HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-12/10/2014 John M.Bredemeyer III, President fjf SUUry� Town Hall Annex
,`O l0
Michael J. Domino,Vice-President 54375 Main RoadP.O.Box 1179
James F. King, Trustee Southold, New York 11971-0959
Dave Bergen, Trustee G Q
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Charles J. Sanders, Trustee COUNN Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RECEIVED
�eck
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD HC 2 9 2014
Minutes Southold Town Clerk
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
9:38 AM
Present Were: John Bredemeyer, President
Michael Domino, Vice-President
Jim King, Trustee
Dave Bergen, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Clerk Typist
Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good morning, the time being a little after 9:30, 9:38. We
are here for the purpose of reopening a public hearing in the matter of the following
application: The Wetland Permit of Dana and Michael Savino, requesting a Wetland
Permit to repair/replace existing 100' long bulkhead with a 38' north return and 64'
southerly return using vinyl sheathing; to remove and replace the existing 100'x21'
decking; temporarily remove and replace existing gazebo; and add approximately 275
cubic yards of clean fill. Located 1945 Bayview Avenue, in Mattituck.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. GOGGINS: Yes, I would. William C. Goggins 13235 Main Road,
Mattituck, New York, on behalf of Michael Savino and Dana Savino.
As the Board is aware, Hon. Andrew G. Tarantino, Jr., on
October 14, 2014, issued an order stating, quote, ordered that
the application is remitted to Southold Town Board of Trustees
for reconsideration consistent with the provisions of the
entirety of the applicable provisions of Section 275 of the Town
Code of the Town of Southold, and the prior approval of the
Department of Environmental Conservation, within 45 days of date
of this short form order.
So we are asking today what is the Board's reconsideration
and what is the basis for it.
Board of Trustees 2 December 10, 2014
MS. HULSE: If I may speak to that, Jay. Just to further clarify
the record with respect to the decision, it's the interpretation
of our office and our attorneys that the reconsideration is in
fact what is occurring today. We are reopening the hearing and
allowing for additional testimony to be taken.
After this decision was received by our office I called and
spoke to you and provided you with an offer that the Trustees
had indicated they would consider, which included a quit claim
deed and pulling back the bulkhead, um, approximately ten feet.
That offer was just very recently rejected, and consequently we
are now here to reopen the hearing for additional testimony as
per the Court's decision.
MR. GOGGINS: For the record, the offer was to pull the bulkhead
back ten feet, which is exactly what the Board directed the
Savino's to do at the hearing, and which was the basis of the
Article 78 proceeding. In addition, to give a quit claim deed to
property they already own, is not an offer at all.
MS. HULSE: Again, Bill, this is why are here. We have
additional and new testimony and documentary evidence that I
suspect will be included in the record here today. So without
further delay I think we can begin the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, after the public hearing and the
denial without prejudice of the prior determination of the
Board, we have come into knowledge that the deed for the
property does not extend out and include the area of the
proposed bulkhead replacement. The deed reading, on the
northerly boundary goes 160 feet from the most upland corner of
the northwest corner of the property, and to the easterly runs
160 feet, whereas the current bulkhead placement is
approximately 178 feet from that northwesterly corner. Meaning
that the difference of 178 feet to 160 feet, that there is 18
feet of public underwater land on which fill, decking and a
bulkhead exists on that northerly property line. And it does go
back somewhat to the southerly property line to the extent that
it's the bulkhead and the return there is still on Trustee land.
But it's not to the extent of the 18 feet.
The prior determination of the Board, which stood mostly on the
environmental grounds and the adverse effects on Town wetlands,
did not take into consideration the property issue, because the
Trustees are somewhat reluctant to bring property issues into
play on our permitting process where we are keying on
environmental matters. But where it has been found we believe a
structure is located on public bottom, we have to see whether a
rebuild or renewal of that structure meets with current
standards.
Presently, both the Trustee Board and the Department of
Environmental Conservation will not grant permits for solid-fill
structures. We don't allow solid-fill piers, we don't allow
solid-fill construction on docks. Therefore, the bulkhead
replacement on Trustee land does not meet current standards
environmentally, and so that both the property issue and the
Board of Trustees 3 December 10, 2014
environmental issue are in inextricably tied to this, the things
we are going to consider on this rehearing.
MR. GOGGINS: Well, let's separate the two issues. We have an
ownership issue that you brought up. What is the basis for your
belief that the Savino's do not own the property upon which this
bulkhead is located?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The belief is the presence of the deed that
we have.
MR. GOGGINS: What is the date of that deed?
TRUSTEE KING: Early 80s, I believe. I think it was a review of
the meets and bounds, indicate that the bulkhead is on public
property.
MR. GOGGINS: With all due respect, we have deeds, we've got
title insurance that proves that we own this property. There was
a mistake in a deed that had been filed, they are missing a
course in the description. Since then it was amended. Right now
we are presently getting an affidavit to substantiate, because
we expected that this would be an issue, through my
conversations through the Town attorney.
They own the property. It would be incumbent upon the Board
to prove to us that we don't own it. And we do own it by a deed
that is, it was before the Supreme Court. So we don't think
that is an issue.
But assuming we own the property, okay, would your
determination be different than if we don't own the property
today?
MS. HULSE: That's not something they'll speculate on.
MR. GOGGINS: So the basis of this hearing now is the Board's
position that the Savino's do not own the property upon which
this bulkhead is located.
MS. HULSE: At the first instance, the Board has now indicated
that they have something new in their records indicating the
underwater bottom which this bulkhead is located on, primarily,
is Town-owned underwater bottom. If you would like to provide
documentation that that is not the case, I think this Board
would consider that. Is that correct?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Exactly. It's not incumbent upon the Board to
prove you don't own the property.
MR. GOGGINS: We already proved that to the Supreme Court. It's
an exhibit in our papers, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are going to continue. That's not a
matter for this Board to address. The environmental concerns
remain. The ten feet that the Board seeks to have the bulkhead
to the landward, would mean that the marine productivity that we
see in the creek would be returned to normal. This bulkhead juts
out at least ten to 15 feet beyond the native shoreline. Several
photographs I took from town underwater land, this this last
Sunday, clearly point out that the extent of bulkhead out over
the wetlands is prohibiting the Spartina alterniflora
vegetation which is one of our prime wetland indicators, and the
oyster bank there exists is both in front of the bulkhead and
Board of Trustees 4 December 10, 2014
also on the sides up into the Spartina, such that the withdrawal
of the bulkhead ten feet to the landward would restore this
area's productive creek bottom and return its functionality.
I have an extra copy of the photograph that I would like to enter
this into our hearing record. This is a photo that was taken on
December 7th, at 3:30 PM, standing on Town wetland Trustee
property, facing the northerly bulkhead, the northerly bulkhead
return. I have an extra copy of this, too, if you would like,
Mr. Goggins.
MR. GOGGINS: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: New information that has also come to this
office is the fact that because the entirety of the structure
and the amount of fill is essentially out and over a functional
wetland, that there be concerns that all the material that, in
any construction, regardless of where the bulkhead limit would
be, would have to be of a pervious nature, meaning that the
replacement of decking and/or fill material should all be of a
pervious nature so that we don't have issues with lawn
maintenance, getting fertilizer and chemicals directly onto a
wetland surface. Because essentially we are talking about a
structure over a wetland. Even though it has been functionally
obliterated, it's still over a wetland, and the entrance of
chemicals directly into the wetland is a real possibility.
Is there any Trustee member who wants to speak in addition
to some of this information?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mr. Goggins,just to answer your question, the
deed we are referring to that is in our file is a deed dated
December 7th, 2012, with Dana Savino and Michael Savino, signed
by Dana Savino. So that's the deed. I know you had asked what
deed we are referring to. That's the deed we are referring to
in our file.
MR. GOGGINS: And that's the deed that had to be corrected
because the title company had made a mistake in filing it. And it
was re-filed on December 14th, 2013, and that deed is as Exhibit I
in the litigation papers previously submitted to the Town.
So there was a mistake made that was corrected.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just wanted to put that into the record.
MR. GOGGINS: I appreciate that. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
MR. GOGGINS: You're welcome.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So we'll continue with the discussion of the
environmental issues for now. I mean the concerns over marine
productivity, the shell bank and the productive oyster grounds
that exist immediately in front of the bulkhead and to the
extent that they were probably over 100 marketable, harvestable
oysters during the time I took the photo on December 7th, there
is every reason to believe that because the oysters exist
similarly to the north and the south in that same area, that
they would repopulate any area that is returned to functional
wetland. Obviously the construction of this bulkhead, like any
other near a water course, will have attendant impacts by
Board of Trustees 5 December 10, 2014
creating siltation and otherwise damaging the ability for the
marine organisms to properly feed, such that any permit here
would have to have, you would have to have a silt fence barrier
so it would protect the wetland during construction.
There is the potential for turbidity or damage due to siltation
during construction. That would certainly have to be a
consideration. Is there anything else you gentlemen want to add?
(Negative response).
I mean, additional concerns would be obviously the structure as
it exists is impacting the general esthetic value of the wetland
as it is peculiar to this side of the creek to have a structure
that juts so far out into the creek. Also, to provide a notion,
I think related to the environmental issues here, is a history
of operations that took place in the environs of Mattituck Creek
and that during the course of several major dredges in the
creek, dredge spoil was deposited, pumped up on to the foreshore,
and in a number of instances, in at least three cases, that
dredge spoil led to the Board of Town Trustees providing quit
claim deeds to upland, to the adjacent land owners, to clarify
issues concerning the ownership. So that that would be a point
made clear.
I know that I personally participated in at least one of
those quit claim deeds where the Board had viewed a situation
similar to this where there was in fact an accretion of upland
due to the dredging process.
So the Board has had a history of working with adjacent
upland owners to try to rectify ownership issues, but as well as
maintaining the environmental balance and protecting the
environs of the creek. So they are related, the ownership and
the issue of protecting the creek. We have a history of that
going back, I think as early as the 1930s. So that this has
been a longstanding policy of the Board of Trustees where lands
had accreted through both natural, and in the case Mattituck
Creek, manmade processes, we try to work with the adjacent
upland owners, and I think that was the basis for the offer that
we had made to you, Mr. Goggins, for your clients.
The DEC permit -- the DEC permit, we understand, is on the
basis that it was a storm damage permit. We have come across,
again, new information, after the hearing, in consulting with DEC
personnel who are responsible for permitting, they indicated
that because of the huge number of permits they had to write
post-Tropical Storm Sandy, that those permits were granted
without any kind of field inspection or onsite review. And that
being said, they indicated that these permits really, with the
purposes of the actuality of having been an emergency situation,
they couldn't attest to that.
I know during the course of my taking photographs on
Sunday, December 7th, the only damage that I noted was in fact
some of the seams in the tongue and groove fascia of the
bulkhead had deteriorated to the extent it was about a thumb
width. But I didn't notice there was any fill or material that
Board of Trustees 6 December 10, 2014
was coming through such that basically, although the bulkhead is
aging, and this Board historically has no problem with bulkhead
replacements when they are aging out, there was no evidence,
based on my walking the creek bottom, that there was any
materials at least visibly at the time I was there, materials
coming through the bulkhead indicating there was an emergency.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could,just one other comment. I know
alluded to the one deed. There is a second deed in the file
dated December 15, 1986, Carl Oswald and Nicholas Johnnidis, with
Philip Salice and Carmen Salice. And that also gave the same
property line description. So there are two deeds that we have
in the file that would support our contention that this
property, excuse me, this structure, does not stand on the
Savino's property and is in fact on Trustee bottom. And I
understand you argued that case.
I think from an environmental perspective, myself, based on
ten years being a Trustee, again, it has, as they say, a picture
tells a thousand words. When you go out and look at this as we
have done, you see the oysters there, the Spartina that's
growing up. If this bulkhead comes back, it's my experience
also, with ten years experience as a Trustee, that wetland will
come back, the Spartina will grow, it will be a healthy wetland,
we have more shellfish growing there, other benthic organisms
that support the food chain of that environment. So I think from
an environmental perspective, moving this structure back however
far, I know we have proposed ten feet, but however far it's
moved back, will be healthy for the environment, will support
the shellfish, will support the benthic community there.
So for myself, I think this, to allow this bulkhead to
remain out there on Trustee bottom would adversely affect the
wetlands, it would adversely affect the shellfish in that
community. I think also that the Trustees in good faith have
made a reasonable offer here of moving the bulkhead back ten
feet, allowing a quit claim deed for the other remaining
approximately eight feet that we contend we own, and would be
then helpful to the Savino's in that they would be able to have
and enjoy their property. And it would also provide a healthy
environment.
So for myself, personally, I would support that original,
excuse me, not original, but the compromise that has been
offered moving the bulkhead back ten feet.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, Trustee Bergen. I would just like
to add a little bit with respect to my environmental
qualifications and my assessment, that from my experience, in
2010 1 retired from the Suffolk County Health Department's
Marine Unit, which has both the National Estuary Program of
Peconic Bay, the Long Island Sound Study and the South Shore
Estuary Reserve as part of our duty statements. During the
course of the 25 years I worked in that unit of the Health
Department, I was responsible for running all the brown tide
assessment for Peconic Bay, as far as microscopic analysis, plus
Board of Trustees 7 December 10, 2014
1 did detailed productivity studies of marine productivity that
included cooperative studies that would determine how shellfish
hatcheries such as the East Hampton Town fish hatchery would
maximize their production of shellfish. I ran all chlorophyll
studies, which is the basic production of the marine food chain
for over ten years for the Peconic Bay study. I did a
cooperative study with the Towns of Brookhaven, Islip and the
DEC to determine the marine productivity of Lake Ronkonkoma.
So when I look at this proposal and I'm telling you that
these ten feet times 100, which is 1,000 square feet of marine
bottom, are key to the creek, I offer that with an experience
basis that is probably one of the strongest technical basis of
anyone doing marine biology work in the County of Suffolk. I
just want to add that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Would you like to suggest that we add the
remaining photos to the record?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have some additional photos. All were
taken on December 7th. I have to tell you, that, as my wife's
and my anniversary of getting engaged, so a day that may live in
in infamy for her, I was reluctant to go out and take pictures
on such an anniversary, but I have more photos to enter into the
record. I can get you additional copies. They are essentially
similar to the one you saw showing the northerly bulkhead face.
MR. GOGGINS: Okay. So I have one question for the Board, maybe
two. You are saying the DEC issued this emergency permit and it
was an emergency so they didn't really have time to do a full
review to issue a full permit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't believe it would be appropriate for
us to speak to this actual permit, but the discussions with the
Trustees here during the course of inspections with the DEC,
that by and large, most all of the emergency permits were done
through an office review with no onsite inspection and no
verifications of emergency nature. Obviously we can't speak to
the details concerning your client's application.
MR. GOGGINS: So if it was not an emergency permit, would it
normally, the DEC and your interest, be consistent and be the
same?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Not necessarily. The adoption of the local
wetland ordinance with its amendments has a fairly long history,
and usually the Board of Town Trustees will look at
environmental matters through the lens of public ownership and
public benefit, particularly as it relates to the ability of our
residents to harvest beneficial marine organisms. And also the
fact is we tend to be more stringent in our approach to these
matters. We inspect all sites for wetland permits that are new
construction. And so I would say that while in some cases we
will have determinations that parallel the DEC, in many or most
that occur in and adjacent to Town underwater land, we have a
stricter set of controls. And maybe with the exception of state
underwater lands, we might defer to the state if we are talking
about an issue on Long Island Sound bottom or such, or a harbor
Board of Trustees 8 December 10, 2014
where we know we don't have the predominant ownership interest.
I don't know if that can be added to by any of the Trustees.
MR. GOGGINS: But the concerns of the environment are the same.
TRUSTEE KING: The DEC permits were not really emergency
permits. It was called a general permit. And it was because of
Superstorm Sandy. And all that was required was send in a
couple of pictures, say I have damage, and they would issue a
general permit. They were very liberal with it. There was no
real review done.
MR. GOGGINS: On a normal permit, they do normal review consistent
with what the Trustees do, correct?
TRUSTEE KING: Pretty much.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, to be honest-- sorry. Go ahead.
MR. GOGGINS: What I'm hearing is there was an emergency permit
and the DEC never looked at it, and now you are looking at it
more closely and you are saying, well, that was an emergency
permit, they didn't really look at it. We are looking at it
closely and that's why there is an inconsistency. That's what I'm
hearing.
MS. HULSE: It's not an inconsistency, though. You cited
initially, when you read the Court's decision, you referenced
the DEC permit. And what the Trustees are clarifying is that
their review is different from what the DEC review was or
typically was in that arena when it was after Superstorm Sandy
and the permit was a general permit. So what they are saying is
their inspections and their standards differ from that of the
DEC.
MR. GOGGINS: As far as getting a Sandy permit; is that what
you are saying?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For any permit, is what I have been trying to say.
The DEC is a separate agency from the Trustees. We all know that.
The DEC has standards that are separate and different from the
Trustees' standards. And so, I know for myself, I'm looking at
this from a Trustee perspective in the wetlands code. I'm not
looking at that time from DEC perspective. I understand the
Court made reference to that, but to me, again, going by what
our normal practice is here as the Trustees, our normal practice
is to consider these applications under our Town Wetland Code.
So what the DEC did do or did not do, that was up to the
DEC. All that we can address here today is the Wetland Code, and
that's what we have the power or the opportunity to provide a
permit for. We can't control the DEC, and so that is a separate
agency. They do their thing, we do ours.
MR. GOGGINS: I understand.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And to dovetail with what Trustee Bergen
just said, we don't control that and we don't know the permit
history or any of the particulars that the DEC may have. If this
was, if this determination from the DEC might even include a
structure such as this would have to go under Army Corps review
because it juts out into the navigable waters of the United
States. In other words, a de novo construction of this type
Board of Trustees 9 December 10, 2014
would have a multi-layered, typically have a multi-layered
approval process starting with the DEC, but it's totally their
own. But they have a joint application. So if you were to apply
to the DEC they would automatically have you apply to the Army
Corps of Engineers if you were putting in a structure such as
this. But it's not for us to say. It's their business.
MR. GOGGINS: Like I said, their environmental concerns are the
same, and the Savino's emergency permit or the general permit
expired, and they re-applied to DEC and the DEC issued them a
permit on December 3rd, 2014, a week ago, to replace the
bulkhead, inplace/inkind and do all the things they already
approved in the emergency permit. And that's the issue. The
issue is we have a New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation saying to the Savino's environmentally, it's fine,
you are not going to lose any property, you are not going to
lose use of the property that you purchased, and we'll let you
re-do this. And then the Board of Trustees say no, we don't
want you to do that, we want to reclaim the creek bottom. And
that's the issue, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't think we are saying that, Bill. Again,
with all due respect, as we've said, the DEC permit process is
different from the Trustee process. So the fact that the
Savino's were able to obtain a DEC permit December of this year,
2014, that is not going to impact Trustees in whether or not we
are going to grant a permit under the Wetlands ordinance. And
think what we need to look at, again, we need to look at the
environmental issues as described under our permitting process.
Which is what we have done. We have been very specific with
that, I think, this morning, on those environmental issues. And
there is also, which is also important to us, the ownership
issue. We feel based on the documentation that we have that the
Trustees own this land. But that is a separate issue from the
environmental issue. And the environmental issue is what we are
here to make a case for today. And I think we have done that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I want to strongly support Trustee Bergen's
statement and go on record to say that I'm not prepared, with my
background, to say that that-- and I'm pointing at the
photograph -- is a natural structure. What I'm prepared to say, if
it were removed, that that area that is presently covered, would
revert to a natural and healthy marsh and wetlands. You can see
to the south of it, in the front of it, and Trustee Bredemeyer
introduced this photograph into the record before, that is to
the north of it, all healthy marsh lands.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: I have lived on Mattituck Creek for 50 years, and
I'm very familiar with what has happened there over time, and
previous to me living there, when it was dredged, I know what
happened. I also know the DEC has spent millions of dollars
buying the wetlands, particularly on the east side of Mattituck
Creek. They bought the former Peterson Marina for a public
access site. So a lot of money has been spent buying up wetlands
Board of Trustees 10 December 10, 2014
and trying to restore them. And this is a perfect example. We
could restore 1,000 square feet of wetland, the owners of the
property would still enjoy their bulkhead, still enjoy the deck,
gazebo and everything, except it would be ten feet landward. I
don't think that's much of a sacrifice. Especially because we
know now how important these wetlands are. These are nurseries
for all kinds of wildlife. It's food sources. And to me it's a
very small sacrifice for a huge benefit.
MR. GOGGINS: So you are asking the Savino's to sacrifice 1,000
square foot of their waterfront property without any
consideration, remuneration?
TRUSTEE KING: Like I say, I'm very familiar with Mattituck
Creek, I know what happened when they deposited these dredge
spoils, and I'm convinced that bulkhead is on public lands. I
know of three different properties, at least, where the Trustees
have issued quit claim deeds so these people have legal
ownership. There is plenty of documentation on it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, Trustee King.
Mr. Goggins, do you have any materials that you would like
to enter into the record, such as title insurance or the renewed
DEC permit or any of those materials?
MR. GOGGINS: Not at this time, no.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Would you wish to enter them into our record
for consideration?
MR. GOGGINS: We can give you a copy of the DEC permit from
December 3rd, 2014, make that part of the record.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because I think, there again, the Board of
Trustees would feel more comfortable to have more information
before we render a determination, particularly as relates to
ownership of property. Where this Board is the oldest land owner
in New York State, or might argue Southampton Town, might say
they are, we are reluctant to make a definitive statement on
property ownership without reviewing additional materials. For
myself, as the Chair of the Trustees, would feel uncomfortable
moving ahead with a determination without having more material
to review. Especially-- I don't know how the rest of the Board
feels.
TRUSTEE KING: I need to see some sort of proof of ownership. We
have two or three deeds here saying they don't own it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's incumbent upon the applicant to approve
ownership.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: As a matter of fact, Mr. Goggins, would either
of the Savino's like to address the Board?
MR. GOGGINS: No, not at this time.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, just wanted to offer the opportunity.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess what we are looking at here is a
Google map, and anything we might look at that would be of
interest, we could get copies of for the record, Mr. Goggins.
TRUSTEE KING: This is the creek. The county dredged this creek
back in the 50s, and if you look at this little inlet coming up
in here, that was bare at low tide. There was no water in there.
Board of Trustees 11 December 10, 2014
until they dredged. And what happens, when they dredged, they
would pump spoils up on the beaches here, and there is a piece
of property right here, there a quit claim deed for
approximately 40 feet of property that was quit claim from the
Trustees to the property owners.
There is another piece of property here just south of Mattituck
Inlet Marina that the Trustees deeded another piece of property.
The owners thought they owned it. Until the land was surveyed
because a prospective buyer was going to buy it, and they found
out they didn't own that. So they received a quit claim deed.
And there is another piece of property in Long Creek, up in
this area, same thing.
So I mean there is a history here in Mattituck Creek, when
this was all dredged, a lot of spoils were pumped up on the
foreshore. And the owners thought, well, now it's mine. Well,
in reality, it is not. If you detail the deeds you'll find some
of these meets and bounds, what they think is theirs is actually
Trustee land.
MR. GOGGINS: The problem is when the property is being used for
41 years, then all of a sudden the Trustees say, oh, by the way,
don't think that's your property, it becomes a problematic
thing. You can understand how the Savino's feel. You know, you
buy a piece of property on the creek, it's a certain size, you
have a bulkhead, you have docks, you have decking, everything is
wonderful, you pay a lot of money for it, you pay the mortgage,
you pay the taxes every year on it. And then all of a sudden a
hurricane comes, or some damage, you go to replace a simple thing
like replace the bulkhead, DEC says okay, fine do it. Trustees
say, no, you have to lose 1,000 square feet of your property.
You have to move it back. You have to understand or appreciate
how that must feel. Imagine someone coming to your waterfront
property, you have to move it back 1,000 square feet, even
though it's been there 41 years. It's problematic and it's
going to impact on the value of their property. That's why it's
such an important issue to them. You buy a piece of property,
get title insurance, you have title, get the meets and bounds
description, everything is fine. You own it, you enjoy it. At
some point you are probably going to sell it and use the money
for retirement, and all of a sudden you are told you really
don't have 1,000 square foot of it. It's really outrageous. So
you have to understand how the Savino's feel. I know the Board
wants to push this back, but you have to look at it from their
point of view as well. And I think that's been lost in the
Board's review of this matter, is they are going to lose
substantially. Because you want to reclaim ten feet of creek
bottom.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We appreciate what you are saying,
and it is certainly a difficult thing. Basically though, you have not
substantiated any of those claims. And strictly the
environmental side of which is our primary concern. We, you
know, probably should take a look at that DEC permit as a part
Board of Trustees 12 December 10, 2014
of our professional consideration to see what they said.
Also, we've searched our file, prior to this application,
there was no permit for the bulkhead. There was only a permit
for a dock on this property.
MR. GOGGINS: But there was an application to the Trustees in, I
believe it was 1971, in September, and the person at the time, I
think his name was Ziegler, put in an application to the
Trustees and the Trustees said, no, it's your land, go ahead and
put it in. And it was their opinion at the time it would not
have an adverse impact on the environment.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There again, it was not substantiated by the
Mr. Ziegler or the Trustees where the property actually lies.
Probably they were looking at the upland that had been created
through that dredging process.
MR. GOGGINS: We don't know what it was. All we know is he was
issued a letter saying do it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: But the remains of the structure was never
done under a Trustee permit process.
MR. GOGGINS: I understand that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right. And it was nothing on the record that
that determination was the same determination simply based on an
observation without facts backing it up.
MR. GOGGINS: I was not at that meeting, I don't think anybody
here was at that meeting. I'm not sure anybody can speak to
that. But I'll mail you a copy of the DEC permit that was issued
on December 3rd, 2014, and any other documents that you want.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you have anything you would like to add
to the record, Mr. Goggins?
MR. GOGGINS: No, other than we would like you to issue a permit
to replace the bulkhead inkind/inplace and to give them a permit
for what they applied for.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there any additional comment,
any additional concerns or comments from members of the Board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just want to ask one more time, would your
clients be willing to move the bulkhead back ten feet; in
return, the Trustees would give a quit claim deed to the
remaining approximately eight feet?
MR. GOGGINS: Their answer is no thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Any other comments or questions?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing with
reserving decision for a time when we receive the additional
copy of the DEC permit that you indicate was issued.
MR. GOGGINS: I'll E-mail it this morning.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And any additional supporting information
you may choose to entered on the record for consideration or
reconsideration.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Board of Trustees 13 December 10, 2014
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
*W-*9 04— �J9
John M. Bredemeyer III, President
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED
K
D cC 2 0 2014 Q S$�}►�
Southold Town Clerk