HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-10/22/2014 _` SOUI
John M. Bredemeyer III, President `�pF OVA y�l Town Hall Annex
Michael J. Domino,Vice-President ~ 54375 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
James F. King,Trustee Southold, New York 11971-0959
Dave Bergen, Trustee G Q
Charles J. Sanders, Trustee Telephone (631) 765-1892
l�'COUN�'� Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RECEIVED
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD A fed
Minutes 4��=
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Southold Town Clerk
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, November 12, 2014 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 at 5:30 PM
WORKSESSIONS: Monday, November 17, 2014 at 5:30 PM at Down's Farm, and on
Wednesday, November 19, 2014 at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of September 17, 2014.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good evening. Welcome to the Wednesday, October 22nd
regular monthly meeting of the Town Trustees. I'll make motions for meetings to come
up next month. Motion to have the next field inspection on Wednesday, November 12th,
at 8:00 AM. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to have our next regular meeting
Wednesday, November 19th, 5:30 PM. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Town of Southold 2 October 22, 2104
And work sessions for Monday, November 17th, 5:30 PM at Down's Farm, and
on Wednesday, November 19th, at 5:00 PM, at the main meeting hall.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do I have a motion to approve the Minutes of
the September 17th meeting?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
1. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for September 2014. A check for
$7,005.54 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
11. 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 VII Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, October 22, 2014, are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
SEQRA:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All those are listed on your agenda as follows:
Catherine & Richard Reinken —SCTM#98-1-11.1
Barbara Strokoff—SCTM#66-3-8
Charles & Stephanie McEvily—SCTM#52-5-6
Brigitte Mizrahi —SCTM#50-2-2
Laura Solinger—SCTM#83-2-10.12
Cutchogue 6213, LLC, c/o Stephanie Guilpin —SCTM#82-2-3.1
Cutchogue 6291, LLC, c/o Stephanie Guilpin —SCTM#82-2-3.2
Richard & Scheherazade Madigan—SCTM#27-4-9.6
Michael F. & Colleen M. LoGrande—SCTM# 137-4-17.1
Melanie Belkin —SCTM#89-2-4
New Suffolk Waterfront Fund—SCTM# 117-8-18.1
Anthony Annunziata —SCTM# 144-4-2
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Town of Southold 3 October 22, 2104
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In order to effectuate a more orderly
meeting, the Trustees will group certain Administrative Permit
reviews together for orderliness, and we'll go into them presently.
Before I do that, in case someone has come here, we have a
number of items that were postponed tonight, and so that you
don't sit and find out subsequently you are here for the evening
for an item that has been otherwise postponed.
On page six, item four Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of CHARLES STABILE requests an Amendment to Wetland
Permit#8027 for the as-built +/-3' high by+/-63' long wood
retaining wall located within the northeastern section of the
property. Located: 9976 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, has been
postponed.
On page items nine, ten and eleven:
Number nine, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of WILLIAM & THERESA
KAINZBAUER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x64' fixed catwalk with a 4'
wide stairway at offshore end; add install seasonal storage racks for kayaks along sides
of catwalk. Located: 295 Island View Lane, Greenport, has been postponed.
Number ten, En-Consultants on behalf of SEAN P. FAHEY requests a Wetland
Permit for the existing 4'x77'fixed, seasonal timber dock constructed entirely of
untreated materials except for 4"x4"treated timber support posts with attached "L"
shaped 2'x3' platform on landward end which is accessed by 3'x6' steps attached to a
4'x6platform off the bulkhead. Located: 1415 North Parish Drive, Southold, has been
postponed
And number eleven, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of PASQUALE & MARTIN
ROMANELLI request a Wetland Permit for the existing 47'x40' dwelling; existing
20'x36.5'westerly wood deck attached to dwelling; existing 9.2'x10.4'wooden deck with
3'wide beach stairs with railings leading to a 5'x6platform, and 3'x7' platform with stairs
to beach; and for the existing 150 linear foot long wooden bulkhead. Located: 515 South
Oakwood Drive, Laurel, has been postponed.
Those are our postponements for tonight.
IV. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Back to Resolutions under Administrative Permits, as I was
saying, for a more orderly review, these are minor actions which, typically small fences
or gates or such improvements to drainage or deck area. Accordingly, I make a
resolution that we approve as a group items one, two, three and four. They are listed
as follows:
Number one, NANCY PEARSON requests an Administrative Permit for the
as-built 8' high deer fencing installed along the landward side of the wetland boundary
and along the side yards of the two abutting properties; and for a 10 Year Maintenance
permit for the removal of invasive species along the shoreline. Located: 3258 South
Harbor Road & 44332 Main Road, Southold.
Number two, JAMES A. COPE requests an Administrative Permit to remove an
existing silted-in drywell and overflow drain pipe; install an approximately 6' wide by 96'
long pervious area with a 6" to 12" varying depth pervious sand base, and cover with a
flat bluestone surface. Located: 1390 Bayview Drive, East Marion.
Number three, Meiling Leung on behalf of ERLINDA M. LEUNG requests an
Administrative Permit to install 4' high pool enclosure fencing landward of the edge of
Town of Southold 4 October 22, 2104
wetlands. Located: 4001 Wells Road, Peconic.
Number four, Lillian Ball on behalf of LESLIE & CLIFFORD COHEN requests an
Administrative Permit for a 10 Year Maintenance Permit to cut down the phragmites to
not less than 12" in height; to hand pull all mile-a-minute vines; to uproot autumn olive,
multiflora, and other invasive shrubs; to trim the dead wood from all native vegetation;
and to re-vegetate with native plantings where possible; all work to be done on an as
needed basis. Located: 1455 Narrow River Road, Orient.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item number five, if I can have someone else
take that, I'm getting rather hoarse.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. Item number five, Mark Schwartz, Architect
on behalf of ROBERT & MARY SENA requests an Administrative
Permit to construct an 18'x23.4' covered porch over existing
deck area. Located: 5655 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
All the Trustees went out and looked at this. The only
thing we did notice is there is a drainage pipe presently that
comes out of the bottom of the bluff, and the pipe drains
directly onto the top of the bulkhead. So we had no problem with
the proposed project of the covered porch, but we want as a
condition to remove this drainage pipe up at the top of the
bluff, have it cut off.
And so I would make a motion to approve this application
with the stipulation that the drainage pipe that goes down
through the bluff be cut off at the top of the bluff, and that
drainage is appropriately handled up on the property.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. Just to be more specific, it is to be
handled on the property landward of the top of the bluff.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, correction to the initial motion and
second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONSITRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under Applications for Extensions, Transfers
and Administrative Amendments, similarly, these are actions that
are largely administrative in nature and the Board has all
reviewed during the course of monthly work sessions and
meetings. Accordingly we can move items one through eight as a
group. They are listed as follows:
Number one, RUSSELL H. BATES requests a Transfer of Wetland
Permit#5426 from Peter& Rosemary Enners to Russell H. Bates,
as issued on October 26, 2001. Located: 15 East Mill Road, Mattituck.
Number two, RUSSELL H. BATES requests a Transfer of Wetland
Permit#4689 from Peter& Rosemary Enners to Russell H. Bates,
as issued on December 23, 1996, and Amended on March 26, 1997,
Town of Southold 5 October 22, 2104
and Amended again on October 23, 1998. Located: 15 East Mill
Road, Mattituck.
Number three, RUSSELL H. BATES requests a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#447 from Peter Enners to Russell H. Bates, as
issued on December 17, 1987, and Amended on July 23, 1999, and
Amended again on September 17, 2014. Located: 15 East Mill Road,
Mattituck.
Number four, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of
BRIGITTE MIZRAHI requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#5921
from John Hurtado, Sr. To Brigitte Mizrahi, as issued on May 26,
2004. Located: 3400 Lighthouse Road, Southold.
Number five, PHILIP &CHRISTINE MASCIA request a Transfer
of Wetland Permit#8430 from Alexander& Pauline LeDonne to
Philip & Christine Mascia, as issued on May 21, 2014, and
Amended on July 23, 2014. Located: 910 Oak Avenue, Southold.
Number six, Chris Mohr Lawncare & Landscaping, Inc. On
behalf of HENRY KELLY requests an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit#8400 to modify the length of the bluff stairway
structure to be a 4'x20.5' walkway to a 4'x5' stairway leading
to a 4'x20' walkway to a 4'x4' landing leading to a 4'x13' set
of steps to beach. Located: 22165, 22145& 22185 Soundview
Avenue, Southold.
Number seven, JOHN PITMAN requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit#7771 for the approximately 11'x11'
existing deck with associated 4'wide set of stairs down
embankment. Located: 1100 Ruch Lane, Southold.
And number eight, KENNETH B. ZAHLER requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8273 for the
as-built 4'x8' upper landing and 4'x8' middle landing on stairs
to beach. Located: 63735 Route 48, Greenport.
I would so move.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number nine, Ratsey Construction on behalf of
AUSTIN POWER requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit#5577 for the existing deck made with a composite
material that consists of a 38'4.5"x12' section, a 29'9"x5'5"
section, and a 7'5"x20'10" section. Located: 444 Midway Road, Southold.
This project is deemed inconsistent by the LWRP coordinator
due to the fact that there were no Wetland Permits found for
this particular structure.
So the Trustees visited the site on the 15th and noted that there should
be drywells for the roof runoff, and further check the plans submitted for
the permit to make sure that this was in compliance.
It appears that the deck and the structure was part of the
original plans and permits but was not specifically stated in
the permits. And that was the core of the issue. And when it
was reconstructed with the new materials, they extended it an
additional section of seven-and-a-half feet by 20 feet along the
Town of Southold 6 October 22, 2104
side, which is the core of the inconsistency. By including this,
by amending the permit, will bring it into conformity.
Any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mike, I know you had talked about drywells for
the roof runoff. I believe I had in my notes there was also a
pipe coming out of the basement. We weren't sure if it was some
sort of a drainage pipe coming out of the basement. We didn't
know if that was a laundry facility or what that was, but if
that could also be put into a drywell. I believe it was on the
eastern/southeastern side of the property.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: There's no mention of it in the notes, but we
can do that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I was just going to add the same thing, if
Mike wanted to stipulate drywells and maintaining that pipe into
a drywell. So, motion has been made. Do you want to include the
stipulation, Mike?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's an excellent point. It was not in the
notes. That's why I skipped it. Absolutely.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made with the stipulation that
the applicant shall provide drywells for the gutters on the
property and for a pipe noted leaving the house.
Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number ten, En-Consultants on behalf of JOSEPH
SBARRA requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#8288 to modify the dimensions of the stairway and dock
structure by constructing a 4' x ±57' stairway with handrails,
using open grate material on step treads, and including 4'x6',
5' x t8', and 5' x t6' platforms; leading to a 4' x t50'fixed
timber catwalk constructed with open-grade decking, 6" support
pilings over vegetated marsh, and 8" support pilings seaward of
vegetated marsh; a 3'x20' hinged ramp with single handrail; a
6'x20'float with a 2'x4' "ramp pad" attached to landward side
of float secured by(2) 8" diameter pilings; and dock to be
equipped with a light, water and electricity. Located: 3200 Cox
Neck Road, Mattituck.
This is for an amendment to a docking facility. There is a
very minor change to it in the direction of the float. And the
plans received were a little more accurate than the original
plans on it. Everything is drawn to scale. The only thing I want
to add to this is a small retaining wall at the head of the
steps that should be added to this amendment, so in the event
he has to repair it, he's good to go. Because he has a permit on
it. So that's the only change I would want to see on that.
So I would make a motion to approve this with the inclusion
of the timber wall that is approximately 47 feet in length.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second.
Town of Southold 7 October 22, 2104
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Items eleven and 12 may be grouped together.
They are similar to the group one through eight. They are minor
actions that the Board has put under review during the course of
meetings and field inspection. They are listed as follows:
Number eleven, En-Consultants on behalf of JOHN MONTOYA requests
an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8195 for the
relocation of the 4'x7.7' beach steps to be on the east side of
the 3.5'x5.8' platform located on the seaward side of the
bulkhead. Located: 750 Cedar Point Drive West, Southold.
And number 12, North Fork Pool Care on behalf of LESLIE WINDISCH
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8285 for
the in-ground swimming pool and pool patio to be relocated
directly behind the house in lieu of along the north side of the
property. Located: 1440 Kimberly Lane, Southold.
So moved. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. RESOLUTIONS—OTHER:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time we'll go off the regular
meeting agenda for Resolutions-Other. Dave, would you like to
handle our Resolution-Other?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. The Trustees each year set a scallop
season, and it complies, normally, in years, with the DEC
scallop season. And that's what we have done this year. So
what we have here is a resolution: Set 2014/2015 Scallop
Season:
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees open the
following dates to scallop harvesting and pursuant to Chapter
219 (Shellfish)of the Code of the Town of Southold: From
Monday, November 3, 2014 from sunrise to sunset through Tuesday,
March 31, 2015 inclusive, in all Town waters, as per Town Code.
I make that motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time we'll go into the public
hearing section of our meeting. I'll take a motion to go into
public hearings.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make that motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Town of Southold 8 October 22, 2104
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, CATHERINE & RICHARD REINKEN requests an
Amendment to Wetland Permit#6287 for the replacement of the existing storm
damaged retaining wall with the as-built 36' section and 48' section for a total of an 80'
long by 40" high wood retaining wall connected to existing southerly retaining wall; and
for the (3) as-built 24' long, 11.3' long and 12' long wood returns connected to north end
of retaining wall, the returns start at 40" high and get gradually get shorter until buried
into the berm. Located: 1935 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency arises
from the fact that no permits were found in Town records for the as-built retaining wall.
In other words it was built without permits.
The CAC visited this site and resolved to support the application, noting that the
materials on the retaining wall are not adequate and should be suitable construction
grade.
The Trustees did a field inspection on the 15th, and noted that there was a
discrepancy in the math on the length of the wall. It was 84 feet, not 80 feet, as
previously noted.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. REINKEN: That's my home, should I say something?
Sorry, I have never done this before.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's okay. Just introduce yourself for the
record, please.
MR. REINKEN: My name is Rich Reinken, and my wife Cathy. We had
a lot of storm damage from Sandy, as everyone else did. We were
lucky. We have about 15-foot of elevation on a berm that goes
down to the bulkhead. There is a retaining wall that protects
that berm. It was damaged and we just repaired it, so that we
can hopefully get in front of the next storm, because I know we
are going to have another one.
TRUSTEE KING: I hope you're wrong.
MR. REINKEN: I hope so, too.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this
application?
(No response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve the application for
the amendment as stated, noting that it, by approval, it will
bring it into consistency. And as noted before, the length is 84
feet, not 80.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Town of Southold 9 October 22,2104
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: CHARLES & STEPHANIE MCEVILY request an
Amendment to Wetland Permit#8353 to connect the +/-25' and
+/-14' middle retaining walls by constructing a +/-13' section
in the center and a +/-10' section at westerly end to meet
adjacent seawall for a total length of an approximately 92' long
middle retaining wall; and re-nourish the +/-15' area of the
embankment where further erosion has occurred. Located: 1795
Bayview Avenue, Southold.
This project is a revisit of one of the stabilizations
after Tropical Storm Sandy where they took basically a
minimalistic approach and tried to-- did as much as they could
with the planting, but now find they need to connect the pieces
of the retaining wall to stabilize their property and prevent
erosion soils from going into Hashamomuck Pond.
The CAC supports the application provided best management
practices and building materials are employed. The project is
deemed to be consistent with the LWRP. And the Board has
inspected this project.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. MCEVILY: Yes. My name is Paul McEvily, and I'm the
applicant. The calculations contained in this application were
based upon the prior permit application. Subsequent to this
Board's approval of that application, the adjacent property
owner reconstructed a seawall, which highlighted the need for
extending this second terrace. But my calculations in submitting
the permit for you were based upon the old seawall. The seawall
was moved three feet toward the adjacent property, thereby
extending this. So the application which says 92 feet, should
be 95 feet.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe we can amend that during the
course of this proceeding. Is that the northerly neighbor?
MR. MCEVILY: The northwesterly neighbor, yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to
this application? Any questions from the Board members?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application noting that due to conditions subject to the,
following initial construction, that the retaining wall be
95-feet in length. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of BARBARA
STROKOFF requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7895 to
install a 3'x14' ramp to a 5'x20'float secured by(2)8"
Town of Southold 10 October 22, 2104
diameter pilings inside the boat basin. Located: 1345
Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold.
This was found consistent with the LWRP, and the CAC
resolved to support the application.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Good evening. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on
behalf of the applicant.
This was a project that had been before the Board and was
permitted previously for the reconstruction of the bulkheading
for the boat basin. That work was completed. And basically the
applicants came back to me and indicated that through a
combination of age and health they are having a lot of trouble
getting down from the fixed-height of the bulkhead on to the
boat, and that having a ramp and float inside the basin would
then enable them much more beneficial use of the boat basin. And
we designed, we have limited the size of the float as such that
it's located entirely inside the basin.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone else to comment on this
application?
(No response).
I believe Trustee Domino went out and looked at this, found it
very straightforward, no problems with it. And looking at the
plans and the photos, I don't see any issues with it either. Any
Board comments?
(No response).
Since there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close
the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
it's been submitted.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number one under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits, Jeffrey
Patanjo on behalf of KEVIN & KAREN MANNIX requests a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit to remove and dispose of existing timber deck; construct a 23
linear foot vinyl retaining wall at top of bluff with 12 linear foot vinyl retaining wall return
around footprint of deck; add 15 cubic yards of clean sand from an approved upland
source; maintain the existing 64 linear foot long timber retaining wall; and maintain the
existing 40' long by 3.7'wide timber bluff stairs with associated 21' long by 3.7' wide
timber platform. Located: 62945 Route 48, Greenport.
This was an application that came before us last month. Just to review, it was
found inconsistent under the LWRP because the structures were constructed without
permits.
Town of Southold 11 October 22,2104
And the CAC resolved to support the application with the condition of the ten-foot
non-turf buffer included in the project. As I alluded to, the Trustees did, last month, in a
public hearing, issue their comments with regard to their field inspection that was done
back in September. And just to summarize, our concern was that was a proposal to
extend the retaining wall out around the wood deck that cantilevers out over a bluff on
The Sound, and we were not comfortable extending a retaining wall out and filling in, in
essence, making the -- it would be create a condition where it was an even steeper
angle of repose on the bluff. We didn't feel it was an environmentally sound way to go.
So that's a summary of our comments from last month.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. We
took your comments into consideration, we modified the layout as
shown on the proposed plan. Unfortunately you didn't see them
before now, because I just confirmed with the client that they
are okay with the new layout. What we did is extended the new
proposed retaining wall, which is a continuation of the existing
one, and brought it back approximately six, seven, feet. And
following the upper bluff area. We actually pulled off some of
the decking boards of the deck, saw where the top of the bluff
is, and we are following that for the new retaining wall.
The deck is going to be removed, so it will not be
replaced. And there is a ten-foot non-turf buffer indicated on
the plan.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you have a total length of that?
MR. PATANJO: 40 feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So the total length is 40 feet of the newly
proposed retaining wall?
MR. PATANJO: Correct. And that's noted on the plan.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And what you are saying is that this retaining
wall will follow the outline of the top, the crest of the bluff?
MR. PATANJO: Correct. It's pretty much right on the 33-foot
contour.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I notice you have in here a ten-foot non-turf
buffer.
MR. PATANJO: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So that would address the comments from the
Conservation Advisory Council. Your clients were not interested
at all in making the deck around that rock?
MR. PATANJO: No, they didn't want a deck.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It was a nice idea.
MR. PATANJO: If they do, we'll be back.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from anybody in the audience
on this application?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KING: No. I think he's done a pretty decent job.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's always nice when the applicants try to
work with the Board.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there are no other comments, I'll make a
motion to close this public hearing.
Town of Southold 12 October 22, 2104
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Jeff Patanjo on behalf of Kevin and Karen Mannix with the
stipulation that the project reflect plans submitted tonight
dated October 20th, 2014, which depict the wood deck being
removed, the retaining wall being moved back so it follows the
crest of the bluff for a total length of 40 linear feet of vinyl
retaining wall, and it's a ten-foot non-turf buffer that will be
installed over the entire length of the top of the bluff.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number two, Creative Environmental Design on
behalf of BRIGITTE MIZRAHI requests a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit to install 24- 12" x 10' coir logs on the
bluff; add approximately 20 cubic yards sandy loam fill; install
erosion jute matting and plant with beach grass; re-vegetate
area adjacent to top of bluff with native plants; and install a
bluestone permeable 335 sq.ft. stone patio using a crushed stone
base. Located: 3400 Lighthouse Road, Southold.
The LWRP has found this to be consistent, with one note.
It's recommend that the top of the bluff line be verified.
The CAC has resolved not to support the application. The
CAC does not support the application and recommends the
requirement of an engineer's site plan signed off by a licensed
environmental consultant. The CAC questions the stability of the
coir logs to resist possible stumping of the steep slope. Then
all the Trustees went out to this property on the 15th of this
month and the notes say hold for updated survey. Did we get an
updated survey?
MS. CANTRELL: Right here. (Handing). Hot off the press.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: While we are taking a look at that, is there
anybody here to speak to this application?
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Yes. Dave Chicanowicz, Creative Environmental
Design, representing the applicant. If you have any questions, I
would be happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mr. Chicanowicz, I had a question regarding the
coir logs. In response to the concerns of the CAC, if you could
just explain the engineering of those coir logs, how deep they
are imbedded or staked into the bluff, again, to address the
concerns of the CAC.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Okay, the coir logs, which we have been using
quite a lot of recently, especially since Irene and Sandy, it's
made, the product is made from coconut fiber covered with a
basic erosion type jute that holds the fiber together. And
that's the coir of the log. The log is 12 inches in diameter,
the ones I'm putting in. They come in different diameters. The
Town of Southold 13 October 22, 2104
ones I'm proposing are 12-inch in diameter, ten feet long, and
they are actually tied together in a network. So once they are
installed, we dig a very small little trench that maybe 20% of
the actual log sets into the bluff. Then they are staked no less
than three, five-foot long 2x2 wooden, hardwood oak stakes, are
driven into the bluff. And the stakes are tied to the coir
logs. So that protects them from going anywhere. And it's a
network. It's a network of logs and kind of like sewing them
together, allowing the beach grass that we are planning on
putting around it to grow into the log and become part of the
environment. So there is nothing to worry about rotting and
disappearing. The idea of the coir logs is to make it part of
the bluff permanently. And it's not going to have to rot,
because the root system is attracted to the coconut fiber. It's
a great rooting matter and allows for great support on bluff
controls. This has been found across the country to be a very good,
vital situation for controlling erosion in any case.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jack McGreevey is here from the CAC tonight.
Does that answer the CAC's concern?
MR. MCGREEVEY: From what I heard, it doesn't--does it come
under the general category of erosion control device?
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Yes. I would consider it so, absolutely.
MR. MCGREEVEY: The CAC in the past recommended a general
description of erosion control device and this sounds like it
would meet the bill.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: This in conjunction now, besides the coir logs,
the actual slope is also covered with erosion jute that is
stapled to the ground. That prevents the immediate erosion from
rainfall and what have you until the beach grass can get rooted
and sustain itself. So the combination has worked out very well
and has been time-proven already.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Are there any other thoughts from the Board?
(No response).
Is there anybody else who wishes to speak to this application?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve this application.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number three, Thomas C. Wolpert, P.E. on behalf
of LAURA SOLINGER requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to construct 86 linear feet of new bulkhead and
66 linear feet of new rock revetment; placement of approximately
300 cubic yards of clean fill behind new bulkhead and on the
bluff face; and constructing approximately 2,455 square feet of
Town of Southold 14 October 22,2104
slope restoration and re-vegetation. Located: 13459 Oregon Road,
Cutchogue.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC
did a site visitation and resolved not to support this
application. The CAC does not support hardening of the shoreline
because it will accelerate erosion on the neighbor's property,
noting that the littoral drift in this area to the west will rob
the neighbors of sand.
The Trustees did a site visitation on the 15th and after
searching around to find the actual staking, it was suggested
they modify the description to read a 20-foot return, reducing
the bulkhead to 66 feet, and had some questions about the access
for the performance of the work.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. WOLPERT: Yes. Good evening. My name is Thomas Wolpert,
and I'm representing the applicant Laura Solinger in this case, and
would be happy to address any specific concerns that the Board
members may have, or answer any questions otherwise.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any comments or concerns from the Board?
(No response).
We found this to be fairly straightforward. The only thing, as I
mentioned from the comments, was the description about the
20-foot return and then the bulkhead of 66 feet totaling up to
86 feet that you requested.
Is there anyone else here to speak to this application?
TRUSTEE KING: I just had one question. Where are you with the
DEC on this project?
MR. WOLPERT: We have a DEC permit for this.
TRUSTEE KING: Good, okay. Sometimes they are hesitant to issue a
permit for a bulkhead and a revetment. That's the only reason I
brought it up.
MR. WOLPERT: The DEC permit actually came in the form of a
modification for the permit that the State DEC issued for the
neighbor to the west, Oregon Cliffs.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Can someone bring me up to speed on this. I
had a couple of administrative things going on in the
background. I'm sorry. Where are we with respect to the
description we are using for this project?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: As stated before, in our field notes, we noted
that they should modify the description of the bulkhead so it
says it's a 20 foot return and 66 feet, still totaling up to the
86 feet.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, I remember that. Okay, fine.
MS. HULSE: Would you consent to those changes?
MR. WOLPERT: Yes, absolutely.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further questions or comments, I make
a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Town of Southold 15 October 22, 2104
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application
modifying the descriptions so that it reads there is a 20-foot
return and 66-linear feet of bulkhead. All other parts of the
description remaining the same.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. WOLPERT: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The next two are adjoining properties.
En-Consultants on behalf of the Guilpin property-- and
actually, I notice the descriptions are slightly different, so
we'll do them as separate applications,just so it's clear on
the record. So the descriptions are clear on the record.
So I'll open up number four, En-Consultants on behalf of
CUTCHOGUE 6213, LLC, c/o STEPHANIE GUILPIN requests a Wetland
Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to implement buffer
restoration and landscape re-vegetation plan within 100' of
bluff crest as follows: Between 10' and 50' bluff crest setbacks
(within existing 50' buffer area), selectively remove dead trees
and noxious vegetation (e.g., Japanese bittersweet and Japanese
knotwood) and revegetate removal areas with native vegetation
(e.g., Northern Bayberry and Low-bush Blueberry); between 50'
and 100' bluff crest setbacks (outside buffer area), remove dead
trees and noxious vegetation, prune dead wood from existing
healthy trees to remain, and re-vegetate understory with native
vegetation; clear and maintain a 4'wide access path to beach;
install 5' high x 5'wide angled deer fencing with gate landward
of 50' buffer, and 8' high deer fencing along westerly property
line. Located: 6213 Oregon Road, Cutchogue.
As described in the application, it was reviewed under the CAC
and found to be consistent. And it has a note in the LWRP
review, note the installation of stairs or stairways have access
to the beach is prohibited pursuant to the Planning Board
covenant and restrictions. The purpose of the ten-foot wide
access easement on the eastern property boundary was to
establish common access to minimize disturbance to the soil
stabilizing vegetation, prevent stairways on individual lots
down a severely eroded bluff. Any paths that are constructed
through the 50 foot buffer require Planning Board approval if
vegetation other than dead or noxious vegetation is removed.
We did find -- and just bear with me just a second. I'll
try and find the Planning Board resolution on this one, because
it goes back a few years. (Perusing). Sorry. The CAC did review
this. The CAC supports the application with the caution that any
new site plantings do not loosen the soil from rain impact.
MR. HERRMANN: Dave, I have a separate file, too, with that, and
I didn't bring it with me.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just take five, everybody. I know it's in here.
We have to find it. Because I know it's important.
Town of Southold 16 October 22,2104
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: While you are file searching, I would like
to inform the Board and Mr. Herrmann, I spoke to Mark Terry
after the course of our monthly field inspections. He felt the
planting plan met the Planning Board requirements, and I guess
there is some question in my mind about the four-foot access
path. During the course of the field inspection, the Trustees
were impressed by the sheer density of the vegetation out there
and difficulty inspecting and trying to protect vegetation where
we can. So I believe the Board has some thoughts, we were
talking over about, if the plan was reconstructed, we can
possibly go out and view the extent of the vegetation and what
is there. But Mark essentially said it was probably not
necessary, and now that I see Mark's requirements as LWRP
coordinator, it would have to go to the Planning Board if you
were doing anything other than removing noxious vegetation. We
are dealing with some mutually exclusive universes here.
MR. HERRMANN: There may be more to that opinion than just not
necessary, but maybe he's saying would be prohibited. If I'm
understanding you correctly.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could just interrupt for just a second. I
have found a document dated the 13th of June, 2005. And it,
more specifically with the Planning Board, said no clearing of
said 50-foot buffer with the exception of removal of dead or
noxious vegetation shall take place without the approval of the
Town Planning Board. So that is what it was. I want to make sure we
had that in the Minutes of this hearing.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. And generally, the plan that is before you
has two basic components to it. Setting aside the path for the
moment. The work that is proposed within the buffer area, which
is the 50-foot buffer that was established under the subdivision
which Dave was reading from, that work is designed specifically
to be limited to what was allowed by the Planning Board. And
that is the way it's described in the plan, which is the removal
of dead trees, noxious vegetation, etcetera.
The more comprehensive revegetation plan that is proposed
and depicted on the plan occurs outside the buffer area, but is
still within the Board's jurisdiction. And one of the reasons
that, one of the important things about it, is there is not a
proposal to simply clear to the buffer limit and plant more
lawn, there is actually a plan to enhance the site with
additional native vegetation. So in terms of your access to the
site, I mean, Jay, maybe it sounds like it's --the question is
answered for us. But I have whittled my way through there.
There is not a lot to see. I mean, it's a mess. There is a lot
of mile-a-minute weed, there's a lot of grape, there's a lot of
Japanese knotweed, bittersweet. Um, and so the goal within the
buffer area is just to coincide with the Planning Board. And
the goal really is to make that a much better-looking place from
the 50 to 100 foot setback. Where, you know, there would be a
path maintained, but I don't think that's an issue, because it's
Town of Southold 17 October 22, 2104
outside the buffer.
This issue with the path, I think is going to come up again
in the next hearing where we were actually proposing something
to be responsive to an issue that Trustee Domino raised a number
of months ago when we were in here for the stairway permit.
Because there is a dedicated access in the easement for that
stairway. And I don't know if Mark was reacting to the proposed
path on this parcel as somehow being a precursor to a stair
application. If that's the case, it is not. We know there can't
be a stairway on this property. There's the one stairway the
Board has already approved, is for access for alternate parcels
which currently remain under Guilpin's control. That pathway is
really just to try to provide some opportunity for the
homeowners to get out to the edge of the bluff and take a look.
mean that's a certain part of the beauty of the property. But
it sounds like perhaps we wouldn't be able to ask your
permission to allow us to do that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, right now, since we are opening these
individually, let's keep the comments stuck to 6213 Oregon Road.
That way we'll be on the record with these comments for the next
hearing. I just want to make sure it's clean, because we have
two separate applications here. Two separate descriptions.
MR. HERRMANN: Not a problem.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: With regard to the 6213, 1 think if you just
want to repeat it, you just answered the question about stairs,
it's not your intention to place access stairs to the beach.
MR. HERRMANN: Correct. That's clear for the record. We can't.
Again, the access is really just for pedestrian access. It's for
a visual element. It's a four-foot path that would go through
the vegetation and would be designed just for the owners to be
able to actually make it to the bluff, because if at some point
in time this property is separated in its ownership from the
other three, or even just from the one to the east, there would
be no physical way for the owner of this property to even make
it to the top of the bluff.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
MR. HERRMANN: But it sounds like, if I'm hearing you correctly,
and I'm sure Lori will correct us if we are wrong, we can't ask
this Board for permission for this pathway on 6213 at the top of
the bluff without first having the Planning Board allow for
that; is that correct?
MS. HULSE: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That is correct.
MR. HERRMANN: So, in order to move this application forward, I'm
just going to take a leap of faith you would not have any other
substantive objection to what is proposed, that we would have to
agree to remove that pathway from the plan in order to gain your
approval. Notwithstanding any other objections you might have.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are putting the cart before the horse.
MS. HULSE: Yes, he is.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: How do you propose on clearing the dead trees
Town of Southold 18 October 22,2104
and the toxic? How are you going to go about doing that?
MR. HERRMANN: In terms of the physical labor part?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, how will you get in there to do it.
MR. HERRMANN: Bob, do you want to answer that?
MR. WEISS: Robert Weiss, Landscape Architect. I think a lot of
it will be hand clearing through there. It's so thick and dense
as it is now, to get any machinery back there will be very
difficult. A lot of it is just going to be hand cleared by a crew.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Our main concern is that someone comes before
the Board and they'll take out dead trees and toxic vegetation
and all of a sudden we go back and inspect again, and there is
one tree left and the bluff and water.
MR. HERRMANN: And we understand the sensitivity here, and that's
one of the reasons that the MPLA is involved and would actually
have oversight of the project as it moves forward. Unfortunately
Stephanie Guilpin, who really, really wanted to be here tonight,
she had an in-law who just passed away within the past 48 hours
and was not able to come. But she has, I mean she has really
been at all of this for a very long time. She had retained us
and Jeff Butler well over a year ago at this point to design the
plans that would meet the Planning Board requirements for the
bluff face restoration as well as the stairway, which this Board
already heard and approved. That's on the adjacent parcel. And
she understands that any violation of what she is proposing
would not just be a matter for this Board but it would be a
matter for the Planning Board, it would threaten her certificate
of occupancy.
So while I realize that the Board may be gun shy based on
what has happened in the past, and I know it's happened in the
past, I've seen it in the past; in fact we got MPLA involved in
a project where it has happened, and they had to be called in
for restoration.
MS. HULSE: That's not relevant to this hearing.
MR. HERRMANN: Well, I'm responding to Charles' comments the
reason they are worried is because of what happened in the past.
If it's not relevant, I'll ignore the comment, I guess. I was
trying to respond to it.
The point is I'm trying to say is we have a diligent and
careful and thoughtful applicant, and we have proper permits
involved. I don't know if the Board would be able to, I know you
often have inspections that would happen before, during, after,
whatever. I don't know if you would want to set up or could set
up some kind of inspection schedule here as it would pertain to
the first 50 feet from the bluff, where, same way during a home
construction, you get the insulation, you have an inspection;
electric, you have an inspection; that maybe you would allow an
inspection schedule where some portion of this work would be
done, and then the Board would come out and have to sign off on
it before they could move to the next section, for example. So
that would give you an opportunity to come out and see the work
that has been done and gain trust for the way it's being done.
Town of Southold 19 October 22,2104
1 mean this application doesn't come lightly. This is
actually part of the subdivision approval that this work be
done. So we would like to think the Board would want to approve
it. I mean it's, we could go into all the environmental reasons
why this is obviously a good thing to do. I mean the purpose of
a buffer is to maintain the native vegetation, not to maintain
Japanese bittersweet and mile-a-minute weed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, I don't mean to interrupt you, but I know
when I was out there for a certificate of compliance inspection
I think it was about two months ago, I met the owners and I
specifically pointed out to them the choker vines and the
mile-a-minute, and recommended to them that they get in here to
see us to do what you are talking about. Because I said you are
going to lose these trees. They will kill the trees. I say that
just to place it on the record that I have already had the very
same conversation with the owners of the property out there.
You are absolutely right. We have, as the comments have
indicated, we have been burned in the past by these. So for
myself, and I'm just one of five sitting up here, I do like the
idea of coming back in, particularly now that we are getting
into the Fall season and vegetation will die off when the colder
weather hits, and it will be a little easier to see and get
those visualized and to get out there and walk around this area.
So I would recommend that we postpone this application for
two things. First, to give you the opportunity to go to the
Planning Board with regard to your path, or to say we are going
to eliminate the path, knowing that later on if you go to the
Planning Board you get that path approved, you have to come back
with an amendment, possible amendment, to the permit for us.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And then also the second reason that I'm going
to propose a postponement is exactly what has been discussed, so
that we can come out there and meet your contractor in the
field, and when the vegetation has died off for the winter, so
we can visualize it a little better exactly what we are talking
about here. That's just my thoughts and comments. I don't know
if any of the fellow Board members feel any differently.
MR. HERRMANN: When did you have in mind, at least speaking for
yourself, when that would happen?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It could be our next field inspection in the
middle of November. Possibly by then some of this vegetation
has at least started to die off a little bit, if we have a couple frosts.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: When have you planned on trying to get the work
started?
MR. HERRMANN: I think they were, we were actually trying to get
in here last month and it didn't happen. And we got in here
this month because they were really hoping to start some of the
removal. They won't be doing this revegetation planting, you
know, this broad scale planting necessarily now in the Fall, but
wanted to at least try to get some of the removal done during
Town of Southold 20 October 22, 2104
the Fall. Because it's a good time to do it. But you don't want
to wait too long, because if you start to have snow cover, then
it starts to become more difficult.
I'm just, I guess I'm just wondering, what you hope, I mean
if we can't get you into the buffer, is there some other way you
are hoping for us to enable you to see something that you didn't
see already? I mean you were asking us to cut paths or--
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We could not see anything when we got out there,
on this lot, 6213, we were not able to get beyond what is the
cleared back lawn now, anywhere into that area.
MR. HERRMANN: So would you be looking for us to cut paths, not
through the buffer but perhaps toward the buffer through the 50
to 100 foot setback,just to try to get you in and have lateral
vision?
Is that what you're--
TRUSTEE SANDERS: That sounds reasonable to me.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Go ahead and make your suggestions.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Rob, I agree with the menu of options
suggested by Trustee Dave Bergen. A question, if you, on behalf
of the applicant, if you could remove the four-foot pathway, and
we could move forward with the approval, we could come out and
visit the work in progress, possibly within the course of the
next field surveys.
After talking with Mark Terry, I'm much more comfortable
with the project. Mark had been through the subdivision process
and the development of the planting plan for that project, has
every confidence this is on track for being properly handled.
So I'm not sure -- I've come around because of additional
information and talking to the Planning Department
representative that I have no problem with if you pull the plug
on the access path and we could come out and do an inspection
during the course of construction, assuming you want to start
this Fall. In other words with the condition of a permit coming
in during the course of the first month of construction.
MR. HERRMANN: Or even at commencement of construction.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
MR. HERRMANN: It sounds unequivocal to me that you can't approve
the path, so I think--without Planning. So we have to remove
that. So if we need to remove that, we can remove it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to move forward with this.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just one question I have here. On the proposed
eight-foot deer fence that's on the plan along the western
property line, I'm trying to find out where that ends. Is that
going to the top of the bluff?
MR. HERRMANN: No, there is this sort of strangely configured
deer fence here that is limited to five feet in height that is
on the outside of the buffer. So that actually this shape here
is the shorter deer fence that separates the developed part of
the property from the buffer. That then ties into an eight-foot
deer fence that is along the side property line. So that fence
Town of Southold 21 October 22,2104
is not out in this area at all. It's a shorter, like a dual fence.
MR. WEISS: It's a five-foot fence that is angled. So it's five
feet in height with a five-foot spread.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I see that now. Thank you. Are there any other
comments from anybody in the audience?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
MR. MCGREEVEY: Dave, I don't know if this fits into it. I
didn't do the inspection of this property, but it was emphasized
at our meeting about possible erosion due to whatever is being
proposed and agreed upon. Would that be a concern?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, it says they support the application with
a caution that any new site plantings will not loosen the soil
from rain impact. That's exactly verbatim. I'm reading the
comments from the CAC.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Would that concern of the CAC possibly impact
erosion on the bluff?
TRUSTEE KING: There won't be any work on the bluff.
MR. HERRMANN: And to further that, Dave --
MS. HULSE: This is comments from the Board, Dave.
TRUSTEE KING: There's no further comments from the Board.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Rob, do you have a further comment?
MR. HERRMANN: I was just going to say, there is actually, the
work that is proposed as part of this application, so as not to
push the Board on the concerns that you are stating, we are
actually not proposing any work within ten feet of the top of
the bluff as part of this work.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just a brief note, that as applied for, this
application does not need a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area permit
because all the work is landward. Is that basically correct?
Because of the 50 foot is behind it?
MR. HERRMANN: I think there is some portion of the work that is
within the 50 foot setback that is the Coastal Erosion Hazard Zone.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I stand corrected.
MR. HERRMANN: It's the larger scale revegetation that is not
within the Coastal Erosion area, once you get more than 50 feet away.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hearing no other comments, I'll make a motion to
close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with condition the proposed four-foot wide path is eliminated
from the plan and --from the description. And that the Board
as a condition of the permit will come out to visit the, at the
commencement, during the first month of the commencement of
work, the Board will come out to visit and determine the extent
of the clearing.
Town of Southold 22 October 22,2104
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now that takes us to number five on our agenda.
En-Consultants on behalf of CUTCHOGUE 6291, LLC, c/o STEPHANIE
GUILPIN requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit
to implement buffer restoration and landscape re-vegetation plan
within 100' of bluff crest as follows: Between 10' and
50' bluff crest setbacks (within existing 50' buffer area),
selectively remove dead trees and noxious vegetation (e.g.,
Japanese bittersweet and Japanese knotwood), and revegetate
removal areas with native vegetation (e.g. Northern Bayberry and
Low-bush Blueberry); between 50' and 100' bluff crest setbacks
(outside buffer area), remove dead trees and noxious vegetation,
prune dead wood from existing healthy trees to remain, and
re-vegetate understory with native vegetation; clear and
maintain two 4' wide access paths leading to proposed location
of bluff stairway and beach; install 5' high by 5' wide
angled deer fencing with gate landward of 50' buffer, and 8'
high deer fencing with gate along easterly property line.
Located: 6291 Oregon Road, Cutchogue.
This is immediately adjacent to the property of the
previous hearing. The LWRP reviewed and found this to be
consistent with the comments the four-foot wide path is proposed
through the 50-foot/100-foot setback, outside the ten-foot wide
easement located on the property.
In consideration of the topography with the ten-foot wide
easement and the length of the stairway, would need to
transverse the area, the relocated access is a better
alternative. However the relocated access would need to serve
the residence of lots one, three and four.
MR. HERRMANN: What are you reading from?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm reading from the LWRP determination. Any
paths that are constructed through the 50-foot buffer require
Planning Board approval of vegetation, other than dead or
noxious vegetation is removed as per the Planning Board decision
that was alluded to in the previous application and hearing.
The CAC resolved to support the application with the
caution that any new site plantings do not loosen the soil from
rain impact.
The Trustees did go out and looked at this site. Is there
anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant. As with the prior hearing, but as per Dave's
request,just to keep the record separate and clean, I'll
quickly reiterate that we are proposing selective removal of
dead trees and noxious vegetation pursuant to the language of
the subdivision approval within 50 feet of the top of the bluff
and in the buffer area, and then separately proposing a more
extensive revegetation plan outside the protected buffer between
Town of Southold 23 October 22, 2104
the 50 and 100-foot setbacks, and thus requires the Trustees
approval under Chapter 275. And part of the work that is located
within 50 feet of the top of the bluff is also partially located
within the Coastal Erosion area, so that's why a Coastal Erosion
is also included here.
It sounds like LWRP coordinator thinks we have a good idea
with the path, although I have to credit Trustee Domino with the
original ideas when we were in front of the Board for the
stairway approval, which the Board issued; Mike had mentioned
his concern about the drop in the bluff there and the erosion
that might be associated with trying to maintain that path
through what the Planning Board requires to gain a ten-foot
access easement. And so what we have done is, using what is an
existing path that is there, and this is about the only place
between the two properties you actually can kind of get down
toward the bluff from the lawn, it's shown on the MPLA site plan
as existing farm road to remain. There is a cleared path there
that kind of wraps around the top of the bluff, that Mike had
raised some concern about, and would then tie back into the
easement. And so we were looking for the Board's approval to
establish this as a secondary and more appropriate access way
for the stairs. It certainly would still allow access for all
four properties as it would originate in the current easement
and end in the current easement, but it would wrap around the
top of the bluff in the middle. But it sounds like, again, we
are going to be facing the situation where the Trustees and
perhaps Mark Terry thinks that's a good idea, but this Board may
be prohibited from giving us approval to do that until such time
that we would go back and gain approval from the Planning Board
to modify the access way. So you can correct me if I stated any
of that incorrectly, but I think that's what you are about to tell me.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You stated it correctly. And just for the
record, the permit you are referring to for the beach access
stairs was permit#8411 and #8411C dated April 23rd, 2014. That
was for the stairs to the beach, as well as a 5x353 on-grade
pathway over the upland portion.
So -- and also just, for the record, I had the same
question on the deer fence of this piece of property, but it's
identical to the deer fence on the other piece of property.
MR. HERRMANN: Right. It's the same idea. The eight-foot fence
here on the easterly property line. But not across the face of the bluff.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question Trustee Sanders asked about the
approved stairs and deck, that's on the permit#8411 and the
plans that are attached to that, and I don't have those plans
here in this file. I just looked for that. Are there any other
comments from anybody else in the audience?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
So what we'll be looking to do here, as with the previous
application, is I'll be proposing a resolution that will include
Town of Southold 24 October 22, 2104
the removal of the paths described in the description here for
this permit.
Not hearing any other comments, I'll make motion to close
this public hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
En-Consultants on behalf of Cutchogue 6291 located at 6291
Oregon Road, with the condition that the four-foot wide paths
are removed from the application, and the Trustees are given the
opportunity in a month's time to come out and review this
property with the contractor with regard to the removal of the
dead or noxious vegetation.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Under wetland permits, number one, En-Consultants on behalf of
MELANIE BELKIN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 12'x35' swimming pool
raised approximately 1.8 feet above the adjacent concrete patio to remain; construct
approximately 83 linear feet of concrete retaining walls and place within walls
approximately 30 cubic yards of on-site soil material to be derived from pool excavation
and re-grading of lawn area adjacent to easterly retaining wall; install +/-5'x9' landscape
steps to pool; install approximately 188 sq.ft. and 67sq.ft. concrete walkways, and 4'x5'
concrete steps to grade; construct a 12'x12' shed and 55x6' outdoor shower; install
drywell, pool drywell, and 4' high pool enclosure fencing with self-closing gates; and
establish approximately 1,677sq.ft. of plantings. Located: 1700 Cedar Beach Road,
Southold.
This was found to be consistent with the LWRP. The CAC supports the
application, however the plans do not depict the actual height and depth of the proposed
retaining wall. There is concern with the groundwater level being too close to the surface
and the leaching pollutants from the sanitary system into the bay. Those are the CAC
comments. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
Melanie Belkin. This is an application to install a swimming
pool that meets the setback for swimming pools under Chapter
275, and also farther landward of the pool on the side of the
existing dwelling, a proposed 12'x12' shed, and also a small
outdoor shower and some concrete walkways that would allow
access to and from the swimming pool. Just for clarity, on the
CAC comments, there is nothing proposed in connection with the
septic system on this project. The existing septic system is
located in the highest part of the property and will remain.
There is nothing about the application that relates to the
septic.
The proposed swimming pool will be raised to make sure that
there is no interference with groundwater. And there is a
retaining wall that is proposed that wraps around both sides of
Town of Southold 25 October 22, 2104
the pool. And there are actually some indications of what the
top elevation of that retaining wall will be, which is 7.6. And
the existing grades are on the survey.
In fact, on the easterly corner, easterly side of the
property, is actually some regrading, the area of the survey, if
you see it, that says "proposed grading."What is actually
proposed there is to drop the existing grade a little bit, which
will have one benefit the Trustees usually like, which is to
remove some of that sloped lawn area where the slope of the
property heads north toward the wetland area. But it's designed
in part there to keep the height of the top of the retaining
wall at four feet above grade, in response to the question about
the height of the wall. And that will enable the wall in that
location to satisfy the pool enclosure fence requirement for
that area of the pool. And the area where the wall will be less
than four feet, there is a pool fence required, and that is
shown also on the site plan.
With respect to plantings, it's a little bit of a strange
layout with respect to wetlands and what the Board usually sees,
as you probably see when you were at the site. It's not a
waterfront property. There are no wetlands on this property.
There is actually a private roadway that separates the wetlands
from the parcel. And the lawn area that fronts the house that
almost appears as though the Belkin property goes down to the
road. It really doesn't. It stops on an angle. So what we have
done is proposed some plantings right along the outside of where
the pool and the retaining walls are proposed. And generally the
property, as it goes toward the wetlands, actually lands in a little
bit of a swale. So the portion of the property near the northerly
property line of this lot is actually downslope both from the house
but it's also downslope from the road and wetlands on the other side.
This did require relief from the Board of Appeals and that
relief has been obtained. We also, I inspected the project with
staff from the DEC who also seem to think it looked okay from
their perspective. And we are in front of the Trustees now
because of the fact that the project is within 100 feet of
wetlands under 275.
TRUSTEE KING: Rob, what's the height of that retaining wall on
that north side, where it says proposed wall 55 linear feet.
What's the height of that above grade?
MR. HERRMANN: On the north side?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. HERRMANN: The lowest point, lowest grade point of that
wall, and Bob, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but the lowest
grade point over there is 3.2. And, again, the top of the wall
is 7.6. So 4.4 would be the highest that wall would be above
grade. And again, we are trying to maintain it a consistent
height as you go across, which is the reason we are digging out
some of that slope on the east side or south side, whatever you
want to call it.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there a dedicated drywell for the backwash?
Town of Southold 26 October 22, 2104
MR. HERRMANN: There is. It's on the landward side of the
proposed shed.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, I see it.
MR. HERRMANN: It's in back of the southwest corner of the house.
And there is also a drywell proposed for the shed in these
landscaped areas. That's actually designed to pick up runoff
from everything proposed.
TRUSTEE KING: The only thing we noticed in the field I think
you'll lose that one big tree on the north end there.
MR. HERRMANN: There has been a lot of discussion about the
trees, um --
TRUSTEE KING: I think that one is going to be a goner.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The one on the northwest corner.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. There is one that is in the work site that
will obviously come down. Then there is two that sit outside.
This one is definitely going to stay. This one they really want
to try to keep. If the Board feels we should include permission
to remove that, if it becomes necessary.
TRUSTEE KING: I think you should, because all that root system
will be undermined.
MR. HERRMANN: Then if you allow me the opportunity to amend the
application.
TRUSTEE KING: Right. At least they'll have the permission if
they have to move it, they can.
Are there any other comments from anybody else for this
application?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted, and also with the addition of this one large tree on
the north end where the pool construction is, it's so close, if
they have to remove the tree, they have permission to do so.
MR. HERRMANN: It's the one labeled on the plan as the 20-inch
oak, Jim. Thank you, for that.
TRUSTEE KING: That's my motion. Yes, the 20-inch oak.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A motion has been made.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number two, Samuels &
Steelman Architects on behalf of RICHARD & SCHEHERAZADE MADIGAN
requests a Wetland Permit for renovations and additions to
existing two-story(2,077sq.ft. first floor, 1,581 second floor)
dwelling with existing 423sq.ft. deck which include a proposed
280sq.ft. Screen porch addition; proposed 607sq.ft. deck
additions; proposed 125sq.ft. mechanical room and back porch
addition; new windows; new entry porch; and gutters to leaders
Town of Southold 27 October 22,2104
to drywells to contain roof runoff. Located: 856 Narrow
River Road, Orient.
Upon inspection of this site on the 15th of October, the
project probably would have been out of the jurisdiction of the
Board of Town Trustees upon the initial construction of the
house, but owing to an expansion of the wetland back toward the
house, it's now jurisdictional. The front and seaward lawn area
of this house is notable because it's all non-fertilized turf,
with a slight swale, ending with a low profile berm so that the
activities on this property seaward of the house are very minimal.
The CAC supported the application, however questions the
legality of the existing walkway located over public lands.
Actually I could speak directly to that issue. The catwalk
over the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
lands at this location was a negotiated easement when the land
owners sold family property to the DEC. So that has an easement
for its use.
The LWRP coordinator has indicated that it is consistent
with the Town's LWRP program, but did caution due to probable
high groundwater conditions, it's recommended the Board clarify
the placement and design of drywells.
The existing structure appears to have all the gutters and
leaders to a drywell system. So that it remains to be seen. In
addition to we would probably want to caution to meet the town
drainage code so that any new drywells won't be a source for
stagnant water that might enhance mosquito breeding.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MS. STEELMAN: Nancy Steelman, Samuels & Steelman Architects. I
think you've given us pretty good understanding of the project. Do
you have any questions?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's very straightforward and the building
construction additions are very minimal and tucked in with the
building. I think what actually happened, the initial berm
construction back when the Stratford's built the house, since
then is very nicely populated with Baccharus and is growing very
naturalized and then it became jurisdictional.
I think I would caution the drywell construction to meet,
just get the bottoms above groundwater. There should be no
problem with that.
MS. STEELMAN: Yes, no problem. We actually looked at it, we have
two-foot deep grades with the test hole information. So that's fine.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any questions from the Board members?
(No response).
Hearing no further questions, is there anyone here who wishes to
speak to this application?
(No response).
Hearing no one else, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in
this matter.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
Town of Southold 28 October 22, 2104
(ALL AYES).
I make a motion to approve this application as submitted noting
that the Town drainage code should be abided with to make sure
that the leaching pools for the gutters and leaders are not in
groundwater. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: 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.
The LWRP found this to be consistent with two notes: The
pool dewatering drywell is specified. A non-turf vegetated
buffer is required seaward of the proposed fence.
And the CAC did not support this for the reason of the
project was not staked and there was no indication of a drywell.
However on October 21 st, we received new plans stating
where the pool would be located and where a drywell would be
located. That should cover you on that.
TRUSTEE KING: Charles, is there an extra set of plans?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Yes, (Handing).
One caveat to this application on, dated August 15th, we
received a letter from John C. Ehlers requesting for a pool
permit for 1040 Fox Hollow Road be amended to add the request for
a permit for the existing decks as shown on accompanying survey
last dated 8/14/2014. So when we went out on the inspection on
the 15th, we were able to assist in the re-staking of the pool,
and the actual new survey reflects that change.
But you see the other decks.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of the
applicant?
MR. EHLERS: Yes. John Ehlers, Land Surveyor, on behalf of the
applicant. I can answer any questions if you would like.
TRUSTEE KING: Looks like what we discussed in the field.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: With the exception of those two other decks.
You guys are tracking that, right?
MR. EHLERS: I do show that the tree area there, that we had
wanted to move it away from.
TRUSTEE KING: I agree with the LWRP coordinator that should be a
non-turf buffer seaward of the fence. That's a good idea to get
a buffer in there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So seaward of the fence.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. It goes right down into wetlands.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. That would be the landward edge of the
non-turf buffer would be that fence line. That's fine.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Non-turf vegetated buffer seaward of the fence.
Town of Southold 29 October 22,2104
Any other thoughts from the Board?
(No response).
Anybody else?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the resolution to include the lower and upper deck
currently constructed; the lower deck is 577 square feet, and
the upper deck is 236 square feet, and a non-turf vegetated
buffer seaward of the fence line. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. EHLERS: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, Michael Kimack on behalf of SHEILA
PATEL requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing upper wood
landing, gate, pergola, platform and staircase; and replace with
new +/-56' long and 4' wide bluff stairs consisting of a
87'x48" upper landing with a 3'x3.6' gate, and a 42"x68"
pergola above; a 52"x48" mid-platform; and end at an existing
3'x8' bottom landing; and for the two (2)existing 50' long by
12" diameter poles on the bluff to be left in-place. Located:
19965 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency arises from the fact that the stairs received a
grandfather permit#4566 in 1996, however the proposed action
does not conform to the dimensions of the permitted structure.
And it notes there were three platforms in the application.
The CAC resolved to support this application, recommending
erosion control measures taken during the demolition and
construction activities.
The Trustees did a field inspection on September 10th, and
at that time noted the poles should have been mentioned in the
application under the stairs considerable pruning of the
vegetation on the bluff done without a permit, and suggested
flow-through on all the steps. Is there anyone here to speak to
this application?
(No response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(No response).
MS. HULSE: The violation has not been cleared yet. Just to let
you know.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no questions or comments, I make a
motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Town of Southold 30 October 22, 2104
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application,
noting that by giving a permit it will address the inconsistency.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And this permit though will not be issued until
the violation is resolved. Or there has not been a violation
issued yet?
MS. HULSE: Yes, there has been. We had a conference about it. I
had an understanding she was going to return the plea form with
the fine, and that did not happen. So the next date is 17th of
November. So we may be holding it for a little while.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we'll hold the permit pending the resolution
of the violation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is that included into the motion?
MS. HULSE: It doesn't have to be.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting on behalf of MICHAEL F. & COLLEEN M. LoGRANDE request
a Wetland Permit to reconstruct and reconfigure existing dock
assembly by removing existing 4'x32' catwalk, 3'x14' ramp, two
5'x20'floats, and one 6'x16' float; and construct new 4'x64'
catwalk; 3'x15' ramp; and a 6'x20' floating dock; install a
gravel access area measuring approximately 15'x265'; and remove
two trees along the existing fence line. Located: 555 Fleetwood
Road, Cutchogue.
The LWRP coordinator has determined that the project is
consistent with the LWRP.
The CAC has moved to support this application.
The Trustees performed a field inspection on the 15th. I'll
get back to some of the questions in our field report. Before I
do that, I want to read, there is a letter addressed to the
Board for the file. It says: Dear Mr. Bredemeyer--this is from
a Mr. David Corcoran, dated 10/16. This is addressed to Mr.
Bredemeyer and the Board of Trustees.
I'm writing to you in response to a notice I received from
the Department of Army, New York District, Corps of Engineers. I
am greatly opposed to the application of Mr. and Mrs. Mike
LoGrande to move an existing pier and ramp and floats and
construct a 64-foot long by four-foot wide timber pier. The
proposed structure would have a negative impact on the shoreline
functionality, preservation and esthetics. The proposed
structure would block the entrance where East Creek leads into
Eugene's Creek, being that this waterway is very shallow and
navigable only at high tides. It would severely limit the access
to property owners Eugene's Creek would have to enter and exit
the waterways by their homes.
I'm concerned that the impact this dock would have on the
Town of Southold 31 October 22, 2104
ecosystem of the area, a known nesting area for sea turtles and
shallow clam beds.
Finally, esthetically, by jutting out toward the creek, it
would create an eyesore severely distracting from the natural
beauty of the surrounding area.
I sincerely hope you take all my concerns into account as you
review this proposed action.
I know there were a number of concerns that we did put down
during the course of the field inspection. I guess we were
wondering what the water depths were, and there was a question
and concern about the possibility of moving the dock slightly
east; there would be less disruption for the marsh grass.
We did question the need to remove trees. There is mowing
of Spartina on the property, which should cease, and it would
appear when you are talking about a bluestone driveway this
length and size, it appears that filling it of wetland area or
adjacent to wetland area, and it doesn't seem to provide
information on the cubic yards of bluestone that might be
involved.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicant, the LoGrande's. As part of my application we
included a visual.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have it.
MR. ANDERSON: I don't know that everyone has a copy. Maybe they do.
Okay, so historically what we have here is a dock that
would never be permitted today. I'm sure you all saw that dock
when you were out there. We don't design docks that have
multiple floating docks. So we took the dock that was torn up as
a result of Hurricane Sandy, and that's what prompted the
application. So that's why they came to us, so we would remove
that dock, and we would then propose a dock that extended
straight out from the shoreline in a slightly westerly rotation.
The reason why the dock is angled that way is to separate it
from the side lot line as it extends out into the water. That's
why it was designed that way.
Also, if you look at your site plan detail, it shows the
water depths that were obtained by the surveyor. So our other
reason for extending the dock slightly to the west was to get
into deeper water. Normally, a floating dock will require a depth
of 30 inches. We don't have that here. It's very shallow. So
when you get to the final sheet you'll see the cross-section of
the dock, and you'll see that it's chocked from underneath. And
that's why we have four piles supporting it, so that the dock
doesn't sit on the creek bottom, which is presently the case for
the existing dock. So that was the basic design parameters.
It's not an ideal location. We realize that. But we are
trying to address the usual depth concerns. We are also trying
to address the usual navigation concerns. I think the aerial
photograph that is submitted with the application would address
Town of Southold 32 October 22, 2104
the concerns of David Corcoran, because what you can plainly see
there is no impact to the entrance of any creek here. In fact
the dock as laid out slightly to the west will avoid that
impact. And if anything, the docks slightly to the east create a
greater impact than we do, because they are right at the mouth
of that creek as you enter it. And the aerial clearly shows
that. So there is not a limitation of access.
So as to the field inspection notes, excuse me, we are not
opposed to moving it slightly to the east, but I don't know that
it really would accomplish anything.
As far as the mowing of Spartina, probably the whole lot
would be Spartina if left to revert, but it has been
historically maintained in this condition. And one of the
reasons for the gravel access way is to provide so that a
trailer can go on it. So this lot, the clients have fee title to
this lot, so they have a right to access the dock from the
street, obviously. So we thought and the client thought the
gravel access would define that right of access.
could say this, that certainly, you know, if we were able
to put that down, we could allow whatever Spartina between the
driveway and what is presently flagged as the wetland boundary
to revert, what will probably be more Spartina, we are not
opposed to that.
As to the trees, the reason we put that on our application
is our feeling were the trees are dying anyway. But it's not
important, it's not an important part of this application one
way or another. So I hope that addresses the questions you have
raised.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess partially, to my mind, but, I guess
I'm questioning the utility of a gravel driveway there. It's
fairly hard, sandy material already. I mean, I think the
proposal to downsize the dock and have, what was it, through-flow
over the wetland, is basically all net gains for environmental
protection. I'm just wondering why the need to put additional
materials out in that area. I don't know. I'm wondering if this
begs for an additional site inspection with the Board to
possibly discuss different options and also come in with a
better detailed plans on the driveway. The proposed new dock
seems to better dealt with in the application than the driveway
portion, and yet the driveway portion comes the closest to the
most significant wetlands on the interior of the property. So I
don't know how the Board feels, but I would be more comfortable
possibly meeting in the field. Maybe you can talk to the owners
to see other options.
I mean, I like the notion of everything to the easterly of
the proposed driveway, that the Board might feel comfortable
with, would be just a no-mow and let it go natural. And if it
meant improving a driveway that actually had real utility, that
would bring in a small amount of fill with the bluestone, maybe
even need a short bumper or whatever, so you have a clear
delineation between what is wetland that should not be mowed or
Town of Southold 33 October 22, 2104
driven in with equipment. That's just a thought I had.
MR. ANDERSON: I'm perfectly willing to meet you out on the
property. That's not a problem. We have other agency approvals
we are pursuing now anyway. It's not as though you would be
slowing me down. If it's helpful, I would be perfectly happy to
do that. But again, the thought was to get, have the ability to
back a trailer up and down there. Whether 15 feet is adequate or
12 is better. A parking space is ten feet wide, just for reference.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think where you are going with this, and I
think because there is a lot of environmental improvement
already being wound into the application, if you have no
objection to us tabling this, I would move on that and we can
meet in the field and possibly discuss it further.
MR. ANDERSON: I have no objection.
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to go back to the dock design. Bruce,
why wasn't that dock cantered over more, so the proposed float
is about where the float that you are looking at this U-shaped.
The float to the right, looking down at it. Would that be the
eastern side? Why wasn't the new proposal cantered over so the
new float is roughly in the same position as that? Because you
have more water and it could be a shorter dock than was just
laid out.
MR. ANDERSON: Can you point to where you are talking about? It
would be easier for me.
TRUSTEE KING: Right here. You have this present dock here. Why
wasn't this just slid over like that and ended there. You have
more water and it's a shorter dock.
MR. ANDERSON: That's fine. We could do that.
TRUSTEE KING: I think it would be a better design.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Speaking of better designs, Trustee Domino
brought up the fact this is one of those areas you can traverse
the beach and we should incorporate a set of steps over the
dock. It's one of those you won't disappear in the mud. So
riparian access should be included in this particular application.
MR. ANDERSON: I guess the answer was you would cross a slightly
larger part of the vegetated wetland. I'm not sure that is
significant, though.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, generally speaking --
MR. ANDERSON: Jim might be correct about that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We can take a look at that further when we
go out into the field.
MR. ANDERSON: I don't think we would be opposed to that, is my
point. And there is less dock to build. So there is probably
some savings there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, for the additional suggestions of
the Board members. So I'll make a motion to table this.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Other people may want to talk. David Corcoran
is in the audience.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Excuse me, Mr. Corcoran, I'm sorry.
MR. CORCORAN: David Corcoran. I own the house directly to the
west of this property. And I have owned this since 2004. The
Town of Southold 34 October 22,2104
dock that was there before fell into disarray, and this one
again fell into disarray. Trying to avoid such, they put some
kind of sheathing over the pilings that obviously didn't work.
So it became an eyesore for the past year-and-a-half.
That water does not get deeper until you hit the channel of
Eugene's Creek, which is out past the marshes, right there. The
way they have this plan going more to the west would hamper the
houses to the left of me. And the little creek to the left
there, you see those people do have docks, and they do have
boats.
And another thing, in terms of his property, putting his
dock so far back, I'm not sure if you've been there at high
tide, but the water does come up to the bulkhead, which I own the
right-of-way next to me. So the water does come up there. So
the gravel he is anticipating putting there will be under water.
And I don't understand why they need to go from a 30-foot dock
to a 60-foot dock. You are not getting any deeper water. The
water is only about this high at high tide, and this high at low
tide. So going 30 feet more out will just be an eyesore for
myself, the people next to me, and trying to navigate into that
little creek there next to me when it is high tide. So I oppose
this project. Not saying in its entirety. If they want to put a
dock in the same size, I would have no problem with that. But I
don't think they should put one that is longer on to the
property. I know the property. There is no house on the property,
number one, and number two, is the water does come up at high
tide. From the water to the back, I would say comes up at least
30 feet, at extremely high tide. So that dock and gravel will
all be under water at high tide. And I also sent something to
the Army Corps of Engineers opposing this project. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes
to speak on behalf of this application?
(Negative response).
Any additional comments from the Board of Trustees?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think considering tabling to come out in
November, that we try and get out there at high tide.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That would be a good idea. Have the new
location staked out so we can make sure it conforms with the
standards of navigation. And I think that's a great idea, try to
time our inspections to make it at high tide. Accordingly,
would move to table this application.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number six, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of ANTHONY ANNUNZIATA requests a Wetland Permit to
reconstruct existing wood bulkheading with four(4) returns with
new using vinyl sheathing that will measure 174' in overall
length and will be comprised of a 20' northerly return, a 48'
northerly section (shortened to bring the bulkheading within the
Town of Southold 35 October 22,2104
property), a 25' northerly ramp return, a 25' southerly ramp
return, a 36' southerly section, and a 20' southerly return; a
2"x24"timber bulkhead cap; 6"x6"timber waters; 6"x6" timber
clamps; 8"-10"diameter timber pilings; 6"-8" diameter timber
deadmen; and 6"-8" diameter timber lay logs; existing 13'x25'
boat ramp is to be reconstructed in-place; the existing
northerly dock assembly is to be reconstructed comprising of a
3'x15' hinged ramp to a 6'x20'floating dock secured by four(4)
timber pilings 8"-10" in diameter; and existing 6'x13' southerly
bait platform to be reconstructed in-place and secured by four
(4)timber pilings 8"-10' in diameter. Located: 2025 Bay Avenue,
Mattituck.
This has been reviewed by LWRP and found to be consistent.
The CAC supports this application, with the following
conditions. Installation of a 15 to 20-foot non-turf buffer
landward of the bulkhead. Soundings are provided in front of the
reconstructed floating dock and across the width of the channel
because of potential impact to navigation. And they question the
legality of two docks on one property, and the aggregate square
footage.
The Trustees did go out and looked at this property. And we
do have questions. We also put in our notes the inclusion of a
non-turf buffer, and our concerns about two docks on one piece
of property. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
for the applicant Annunziata. As an opening statement, the water
is very deep next to this bulkhead. So that is why the floating
dock is nestled up close to it. It's also designed to go
parallel to provide some interior boating. There is absolutely
no impact to navigation as a result of this project.
The water is very, very deep, adjacent to this dock. So to
do soundings all the way across would not add to the
decision-making process here.
As to the legality of the two docks, the existing dock,
there was a bait dock. This was, you know, my understanding was
this was an old baymen's, this was used by baymen, it was later
used by fishermen, and it's just a feature of the property that has
always been there. It's something the client just simply wished
to retain. I don't know that it's absolutely critical, but it's
a nice feature. It's been there for many, many years. And the
proposal is simply to maintain what is there.
As for the non-turf buffer, I think when we do bulkheads,
it's a standard operating procedure to find some sort of a
non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead. So I sort of anticipate
that. I don't know that it needs to be 20 to 25 feet, because
the land is very flat there. You are not getting a whole lot of
runoff through there anyway. So I would request that that would
be minimized, simply because it's simply not necessary, given the
conditions of the site. Beyond that I'm not sure, I think that
addresses the main questions you have raised. I'm here to answer
Town of Southold 36 October 22,2104
any other questions you may have.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll address one by one here. The existing bait
dock, again, in the code there is only--the code only allows
one dock on a piece of property. And so the Board also felt that
the existing bait dock would have to be removed from this application.
With regard to the floating dock and the depths, you do
have on the second page of your site plan here that the floating
dock currently goes out into a depth of approximately-- I'm
talking on the seaward side of the floating dock --
approximately 5.4 feet.
MR. ANDERSON: That is correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I notice on your underwater grade, it drops
off fairly significantly. We were wondering if there was an
opportunity to pull this back slightly so that it was not
extending as far out as what is proposed. You look at the
existing hinged dock of 3x9' and in that, in the reconfigured is
3x16'. And if you pull that back,just looking at the
underground slope, I would imagine you could pull that back to
12 foot. So four foot closer to the shoreline. You'll still be
in at low tide probably at least four feet of water there.
MR. ANDERSON: That's true, but if you go back to see what is
existing, the existing floating dock is actually, approximately
12, 13 feet off the bulkhead. So this is 16 feet. If you pull
back three feet I don't think that is terribly critical. But
the idea is you do want to leave sufficient room to dock a boat
on the other side. You don't want to bang it up against the
bulkhead. And when we talked about that, we also have the width
of the outside piles. So I would think easily it could pulled
back two feet. I don't know that three feet, I won't quibble
over a foot, but I think pulling back a foot, couple feet is
fine. I don't think it matters, because there is so much
navigability there. There is no big benefit other than you make
the docking a little more difficult. There is nothing about this
dock that impedes anything in terms of navigation, as you
probably saw when you went out there. Which of course, the
shorter you make it, the more pitch you'll have at low tide, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's true.
MR. ANDERSON: You are making it less ideal, but I'm not so sure
there is a gain there, is my point.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, there is a gain of pulling the entire
structure in, from an environmental perspective.
MR. ANDERSON: How, though?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because you are not extending as far out into
the waterway.
MR. ANDERSON: There is no impact is what I'm trying to say. I
don't mind a couple feet, but I don't want to make it where it's
so tight that it's difficult to get in and out of there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think still if it's 13 feet out you still have
plenty of room to maneuver a boat. You add the width of the
dock, six feet, that's still 19 fight off the bulkhead.
MR. ANDERSON: You are missing my point. The space between the
Town of Southold 37 October 22, 2104
floating dock and the bulkhead is what I'm talking about. Not
the other space.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So you are looking at docking a boat on the
inside.
MR. ANDERSON: You want to be able to have a boat on each side,
is my point. So bringing it that close, you are making it
difficult. Not that I couldn't do it. But don't assume everyone
drives a boat as well as you do.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You haven't seen the hull of my boat recently.
TRUSTEE KING: Right now you have about ten feet between the
inside of the existing float and the bulkhead. Ten, eleven feet
now. And with the proposal, it's about 15, 16 feet. So if you
took four feet off that, it still will give you 12 feet.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's pretty narrow, if you have a single
screw boat, that's pretty narrow to swing a boat in there.
TRUSTEE KING: I would say bring it in two feet.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think bring it in two feet.
MR. ANDERSON: I think we could probably live with that.
TRUSTEE KING: That would be my recommendation, bring it in, the
proposed float, bring it two feet closer to the bulkhead.
MR. ANDERSON: So basically the ramp becomes 14 feet instead of
16 feet.
TRUSTEE KING: Because you don't have a lot of rise and fall of
tide in there. Two, two-and-a-half feet, maybe.
MR. ANDERSON: As I said, it's just a navigational issue. I just
want someone to be able to get in and out of that with reasonable--
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bruce, has the property owner given any thought
to dredging out that what is currently a boat ramp and turning
that into a boat basin and putting the boat in there?
MR. ANDERSON: No, because I think he wants to launch his boat
through that. So the idea is to, we'll be coming in with a
similar application on one of the local marinas where we have
these, they are precast slabs, and you lower them in place.
Because you can't pour asphalt into water, obviously. And you
have to find some stable way to do it. So the way we do it is we
lower, basically a rectangular reinforced concrete slab, and
place it in place. Kind of stitch it together. That's what we'll
do here. That will enable him to use that boat ramp as it's
historically been used.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Actually we saw that done in a New Suffolk boat
ramp by Costello, probably now about five years ago.
MR. ANDERSON: You'll see another one maybe next month.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any thoughts of dredging that boat ramp slightly
just do clean it out a little bit?
MR. ANDERSON: Probably it will be part and parcel, because
they'll have to remove some of the material there anyway, to do
it correctly. So, but it's hard to pick on a plan because it's
something you do in the field kind of.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The rest of the plan for all the bulkhead and
returns looks fine, from an engineering perspective looking at
the lay logs and tie back system, all looks good. I would look
Town of Southold 38 October 22,2104
to the Board for a recommendation with this non-turf buffer. It
is a flat piece of property. It's a very deep piece of property,
in other words there is quite a distance between the water and
the house. For myself, I would be comfortable with a 20-foot
non-turf buffer in this area. Again, I know what you are talking
about with it being flat, but it's not just the topography that
is affected, that should impact the width of the non-turf
buffer. The wider the buffer, the better it is for the
environment. It gives more area for percolation of pesticides,
fertilizers, herbicides, etcetera. So I would be comfortable
with a 20-foot non-turf buffer along there.
And again, Bruce, we'll be looking for the removal of that
existing bait dock.
Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to
comment on this application?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
With that, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application
with the stipulation that the reconstructed hinged ramp will be
shortened from 16 foot to 14 foot in length; the reconstructed
bait platform will be removed; and there will be a 20-foot
non-turf buffer around the entire bulkhead and returns.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, Briarcliff Landscape on behalf of
THOMAS ZOITAS requests a Wetland Permit to reestablish 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 3'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.
This has been a long time coming. Bear with me just for a
minute, I'm just trying to remember how far back this went.
(Perusing)2008, we were there. So this has been about a
six-year problem.
I'll just make it short and sweet. It was an application
for a swimming pool. It was approved. A vegetated buffer area
was established. There was land clearing going on that went way
beyond. Violations were issued. The area was restored. And after
a certificate of compliance was signed off on and the work had
been done, everything was removed, sod was replanted and the
fence was moved out to the top of the bluff. And it's finally to
Town of Southold 39 October 22, 2104
the point here now where I think it's been resolved. We have a
set of plans that shows the new fence line, the pool fence
line, is to be 40-feet landward of the coastal erosion hazard
line. And the area between the fence and that is to be planted
with native vegetation.
We have an extensive planting list that has been approved.
And we are all pretty familiar with this piece of property. It's
been a battle, to say the least. Hopefully we'll get it resolved
with this new plan that's been proposed.
October 8th is the date, this is the latest one. I think
that's it. It should show the correct dimension.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's 40 foot from the top of the Coastal Erosion
Hazard Line.
TRUSTEE KING: That was the key, yes.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
planting plan?
(No response).
MS. HULSE: The new violation has not been cleared yet, but it
sort of was going hand in hand with the acceptance of the
restoration plan, so I think it will be resolved once this is
approved.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this
application?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only comment I have, I'm looking at the
planting plan and I see black cherry, that I'm assuming are
going to be trees. Do we have any size of those trees?
That's a typical tree.
TRUSTEE KING: It's recommended two-and-a-half to three inch caliper.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would just like that included in here, the
trees, in the actual resolution. My concern is we approve it
and they go out and put little saplings in.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The agreement also, the stipulation in the
agreement that is part of this plan means we'll also be going
out there and checking on the planting survivability.
MS. HULSE: A lot of this was based on Ms. Grigonas' expertise,
her recommendations. It was all sort of following her recommendations
as the expert.
TRUSTEE KING: They said they would get the largest trees they
can get, that will survive, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: My concern, again, is I think this was a very--
as we know up here, but some of the people in the audience might
not know--this was a very, very, thick, heavily vegetated lot
with trees that they completely took down. And I know we can't
ask for the replacement of full-size trees there --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Dave, I think at this point we are probably
not only beating a dead horse; we had the discussion. We also
had special conference with the Town Attorney in executive
session. This is basically the culmination of what is a repeat
and persistent violator that we used all means necessary to
bring under control. I don't think it's appropriate to continue
the discussion here since this is essentially the workings of
Town of Southold 40 October 22, 2104
two past presidents of the Board to bring this into a
culmination.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand what you are saying but I think I
have the right to make comments about a pending application
before us, and that's what I'm doing.
MS. HULSE: Just a caution, any significant change might be a
deal breaker on the part of--
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that.
MS. HULSE: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
MR. MCGREEVEY: The CAC supports this application but we do have
comments and recommendations, I didn't hear them read.
TRUSTEE KING: Hang on a second. I'm sorry. This was found
consistent with the LWRP. The CAC supports the application,
however the fence should conform with Chapter 275 of the Town
Code and the swimming pool should have a drywell to contain the
pool backwash. I believe that's already there. Because the pool
was approved a long time ago.
MR. MCGREEVEY: That's from before.
TRUSTEE KING: That's old comments. Okay. Do we have any new
ones?
MS. HULSE: I think those recommendations were based on a
previous restoration plan. The way you are stating that, as I
recall, and some of the remediation was actually, of the
subsequent plan, is actually beneficial to the Trustees. I think
the walkway or pathway is smaller, the fence is moved further
landward than was initially discussed; so there are much more
significant changes in terms of what the Trustees wanted as well there.
MR. MCGREEVEY: So as far as the CAC is concerned, our concern
about the drywell, has it been permitted?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have been there enough. They don't have
open discharge of that swimming pool filter.
TRUSTEE KING: The biggest problem with this property was the
clearing that took place, the restoration that took place, then
it was re-cleared. That's the issue. This has been a long haul
on this. We spent a lot of time in court with these people. It's
time to see if we can get this thing put to bed.
So any other comments?
(No response). I
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve this replanting plan
that would also stipulate at least a two-year survivability on
these plantings, and we should go out and -- commit the C of C,
and within a year we should go out and re-inspect to make sure
its still there.
MS. HULSE: You are going to put the conditions of the
inspections in there as well, so the applicant has to consent to
the inspection of those.
Town of Southold 41 October 22, 2104
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Two inspections. Two annual inspections to
confirm the two-year survivability.
TRUSTEE KING: That's my motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(Trustee Bredemyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee King, aye.
Trustee Sanders, aye). (Trustee Bergen, nay).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just note for the record, I'm voting no.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We'll take a five-minute recess before we do
the next application.
(After a short recess, these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We'll reconvene here. My voice probably
won't handle the larger part of running this hearing. We'll rely
on past-president Jim King. I will be running a clock. We would
like to keep the comments brief and cogent. If you could keep
your comments to no more than three or four minutes.
And what really constitutes a cogent comment for the Board
of Trustees are issues that specifically relate to Chapter 275
of the Town Code that deal with the protection of wetlands and
water quality and our surface waters.
I know there are very strong feelings in the community about this
application, and some of those feelings may be shared by Board members
but don't necessarily relate to our duties that are laid out for us in
Town Code under Chapter 275.
So that said, I'll hand over the dais for the purposes of
opening the hearing to Trustee King.
TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, Patricia McIntyre on behalf of NEW
SUFFOLK WATERFRONT FUND requests a Wetland Permit to permanently
relocate the "Galley Ho" and associated features; renovate
1,200sq.ft. of the building, replacing 478sq.ft. of storm
destroyed section of building, construct a new 47sq.ft. addition
to building, and for the installation of a storm water
management system of gutters to leaders to drywells; construct
1,612sq.ft. of wood decking attached to building with two (2)
sets of steps (70sq.ft.) to grade; install a 10,560sq.ft.
parking lot with French drains; construct a 450sq.ft. long
handicap access ramp to building; install a 480sq.ft. concrete
walkway along eastern edge of parking lot with a set of 98sq.ft.
of steel steps to grade; install a 210sq.ft. concrete walkway
along southern edge of parking lot; construct a 200sq.ft.
bridge/deck on the landward side of the bulkhead; install a
2,325sq.ft. non-turf buffer along the eastern bulkhead; and
install a northern 1,280sq.ft. non-turf buffer on the seaward side
of proposed parking area. Located: 650 First Street, New Suffolk.
I believe this application was found consistent with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The CAC voted to support the application.
TRUSTEE KING: This was found consist with the LWRP. (Perusing).
Everything with LWRP is consistent. Maintains the existing use
Town of Southold 42 October 22,2104
as a marina. Preservation and operation of the culturally
significant Galley Ho building. Water enhanced use adds to the
public use and enjoyment of the historic waterfront area.
(Perusing). So this action attempts to preserve --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Society for the Preservation of Long
Island Antiquities, in terms of protecting the Galley Ho, and
also meets the policies of the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: That's it. So we'll open this and get going. As
Jay alluded to, please try and keep your comments concise and
really to just what pertains as far as what the Trustees are doing here.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MS. MCINTYRE: Patricia McIntyre, I'm chair of the New Suffolk
Waterfront Fund. And Barbara Schnitzler, she is chair of our
site planning. And in addition, we have Glenn Just here, our
environmental consultant, and Abigail Wickham, our attorney. So
if there are questions in that area, they are both here to assist you.
We'll take brief time, no more than five, total, between
the two of us. And Barbara will start.
MS. SCHNITZLER: Good evening. The non-profit New Suffolk
Waterfront Fund was created in 2006. Since then we have raised
almost two million dollars to purchase our property, with the
help of the Peconic Land Trust and The Conservation Fund. The
Conservation Fund still holds a very small amount of our
mortgage. We sold one acre of our property to Conservationist
Louis Bacon and he agreed to an open space and view easement on
that parcel. Another acre of our property has an open space and
access easement on it, which is held by the New York State
Department of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.
Nothing will ever be built on that acre. Anyone can walk on it,
and it provides access to the water. The site plan before you is
to renovate the Galley Ho, install new sanitary system and landscape
the property.
The Galley Ho, along with our marina, represent the commercial
aspect of our property, and income from both will allow us to decrease
our dependence on annual fundraising campaigns.
A couple of folks have written to you in the file that the
work we have done in preserving the property over the past eight
years is not enough; That leaving 95% of this waterfront
property which is located in the M-2 zone as an open space is
not enough preservation; renovating 395 feet of bulkhead,
placing conservation easements on two of three-and-a-half acres,
moving the Galley Ho 75 feet back from the bulkhead and
renovating it, bringing a very small marina back to life for the
community. Not enough preservation?We have consistently honored
our commitment to our over six-hundred donors, our volunteers,
our community and our environment. Our mission statement guides
us today, much as it did when it was drafted by a group of
volunteers in 2007. It's on pretty much everything that we
print.
And this is our mission: To preserve and protect New
Town of Southold 43 October 22, 2104
Suffolk's unique and historic waterfront in ways which respect
the property's scenic beauty and maritime heritage, to support
recreational, educational and commercial activities on the site
which enhance community life and are environmentally sustainable
for the uplands and the bay, and to assure public access
opportunities, now and for future generations.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
MS. MCINTYRE: In addition to what we supplied in the application
packet, I would just like to address 275-12, the standards for
issuance of a permit. And I'll go through the ten items in
there, (a)through Q), from our perspective of what the planned
work will do. So 275-12, says that you can issue a permit by
these standards:
So 275-(a) is the planned work that we have will not
substantially adversely affect the wetlands of the town in that
the subject property is bulkheaded. The beach area is remote
from the parking and the improvements.
(b), the planned work will not substantially cause damage
from erosion, turbidity or siltation in that the subject
property is bulkheaded. Onsite drainage will be provided,
grading and plant material will control erosion, large surfaces
will be permeable and not paved.
(c), the planned work will not cause saltwater intrusion
into freshwater resources of the town because there are no
aboveground freshwater resources on or near the property.
(d), the planned work will not adversely affect fish,
shellfish or other beneficial marine organisms, aquatic wildlife
or vegetation or natural habitat thereof.
The installation of a new septic system from the previous
system built to current code will decrease the septic load;
rainwater will be contained onsite and not cause runoff into the
bay. Native plant material will provide habitat.
(e), the planned work will not substantially increase the
danger of flood and storm-type damage. All the proposed
building is upland at a considerable distance from the bulkhead.
The bulkhead was recently renovated and increased in height,
decreasing potential storm surge damage. Also see the letter
from the town engineer that is in the file that was dated August
18th, where he indicated in questions from the town that he did
not expect it to have any impact on flooding. And that's in the
file I submitted.
(f), the planned work will not substantially affect
adversely affect navigation on tidal waters or the tidal flow of
the tidal waters of the town. All the work is upland from the
bulkhead.
(g), the planned work will not substantially change the
course of any channel or natural movement or flow of waters
because, once again, it is all upland from the bulkhead.
(h) it will not leak or undermine the littoral support of
other lands in the vicinity. There are no other activities that
will affect littoral support.
Town of Southold 44 October 22, 2104
(i), the work will not adversely affect the health, safety
and general welfare of the people of the town. The proposed
improvements and renovations on the property will make it safer,
will provide substantial open space for public recreation,
guaranteed in perpetuity by the easement held by New York State
Department of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.
Public access to Peconic Bay National Estuary, as well as to the
property's renovated marina will be available. Scenic vistas
will be protected. The property will be landscaped with native
plant material which require minimal water once established. And
this is an M-2 zoning, which allows intensive lot coverage and
other uses, but this proposal is extremely limited.
The last one, 0), this work will not substantially
adversely affect the esthetic value of the wetlands in adjacent
areas. The proposed work will provide increase in esthetic
values in the adjacent areas because it includes renovation of a
presently dilapidated building as well as extensive landscape
work. The building renovation is in character and scale and the
site provides 95% open space with appropriate plantings for the
waterfront location. The proposed work will provide the public
with Peconic Bay vistas in perpetuity, in a park-like setting,
and will restore the vitality of the property.
We hope that you'll adopt a resolution approving our most recent site
plan described in our project description, plus a temporary
construction fence shown on the plans. Thank you, for your time.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Before moving ahead, I'll interject here, we
have a number of letters to the file that we'll incorporate by
reference into the record of this hearing. I want to just
identify them so that all here will know what they are. There is
a communication from Germaise, Vicky, sent Monday, October
20th, 2014, at 12:55 PM. There is a letter dated October 8th,
from Kim and Dan Petri of 775 First Street, New Suffolk. There
is a petition of two pages in length which the undersigned are
strongly opposed to the site plan, specialized restaurant,
septic system for that site. And also there is a communication
here which doesn't seem to be identified. The Trust had
purchased the property which had been threatened by development in
2007 with the intent to transferring ownership to the community
is a quote from Peconic Land Trust. It is an undated, unsigned
submission. And the clerk informs me that we just received today
in the office an E-mail that will be incorporated by reference
as well.
Anyone here speaking tonight, also feel free to perform a
reiteration of your comments if you were an individual so
identified.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jay, excuse me. Before the comments start, I
should mentioned I have to recuse myself from this application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Understood. Thank you, Trustee Bergen.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, is there anyone who wants to speak against
this application?
Town of Southold 45 October 22, 2104
Yes, ma'am?
MS. HARKOFF: Diane Harkoff, Legends Restaurant, 835 First
Street, New Suffolk.
I would like to know, given what we know about pollution of
the estuary and petroleum runoff, and restricting residential
driveways close to waterways, whether the Trustees have
considered a parking lot that was relocated from the center of
the property further away from the waters, to a position in part
next to the Peconic Bay.
I also wonder if the sanitary issues for the marina slips
brought up at Trustees meeting of March 19th have been resolved,
whether by port-a-potties or sufficient septic system.
Given that this is an area of special flood hazard, do the
Trustees have any issues with the commercial-size septic system
in this fragile area.
And, if I understand it correctly, this area is closed to
shellfishing from January 1 st, to December 31 st. So does a
commercial project of this size, do the Trustees feel it would
enhance the quality of the water in this area?
Are the Trustees aware of the old existing sanitary system
and will it be abandoned by removal or by backfilling?
Is there a demolition plan in place and how do the Trustees
feel about this.
In closing, I would urge the Trustees to recommend this
project be reduced in size. Perhaps a concession stand, as is
found at some local beach areas on the North Fork. A recent New
Suffolk Civic Association survey showed the highest number of
votes as desirable was for a mixed-use commercial facility with
snack bar window or counter. This sounds like much of a lesser
impact on our tiny hamlet and the environment than a 66-feet
restaurant plus 1,200 square feet of decks. And, by the way,
their own financial board members said they do not need the
money. Thank you.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The sanitary and driveway are out of our
jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE KING: The sanitary system is completely out of our
jurisdiction. We have really no control over that at all.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the Health Department handles the
abandonment of septic systems as part of the approval process.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: We can't really answer your question regarding
the sanitary system and the driveway. Those are all out of our
jurisdiction. There is no way for us to address that. Sorry.
TRUSTEE KING: The one parking area I see looks like it's at the
north end of the property, I guess, is within our jurisdiction.
They have a proposed vegetated buffer of ten feet. I don't know
if there are any contours on the site plan or not.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is there a handicapped area?
TRUSTEE KING: Right at the top there, you see it, number one
through 18. If there is a buffer and they grade it back toward
the parking, there is no way that any oil or any antifreeze or
anything like that would go into the bay. So --
Town of Southold 46 October 22, 2104
MS. HARKOFF: What about a flood?
TRUSTEE KING: If you get a flood then everybody will contribute
to it, not just there. The whole road floods, so.
I would like to just go back and forth, pro and con on
this, to give everybody a chance. So anybody who wants to voice
their opinion in favor of this application, now is your chance.
(No response).
I don't see anyone. So anybody opposed to it, come forward and
speak.
MS. SOLO: My name is Barbara Solo. I live on Fourth Street in
New Suffolk. Actually, I bought my dad's house and decided to
stay in New Suffolk. Because it's quiet and peaceful. This whole
thing with this waterfront fund; is there something wrong? It
has affected all of us in New Suffolk. I don't understand what
the big hurry is. One of the things that-- I have lived
through several, many, many, floods, because I have always been
here. Um, anything that is up there, I don't care how raised or
whatever it is, will backwash. The water doesn't care. I spoke
with my brother, was telling him about all this stuff about that
they want to move the barn and put the cesspools in there, low
ones. He said it's all clay in there. He tried to put wells in
there years ago. He said it's just a big pocket of clay. How
does one expect anything to drain through a pocket of clay? Has
anybody done any really deep intense soil, anything there?
And that pocket of clay has been contaminated with bottom paint,
oil, gas, you name it, whatever they threw on the ground back
then, because nobody really knew anything about conservation
when it was a marina and a boatyard.
The poisons in there, you start digging that around, that's
why they wouldn't let them dredge the basin there. Because it
would stir up all that stuff that is under there. That is one of
my big concerns. The other one is septic systems. And they'll
say, well, everybody's septic system is in the water. Well, do
we need to add to it? In this progressive time that we live,
you know. Do something with the pump out. I don't believe that
there should be septics there. And I also do not want them
taking that barn out. Houston's barn. That was one of the
original things that was mentioned on something before. Um, so
there we have another problem.
We had this community vote, no restaurant. Now they're
pushing for a restaurant. They are not listening to the
community. You know, we are very divided because of this. There
is something wrong about it. There is either money coming from
somewhere we don't know about; why the big push? We would
rather have a community house --
MS. HULSE: Ma'am, I have to stop you because your comment real
has to pertain to this application.
MS. SOLO: Okay, hun. Okay, well that's pretty much it. A 66-seat
snack bar is still a restaurant. We had a vote. Nobody wants a
restaurant. The traffic, the people, the pollution from the
cars, the delivery trucks, and just the added amount of people
Town of Southold 47 October 22, 2104
in New Suffolk is too much for us. The summer was horrible,
bringing in too many people.
MS. HULSE: None of that is the Trustees' purview, ma'am. Just to
let you know, they have a very limited review.
MS. SOLO: I'm sorry. Okay. I was just told to speak from the
heart, and I am, and I did. And those are my issues. And I
really hope the Trustees think about all this stuff. You could
put a McDonald's in there, too, we don't want that either. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I might point out, there are two test holes on
this property, labeled B-1 and B-2, and both of them show course
sand down to a depth of 17, 18 feet, not clay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the Trustee approval by and large does
not involve the determinations of the quality of sand and those
issues. Those are the Town Engineering Department's review of
drainage and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services
review of the soil conditions necessary for the installation of
the onsite sanitary system.
TRUSTEE KING: We want everybody to understand, very little of
this is really in our jurisdiction. And these are a lot of
social issues, and the Trustees don't deal with that. I mean,
you don't want a restaurant. We have nothing to do with your
desire whether or not a restaurant should be there. What I'm
looking at is a restaurant that I know was there for many years,
was right up against the bulkhead. Now they are proposing a
restaurant 75 feet landward of the bulkhead. Environmentally,
that's a good thing to do. That's where I'm coming from.
Yes, sir, go ahead.
MR. MCCLOSKEY: My name is Tom McCloskey. I live on New Suffolk
Avenue in New Suffolk. I want to provide you with a copy of the
survey that the people are discussing. There is something I
think the Trustees could help the citizens with.
If you look at the last option voting point on the survey,
it entails private outdoor tented events on the property. As you
can see, the majority of the people voted no. In explanations to
the community of where the tents are going to be placed for
these events would be between the proposed Galley Ho and the
bulkhead. I believe this land is in your jurisdiction. And we
would appreciate it if you could potentially provide a
prohibition of temporary tents, buildings, et cetera, to
facilitate events like that from being utilized in that spot.
TRUSTEE KING: If they desire to put a tent there, they would
have to come to us to apply for a permit to do so. That would be
in our jurisdiction.
MR. MCCLOSKEY: All right. And every time they want to put a tent
up, they would have to seek approval?
TRUSTEE KING: They would have to come and apply, yes.
MR. MCCLOSKEY: One other thing, the civic association has not
really had a chance to comment and gather their thoughts on this
site plan and they probably would appreciate a couple of weeks
to be given the opportunity to do that.
Town of Southold 48 October 22, 2104
MS. HULSE: How long has it been before Planning?
TRUSTEE KING: It's been ample opportunity.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are you an officer in the--
MR. MCCLOSKEY: Yes, I am.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You hold officer-ship in the New Suffolk
Civic Association.
There has been ample time to review the plans. As a matter
of fact they were already in our office last month. Um, so they
have been out there quite a while. I guess, I don't know what
the Board's determination will be here, whether or not they want
to consider the issues for further digestion prior to an
approval that we would end up tabling or moving this on, but at
this point I would say that the civic association may not have
an option for further input.
MR. MCCLOSKEY: Okay, thank you.
MS. MCINTYRE: I want to fill you in on one thing. When the
Peconic--
TRUSTEE KING: If there is anybody that hasn't spoken yet, let
them speak first. That's the first step.
MS. MCINTYRE: Sorry.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else?
MR. CACIOPPO: My name is Paul Cacioppo, and I'm the President of
New Suffolk Civic Association. We have tried as a community to
try and work out our differences, but it just seems like the
direction that The Waterfront is going is a direction that
doesn't want to listen to what the community has to say,
although at a lot of public hearings, meetings at the school
house, they claim we want to do the right thing for the
community. Well at this point we have had so many meetings and
we have accomplished zero. We have tried to say, look, how about
if we give this and you give that and try and work --
MS. HULSE: Sir, I'm sorry, your comments have to pertain to the
application. They have to pertain to the application before this
Board.
So then who do we talk to about this problem? It's a major problem,
and if it's not your issue maybe you can direct us to who we should be
talking to.
TRUSTEE KING: I guess the Planning Board is one of the folks you
guys could talk to. The Town Board. Our purview is environmental
issues. It's not this upheaval of social discontent.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: We understand the emotions of everybody
involved in this. We can only mitigate what is in our
jurisdiction. Otherwise it would just be utter chaos. So that's
why--we are not trying to tell everyone to not say anything,
but we can only address the issues that are Trustee related. I
know it doesn't answer your question. But we are just trying to
help you understand what we can do and what we can't do.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else?
Yes, ma'am?
MS. SCHIAVETTA: Ilene Schiavetta, Southold. I have no -- I don't
live in New Suffolk. I frequent the beach down in New Suffolk. I
Town of Southold 49 October 22, 2104
sit on -- I walk along the shores and collect beach glass. I do
whatever I do, but it's the most beautiful area because it has
this wonderful barn, which is older than the Galley Ho.
believe our superintendent worked at the Galley Ho, and I must
say it's one of the most preserved, beautiful pieces of land you
have left. There has so much that's been bastardized by big
business and by bringing in large boats, shutting down the bays
to fishing, to lobstering, to clamming. And we live here. You
are bringing in people that don't live here. And you are looking
to open a restaurant. Then what happens after you give your
permit to just open something small. If you have enough septic,
that gets bigger and bigger. And eventually, what do I read,
you're concerned about the waters. So you can't have it both
ways. The scale has to tilt and then it has to come back and
measure out. Do you care about the fish?
I mean this is a beautiful area. You are talking about taking
down a beautiful barn. If you want to do something positive,
take the barn, turn it around, open it as a fresh air market for
the summer.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are getting a little far afield here.
MS. HULSE: The Trustees have no control over that, ma'am. They
can't say yes or no to that.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: If you look back at what was said earlier,
ma'am, what was said by the first two speakers, they directly
spoke straight out of our permit process. And they nailed every
single point. And we can address them directly, according to
what this says. We can't address anything emotional, we can't
address anything that has to do with anything unrelated to the
Trustees. I know you want to talk, but we can't--
MS. SCHIAVETTA: What you are doing is not preserving the
integrity of the historic area. What you are doing is taking it
apart and getting rid of it. That's what you're doing.
But, okay, when somebody gives you a plan --this is
something I'm very confused about this Board. Somebody comes
here and they are asking for a hearing, and we come in, and we
care about the water. I live in Southold. This is in New
Suffolk. I don't live there. But I know what a great area it is.
I been there when it's flooded. And you would not want that
stuff floating back into your bay. That bay was closed to begin
with for a while in that area. You want to talk again about we
are going to reopen it, we're going to close it, we're going to
open it and close it, that's your part.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: What I would suggest you do, ma'am, is I would
speak to the points that are in the permit process. They made a
point. If you are going to make a counterpoint which shows
that they are inconsistent with the point they made, then we can
deal with it. Otherwise it's just, we are going way off base.
MS. SCHIAVETTA: Okay, you are going today decide to give a
permit or not give a permit.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: According to the regulations by law that has
been set up.
Town of Southold 50 October 22,2104
MS. SCHIAVETTA: According to the bylaws and what you have on
that desk. Now if, per se, they go off and do things that were
not proposed, when I took my time to come here --
TRUSTEE SANDERS: That's when the bay constable comes out and
deals with that issue.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are getting way off track, ma'am. I'm
sorry, really, we are not here to discuss --
MS. SCHIAVETTA: All right. All I want to know is are we voting
or what are we doing?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's your opportunity to be speak and your
opportunity to be heard. It's not our time to speak now. This is
your chance to be heard.
MS. SCHIAVETTA: I thought I heard something before about
something being said, and it was said up here, that they proposed
one thing, and then you walk away, meaning like taking down
trees and all, and then they do what they want. Well, that's the
history of this town. And if you are the Trustees, and you are
here to hear our complaints about a project that can go awry
very easily, like that mill down there, what jurisdiction do you
have? Your proposal up there should be the final thing people
are asking for. Don't add on this and add on that and add on
this. And then you don't hear from us anymore because you go to
this department, that department.
MS. HULSE: Ma'am, if they want to add on they would have to come
back here and request an amendment--
MS. SCHIAVETTA: Well, why do we need another hearing?
MS. HULSE: Can I finish my sentence? If they wanted to change
something and add on to something, they'll have to come back
here and file an amendment, and you would have the same
opportunity to come and be heard.
MS. SCHIAVETTA: When would you publish there would be a hearing?
I never saw a hearing on most of the stuff that's going on up in
my area.
MS. HULSE: Ma'am --
MS. SCHIAVETTA: Then I'll have to see when you have the
hearings. And I'll have to see copies of the hearings on that.
Because from what I came here to see about that mill, it's night
and day. And everybody is talking, from one end to the other,
about what has happened.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's not the hearing we are talking about
today.
MS. SCHIAVETTA: Okay, so I'll come into the office and I'll see
all the hearings on that.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Yes, ma'am.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else?
MR. SCHIAVETTA: Bob Schiavetta, also of Southold. All the
different things that have been said, you know, jurisdiction,
not jurisdiction, I agree with one side of this. The group that
is trying to push everything through without really thinking it
out, I'm not with. But what I do want to bring to you, the one
thing that they said that did strike me was it was not going to
Town of Southold 51 October 22,2104
hurt the environment. That it was not going to do anything to
the shellfishing, to the waterways. And that's totally
ridiculous, and that is your jurisdiction. This is something you
should be watching, and I don't see where there is going to make
it a plus. That's all I have to say about the situation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else?
MS. WICKHAM: Good evening. My name is Abigail Wickham and I'm
the attorney for the Waterfront Fund. I just would like to thank
the Board for their help and their guidance and ask that the
application to table or defer any decision on your part not be
granted. This project has been in front of the public for a very
long time, and with respect to your particular forum, I don't
think there are any unresolved environmental issues, so we ask
that you please conclude the hearing and make a determination
tonight. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
Now is your chance.
(No response).
Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: By reference we will include the New Suffolk
Civic Association Waterfront survey into the record, although
it's a courtesy most written material should be presented to the
Board with sufficient time to maybe be reviewed in our
worksession prior to the meeting.
TRUSTEE KING: All right, so there are no other comments, no
comments from the Board, I'll make a motion to close this public
hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee King,
aye. Trustee Sanders, aye. Trustee Bergen, recused).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board has been to the site many times,
reviewed many proposals, made many requests, and we have heard
you all here to speak. I won't overlay my own knowledge of
shellfishing, but I head up the Town's Shellfish Advisory
Committee. It's a reasonable concern. But the new sanitary and
improved drainage actually will remove the organisms from the
immediate environs of the waterfront that are causing the
shellfish closure. Enough said.
Based upon the application and the supporting information
where the applicant specifically addressed the standards of the
code, which is exactly in keeping with the requirements of the
code, and by virtue of the fact that at the request of this
Board they moved the sanitary system beyond the jurisdiction of
the Board, that they did not expand in-water operations of the
marina so it's maintained in its historical size, and that they
provided the broad buffers that we requested to protect runoff so
that land use on the parcel and any incidental activities there
will tend to minimize the possibilities of bad things getting in
Town of Southold 52 October 22,2104
our waterways, I would move to approve this application. And
part of the approval by reference is the elaboration that was
provided by the New Suffolk Waterfront with respect to
addressing the standards of our Wetlands Code 275-12 under the
standards of the issuance of a permit. That's my motion to approve.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee King,
aye. Trustee Sanders, aye. Trustee Bergen, recused).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For the record, I have recused myself.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
P^- *-% &JAW"�.�
John M. Bredemeyer III, President
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED
`P% 1kA
DEC 1 .$ 1014 e3-Q10P''^
Q.r�
Sou hold Town Clerk