the dimensions and that the float in fact was larger than is
customarily approved.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. GARBARINO: My name is William Garbarino, 40 Main Street,
Sayville, New York, for the applicant. The applicant also here, Ms. Morandina.
This is an application that we were unaware of when my client had bought this
house. I didn't represent him back then, but we didn't know there were open
Trustees permits that had never been closed out. I think the one object that it doesn't
Board of Trustees 10 July 23, 2014
conform is I think you have a size of a dock that is limited to 120-square feet, and this
one is 160-square feet.
My client's existing dock that had been there was replaced because of the damage
of Hurricane Sandy. He replaced the same-sized dock that was there. I don't know
what happened in '84. We were unaware of this permit. When we became aware of the
permit, we made application to have it amended and transferred to the trust, to
the present owner. If I'm mistaken, is that the only issue, the size of the floating dock?
TRUSTEE KING: (Affirmative nod).
MR. GARBARINO: I respectively request this Board consider a variance in that
regard. The size is 40-square feet more than what is allowed. I know initially in '84,
I think when this permit was taken out, the 120-foot rule, as I was advised, did
not apply. Somewhere along the line, prior to my client purchasing this property, it
got expanded to 160 feet. I respectively submit if you balance the equity, the
detriment to the community against the benefit to the applicant, that it
should be considered that this be granted.
think the applicant is willing to covenant that this dock
will, you know, if it goes into disrepair and has to be repaired
because of storm or other things, we would consent that they
would apply to make the dock comply with the 120-square foot
requirement.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: I wish Lori was here. We don't give variances. I'm
looking at the old permit, some of the specs. There are two
floats, 4x6 feet and 3x10.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was originally approved.
TRUSTEE KING: This is what is originally approved. So what is
there now is way over what the original permit was for. So my
feeling is that the float should be downsized to 6x20. That's
the way I look at it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We as a Board have to address the
inconsistencies when we issue permits or transfers. And we
cannot, as Trustee King said, we wish counsel was here. We
don't issue variances. So it's not in our power to do what you
are requesting.
MR. GARBARINO: The Trustee Board does not have the power to give
any amendment to the existing ordinance? I thought you did have
that basic power, if you saw fit to do that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We don't have the power to amend the code.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think regardless of that matter, it is the
Board is uncomfortable with granting anything other than 6x20 as
per the current Town Code. We have been consistent with this
with others and in order to not become arbitrary and capricious
here, we want to remain consistent.
As Trustee King pointed out, what was originally there
already grew in size over the years somehow. So, what we are
suggesting is 6x20, which would be greater than what was
originally approved, but yet it is not as large as the 8x20,
which is which what you are asking for.
MR. GARBARINO: I understand. It's a difference of 40-square feet.
Now, procedurally, how do we do this? Do we put this over until
it gets cut down to the size? I'm trying to get--
Board of Trustees 11 July 23, 2014
TRUSTEE KING: No, we could approve the permit but it will be for
a 6x20 float.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: To give you a timeframe to --
TRUSTEE KING: And you would go forward from there. And there
would be a compliance inspection whenever the float has been
downsized.
MR. GARBARINO: We just sold this property, and this is the new
owner. And, you know, as part of our transaction was we would --we
had applied to this Board back before the closing but due to the
fact we had to get a closing date, it was going too far, that's
why we reached an agreement with her that we would hold in
escrow to do the necessary work.
Now what they're basically saying is they won't approve the
existing size 8x20, 160-square feet because they never varied
from their ordinance.
TRUSTEE KING: If the original permit had been for an 8x20 float,
we would approve it. But the original permit was much smaller.
MR. GARBARINO: We didn't know there was an original permit. The
attorney representing Mr. Moradina Trust didn't understand there
was a building permit and there was a Trustees permit, and
that's what created the problem. So we are here to now
straighten that out.
And they are saying they'll approve the application for
what is there now, but that the float, 8x20, has to be cut down
to 6x20. And I'm asking you if you feel --that is what they
are going to do tonight. I want you to be aware of that.
MS. GAVIN: My name is Christine Gavin. I just wanted to ask if
the Trustees might show some consideration for the whole
situation, because to cut that float back just by two feet is
just going to destroy the environment that is there now. You
have to get somebody come in with this major saw and cut through
all that wood. It's going to splinter all over the place. It's
going to scare every fish and frog and killie in that area away.
And what would be the purpose of destroying that? I would
suggest that maybe you could accept it as it is, and if it has
to be replaced, we'll --
MR. GARBARINO: It has to be cut down.
MS. GAVIN: If it should have to be replaced, because of
whatever, storm, hurricane, then we would certainly follow the
rule.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Our struggle is, this is what happens all the
time, unfortunately. Someone will make a repair, modify their
dock, sells their house and you get left holding it. But in
order to send out a signal to the community that that cannot be
accepted by the Trustees, we have kind of stick to our guns with
regard to that.
MS. GAVIN: No one has complained. The notice has been up there.
As far as I know, no one has complained. And I just don't see
any good coming out of that decision to actually go in there and
have to cut it back. You know, I could see a much greater
benefit if, you know, maybe there was a small fine or something
Board of Trustees 12 July 23, 2014
that we have to pay. But to go through all that trouble to cut
it back doesn't make any sense to me.
TRUSTEE KING: It's either that or build a new 6x20 and get rid
of the old 8x20.
MR. GARBARINO: You have to either cut it back or they'll deny
the application.
MS. GAVIN: Okay, you're in charge. I just gave it my best shot.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: We fully understand where you are coming from.
MR. GARBARINO: How much time would you give us to comply with
that?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are not going to be able to issue a
certificate of compliance for the transfer until it's done.
MR. GARBARINO: What I'm saying is there a time restraint?
I understand you'll grant the application tonight provided the
dock is cut back to 6x20.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: 30 days.
MR. GARBARINO: 30 days is fine. That's acceptable.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this
application?
(No response).
MS. GAVIN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: See, that address the LWRP inconsistency, because
it was found inconsistent. We have to show that it is now
consistent, and by making the float conform to the code, it
brings it into consistency.
MR. GARBARINO: I understand.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments I'll make a motion
to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application
noting that the float will be downsized to 6x20' and thereby
bringing it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: And that will be done within 30 days.
MR. GARBARINO: Correct.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's the motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number two, PATRICK & JOANNE CONWAY request an
Amendment to Wetland Permit#8257 to replace two (2) 4" pilings
with two 8" diameter butt pilings; replace two (2) 5" pilings
with two 8" diameter butt pilings; replace existing ramp with
new 3'x12' aluminum ramp; and replace existing float with new
6'x20' float. Located: 2000 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck.
This was found inconsistent with the LWRP. I think all
they were asking for is just some new pilings. I don't believe
they asked for any type of extension. Am I right or wrong?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Looks like they are trying to go from four
Board of Trustees 13 July 23, 2014
inches to eight inches and they are replacing the rest.
TRUSTEE KING: Bear with me. (Perusing).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: They were going to increase the size of the
pilings to eight-inch. We were suggesting six-inch would be acceptable.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just looking at the permit. This was issued
last year in August. It was a wetland permit for the existing
fixed dock, existing ramp and existing 1 0x1 1 float. Now the
float on these plans is 6x20. So that's where he has -- I don't
think any of us had any issue with that.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I don't think so either.
TRUSTEE KING: Because it does conform to the code, 6x20. It's
not obstructing navigation in any way.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Did the original permit say eight inches?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Eight-inch piles.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it was specified on the original
permit. (Perusing). No, it was just a permit. The CAC supports
the application with the condition the yellow float is removed.
That yellow float was laying over there to the side. That will
be replaced by the 6x20. And the only thing we talked about a
little bit, the catwalk going out, they want to use eight-inch
piles and we felt six-inch is more than adequate. It's kind of
strange because they have two-inch galvanized pipe holding the
floating dock in place. If they want to use eight-inch piles,
that's the place to use it, to hold the float. So I would -- is
there anybody here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
Yes, sir?
MR. CONWAY: Patrick Conway, 2000 Deep Hole Drive.
TRUSTEE KING: We noticed going out on the catwalk, the
eight-inch piles landward, you don't really need piles that
size. Six-inch is more than adequate.
MR. CONWAY: I just thought at the very end is four on each side.
And two of them on each side are locust poles, smaller ones.
Then there was a larger six-inch and I think eight-inch at the
very end. And what I wanted to do is replace the four-inch
locust poles with I thought standard was eight-inch.
TRUSTEE KING: No. I would recommend the six-inch.
MR. CONWAY: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: To support the float in place, that's where,
rather than use galvanized pipe, I would use eight-inch piles
there to hold the float in place. It's much more substantial.
MR. CONWAY: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: That's almost a standard here for 6x20 float.
MR. CONWAY: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: You can use the pipe if you want, so we can put in
the permit you can use up to an eight-inch pile to hold the
float in place, so if you have a problem and want to replace the
pipe with pile, you already have the permit for it. Sound good?
MR. CONWAY: It does. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other questions?
(No response).
Board of Trustees 14 July 23, 2014
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with
two changes: The proposed eight-inch pilings on the catwalk
will be reduced in size to six-inch. And piles to hold the 6x20
float in place will be two eight-inch piles if he needs to use
them. Otherwise he can stay with the two-inch pipe. That's my
motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. CONWAY: Thank you. Question. What's the procedure from here?
Would I -- can I contact someone to start work? Because that
float is currently in the grass right in the front and I want to
get it out of there.
TRUSTEE KING: As soon as you get the permit in hand.
MR. CONWAY: Which is?
MS. CANTRELL: A few weeks. We have to get it typed up and have
the Trustees sign it.
TRUSTEE KING: If you want to get the float out of the wetlands
before that, that's no problem removing that old float and
getting it out of the wetlands.
MR. CONWAY: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: You're welcome.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits,
number one, LISA GILLOOLY requests a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit for the as-built +/-103' retaining wall
with a +/-13' return and a +/-12' return; add a rock revetment
"face" addition to the existing retaining wall along entire
length consisting of 1,500-2,000 pound stones. Located: 450
Harbor Road, Orient.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be
inconsistent because the as-built structure was constructed
without a permit. The CAC did not make an inspection, therefore
no recommendation was made.
Now, before I open this up, just so people know, there is a
little history with this. There was an application for an
as-built permit submitted back in January, and there was
discussions with the Board at that time, and it was suggested
that this go to the DEC first. It did go to the DEC and as I
understand it there has been a compliance agreement reached with
the DEC for this project, and so we are now before us with this.
So is there anybody here to speak for or against this application?
MS. GILLOOLY: Lisa Gillooly, 450 Harbor Road, speaking for the
applicant.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Go right ahead.
Board of Trustees 15 July 23, 2014
MS. GILLOOLY: I respectful request approval of everything that
has been submitted.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have here, it's dated March 26, 2015, so there
is a little typo there, that there is a resolution has been
reached with the DEC on this. And I see the DEC's correspondence
of February 14th, 2014.
MS. GILLOOLY: The DEC approved the retaining wall and their
recommendations were to replant with seed and plant with native
vegetation to hold the ground, which I began in the Spring, and it
has been working. I'm now, however, looking to put the rock
revetment in front of the wall, at the recommendation of all of you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I have the DEC recommendation here
recommending the disturbed area be re-seeded and planted with
native vegetation, and planting in disturbed areas. So that was
part of their February decision.
MS. GILLOOLY: The DEC did not actually recommend the rock
revetment. They didn't think that was a solution in this
particular case, and they had come out to the project as well.
But I understand that the Trustees supersede the DEC in this
case, so I'm moving forward to try to do everything I can do to
get in compliance somehow. But unfortunately I did plant a lot
of the grasses, and they are building up the sand in the area
that the wall was erected, and I have photos of that, if anyone
cares or wants to see them.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to clarify, we don't supersede the DEC. We
are a separate agency from the DEC, so applicants require
approval from, in this case, both the DEC and Trustees. But we
don't supersede the DEC. We are a separate entity.
MS. GILLOOLY: But the resolution from the DEC is not acceptable,
I think, in this case, so we have to do more, is what I have
been told. If that's true --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we are looking for is a detailed plan of
the retaining wall.
MS. GILLOOLY: Which I have given you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And what we have before us here is a plan
stamped dated received July 2nd, 2014. It really is not any type
of detailed plan for this retaining wall. It just shows and
looks like a front view, and that's it. I apologize. There is a
sectional view of it also on the side. We were looking for the
retaining wall. You do outline on these plans the rock armoring,
is what we're calling it. You are putting in a rock armoring in
front of this retaining wall, which is something the Trustees
did want to see done. Our concern of course is the
sustainability of this structure you put in, given the fact it's
in the coastal hazard zone. There is a 30-year requirement of
sustainability of structures there. And our concern is this
retaining wall that you put in as is, is really a landscaping
retaining wall. That is all there is to it. It's, structurally
-- I'm not a structural engineer, let me just lay that out for
the record -- but my concern is the ability of this wall to
sustain storms for a 30-year period without any type of armoring
Board of Trustees 16 July 23, 2014
whatsoever. I think if this had come into us originally, we
would have had probably questions about this retaining wall and
had looked for what is normally done in that area, which would
be what most people refer to as a bulkhead. With, you know, six
to eight-inch piles and a backing system, something that is
really strong that will be able to sustain the storms that come
in in this area.
TRUSTEE KING: Either that or just a rock revetment.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Or a rock revetment. Now we are faced with the
situation you put in this landscape retaining wall, and that's
my term I'm using, for clarification, you put in this landscape
retaining wall in this high wave energy action area, so that's
why we think these rocks or toe armoring are so critical.
MS. GILLOOLY: Right. And that retaining wall was permitted in
1989, which I understand was one year before I think this sort
of grandfather thing happened. But I'm here to tell you, it's my
property and I certainly want to protect it in the best possible
way. And we are, you know, it does now, would comply with the
rest of the beach front there. The two neighbors to my north
have both recently done this exact work. So, unfortunately, as
I said, I planted all the grasses and the sand is building up
against this landscape wall, and it's now holding the ground.
So now to put the rocks on top of all this vegetation is the
only thing that, you know. That was the DEC's idea, I did it,
and now I have to put rocks on top of it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: One of the conditions we are considering here
tonight is also to continue these rocks, I'll say around the
eastern corner and up the return in that area. Again, you think
about the location of this and, as you know, living out there,
the more severe storms come from the east, many times, and so we
also want to see that return of that wall protected with rock armoring.
MS. GILLOOLY: Before I came here tonight, I took photos of what
is happening on that return with just the plantings I have
done, and we really have to wait this all out in order to comply
with that additional armor. And it's also, I mean I have a
$35,000 estimate for the work you are requiring, and it's
another$10,000 to turn the corner. And, I don't know, if you
would like to see the photos of how the sand is starting to fill in.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. Absolutely.
MS. GILLOOLY: I took these an hour ago. This is some of the
grasses that were planted, but you can see in this photo,
because the wall was high, how much sand has kind of grabbed in
above and below. Which is how the condition was prior to the
storm. So what the DEC said is they are finding that is a much
better, the vegetation does it naturally and the rocks can get
undermined. But, anyway, so that would be my plea, to not have
to turn the corner, but.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I see a handwritten note stamped received June
13th, 2014. This is John Bredemeyer. Okay, because I see in
there a suggestion of going around the corner. This was not
signed, so I didn't know who had done this.
Board of Trustees 17 July 23, 2014
MS. GILLOOLY: I received that recommendation after everything
was submitted. And frankly, I would want to do everything in my
power to protect my property, and I would rather not have it be
mandated, but it may, I don't know how that could be written
where I would have permission to do it but don't have to do it,
because of the added expense of turning that corner.
And the road, the south side of me is a town road, and I
also am concerned about how that continued deterioration of the
tar and roadway onto that work that I'm being required to do
might negatively impact that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just want to procedurally ask, is there
anybody else in the audience that wants to make any comments for
or against this application?
(No response).
Okay, I would open it up to comments from the Board.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I appreciate the photographs. But I would like
to point out that daily or weekly or monthly wave actions is
different than what happens during a major storm, as Trustee
Bergen pointed out often come from the east. I'm very much in
favor of you armoring the return also, considering the comments,
again, Trustee Bergen made relative to the structure and the
revetment. It's important to armor that, the entire structure,
not just the face, in my opinion.
MS. GILLOOLY: And you understand the DEC engineers that I sat
with in conference recommended a different resolution than all
that armor.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm aware of that.
MS. GILLOOLY: And also there is no wave action on that wall
ever, unless, I mean, that wall, the high tide mark to that wall
is eight feet. There is no water hitting that wall ever. In this
storm, yes. In Hurricane Sandy, yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I did not mean to imply there are any waves near
that. I understand that. I just said the wave action on a daily,
weekly basis is different than what happens during a storm.
MS. GILLOOLY: I understand.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I would like to see the return done, too, but I
don't feel comfortable mandating that extra cost to the homeowner.
TRUSTEE KING: I think if you are going to armor with stone, now
is the time to do the return. It's, because it's just one project
done all at the same time. If that falls apart on the return,
you have to call someone back in, and it's just more added
expense. I think now is the time to do it.
We have no plans on this retaining wall, how it was built.
Most of your bulkheads you have deadmen in behind there, holding
this thing in place. If this wall gets overwashed and there's
no supports running landward from the face of this in, that will
fall apart like a two-dollar suitcase. If it's armored with
stone, it's not going to go. That's the bottom line. It's a
Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. We manage Coastal Erosion Hazard,
the DEC doesn't. We do. We are supposed to have a 30-year
maintenance where this will be maintained in its current
Board of Trustees 18 July 23, 2014
condition. Another big storm like Sandy, it's gone. That's the
bottom line.
MS. GILLOOLY: I don't understand who said that without the rocks
that the wall would be gone.
TRUSTEE KING: It's just common sense.
MS. GILLOOLY: My neighbor had a wall and rocks during Hurricane
Sandy and the whole wall was undermined anyway, with the rocks.
So I don't think it's a perfected science and I would
respectively like to say if I have to turn the corner, then that
would seem to draw a property line, and I think originally when
we agreed to do this rock revetment, it was along the front.
But if I need to turn the corner, then I need to have the line
redrawn, because it doesn't represent the side of my property
properly. It was just a little turn that was made to hold a
particular tree in place. It was not a turn that was made that
would now, you know, be armoring that side of my property.
So then I would say if you want me to do that, I would
request that I have then permission to draw the proper boundary
line of my property.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm trying to find a survey here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are looking for a survey in the file here.
TRUSTEE KING: Have you got a recent survey of it?
MS. GILLOOLY: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: I wish our attorney was here.
MS. GILLOOLY: Here is a larger one. (Handing).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking at a survey dated December 5th,
2013, stamped received April 1 st, 2014, and it shows, looks
like, it's hard to read, it looks like it says wood bulkhead
down where this retaining wall is, and shows the return in for
it, and it looks like it's well inside the property line. I'm
talking about the property line between your property and King
Street. So it looks like there is a good amount of distance
there between the return of the wall and your property line. So
there is room in there for boulders.
MS. GILLOOLY: You are now asking me to put boulders down the
center of my side property. In other words, I would not mind
putting boulders at the property edge but then I would request
that I get to move the wall to the edge of my property. Because
that's an area there that is part of my -- putting the boulders
there would cut off--there would be room beyond the boulders.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: That would be absolutely insane. If you move
the boulders beyond and back fill --
MS. GILLOOLY: Exactly. If you want me to do the boulders I'm
asking you not to require me to put it up the center of my side
property where the return kind of neatly stopped specifically to
hold the tree in place.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But the purpose of the boulders is support this
retaining wall. So to put the boulders anyplace but against the
retaining wall would defeat the purpose in a lot of bays. Yes,
the boulders would break the wave action up, but still they are
not going to hold or support the retaining wall.
Board of Trustees 19 July 23, 2014
MS. GILLOOLY: But the retaining wall was not built as a border
of my property. So if you want the boulders then I would request
that I could move that return down so that it was at the edge of
the property, leaving room for the boulders on the return. Does
that make any sense?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You understand that would require you to go back
to the DEC for an amendment to a permit to do that, and if you
were going to -- I'm just speaking as myself, I'm just one of
five. Four tonight-- but if you were going to take that down
and relocate it, I would be strongly recommending that it be
built as it should have been built originally, to meet the
standards that are required to comply with Chapter 111. Which
means a different structure all together than what you have
there. Because the structure you have there, in my mind, is not
an appropriate structure for this area.
MS. GILLOOLY: I completely understand the situation we are in.
And I would I was told that I only had to put the rocks along
the front. That return part came in about two weeks ago, well
into this process. I had John Ehlers there -- I mean Ian
Consultants. I worked with many people on this over the past
year-and-a-half.
Two weeks ago I was told about the return, and when I look
at my property and what that would do to that part of my
property, it doesn't seem -- so I'm saying -- I understand the
situation, but I also don't want to lose that much property on a
return that was done to save a tree, not to border a property.
If you think my property is not safe on that side and you want
me to return and put rocks, if that's the idea, then we don't
want to do it there because that's in the middle of the side
yard. Then the rest of the property is unarmored. So --
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we would be belaboring everything
like we are now if this had not been built without the benefit
of a permit, quite frankly.
MS. GILLOOLY: I understand that, too. But at the time -- and
there was a lot of discussion about the retaining wall, because
I maintain I had a retaining wall there when I moved in. I went
and found a permit from 1989 for 100 feet retaining wall. It
had disintegrated. So my landscaper, after the storm, was
literally just followed the line and he got the trees up, and
all this for the last year, I have done everything in my power
to resolve it and get us to here. So I understand. I paid
fines, I had meetings, I hired consultants. And we are here.
I'm just saying the return happened two weeks ago and I didn't
know anything about that. So I'm requesting approval for the
front. It seemed like the return was a recommendation of Mr.
Bredemeyer's but not a requirement, when it was made.
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to move this along.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. You can have that back. We do have a
survey in here. Just so you understand what we are referring to,
this is the survey I was just referring to. You can step up and
take a look at it, if you would like. This was the one in the file.
Board of Trustees 20 July 23, 2014
MS. GILLOOLY: No, that's okay. I had it redone.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right, any other comments from the Board on
this?
(No response).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And again, one more shot, is there anybody in
the audience who wants to speak for or against this application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KING: What do we do about the inconsistency?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was built without a permit.
TRUSTEE KING: What are the CAC comments?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: They did not inspect it.
TRUSTEE KING: My feeling is I think it's a mistake not to armor
that return, but I would approve armoring the face of the
retaining wall without the return.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would not be comfortable with that.
TRUSTEE KING: Well, somebody make a motion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: First off, I'll make a motion to close the
public hearing,
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I request somebody who is comfortable with it to
make a motion
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll do it. I make a motion to approve this
application as is, without the necessary requirement to change
around the additional bulkhead around, armor the side, the return.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: To clarify, you are making a motion to approve
as stated in the application?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: How would that bring it into consistency with
the LWRP?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: It will now have a permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In other words, by obtaining a permit that
brings it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Do I have a second
TRUSTEE KING: I'll second. Take a roll call vote. Trustee
Sanders?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bergen?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: No.
TRUSTEE KING: Motion fails.
MS. GILLOOLY: What does that mean?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It means your permit is not approved. My
suggestion is that you think about the discussion that has been
held tonight and if you would like to resubmit a new permit
application.
Board of Trustees 21 July 23, 2014
MS. GILLOOLY: Oh, my gosh. This is a year-and-a-half. So it
would be approved if what?
TRUSTEE KING: You need three votes for approval.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the motion was denied.
TRUSTEE KING: It was two for and two against.
MS. GILLOOLY: Can you vote it with a return?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Not at this point. The public hearing is closed
and the decision has been made. Legally, we can't --
TRUSTEE KING: Unless you want to reopen the hearing.
MS. GILLOOLY: I'm respectively requesting you reopen the hearing
and take another vote.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I think we should do that.
TRUSTEE KING: All right, I'll make a motion to reopen the public
hearing for the Gillooly application.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted, with the addition of rock armoring on the return on
the southern side of the property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That rock armoring to be the same size as rock
armoring along the front, which was 1,500 to 2,000 pound stones.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
And I'll take a roll call vote.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: Motion carried.
MS. GILLOOLY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: You're welcome.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number two, En-consultants on behalf of BRIAN T.
FRAWLEY requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit
to restore and stabilize eroded portion of bluff by re-grading
top of bluff to remove vertical sheer/lip and relocate bluff
crest approximately 3' landward to reestablish a more stable
angle of repose; renourish bluff face with approximately 10
cubic yards of resultant soil material together with
approximately 30 cubic yards of clean sand/loam to be trucked in
from an approved upland source; install +/-6 variable length
(+/-30'-40') wood terrace retaining walls to stabilize
Re-nourishment material; re-vegetate re-nourished area with native
plantings; and establish a 5' wide non-turf buffer landward
of relocated bluff crest to be planted with native vegetation.
Located: 4545 Hallock Lane, Mattituck.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The
Conservation Advisory Council resolved on July 17th to support
Board of Trustees 22 July 23, 2014
the application, recommending best engineering practices to
control runoff, and a ten-foot non-turf buffer.
The Trustees visited the site last Wednesday, the 16th, and
noted that there was a need to post a sign for public hearing
along the highway, not adjacent to the house. It was kind of
difficult to see that. Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
the applicant. Just a note on the posting. The poster was posted
according to code but I do normally have a practice of putting
it out by the road. I had somebody in my office in my absence
put it out, Liz contacted me and we had it moved out to 48 as soon
as she contacted us. So my apologies for that. I do know the
Board likes to rely on the signs.
TRUSTEE KING: Especially when it's a hard-to-find spot like
that. It's so much easier if it's on the road.
MR. HERRMANN: For the first time in how many years I asked
someone else to do something for me, I figured what could go
wrong with putting up a sign.
Anyway, this is a pretty typical erosion remediation
project, similar to ones that we have proposed for applicants to
the Board in the past. Similar to several of those projects we
worked on we were working with Peter Sterling of Plantings by
the Sea. I think the application is self-explanatory. The one
issue with the non-turf buffer, we proposed a five-foot non-turf
buffer on the plan and we actually proposed a buffer to be
adjacent to the new bluff crest. Basically, as the Board knows
when you have these little escarpments up at the top of the
bluff, the plan here is to slice that lip off and basically move
the top of the bluff closer to the house in order to establish a
better angle of repose. It's basically three, five, six feet. It
varies, depending on where it is. So basically relative to where
the bluff is now, there is probably about five feet or so
variable that will become part of the planted bluff top. Then
we are proposing another five feet on the flat area behind the
new bluff crest in place of existing lawn. So that is where the
proposal for the five-foot non-turf buffer came from, because
there will be quite a big chunk of that land that has been taken
off proactively as part of the erosion mediation.
Otherwise it's standard components. There are some
terraced walls proposed for nourishment material to be brought
in and then have that whole area re-vegetated basically with the
lowest terrace being right at the low seaward limit of where the
erosion is going on now so as to stabilize the fill and not
cause any disturbance to the areas of the bluff below it that
are still in good shape and well vegetated.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Rob, I note that the Trustees did note the
five-foot non-turf buffer on the plans received June 26th, 2014,
and the terracing and had no questions about that.
MR. HERRMANN: Great.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had any issues at all.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this
Board of Trustees 23 July 23, 2014
application?
(No response).
Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE SANDERS: We postponed Ralph Carbone. We are now going to Wetland
Permits. Number one, En-Consultants on behalf of NITIN P. DESAI & C. BARSI, LLC
request a Wetland Permit to construct a 16'x32' in-ground swimming pool and install
pool enclosure fencing along landward limit of 15' wide non-turf buffer adjacent to bluff
crest and along the side yards. Located: 18915 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
The LWRP finds this to be consistent and the CAC supports this. There's no
issues with both of them. I actually, on 22 July 14, at 10:45, 1 went and inspected this,
and the only thing I did find is, again, there is no card posted on the road.
MR. HERRMANN: This one he told me he did put on the same tree
where I had the ZBA posted. So I don't know if you found the tree that had the
ZBA poster. But he said he put it up underneath that poster.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: It could have been me, too. Maybe I didn't see it.
MR. HERRMANN: I'll just try to blame you on that one.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: No problem. Is there anyone to speak on behalf
of this?
MR. HERRMANN: This was pretty straightforward. This is actually
the last remaining component of an overall site redevelopment
plan that the Board has otherwise approved in its entirety under
Administrative Permit that was previously issued, that is permit
8417A. The reason the pool was separated out is because although
it exceeds the Board's bluff setback by 50%, it did not meet the
100 foot setback required under Zoning. So we had to go to the
ZBA first, but as the Board probably saw, the entire
redevelopment plan mimics the property to the west, and we
received approval from the ZBA for the pool, so we are now just
back here before you to get your approval for this last piece.
The proposed pool is landward of where the existing house is
now. So it is a good project. We have the Board's approval for
the rest of it. We have the Zoning Board approval, so we are
just looking for the Board approval tonight for the code
conforming pool. Wetlands Code conforming pool.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Anybody else to speak on behalf of this file?
(No response).
Anybody from the Board?
Board of Trustees 24 July 23, 2014
(No response).
I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I make a motion to approve this application as
amended.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number two, En-Consultants on behalf of FIRST EAST
END HOLDINGS CORP., requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
fixed timber dock consisting of a 4'x90' fixed timber catwalk
elevated a minimum of 3.5' above grade of marsh, constructed
with open-grate decking, and supported by 6" piles over
vegetated marsh and 8" piles seaward of marsh; a 3'x20' hinged
ramp; and a 6'x20' float secured by two (2) 8" diameter pilings;
provide water and electricity to dock; and clear a 4' wide
footpath to access dock. Located: 875 Westview Drive, Mattituck.
This was found consistent with the LWRP, and the CAC, the
project was not staked therefore no recommendation was made. We
all went out and looked at this. At first we didn't think it was
staked either because it was difficult to find the beginning of
it in all the phragmites. I went back out and found it. This is
probably I think the third renewal on this application. It's
basically the same application that was approved before. They
simply run out, the permits have run out and now they are just
re-applying for the same thing.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. Jim,
you're right. If I didn't tell you, you would not know it. There
is the slightest reorientation of the catwalk to make it a
little more perpendicular to the shoreline. But it is
essentially the same dock in the same place as has been approved
twice before. En-Consultants had originally gotten the project
approved. I think, I want to say in 2007. And a couple of
years later, I think Bill Goggins for the former owner, the
State of McNulty, had it approved the second time. And now for
the current owner it's been, we are applying for it again.
The only issue that I have, again, in that regard, it's
nothing the Board has not seen and approved already. The one
thing I would like to ask the Board for some guidance on, one
thing we didn't address here is a path to the dock. And
originally the Board had issued a non-jurisdiction letter for
the house. We would have to come in and ask for a clearing
permit up to the 50 foot, what would become a formalized and
presumably covenanted 50-foot non-disturbance buffer. That has
not been done yet.
So the question I have for the Board, for this project to
Board of Trustees 25 July 23, 2014
reach its final form, we would have to have a proposed clearing
limit, minimum of 50 feet from the wetlands boundary, which we
did reflag for this application. The line is virtually identical to what it
was several years ago, but that was updated in March and is shown
on the survey. So the question I would put to the Board is, for the clearing,
is should we amend the other permit that is currently in place for the
house to reflect a clearing and let the non-disturbance buffer that I assume
would be the subject of a Trustees covenant run with that permit, and
also show the cleared path? Or would we do it as part of this
application. Because if we are going to keep the two separate,
because one is a non jurisdiction letter and one is a permit for
a dock. But at the end of the day there will have to be a
four-foot path cleared to the dock. And right now that whole
area is just--
TRUSTEE KING: The non-disturbance buffer was part of the
non-jurisdiction for the house?
MR. HERRMANN: I don't think it was. Because I think you issued a
non-jurisdiction letter for the construction of the house. If I
recall correctly, we had the limit of clearing at your
jurisdiction line, so I don't think you issued a permit -- yes,
actually, I realize as I'm asking you this question, I'm asking
you about amending a permit that probably does not exist. So I'm
answering my question. So if it was a non-jurisdiction letter,
then I wonder should we maybe amend this plan to show a proposed
clearing limit, a proposed path from the clearing limit to the
dock, and have the buffer run with this permit. We would have to
revise the plan, but it would not be difficult to do.
TRUSTEE KING: I wonder if we could make like a 50-foot
non-disturbance landward of the wetland line.
MR. HERRMANN: That's what you would end up with. That would be
the normal course.
TRUSTEE KING: With a four-foot path through there.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Suggesting that you might be able to follow one
of the contour lines, approximately 50 feet landward of the
flagging, and include in that the four-foot path.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. So we would just give you a revised dock plan
essentially that would show the clearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Just give us a second (perusing). Because of
wetland line being so irregular, it's pretty tough. Well, if you
went along the nine-foot contour, right?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes, that's where --
TRUSTEE KING: Going along the nine-foot contour you would gain
some in the northern part of it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's about right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, we are looking at the nine-foot contour.
MR. HERRMANN: I know the hundred-foot setback is pretty close to
the ten-foot contour. So I think that would be lot more than
50-foot buffer. I actually don't have my scale with me.
TRUSTEE KING: It varies a little bit, Rob. At its closest point
it's 60 feet.
MR. HERRMANN: Can I borrow your scale?
Board of Trustees 26 July 23, 2014
TRUSTEE KING: It's between --the eight-foot scale would be
better. I think the eight-foot would do it. It's a little
closer where it tucks up in there, but I think it averages out
pretty good on the eight-foot contour.
MR. HERRMANN: The eight-foot would be about 40 and change at a
minimum. And about maybe almost 60 at maximum. So it would be
around 50.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. It's a little more than the other.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So it runs between eight and nine. If we go to
eight, you get the eight-foot benefit.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay. Then we would show a pathway coming down
through there. Um, I assume you would allow the applicant the
flexibility, I mean we would show a typical path, but if that
path happens to run into a significant tree or something, we would want
to move around it so they don't have to take anything down.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. It doesn't have to be straight as an arrow.
Lots of times they look a little nicer if they have a turn to them.
MR. HERRMANN: So I'll just show a little bit of a curved line
and if it changes off of that to avoid taking down any trees,
they'll do that. I think that works nicely. So we'll give you a
revised plan showing a non-disturbance buffer up to the
eight-foot contour and a path to the dock from the clearing to
the dock.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay.
MR. HERRMANN: Sound right?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. Only one other thing, Rob. Most recently, on
some of these docks, we have not been really specific on the
number of piles and the bents. Normally we assume it's two piles.
MR. HERRMANN: We actually did on this one, because you had in
the past, you had conditioned in the past that this dock could
have a three-pile bent at the outermost--
TRUSTEE KING: At the outer end.
MR. HERRMANN: And I labeled that on the section. And that is
supposed to be specific to that piling set.
TRUSTEE KING: What I would like to see is a top down view of the
dock, show the two piles. If it's going to be three piles, put
them showing so we know what's going on. I did an inspection of
the dock. But we didn't specify it had to be two piles.
MR. HERRMANN: When I actually called it out here, because even
though it's seven years ago, you had the same thought seven
years ago.
TRUSTEE KING: I now. I try and be consistent. But it's just
something we don't, if we are not specific about it --
MR. HERRMANN: I think it was actually in the old permit that you
called that out.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay. Anybody else, any other comments?
(No response).
I'll make a motion on to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 27 July 23, 2014
I'll make a motion to approve the application with the
stipulation that there be a non-disturbance buffer along the
eight-foot contour line and approve a four-foot walking path
down to the dock, with access to the dock, and that doesn't have
to be a perfectly straight line. It can be serpentine a little
bit, whatever you want.
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: That's great. Thank you, for that.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll get new plans submitted showing that.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, because we'll have to have a covenant that
will run with that, so I'll want to have a formally revised
plan. Thank you, again.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, DKR Shores, Inc., on behalf of
MARGARET PISANI requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct 120' of
bulkhead in-place of existing using vinyl sheathing; construct
two (2) new 10' vinyl returns; and backfill with 45 cubic yards
of clean fill. Located: 7180 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
This was found to be consistent under LWRP. The CAC
resolved to support the application with the condition of a
ten-foot non-turf buffer along the landward side of the
bulkhead. The Trustees did go out and looked at this property.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MS. RIGDON: Good evening Dina Rigdon, DKR Shores, here
representing Margaret Pisani.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. I'm noting on here, I'm looking at
the set of plans, and we noted in the field the wood bulkhead
and there is a retaining wall approximately ten-foot landward of
that wood bulkhead. So to comply with the request from the CAC,
we don't want to assume anything, would you be willing to
maintain that area between the retaining wall and the wood
bulkhead with a non-turf buffer.
MS. RIGDON: It's currently sand right now, as you saw. Beach
sand. I would have no problem revising the plans or you can put
it as a special condition and I'll let Margaret know. That's fine.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. Now, we did note on here you are
requesting returns on either side here?
MS. RIGDON: If necessary.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Because I know this is a continuous
bulkhead.
Is there anybody else who wishes to comment on this application?
(No response).
If not, are there any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: No, it's straightforward.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If not, then I'll make a motion to close this
public hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 28 July 23, 2014
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
DKR Shores on behalf of Margaret Pisani, with the condition that
the ten-foot space between the retaining wall and the bulkhead
be maintained as a non-turf buffer and noting it has been found
consistent under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, 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.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC
voted to support this application. When they did their
inspection on April 16th, it had not been staked yet though. The
Trustees visited this location more than once, most recently on
the 16th, and noting that the flags on the 16th were pretty
much, were in fact in place where they had been established on
the previous visitation.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
(No response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: No, this was the one that we re-flagged. We just
wanted to see plans indicating that. That's going to be the toe
of the revetment.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: You are requesting new plans?
TRUSTEE KING: On the plans they show us are not consistent with
what we flagged on it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I might note that in our previous inspection we
noted that it was reflagged by the Trustees and we specifically,
gave specific dimensions: Flag number seven remains, number six
must be moved landward four feet, number five landward nine
feet, et cetera. And if we were to --
TRUSTEE KING: Is it revised from the original?
MS. CANTRELL: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I was going to say we could note that, but it's
been pointed out that we did receive revised plans showing
the re-staking according to what we wanted on July 11, 2014.
TRUSTEE KING: Did we get plans previously; did we get all plans?
MS. CANTRELL: Yes, we have all plans.
TRUSTEE KING: This one might just come down. 22 feet to stake
Board of Trustees 29 July 23, 2014
five. Now it's 13 feet. So she is back in nine feet. So that is
what we wanted. So the new plans reflect what we flagged. Okay,
that's good.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right.
TRUSTEE KING: That's a giant step forward.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are there any other questions or comments from
the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: No, looks like this is what we asked for.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion
to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as submitted, noting that that it will conform to the plans we
received on July 11th, 2014, and reflects the suggestions made
by the Trustees.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number five, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
EDGARD EL CHAAR requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing
storm damaged pier and replace with new 4'x120' fixed pier with
the use of thru-flow decking over the wetlands and untreated
decking on remainder; a 3'x12' aluminum ramp; and a 6'x20'
float. Located: 3765 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue.
The LWRP finds this inconsistent for the following reasons:
Policy number six, protect and restore the quality and function
of the Town of Southold's ecosystem, and policy number nine,
provide for public access to and recreational use of coastal
waters, public lands and public resources of the Town of Southold.
The CAC supports this application. The CAC supports this
application with the condition that gutters, leaders and
drywells are installed to contain runoff from the dwelling, and
the installation of a ten-foot, non-turf buffer.
On July 16th, the Trustees went out and observed this property.
The only Trustee that was not present was Mr. Bredemeyer.
And you'll have to read this. It's your handwriting.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The start of the catwalk is currently at the
sprinkler head, and we were wondering --we couldn't tell where
the start of the catwalk was, because it was not staked. So
what we did is we took a measurement from the corner of the
house and found it to be 20 feet from the deck.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: When I look at the original permit, I just want
to point out one thing, with the permit number 1470, dated June
3rd, 1981, was a permission to replace existing 6'x9"floating
dock with two new floating docks 8'x10" at private property of
the applicant on East Creek with the condition that the total
length of the docks and floating dock shall not exceed the
length of docks of adjacent property owners.
Board of Trustees 30 July 23, 2014
When I look at the plans currently, for the replacement,
they don't exceed the neighbors' docks for the current application.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of the applicant?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. I just
handed up to you the aerial photograph, same photograph I used
for the application just to the south, which is noted there,
showing the adjacent docks in the area, showing that, I can say
that those don't have sufficient water depth, which is 30 inches
at mean low tide according to DEC regulations. And I'm sure
your regulations as well. So it's the same situation as that dock we
have with this one. In its current position, if I want to
remove and replace it in the same location, they don't have
sufficient water depth at low tide, which I would say answers a
couple questions from the LWRP, which is to protect the marine
life and the environment by way of if you are floating a boat at
extreme low tides -- I got stuck in there. It's two feet of
muck. It's mud. Low tides, float a boat, the sediment goes a
thousand feet down the canal. Now that I have a new water depth
at low tide, 30 inches, which is the requirement. I do
currently hold New York State DEC permit. I have it with me
right now. Army Corps of Engineers has no problem with it. They
just sent out their 20-day letter of permission. So I have that
currently. It's really just to obtain sufficient water depth.
Question regarding the setback of the start of the pier. My
intention is to start it exactly where it is right now, which is
shown on the plan. That's the same spot. When you went out
there, you said you wanted it more landward of where it is
existing?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: No, when we were there, there was no stake on
the landward side.
TRUSTEE KING: We didn't know where it was staked. We need to
know.
MR. PATANJO: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: We checked it in the field as close as we could
and it looked like about 20 feet. I'm just trying to scale it
off here now. It's looks like about 23 feet, maybe.
MR. PATANJO: I'll make it 20 feet from the end of the deck, if
that's what you would like.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I just scaled on the photograph that you gave
us, received on the 23rd, right here. And it looks about 20
feet. So it works out. So having said that, if that is 20 feet,
23 feet, it does work out. I would do the pier line a little
differently than you did, but it's an insignificant difference.
It's acceptable to me.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: When I look at the plan you gave me here, this
is a proposed dock that will be going in. And on the here it's
actually identified on the --
MR. PATANJO: They are building it right now. It's probably built
by now.
TRUSTEE KING: They were there when we were there.
MR. PATANJO: Hopefully he posted the permit, came out here and
Board of Trustees 31 July 23, 2014
dropped it off.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Right. It just doesn't reflect. It doesn't say
proposed. It just says that it, like it already exists.
Tomatoes/tomatos.
MR. PATANJO: Semantics.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is there anybody else here to speak on behalf
of applicant?
TRUSTEE KING: The only other thing, if he were here, we would
have talked to Rob Herrmann or not. But we want to start keeping
track of these two-pile bents, not three.
MR. PATANJO: It should be two.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't see any indication of it.
MR. PATANJO: If you want to make that a requirement.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, I do. Because the contractors tend to go in
with more, which is more labor, more material, which is unnecessary.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So we are clear, the landward side will be
approximately 20 feet of--there is a sprinkler head.
MR. PATANJO: There is a pipe sticking out. I know, I tripped on it.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: How do you want that worded again?
TRUSTEE KING: I would just say 20 to 22 feet seaward of the deck
TRUSTEE SANDERS: 20 to 22 feet on the seaward side of the deck.
I just want to make sure I have this correct. 4x120 fixed pier
to start. 20 to 22 feet on the seaward side of the deck. I want
to word it correctly.
TRUSTEE KING: The fixed pier is two-pile bents on the pier.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay. Any other thoughts from the Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Motion to close this hearing. Do I have a
second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I make a motion to approve this application as
amended with a 20 to 22 foot seaward side of deck, and two-pile
bents on pier. And by granting this application, it now would
comply with the LWRP. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. PATANJO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Next, number six, Christopher Dwyer on behalf of
CEDARS GOLF CLUB, LLC, c/o PAUL PAWLOWSKI requests a Wetland
Permit to rehabilitate and make improvements to an existing dike
system which is approximately 175 linear feet long and currently
between 4 and 5 feet high by re-engineering the slopes using
approximately 210 cubic yards of structural fill and various
plantings; replace existing pipe with new 12" diameter PVC pipe
and replace one-way valve; remains of existing boardwalk to be
removed; and implement a maintenance program to remove large
woody vegetation that has contributed to previous dike failures.
Board of Trustees 32 July 23, 2014
Located: 305 Cases Lane, Cutchogue.
This was found to be exempt from the LWRP because it's
replacement, rehabilitation or reconstruction inkind and the
same site. The CAC supports the application, however questions
the definition of"structural fill" and whether it meets best
management practices.
I guess they want to know what is structural fill.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can you help us out a little bit?
MR. MEEKER: We just had a question as to what exactly structural
fill is.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Had they just said fill, would that have been
fine?
MR. MEEKER: I think we have seen the term clean fill from upland
sources and so this is a new term to us and nobody really knew
exactly what they were talking about.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't know. I would assume it's clean fill.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is there a way for us to state that in the
approval process, if it's approved?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll go out on a limb here, because I know this
is a continuation of the dikes that are under construction out
there, and I have seen on the side of the road the fill used for
those dikes. And it is not sand, it's a very loam-filled
material. I think that is what they are referring to from an
engineering perspective, that this is a fill that is appropriate
for a dike. And that would not be sand, it would be something
with a lot more substance to it. And I'm going out on a limb,
because I'm not an engineer, but that's what I'm guessing.
TRUSTEE KING: This is the same people that have reconstructed
all the farm dikes. They are doing this project. So it's
probably something they have been using right along. And from
what we have seen, they know what they are doing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Because I have seen the construction of the
dikes as they go along from Wickham to Salt Air Farm, and I know
this is a continuation of the Salt Air Farm one. So that would
be my guess.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The plans also show the structural fill as a
layer on top of sand, so it's probably a DEC term that provides
more consolidation than -- sand is typically defined as
unconsolidated soil, meaning it shifts around easily. So that's
probably what it is.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think any of us had any issues with it.
This actually is an extension of a dike that's already there on the farm.
Is there anybody else to comment on this project?
(No response).
Hearing no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: There is one letter in here that registers no
opposition. They are just recommending they are in favor of it.
Charmaine E. Henderson and Paula J. Hepner are in favor of this.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can we stipulate that letter will be entered
into the record in its entirety?
Board of Trustees 33 July 23, 2014
TRUSTEE KING: Sure. It's a short letter. That will be in the record.
If there is nothing else, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven, Samuels & Steelman Architects on
behalf of ROBERT PELLEGRINI requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing two-story (2,250sq.ft.) residence with three attached (180sq.ft.)
covered porches to remain; existing glass enclosed structure attached to
residence to be removed and replaced with a new wood framed (118sq.ft.)
structure with gutters to leaders to a drywell; existing (790sq.ft.) decks
attached to waterside of residence to remain and reconstruct in-place as
required a +/-13' area adjacent to the new construction; existing driveway,
parking areas, and 4' wide walkway to remain; reconstruct in-place existing
4'x24' stairs and walkway connected to deck at top of bank leading to a
4'x9' platform and 4'x8' stairs; reconstruct in-place existing 12'x16' elevated
deck at bottom of bank; existing 4'x43' elevated wood walkway leading from
elevated deck to 3'x12' adjustable ramp and 6'x20' floating dock are to be
reconstructed in-place; and a line of hay bales with silt fencing to be installed
prior to construction along top of bank. Located: 4515 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue.
The Board did go out and looked at this property. This was
reviewed under the LWRP and found to be inconsistent. And the
reason for the inconsistencies: The 1984 Board of Trustees
grandfather permit for a stair 68-foot long dock structure,
steps and dock are not in compliance with the '84 permit. The
steps are configured differently. The dock is also now 76 feet
long, eight feet longer than the permitted structure. The
reconstruction of the 192-square foot deck at the bottom of the
bank is not a permissible action. Because decks associated with
stairs cannot be larger than 100-square feet. I could not-- I'm
reading again from the LWRP review -- I could not locate 275
Wetland Permit for the glass-enclosed structure. Construction
plans for the steps and docks have not been provided and should
be submitted for review. Those plans were submitted today to our
office, and I have a copy of them here tonight.
The CAC supports the application, questions whether the
large deck at the bottom of the bank is intrusive to the
stability of the bank and whether replacement is warranted in
managing our coastal resources.
I did, like I said, I received a copy of the plans for the
dock submitted today and I have a copy in front of me of the
plans associated with the permit number 1892 issued in 1984.
So is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. TALGAT: Yes. Ural Talgat, Samuels & Steelman Architects,
Board of Trustees 34 July 23, 2014
for Robert Pellegrini. I'm here basically to answer any
questions you may have. A lot of the structures out there,
including the house, the docks, the deck, are all existing. The
work that is required is basically the glass greenhouse is to be
torn down and replaced with a wooden structure connected to the
house, as the greenhouse is right now. The existing docks
floating and catwalk, they are existing. The decking is in
questionable shape and we would really like to replace that to
make it a little more safe to walk on. The deck out there that
is, I guess that's found inconsistent, again, it's existing and
we would like to repair it to make it basically structurally sound.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just a point of clarification, as I look at the
plans that have been submitted for the dock, I'm just referring
to the dock right now-- the catwalk, ramp and dock I'm
referring to right now-- and I'm looking at plans from 1984 for
the catwalk, ramp and dock. And I find they are both very same
today as they were on this. So I'm a little confused by the
LWRP's review saying they are of different size. Because in my
opinion they are the very same size today as what was originally
approved from in 1984.
With regard to also the lack of a permit for the glass
structure, I think at the time in 1984, probably our jurisdiction was
different, and now the jurisdiction is from top of bank, when back then
it was not. So that's why they were not included in the 1984 plans.
So I just want to address that inconsistency.
The last inconsistency to be addressed is that of the deck,
which code does say decks associated with stairs are limited to
100-square feet. So I think that what this boils down to is that
is the one issue, as I perceive it right now, in the application.
And I want to share with the Trustees this plan that was
turned in today since they have not seen it jet. So if you would
just give us a minute for them to look at it.
(The Board is reviewing the plan).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we discussed in the field is the lower deck
right now, is looking to be repaired/rebuilt.
MR. TALGAT: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we looked at in the field is, I'll call it
the southern part of it, was cut down, so that you have 100-square
feet, you would still have a workable deck there. It's just cutting that
one piece down. But again, I leave it to you and as the applicant to
decide how you would like to configure it to meet the 100-square
foot code requirement.
MR. TALGAT: The owner is right here, and I would ask him to
stand up. If he accepts that then I would not have a problem.
But it's his call.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. If you would just step up to the microphone
and just introduce yourself for the record, first, sir.
MR. PELLEGRINI: Robert Pellegrini. I'll accept that 100-square foot condition.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Thank you.
Is there anybody else in the audience that wants to comment
on this application?
Board of Trustees 35 July 23, 2014
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KING: That was the only issue we had, was the size of
the deck.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there are no other comments, I'll make a
motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Robert Pellegrini as described, with the condition that the lower deck
immediately adjacent to the catwalk will be downsized to 100-square
foot, and a new set of plans will be submitted to demonstrate that.
And in doing so, this brings it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
d#4- or� &49��
John M. Bredemeyer III, President
Board of Trustees
REC�IVED
UG 2 l� 1 @.l?:IaPrr�
Southold Town clerk