HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-12/17/2014John M. Bredemeyer III, President
Michael J. Domino, Vice -President
James F. King, Trustee
Dave Bergen, Trustee
Charles J. Sanders, Trustee
OF SOUIyo
� O
igso • �Q
y�OUNV i*
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MINUTES
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
5:30 PM
Present Were: John Bredemeyer, President
Michael Domino, Vice -President
Jim King, Trustee
Charles Sanders, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Clerk Typist
Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Town Hall Annex
54375 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-6641
RECEIVED
Ve8
JAN 2 8 2015
Southold Town Clerk
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 5:30 PM
WORKSESSIONS: Tuesday, January 20, 2015, at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall
Wednesday, January 21, 2015, at 5:30 PM at Downs Farm.
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of December 10, 2014
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Our next field inspection will be Wednesday,
January 14th, 2015, at 8:00 AM. Do I have a motion to approve?
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make that motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next Trustees meeting will be Wednesday,
January 21st, 2015, at 5:30 PM. Motion to approve?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Worksession, for Tuesday, January 20th,
2015, at 5:30 PM, at Downs Farm; and on Wednesday the 21st,
2015, 5:00 PM, at the Main Meeting Hall. Motion to approve?
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
Board of Trustees 2 December 17, 2014
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion is made by Trustee King, seconded by
Trustee Sanders.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll take a motion to have our
organizational meeting Monday January 5th, 5:30 PM, at Downs Farm.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to table the Minutes of the
December 10th meeting so that all the Board members have an
opportunity to read them and review them, the Minutes to be
moved at the next meeting of the Trustees, wherein they will
consider the matter that was at hand on December 10th, that was
to be an approve or deny an application on behalf of Savino for
a wetland permit. Do I have a motion?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Discussion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made but there has not been
a second. For discussion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second. Discussion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Have we Trustees read those Minutes yet?
I know I have. I don't know if any of the other Trustees have.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I didn't.
TRUSTEE KING: I read the Minutes.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I didn't.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I'll note, I think what I heard was
two Trustees had an opportunity to read and a third has not.
Accordingly, there has been a motion made and seconded. A vote
on that to table the approval of those Minutes.
TRUSTEE KING: Aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustee monthly report for November 2014. A check for
$13,275.29 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for
review.
111111. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the
following applications more fully described in Section VIII Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, December 17, 2014, are classified as Type II
Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review
under SEQRA:
Board of Trustees 3 December 17, 2014
Willem Kooyker & Judith Ann Corrente — SCTM# 3-1-5
Rev. Martin J. Bancroft, Jr. — SCTM# 15-2-16
Jane & Vincent Martorana — SCTM# 33-4-32
David & Elizabeth Ross — SCTM# 123-8-24.1
Ertan Yenicay — SCTM# 83-1-33
W. Richard & Wendy Bingham — SCTM# 6-4-2
FBO Associates LLC, c/o Arnold Fisher — SCTM# 7-1-2.1
Alan Schlesinger — SCTM# 145-4-7
Paul Pawlowski — SCTM# 115-11-15
Mimi Colombo — SCTM# 136-1-48
Treasure Island Cove, LLC — SCTM# 23-1-2.4
Mark King — SCTM# 106-4-5
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We'll vote the aforementioned items as a group, those
items being listed in your agenda. Motion made. Do I hear a second on that?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Administrative Permits. Administrative
permits are items for which the Board reviews administratively
during the course of monthly field inspections or in-house on
inspection day and are minor actions that do not usually involve
detailing and major environmental impacts. Based on the items I
have before me, absent objection from any Board member, I
believe we can group items one, two and four together. I would
move those, to approve items one, two and four as a group.
They are listed as follows:
Number one, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of ANTHONY
DANIELE requests an Administrative Permit for the existing
irregularly shaped (326sq.ft., 19.25'x30.25') overhead deck
structure attached to rear of existing residence; and to add to
it by constructing an additional 381sq.ft., 16.7'x24.3' overhead
deck structure with new swim spa (114sq.ft., 8'x14.5'); remove
existing overhead deck stairs and construct new stairs
(53sq.ft., 3.6'x14.4') from north end of existing deck structure
to grade; and for the installation of swim spa equipment.
Located: 990 Koke Drive, Southold.
Number two, ROBERT P. AUTERI requests an Administrative Permit
to replace existing windows with new larger windows, add windows
in new locations, and replace doors on the existing dwelling.
Located: 3885 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck.
And number four, MARIE & ERIC MUNTNER requests an Administrative
Permit to construct a 22.2'x25.9' two -car garage; construct a
14'x25' addition to dwelling; new dormer; and construct a
19'x14' deck attached to dwelling. Located: 4210 Ole Jule Lane,
Mattituck.
Do I have a second?
Board of Trustees 4 December 17, 2014
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm in possession of the file for number
three, Jerome O. Morrissey, and I'll pass this off. I had an
emergency and I was not able to meet with the Board on this
inspection. Maybe Trustee Domino or Trustee King or Trustee
Bergen can speak to this directly from the field notes. This is
in Laurel.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll take it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number three, JEROME O. MORRISSEY requests an
Administrative Permit for the as -built 46"x22' cedar walkway
from existing walkway to bulkhead; as -built 8 cubic yards of
beach sand within a 20'x25' area; and to install approximately
155' of 6' high fencing along property line. Located: 1780 Great
Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
This was found consistent and also inconsistent. I just
want to see what the inconsistency was here. (Perusing). It was
found inconsistent because the cedar walkway was not built with
a permit.
We were all out there. It was just a small walkway down to
where the bulkhead is and it was a little sandy area just to the
south that was also installed without a permit. We saw no real
environmental impact to this at all. So I think by issuing a
permit for that walkway and the eight cubic yards of sand that
was placed behind the bulkhead, we would find that consistent.
Other than that, it's a little strange situation here. There is
an existing fence almost on the property line already there, and
I guess this gentleman prefers to have his own fence. So you'll
basically have a double fence here. The existing fence has a
permit on it, as far as we know. So there will be a second
fence on this gentleman's property. It's kind of a strange
situation, but I don't think there is any real issues with it.
I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For applications for extensions, transfers
and administrative amendments. I believe some of these sites
were the subject of additional inspections. Are there any
members here who wish to exclude any from group approval?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, we'll exclude number five. Any
others?
(No response).
Board of Trustees 5 December 17, 2014
Hearing none other, I'll make a motion to approve under agenda
Item V, I move to approve items one, two, three and four. They
are listed as follows:
Number one, ROBERT O'BRIEN requests a One -Year Extension to
Wetland Permit #8000 and Coastal Erosion Management Permit
#8000C, as issued on January 23, 2013. Located:
1955 Truman's Path, East Marion.
Number two, Eugene Burger on behalf of MILL CREEK PARTNERS LLC
requests a One Year Extension to Wetland Permit #8029, as issued
on January 23, 2013, and Amended on January 22, 2014. Located:
64300 Route 25, Greenport.
Number three, CHRISTINE CHOCKO GAVIN REVOCABLE TRUST requests a
Transfer of Wetland Permit #1859 from Morandina Living Trust to
Christine Chocko Gavin Revocable Trust as issued on August 31,
1984, and Amended on July 23, 2014; and for an Administrative
Amendment to reconfigure the floating dock from a "T" shape to
an "I" shape. Located: 3715 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue.
And number four, SEAN McCOYD requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit #8059 to remove existing brick patio
and construct a 12'x24' wood deck with stairs. Located:
3360 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five, JAMES PAPE requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #5162 to
remove one (1) 6'x20' float from existing docking facility with
remaining 6'x20' float to stay in an "L" shape configuration.
Located: 1885 Home Pike, Mattituck.
This is a simple administrative amendment to remove one
6x20 float. We have to, the Trustees have to, in doing so,
remove a Trustee covenant and restriction that was placed on
this property and the adjoining property on April 18th, 2000. So
I would move to approve this application with the condition that
the covenant and restriction from April 18th, 2000, imposed by
the Trustees, is removed from the property.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made and seconded. All in
favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We'll go off the record for a few seconds.
We have an administrative request of our clerk.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: While we are waiting, for the members of the
audience, on the agenda tonight, ten, eleven, 12 and 13 have
been postponed. They are listed as follows:
Number ten, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of JOHN
FISCHETTI requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing dock and
construct a 4'x112' elevated catwalk; a 3'x15' hinged ramp; and
Board of Trustees 6 December 17, 2014
a 6'x20' floating dock; all materials to be non -treated and all
hardware to be hot -dipped galvanized. Located: 2615 Wells Road,
Peconic.
Number eleven, Gary Steinfeld on behalf of MARK KING requests a
Wetland Permit for the partial demolition and reconstruction of
existing 30.5'x22.4' dwelling including removal of southern
portion of structure (5.2'x22.2'); expansion of footprint to
28'x32' with additions on north and east elevations; addition of
a second story; and construction of a 12'x29' deck on west
elevation; and 4'x6' covered entry porch on north elevation.
Located: 200 East Mill Road, Mattituck.
Number 12, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of TOM & MAE MAURI
requests a Wetland Permit to construct an 18'x36' swimming pool
with 4'x10' steps into pool, and existing pool drain; install
1,450sq.ft. Patio pavers on concrete at grade starting at
elevation of existing house; install 220 linear feet of
retaining wall with height ranging from 1'6" to 3'19"
beginning at the 18.5' contour line, running along seaward side
of pool and returning to house for the purpose of maintaining
grade of pool and patio; install 200 cubic yards clean fill as
needed; install 4' high pool enclosure fencing; plant natural
drought tolerant native vegetation on the seaward and landward
sides of retaining wall; and install stone walkway and stone
steps to existing slate patio, from walkway to dock, and from
patio area to side yard. Located: 1135 Calves Neck Road,
Southold.
Number 13, 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'x6' platform, and
3'x7' platform with stairs to beach; and for the existing 150
linear foot long wooden bulkhead. Located: 515 South Oakwood
Drive, Laurel.
I would not want anyone here waiting for a hearing that has
been postponed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, very much. Okay, so now we are,
everyone has been advised of the postponements. Having
clarified, there was a question that came up from the clerk
concerning processing our administrative amendments. And it has
been settled.
VI. MOORINGS & WATERFOWL/DUCK BLINDS
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next item we have is item number six, moorings and
waterfowl duck blinds. We should do these individually because a question has come
up, we have to ask some questions of item number two, the gentleman is here who
seeks a duck blind permit in Cedar Beach Creek.
Item one, THOMAS GRAY requests an On-Shore/Off-Shore Stake & Pulley
System Permit in Narrow River for a 14' O'Day sailboat, replacing Stake #12. Access:
Public.
Board of Trustees 7 December 17, 2014
This is a replacement of an onshore/offshore stake and pulley coming off the
waiting list for Narrow River Marina. I would move to approve this application as
submitted. Do I hear a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number two, CHRISTOPHER R. SHOWALTER
requests a Waterfowl/Duck Blind Permit to place a Waterfowl/Duck
Blind in Cedar Beach Creek using private access. Located: Cedar
Beach Creek, Southold.
Although this is not an opportunity for public hearing
because these sorts of applications are not affording one, these
are basically administrative, I just wanted to clarify, because
Mr. Showalter, who is applying for a duck blind in Cedar Beach
Creek, requested consideration for two possible options for the
location of his blind. And the initial discussion that I had
with Mr. Showalter concerning his preferred location may have
changed. So at this time, I just want to clarify, at this time,
Mr. Showalter, you are seeking was it option A which is closer
to the entrance to Cedar Beach Creek, which the Trustees agree
the locations both are suitable. I just want to clarify that.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): That's correct.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. So we'll be voting for option A for
the location of the duck blind at the entrance of Cedar Beach
Creek with available safety, meaning -- that would mean the
hunting parties would be shooting out over the open wetlands and
not toward any of the houses. Accordingly, I would move to
approve this application.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. RESOLUTIONS — OTHER:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under Resolutions -Other, I would move to
table item number one under VII, which reads: DANA & MICHAEL
SAVINO request a Wetland Permit to repair/replace existing
+/-100' long bulkhead with a 38' north return and a 64' south
return using vinyl sheathing; remove and replace existing
100'x21' decking; temporarily remove and replace existing
gazebo; and add approximately 275 cubic yards clean fill.
Located: 1945 Bayview Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 106-6-37.
1 would move to table this item, which is up for
consideration by the Board, to a different place and time.
would be willing to set it now if those people are aware of
their calendar or we can ask the clerks to schedule this for a
subsequent date. What is your pleasure?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Subsequent date.
TRUSTEE KING: I would set it for as soon as possible, preferably
Monday.
Board of Trustees 8 December 17, 2014
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Can we set it for Tuesday and give them an
opportunity to distribute materials concerning the wording that
we might use for a resolution, and have the Board review that?
Does Tuesday work? Do you want to work in the early morning
hour?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm not available on Tuesday.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At all?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: How about Wednesday early?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm not available Wednesday early.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you have a date you might be available?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I can be available in the evenings, but not in
the mornings for this. And I can be available any day except
Christmas day next week.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Can we get together Tuesday evening, find a
meeting space and notify members to get together either at Downs
Farms or here, at a meeting space at 5:30?
Is that amenable?
MS. CANTRELL: Is this for you to just go over, or for resolution?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We'll do it for resolution.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I won't be there, but I'll be abstaining anyway
because I was not here when this file came on, which was in 2013.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing no objections, and if it's a
consensus position, we'll meet at the meeting hall, with the
clerk providing notice, at 5:30 on Tuesday.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there a motion to table this?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There was a motion to table this until such
meeting. Motion has been made.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second to table until 5:30 PM next Tuesday,
the 23rd, which is six days from now. Table to the 23rd, 5:30
PM. Thank you. All in favor?
(Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee King,
aye. Trustee Sanders, aye. Trustee Bergen, nay).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I vote no, for the record, please.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Noted that Trustee Bergen votes no. I hope
that means you'll be participating with us, Trustee Bergen, as
well, given your no vote.
At this time I'll take a motion to go onto our public hearings for
Wetland notices.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Amendments, number one, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting on behalf of CHRISTOPHER STABILE requests an
Amendment to Wetland Permit #8027 for the as -built +/-3' high by
Board of Trustees 9 December 17, 2014
+/-63' long wood retaining wall located within the northeastern
section of the property. Located: 9975 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
This had been tabled in the past pending admission of an
engineer -stamped plans for the as -built wall. It was deemed
inconsistent by the LWRP coordinator because it was built
without a Trustee permit. And with the addition of these plans
which were stamped and dated December 15th, 2014, it is now
possible to go forward.
Is there anybody here to speak to this application?
(No response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing no questions --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only comment I have, I know we received
testimony on this, and from Mr. Stabile, who is, I believe, a
licensed engineer and he stamped the plans. My challenge with
this is this is a structure that if it had come in in an
application for a permit, I doubt we would have approved as it
has been constructed or as it has been engineered and built. We
noticed out in the field it appears to be failing. For myself,
I'm planning on voting no because I feel we would not have
approved this if it had come in ahead of time, and it does in
fact appear to be failing. So I don't think it would be
appropriate to give a permit for this structure.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do we have a motion on the floor?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Not yet.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are having a discussion preceding the
motion. Maybe we should go with a motion and second and have
discussion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I would like to
make a motion that we close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion we approve this amendment with
the stipulation if at any time in the future it is rebuilt, that
it has to be rebuilt according to SCIF code standards that the
Trustees would approve at that time and notice that by granting
this as -built amendment we would bring it into consistency.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. I'll second that
motion. Discussion?
TRUSTEE KING: I tend to agree with Dave a little bit here. It
appears to be failing. But we had testimony, the dock builder
came in and said it's not failing, it only leaned out like that
because of the building of the bulkhead in front of it. We have
a set of plans from a licensed engineer, professional engineer.
That's some of my concerns, but I'll tend to vote yes on this.
If it falls down, it falls down.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would mirror Trustees King's discussion
that we have stamped plans, testimony from experienced dock
builders. There comes a point in time when the Trustees, at
Board of Trustees 10 December 17, 2014
least myself as a Trustee, I don't intend to supplant the
professionalism and the expert discussion that has come before
us.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: There is a motion on the floor.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee King,
aye. Trustee Sanders, aye. Trustee Bergen, nay).
All aye, except Dave, votes nay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In the matter of number two, Samuel W.
Fitzgerald on behalf of WILLEM KOOYKER & JUDITH ANN CORRENTE
requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #8384 to construct a
one-story 673sq.ft. Screened porch and pergola on the footprint
of an existing patio that is attached to dwelling. Located: 7832
Claypoint Road, Fishers Island.
The Board has had an opportunity to review the file and
extensive photo overlay of the proposed activity and the
activity clearly falls within the provisions of granting an
amendment to a wetland permit. It is a minor activity. And it is
not located anywhere near the existing wetland. I would
accordingly, I would, in opening this hearing, I would ask is
there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application or against it?
MR. FITZGERALD Hi, I'm Sam Fitzgerald, agent for the owner,
happy to answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any questions of the Trustees?
(No response).
The plans were very explicit. We made a valiant attempt to go to
Fishers Island, which you may have heard, but we had to scrub
that on account of very inclement weather. So I appreciate the
detailing here, particularly for a project of this scale. It
made it very clear for the Board to make a determination.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Accordingly, hearing no additional
questions or concerns, I'll make a motion to close the hearing
in this matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to approve in application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Number one, under Wetland and Coastal Erosion
Permits. REV. MARTIN J. BANCROFT, JR. requests a Wetland Permit
and a Coastal Erosion Management Permit for the as -built
Board of Trustees 11 December 17, 2014
reconstruction/re-alignment of existing storm damaged 40' long
by 2'-4' wide row of stone and concrete pieces; and the addition
of 30 cubic yards of fill onto eroded area of the bluff.
Located: 38099 Main Road, Orient.
This was found consistent with the LWRP. Its consistency
provides no natural occurring boulders or stones are removed
from the beach or waters.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support
the application because the application does not address the
issue of redirected energy which imperils the adjacent
properties. The CAC recommends a management plan along this
coastline to mitigate not only the subject property but the
damage to adjacent properties as well. Those are the CAC
comments.
We went out and looked at it. There has been some erosion
problems there, evidently. I think the only recommendation we
would make is for that slope to be re -vegetated with native
vegetation, American beach grass, something like that, to stop
some of that erosion. And the only question I had was, on the
west side there it looks like an access area to come down to the
Sound, is that the purpose of that, is to gain access for a
vehicle or --
REV. BANCROFT: I didn't put that in, sir.
TRUSTEE KING: Just identify yourself, for the record.
REV. BANCROFT: My name is Martin Bancroft. I didn't put that
access road. When I bought the property in 1998, 1 think it had
been there for about 30 or 40 years. And I bought it from Mr.
Latham. Terry Latham.
TRUSTEE KING: It was already there. Okay.
REV. BANCROFT: And Mr. Latham did the work, this work, the
erosion work.
TRUSTEE KING: So if that can be kept planted also. It looks
like it was planted somewhat. It would stop that erosion going
on to the beach.
REV. BANCROFT: Sea grass, possibly. No?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Cape American beach grass.
TRUSTEE KING: It's pretty tough stuff. It gets a good root
system going. Other than that, I didn't have any issues with it.
I don't think the Board did.
So any other comments from anybody?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: And I'll make a motion to approve the application
with the eroded areas being replanted.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
REV. BANCROFT: I can go home?
Board of Trustees 12 December 17, 2014
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup. Have a good night.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, En -Consultants on behalf of JANE &
VINCENT MARTORANA requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Management Permit to install approximately 70 linear
feet of gabion revetment consisting of two vertically stacked
rows of stone gabions (filled with 4%8" stone rip -rap), over
50-100 pound core stone; re -nourish eroded lower bluff area
along approximately 88 linear feet of shoreline (inclusive of
area landward of proposed gabions) with approximately 230 cubic
yards of fill material, including approximately 130 cubic yards
of on-site material derived from gabion installation, and up to
100 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be trucked in from an
approved upland source; terrace an approximately 1,245 square
foot area landward of gabions; and re -vegetate restored areas
with native vegetation. Located: 700 Sound Drive, Greenport.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be
consistent, with the stipulation or the recommendation, excuse
me, from the LWRP, that no naturally occurring boulders or
stones are removed from the beach. And the CAC resolved that
they did not support the application to install gabions along
the shoreline because the application didn't address the issue
of redirected energy, which imperils the adjacent properties.
The Board did go out and looked at this. Is there anybody
here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, sir. Good evening. Rob Herrmann of
En -Consultants, on behalf of the applicant. Also Jeffrey Butler
of Coastal Engineering is here as well. Just as a quick review
of the application, and then Jeff is here and can respond to any
specific questions about the design. And I'll try be responsive
to the CAC comments also.
If you look at photographs of the site, I assume the Board
has been to the site, and on the plans you'll see there is
actually an existing stone structure that is located to the
west, along the entire toe of the bluff. And that stone
structure actually extends a certain distance on to the
Martorana property. Similarly, at the property line on the east
side of the property, there are some very large, naturally
occurring boulders that occur in a large cluster at the toe of
the bluff, right along the property line. The bluff area here,
particularly underneath the stairway and center, has undergone
some chronic erosion over the years. That's the structure you
just put up on the screen there to the west, I believe. And so
the proposal here ideally would have been to have a similar
boulder structure that would basically tie the stones on either
end of the property together. The problem here is access. There
is really no way to get stones of that size up the beach or down
the bluff.
TRUSTEE KING: Rob, how did they get those stones there?
MR. HERRMANN: I don't know. I don't know. I know I have seen
properties before where owners have availed themselves of stone
Board of Trustees 13 December 17, 2014
that was existing on the beach. That was not uncommon a long
time ago. I don't know if that structure has a permit or if
those were just stones that were piled up.
TRUSTEE KING: I just happened to notice the size of them.
They're huge.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, I did too, Jim. But what I noticed when I was
here, it didn't look like a particularly engineered structure
that a typical professional dock builder would build. It's
really natural field stone that is being used. It's not the
quarry stone that is often used in revetments. But I'm
speculating. I don't know. We can only deal with the information
that we had. We have been working with John Hocker of Latham
Sand & Gravel, and with Jeff to try to figure out how to resolve
this. So what we had come up with is the idea of using the
gabions and designing them, as Jeff can explain a little more,
basically in the same angle of repose as a rock revetment would
have, which creates that angle, as opposed to a vertical wall
that you would have with a bulkhead that would create more wave
reflection in front of the structure.
Again, in response to the CAC comments, in this particular
case, because you have the stone on both sides, you don't have a
concern about wave refraction or some sort of reflection of
energy to the sides because there is similar stabilization on
either side. So the idea here would be that the cages for the
gabions and the smaller stone that will ultimately fill them,
can be brought down from the top of the bluff. And then
basically this thing can be constructed on the beach as they go.
It's really the center part of the property that we are looking
at in that photo right there that requires it the most. But
given we are talking about a stretch of about 70 feet or so, it
really would not make any sense to have a 30 or 40 foot strip in
the middle, because then you would end up with like a 15 foot
gap between hard structures on either side and you would just be
inviting more severe erosion of those spots.
So that's the context for what we put in front of you.
Obviously this is not the typical structure that we would
propose. Ordinarily we would go more with a three to five ton
stone revetment. Basically we are working with the hand that we
have been dealt with on this site. Again, I don't know if Jeff
wants to summarize the design any further or if the Board has
any specific questions for him, we would be happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Looking at cross-section A on page two of the
plans, I see what you are proposing here is the gabion appears
to be actually almost buried. The face of them obviously
exposed, but the rest of them being buried. I'm trying to figure
out the height from the base of the toe of the bluff, I guess
I'll say, to the top of the gabion, looks like it's about three
to four feet?
MR. BUTLER: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you think that's going to be sufficient to
handle the wave energy of Long Island Sound, typically the
Board of Trustees 14 December 17, 2014
nor'easters that we get?
MR. BUTLER: Well, we are up, typically our stone revetment
designs we are up in the eleven to 12 datum. And on this design
with these gabions the way they are stacked, we are up
approximately that height. So we typically like to go a little
higher but the DEC kind of limits us to 12. That has been the
history on this shoreline.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Have you already been before the DEC with this?
MR. HERRMANN: It's pending.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Because I know one of our concerns is
exactly what has already been brought up out in the field, given
the requirements of the coastal zone permit, you know, the
30 -year, designing something that will withstand 30 years of
events, weather events. And, you know, we are just concerned
that something like this will be able to hold up to the wave
energy of Long Island Sound.
MR. BUTLER: Dave, I think that the design is adequate for a
lateral wave energy, but I think your concern of overtopping is
a real one, and that, you know, like I said, we like to get
these higher, and we had numerous discussions with the DEC on
allowing that height to come up a little bit, based on recent
storms and activities that we've seen along the coast, and even
given the fact that the flood zone we are in is a 16 on this
coast. So they anticipate the 1 % storm to be at elevation 16. So
that's a 100 -year event. The 30 -year event I think is 12, and
that's kind of what they look at and limit us to, is that
height. But the wall of these revetments that we end up at 12,
putting us up at 12, we do anticipate getting overtopped, and
the DEC's response to that is maintaining what has been washed
out behind it and replanting. But the design of this is such
that these baskets full of these stones have the mass to stay in
tact for the lateral forces you are concerned about.
TRUSTEE KING: My only concern is I have seen them fail in the
Sound, unfortunately. But if you have -- now you have to have a
30 -year maintenance permit under coastal erosion, right?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Does that mean like when you get a bad storm and
those things get broken up, does that mean you have to go in and
repair them and keep them maintained?
MR. HERRMANN: Correct. That's essentially what that maintenance
agreement under your code that applicants are required to sign.
TRUSTEE KING: It's kind of like a safety net, then.
MR. HERRMANN: Right. And the requirement is they don't have to
come back to you for a new permit. They are just required to
maintain what is permitted.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Would it be possible to increase the range and
size of the stones that are put in the gabion without
constraining your ability to get them down there?
MR. BUTLER: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I think that would help in the event that it
fails.
Board of Trustees 15 December 17, 2014
TRUSTEE KING: Probably use the largest stone that you can for the
gabion.
MR. BUTLER: As Rob kind of explained, we are kind of backed into
a corner here, because of access. We talked to people with
barges to bring in, nobody would come into these waters because
of the rocks out, it's just, there is no access. So it's a
matter of getting these down the bluff face without having to
roll them down. So, yes, we would shoot for as big as possible.
TRUSTEE KING: I think I would be just as concerned about this
one boulder up at the top of the bluff by the stairway. It's
almost the size of a pick-up truck. And I don't know what is
holding it there besides the force of habit.
MR. HERRMANN: That was actually one of the things Judge
Martorana had mentioned to me, that they had seen, just going
down there each year, that every once in a while there would be
one stone they were used to seeing on the bluff had managed to
come down to the beach. Again, given the elevation here, and the
condition of the beach, I don't think -- and also the condition
of the vegetation, I don't think this is a spot that is being
hit regularly. I think this is a spot that has been hit during
some of these larger storms over the course of the past ten
years, and during those single events that's when the damages
occur. So the idea is really to just try to keep that toe in
tact during those events so you don't keep getting the sloughing
of the face and loss of some of those bigger stones in the storms.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience who wants
to speak for or against this application?
(No response).
Not see anything, are there any other questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
Then 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 on
behalf Jane and Vincent Martorana, noting that it has been found
consistent under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Jay, could I ask you a question. Just in the
order, the next two are both applications that I'm representing
but Jeff is also here for Ertan Yenicay. Would you have a
problem reversing the order of Ross and Yenicay, so Jeff could --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll leave it open to the Board's discretion
(The Board indicates in the affirmative).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Whoever has the Yenicay file.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I have it.
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
Board of Trustees 16 December 17, 2014
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Under Wetland Permits, number two,
En -Consultants on behalf of ERTAN YENICAY requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a 4'x±91' elevated timber bluff stairway
with railings consisting of 4'x4' entry steps to a 5.5'x12'
entry platform with bench at top of bluff; 4'x±17' steps;
4'x5.5' landing with bench; 4'x±16' steps; 4'x4' landing'
4'x2.5' steps; 4'x5.5' landing with bench; 4'x±17' steps; two
(2) staggered 4'x6.5' landings over existing rock revetment;
5'x6' platform; and 3'x±8' steps to beach at base of bluff;
establish and maintain a 4' wide path to stairway at top of
bluff; and restore/re-vegetate areas disturbed during
construction with native vegetation. Located: 8869 Oregon Road,
Cutchogue.
According to the LWRP, they find this consistent. And the
CAC also supports this. And on December 10th, the following
Trustees were at the site: Mike Domino, Trustee King. I was
absent; Dave Bergen; and John Bredemeyer were absent.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was present.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'm sorry. The only people who were not there
was myself and John Bredemeyer. Is there anybody here to speak
on behalf of this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En -Consultants, again for
the applicant Ertan Yenicay. Again, this is a plan designed by
Butler Engineering. Again, Jeff Butler is here if the Board has
any questions. This is a very straightforward application. It is
a proposed bluff stairway that would provide access from the
developed lot above the top of the bluff and down to the toe of
the bluff, with the bottom of the stairway being designed to
manage its way over the existing rock revetment which had been
approved by the Board for a prior owner a number of years ago.
If the Board has any questions, we are here to answer them.
Generally, the application is consistent with other bluff
stairways that we have designed and put through the Wetland
Permit application process.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: According to the Trustee field inspection on
December 10th, there were no modifications. Does anybody from
the Board want to speak on this?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Our inspections showed it was pretty
straightforward.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, I noticed down -- regarding the existing
rip rap, the stairs are going to go over it or is the rip rap
going to be moved first and the stairs incorporated into the rip rap?
MR. BUTLER: We have a couple of supports down the bottom which
kind of have to work their way around some of that -- around and
through, with the least amount of displacement as possible.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But it looks like it's designed so this will go
over the top of the rip rap with the access stairs just on the
other side of the rip rap.
MR. BUTLER: That's correct.
Board of Trustees 17 December 17, 2014
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Any other thoughts from the Board?
(No response).
That being said, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve this application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made, is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item number one under Wetland Permits,
En -Consultants on behalf of DAVID & ELIZABETH ROSS request a
Wetland Permit to reconfigure the westerly portion of stone
armor by removing from right-of-way approximately 53 linear feet
of stone armor and +/-15 cubic yards of sand backfill and
placing approximately 48 linear feet of relocated 1-2 ton stone
armor (over +/-1001b. core stone and filter cloth), and reused
sand backfill outside boundaries of right-of-way; and to
restore/re-vegetate relocated sand and disturbed portions of
vegetated berm landward of stone with Cape American beach grass
(12"o.c.). Located: 170 Park Avenue Ext., Mattituck.
This application is curative of a defect in a right-of-way
which is requiring a slight alteration to an existing approved
wetland permit. The Board of Trustees reviewed this during the
course of our monthly inspections and we deemed that this is
really not appropriate for a public hearing because the
applicant who has secured all necessary permits and had made
construction but unfortunately found that they had to honor a
right-of-way. And the neighbor whose rights to the right-of-way
were abridged has submitted a letter supporting this
application.
Accordingly, after a discussion with this, with the Board,
this item, I would like to move this item as an administrative
amendment to cover the construction and not subject to further
hearing. Do I hear a second of that motion?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Discussion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Discussion. Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Since it has been posted as a Wetland Permit, I
would just like to see if there was anybody here who wanted to
speak for or against this application first.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess we could open it up on
reconsideration. Do any Board members have an objection?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I think just open it up.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, let's open it up. Is there anyone
here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application, or
against it?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En -Consultants. I'm here but I
Board of Trustees 18 December 17, 2014
don't have any objection to the motion you had made. So I don't
have anything else to add.
TRUSTEE KING: I shouldn't think you would.
MR. HERRMANN: Well, in summation, it's as Jay described it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Accordingly, it will not be processed
administratively because we have opened the public hearing. Is
there a motion to close the public hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Motion to approve this application as submitted. Is there a
second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: THE next application, number three,
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'x6' platform off the bulkhead.
Located: 1415 North Parish Drive, Southold.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En -Consultants on behalf of
the applicant Sean Fahey. This is actually a continuation of a
hearing that had been previously opened. It concerns the issue
of a seasonal dock that had been placed back into the water and
had been observed by someone, I'm not sure, but we were
requested to submit an application to obtain a Wetlands Permit
for the dock. It was presented on a survey that had been last
dated at the time of application May 21st, 2014, and included a
77' long timber seasonal wood dock.
I believe the hearing had been adjourned at one point,
there was some issues, I think the Chairman had discussed the
Board had wanted to review. We had gotten an LWRP report, and
then subsequent to that time there had been a notice of
violation or summons that was issued by the bay constable to
Sean Fahey, at which time he retained counsel in the form of
Esseks, Hefter & Angel. Anthony Pasca from that firm is here
tonight.
One issue that came to light was that when an application
had been filed a number of years ago with the Board of Trustees
to add a ramp and floating dock, that the existing dock at that
time had been represented on the plans as being 70 feet long.
Minutes from that meeting reflect the fact that the Trustees at
that time, including Trustee King, had recognized, acknowledged
the fact there was a seasonal wood dock in place, but it was
determined after a fairly brief discussion by the Board members
Board of Trustees 19 December 17, 2014
that it would not be in an appropriate location to extend or
expand the dock using a ramp and float, and so that petition was
denied. There was no other action taken by the Board at that
time with respect to the seasonal dock, and as we discussed
previously, historical documents show the dock being installed
for at least the past 30 years, and has continued to be
installed since the time the current owner Sean Fahey purchased
the property, and since the time that the application for a ramp
and float was denied by this Board. And so that ramp and float
was never installed.
The only thing that has changed about our application since
the original filing is that to be consistent with the previous
representation of the dock on the prior application for the ramp
and float, we had the survey modified by Nathan Corwin, which is
now last dated December 2nd, 2014, and reflects the proposed
removal of the 47 section of seasonal dock, so that if this
were to be reinstalled next year, it would only be 70 feet long
and consistent with the condition of the prior history of the
dock and as it was represented on that prior application.
It should be noted that the dock has been taken out now for
the season, so it's not physically in the water. So at this
point really, just as a matter of clarifying grammar, we would
not be physically removing that seven -foot section, we would
just not be re -installing. So the proposal would be for the 70'
dock.
Mr. Pasca I know, also prepared and hand -delivered to the
Trustees' office a cover letter dated December 8th, 2014, which
detailed the history of the dock and the prior permitting and
included various attachments including a certificate of
occupancy, prior surveys, et cetera. Whichever the Board
prefers, I don't know if the Board has any questions or any
comments or if Tony, if you want to summarize that, but I assume
you have this for the record, and anything the Board would like
to discuss we would certainly be responsive to. It's probably
not necessary to go over this entire document, I assume the
Board has received it, and has had a chance to look at it.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: You answered one of my questions with regard to
whether or not it has been removed.
MR. HERRMANN: It has been. At least I'm told that it has been.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The dock, the question is it had a history
of in and out of the water seasonally for a number of years, 30
years, or extensive period of time. Have the owners ever
contemplated trying to put a fixed dock or is that prohibited
through a prior application, or is it just a history of putting
seasonal docks? I grew up summers in Goose Bay and I recall
seasonal docks were the norm, where they were simply put in with
locust post and 44's; and I'm just wondering about the history
of this dock.
MR. HERRMANN: I think it's the latter, Jay. When Mr. Fahey
bought the property he had been told by the owner that this was
the practice. It's a similar practice for the two immediately
Board of Trustees 20 December 17, 2014
adjoining properties. And in fact on that photo, I think it's
the neighbor to the right, had originally in the 80s had a
permit for a permanent dock and then just last year came before
the Board, after I guess that, I don't know if that dock was
also damaged by Sandy, but I think the Board also amended the
permit for the neighbor to change it from a permitted dock to a
seasonal dock. And I don't have any idea whether that was based
solely on his request or the Boards request or it was just to
bring the permit into consistency with the practice. I don't
know that it is -- I don't know that it would be preferable to
have a permanent dock there. I do know, I think if you had a
permanent dock, you would have to build a much more substantial
structure and you would still be basically subject to the forces
on that bay over the winter.
The way the dock is installed now is with sections and 4x4
posts. It's a sandy bottom. There is not any SAV there. There is
no tidal wetland vegetation there. So unless the Board would
really have some active desire to change that design, I think
the owner is happy to continue the practice of just having the
dock installed for the few months of the year that it's there
and then taken out and there is no structure there on the bay
for the rest of the year.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The violation in this matter --
MS. HULSE: He pled guilty and paid the fine.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. It's possible that the activities
surrounding putting a dock in and out every year could create a
certain degree of intermittency that would be difficult to
monitor because conditions being what they are, docks don't go
in, you have heavy ice, acute weather conditions, they don't go
in until later in the season. So this has been coming up for
discussion before but this is an unusual situation because it's
on reliance of an owner himself or contractor putting it in
every year. So that, I think, it seems the circumstance may be
unusual. But to review the record, I would just like to review
the fact that the Town's LWRP coordinator did determine this was
inconsistent, because it had been constructed without a permit.
That issue having been detailed through the courts. And it did
indicate it would not lie on public bottom and cause damage to
the environment. That is the basis for -- and of course
repetitive damage from storm events seems to go to the issue of
why it's a seasonal dock, because winter storms where ice would
be heaving along the bay means it would, typically, unless you
put a much more substantial dock in, so I guess this raises the
question of which is better for siting on the bays, whether
there is a limited seasonal dock, whether it's preferential to
putting a more substantial dock in, to require ice eaters,
additional rafters or combinations to protect and preserve a
larger dock. So the inconsistency for a structure over a public
bottom is noted. But all docks do that. But they also provide
for access, for residents of the town, and of course their
friends and neighbors at times, so that there is the issue of
Board of Trustees 21 December 17, 2014
access to the waterfront, because we have limited marina and
other facilities in the town. And so I don't know, that's a
point, I know different members of the Board have different
thoughts on that.
MR. HERRMANN: Jay, I think it's also worth noting in addition to
that, that since the Board has to look at each one of these
sites on a case-by-case basis, never minding the history of the
dock, this is a dock that is located between two
already -permitted seasonal docks. So in terms of taking up the
bottom, this is not introducing a new dock and a new stretch of
bay shoreline where there are not other docks. It's actually
located between two other docks of similar size and
configuration, which I think is relevant.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And for the purposes of the Minutes, I know
you recited an acronym, SAV. I'm not sure the Minutes would
reflect what that actually means.
MR. HERRMANN: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation. This is not a site
where there is eelgrass or something that is underneath where
this dock is.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So we basically have a bottom here
which is subject to fairly high wave energy during many times of the
year, so it has not had opportunity to establish beneficial
aquatic vegetation.
The CAC did vote to approve this application, but they
wished an existing sand buffer be designated as a ten -foot
buffer. This would be behind the bulkhead where it's native
sand. Do you think that's in the realm of possibilities?
know the Board typically doesn't add buffering.
MR. HERRMANN: No, but I think there may already be one that was
associated with prior to Hurricane Sandy --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Prior emergency permit?
MR. HERRMANN: No, I think we went through the full permit
process. Just bear with me for one second. (Perusing). Yes, in
fact on the stamped approved plans that were prepared by
En -Consultants March 18, 2013, 1 believe this was probably
discussed at the hearing at the time. If you recall, and you can
see a little bit in the photo, behind the primary bulkhead is
very flat, sandy, beachy area that runs back before a series of
retaining walls steps up to the developed and lawn part of the
property, and that was already shown on that prior plan as a
storm eroded area to be re -nourished and maintained as a plus or
mines 25 -foot wide non -turf buffer. And it's basically like, for
all intent and purposes, a continuation of the beach behind the
bulkhead. So I think that ground has been covered.
TRUSTEE KING: Rob, can you clarify the soundings for me? They
have me totally confused. We have minus 2.9, and underneath that
is minus 15 inches.
MR. HERRMANN: I'm going to guess the one thing you are looking
at is an elevation of the bottom and datum and the other is
actual water depth. (Perusing). Yes. Jim, if you look to the
right of the dock, there is notes that say elevation high water
Board of Trustees 22 December 17, 2014
mark, 5/21/2014 equals 1.8; elevation lower low water mark, and
again this is the lower low tide that the DEC now tends to
require us reference soundings to, equals minus 1.7. Water depth
shown in inches are reference to lower low water being at 0.0.
So basically what you are looking at when it says minus 3.2 and
then beneath that it in parenthesis it says minus 18 inches.
Minus 3.2 is the bottom elevation. It's just an elevation shot
of the grade underwater. But because lower low water is minus
1.7, you are basically taking the difference between minus 1.7
and minus 3.2, which is one -and -a -half or 18 inches. So if you
went out with your stick at lower low tide --
TRUSTEE KING: That's the way I would prefer to do things.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. It would be 18 inches deep, which means it
would be probably about 24, 26 inches deep at a typical low tide.
Again, this manner of doing soundings, I don't know if all
the agents and consultants are doing it or know to do it, but
we've had pretty extensive conversations with DEC, as you know,
over the years with docks and there were too many people using
too many methods and too many references to come up with
soundings. So they started requiring that soundings be recorded
and shown in datum, or at least converted from datum by a
surveyor. What Nathan Corwin tends to do, which I like, is he
shows the elevation shot and then also the depth in inches. So
you are looking at those two pieces of datum. You should ignore
the datum elevation because, for your practical purposes, it's
meaningless.
TRUSTEE KING: So we are looking at roughly 18 inches on
extremely low tide, instead of taking an average tide.
MR. HERRMANN: That's correct. I mean, well, the method to that
madness is the DEC is just trying to determine in these kind of
cases, what is your twice -a -month worse -case scenario.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Rob, I would like to pose a question to you. On
this hand -delivered document received December 9th from Esseks,
Hefter & Angel, it references it's a seasonal dock. On the
second page it references some Trustee Minutes from 2002, and
there is a question posed. The applicant already has the dock
right? This is a seasonal dock that is removed every year,
right?
There is no answer to that, posed in that. Exhibit C
doesn't answer it either. So I guess what I'm getting at,
number one, are we agreeing this was a seasonal dock going back
the full 30 years?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And number two, has there ever been any limits
placed for the definition of the term seasonal? In other words
it will be out by December --
MR. HERRMANN: The Board has had a practice, Jim might know this
off the top of his head better than I do.
TRUSTEE KING: November 1st and April 1st.
MR. HERRMANN: Right. And I believe the DEC goes by those as
well, the same standards as well.
Board of Trustees 23 December 17, 2014
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: If I remember right.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any other questions or concerns?
(No response).
If not, I would just like to add the comment that I have
experience on a piece of open water fetch in Orient Harbor where
I don't believe seasonal docks or permanent docks are
necessarily appropriate because I watched neighbors' permanent
docks and floats torn to pieces by ice, by hard southwesterly
winds in the summertime, but I have to acknowledge that a
30 -year history of putting a dock in and out is apparently
working and meeting the needs, in the most minimal way, for the
applicant here, and it also, it's my understanding that the
applicant is really only responding to the request that came via
our Trustee office to apply for a permit.
So as far as I'm concerned, I think the circumstances are
unusual. There is a history here. Trustee Domino has indicated
with his question and the information provided by Jim King, that
there is a limit and there is a defined period for seasonal
docks. Because I don't recall ever getting involved with
seasonal approvals back ten years ago. So I think when you weigh
all these situations, that this dock will be coming out at the
end of the season, it's functioning and works for the
individuals, I guess I don't have a problem with this, having
over 40 years' experience on Orient Harbor in a high wave energy
area, I have personal experience in a similar situation, I seen
they've met the environmental determinants and they are not
putting a dock over submerged aquatic vegetation, it's all in a
sandy area, and it's going in and out on an annual basis. I
don't see an issue. And I would think that would meet the
inconsistency because it's not on the public bottom seasonally,
which means it can also be out for the scalloping season for
those years when Southold Bay has an abundance of scallops. So I
think it needs resource protection, it needs and effectively
allows for public use of bottom, and there is a history
associated with it, a property right, if you will.
MR. HERRMANN: What you are saying is, and it's not to our
surprise, consistent with our position. And in turn we don't
have a problem, if the Board was inclined hopefully to approve
this, of actually formally stipulating that April 1 st and
November 1 st dates that Jim and Mike were talking about.
Because that is the practice, so it would formalize the
practice. I don't know if you did that for the dock next door,
but that would be neither here nor there to Mr. Fahey.
TRUSTEE KING: Rob, I take it he keeps a boat there? I see a
tie -off pile.
MR. HERRMANN: He does, yes. The tie -off pile is on the survey
TRUSTEE KING: I see. It will be moved landward?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. On the updated survey we show the six-inch
pole tie -off pile also being relocated approximately seven feet
Board of Trustees 24 December 17, 2014
-- with the seven -foot shortening of the dock. I mean if the
Board saw fit to leave the 77 feet, he would take that, too. I
mean at this point he's looking -- whichever is the Board's pleasure.
TRUSTEE KING: My personal feeling is these are places we should
have moorings and not docks. But I don't recall really any exact
meeting. I know we went out there and looked at it on a
previous Board and we denied the ramp and the float. Back then,
I guess, we never addressed whether the dock had a permit or
not. Shame on me.
MR. HERRMANN: It seems that's correct.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would mention, too, that was the practice
for the Board for many years, we were just looking at new
construction as an add-on and if it met, you know, that is
considering what you are in for now and is what you are seeking
permits for.
MR. HERRMANN: Right.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments or questions?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I would make a motion to approve this application with the
submitted revision to remove the additional seven -foot section
on the seaward end on plans received in the Trustee office
December 9th, 2014, and that the permit for this dock be
considered seasonal to run for April 1 st until November 1 st,
every year. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Accordingly, by this dock being permitted
seasonally and noting that it does not cover any submerged
aquatic vegetation, which is beneficial marine vegetation which
supports additional marine life, that the area is a high-energy
wave area, and that the seasonal aspect of it takes the dock out
of harm's way from ice and wind over times of the year that
predominates, and that also the removal by November 1 st affords
shellfishers, particularly scallop harvesters, particularly with
resurgence of scallops in the bay, that this project be deemed
consistent under the LWRP having addressed those issues. That's
my motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Reluctantly, aye.
MR. HERRMANN: Better than a no. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Wetland Permits, number four, Samuel W.
Fitzgerald on behalf of W. RICHARD & WENDY BINGHAM requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a one-story +/-23'x20' addition
which includes a 118sq.ft. open porch onto an existing two-story
Board of Trustees 25 December 17, 2014
single family dwelling; and to remove an existing shed. Located:
3973 Central Avenue, Fishers Island.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency arises from the fact that there is a drywell shown
on the plans but there is no soil test to indicate whether or
not this drywell will be sufficient to handle the volume of
water, nor does it show depth to groundwater. So questioning
the impact on groundwater. In addition, the septic area shown
does not show sufficient setback from Fishers Island Sound.
The CAC did not make inspection and therefore did not make
a determination.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. FITZGERALD: Sam Fitzgerald, appearing on behalf of the
owners Mr. and Mrs. Bingham.
This project required a zoning variance, which we received
last month. As part of that variance, or as part of the
approval, we had initially proposed a one -foot setback from the
road, and we agreed to a two -foot setback. That revised site
plan was submitted with a date of November 13th, which the Board
has. Obviously, our inspections with the addition, in replacing
the addition, it's a difficult site; our intentions were to keep
the addition as far away from the bank of the coastline as
possible. And this, the location that we've chosen, I think is
the location that achieves that best. With regard to the drywell
and the septic, our engineer CME Engineering, had a look at
that, and our comments are that typically, that the septic and
for the drywells, will be taken care of as part of a building
permit application submission with the Storm Water Management
Plan, that is typically where that review happens. But we would
be happy to address any other questions that you have for us.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Could you speak to the type of soil that is in
that?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, actually, if you'll allow, I have a, this
is from Richard Strauss, he's the engineer on the project, and
he says that, I'm quoting: I would expect soils in this area to
be course -grained soils, poorly graded sands with little or no
fines, that's SP type, or sands with fines, SM. Either of these
soil types would be acceptable. I would expect groundwater would
be at a depth of approximately 15 feet. The design of the storm
water system could easily be modified if soil conditions prove
to be different.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: One further question. It's noted that this
addition will include a bath, and is it your engineer's position
that the existing septic system is capable of handling any
additional volume that might generate? Or is there additional
volume?
MR. FITZGERALD: Right, we are adding a bedroom so, I think --
and actually the house was built in 1903. So with old houses,
we typically, the Building Department makes us upgrade the
septic system. So I think that would most likely will be in our
future.
Board of Trustees 26 December 17, 2014
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would mention to the Board there is ZBA
approval on this also.
TRUSTEE KING: Doesn't the Building Department review the
drainage issues?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's now handed over to the Engineering
Department. Is has separate engineering review.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It says it's noted by the LWRP coordinator
(inaudible).
So any other questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The project itself is relatively minor and
had a description of the soil types. I don't know what the
Board objective -- it would seem that this could be approved
subject to the approved plans of the Engineering Department for
the drainage; because the soil types are suitable, it means
there should be the ability to engineer sufficient volume for
containment. I don't know how the members feel, particularly
given the difficulty of getting to Fishers Island and the great
detail submitted in these plans that is one of those unusual
cases where they met Zoning Board, and the attributes are
necessary for the soil types, I think we should probably --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: (Inaudible).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on, just a second, Mike. Wayne didn't pick
that up.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What Trustee Domino is saying is that any
discussion of approval should be potentially conditioned on the
need to have the approved drainage plan of the Building and
Engineering Department. Makes sense.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, any other questions or comments?
MR. FITZGERALD: Sorry, so with that, if that is a stipulation of
the approval, then how would that sort of work on a practical
matter? We would have the engineer --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Submit for the town drainage review, upon
approval of the Board of Trustees clerk would then issue the
permit, what we considered, when the Board votes, we would
consider conditioning the vote on that approved drainage
approval. So it would just be a matter of it being shipped over
from the Engineering Department to the Trustees. And we would
then issue the permit.
MR. FITZGERALD: Got it. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no other comments or questions, I'll
make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application with
the condition that the permit is conditioned on the submission
of an engineer's report to satisfy the inconsistencies brought
up by the LWRP coordinator concerning the drainage and septic
system capacity.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: You should also say and if approved by the
engineers, then subsequently we'll approve the application.
Board of Trustees 27 December 17, 2014
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's what I said. It's conditioned.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's conditioned. He said it was
conditional. Motion has been made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number five Samuel W. Fitzgerald on behalf of FBO
ASSOCIATES LLC, c/o ARNOLD FISHER requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 19'x19' one-story addition with an entry hallway
onto the existing two-story dwelling. Located: 3300 Clay Point
Road, Fishers Island.
This was found consistent with the LWRP. The CAC did not
make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Sam Fitzgerald, on behalf of the owner
Arnold Fisher. I'll be happy to answer your questions.
TRUSTEE KING: We have some pretty detailed aerials, which I'm
glad we have, because we didn't get the opportunity physically
go out and look at this because of the bad weather. I felt it
was a very minor, minor addition that I have no problems at all
with.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you have any issues?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I saw it. No problems.
TRUSTEE KING: It's an easy one. If there are no other comments
from anybody else, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number six, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ALAN
SCHLESINGER requests a Wetland Permit to reface the front and
rear of existing 91 linear foot long timber bulkhead with
plastic sheeting; replacement of existing 12.5'x5' wide timber
platform and stairs utilizing existing piles and Trex decking;
construction of a 10'x14' deck at grade on top of existing
bulkhead with Trex decking; installation of 8'x12' temporary
storage shed at front of property; and the installation of a 10'
wide non -turf buffer landward of the bulkhead.
Located: 125 Mesrobian Drive, Laurel.
The Board did go out and looked at this. This was found
consistent under the LWRP, with the recommendation of a non -turf
buffer behind the bulkhead. And it was reviewed -- and the CAC
resolved to support the application. As I stated, the Board did
go out and looked at this. There has been one letter received
dated December 10th, 2014, from a Mary Lou Palmer. I'll
Board of Trustees 28 December 17, 2014
stipulate this letter in its entirety will be read into the
record. I'll just highlight, present the highlighted points of
this. I, Mary Lou Palmer, am the adjacent property owner. I
oppose the installation of the 8x12 temporary shed. The shed
will be eyesore if approved. There is room on the south side of
this property. The bulkhead work has already been started
without a permit. I believe this is a town and DEC violation.
Previously, he wanted to install six-foot stockade fence along
the property line. The town permit was denied and in lieu of
this he's planted high growing shrubs, which have blocked my
view. The installation of the 8'x12' shed continues to block my
view. Thank you, in advance, Mary Lou Palmer, 85 Mesrobian
Drive, Laurel.
As I stated, the Trustees did go out and looked at this. Is
there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. I don't
think there was any problem that the adjacent neighbor had with
the bulkhead re -facing or the installation of the deck at the
grade. With regard to the temporary storage shed, that whole
area is, there is really no view being blocked. You are blocking
the view of the telephone pole and the road. And I believe there
is a boat stored on the south side of her property as well,
between my client's house and her house.
MS. HULSE: Blocking the view is not a standard the Trustees can
consider anyway.
MR. PATANJO: Okay, then I have no further comments.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In looking at the plans, it appears the location
of the temporary shed is well over 100 foot away from the edge
of the tidal zone, so it would be non jurisdictional for us. I
have a question regarding the re -facing. It looked, when we were
out in the field, it appeared as though much of this re -facing
has already been started, both in front and in back.
MR. PATANJO: Correct. The homeowner was doing the work and was
advised he needed a permit. That's why he stopped the work and
that's why I'm here applying for a permit, so he can make
everything legal.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So this is to continue, the purpose of this
permit is to finish up the project; part of the purpose of this
permit is to finish up that project, so you are continuing to
use this plastic sheathing all along the front and back?
MR. PATANJO: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We noticed material has disappeared, probably
went into the waterway.
MR. PATANJO: What material?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Behind the bulkhead.
MR. PATANJO: Oh, the fill material. Yes that was during the
storm. And that's the reason for this. Financially he was not
able to repair it until now, and this is, although it is a
temporary repair, it will stop any future materials from washing
out. I have done this same method to extend the life of a
bulkhead, many, many times throughout a lot of different towns,
Board of Trustees 29 December 17, 2014
a lot of bulkheads, of people who are financially not able to
get a new bulkhead in.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The reason I bring this up, I don't see in the
description any request to bring in any material to backfill
behind that bulkhead. Unless I'm missing it.
MR. PATANJO: I have it on the proposed plans. It's on the
typical section to replenish with 22 cubic yards of sand.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I see. You have it in the cross-section. I see
it on the cross-section plan. Okay. I just want to make sure
that's included in the description.
MS. HULSE: Do you consent to that being included in the
application?
MR. PATANJO: Yes, it will be 20 cubic yards.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I guess the only question I have, I did take a
look at this and it looked like -- I'm not an engineer, but, he
just nailed on some plastic sheathing in the front and the back,
and I think this is a short-term fix --
MR. PATANJO: Correct, it's a short-term fix.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I would recommend that you suggest to your
client that it probably will be a short-term fix, and do the
appropriate repairs or replacement prior to a disaster occurring
there where the whole thing caves in and there goes the lawn.
MR. PATANJO: Absolutely. I have done this many, many times. I
don't want to say normal, but it's been done many times with the
quarter -inch plastic in the front then you reface it in the
rear. It holds up five, eight years. And if you -- I don't know
if you want me to amend the project description and send it in
or if you'll just do that on the dais.
MS. HULSE: They can do that on the dais.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For the 20 cubic yards of fill, yes, I'll be
doing it on the dais. 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).
If not, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
Jeff Patanjo on behalf of Alan Schlesinger with the addition of,
the stipulation that we were adding 20 cubic yards of sand to
fill behind, the backfill behind the bulkhead. Clean sand. To
backfill behind the bulkhead in the description of the permit.
MS. HULSE: Into the description of the application.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The description of the application. And I'm
sorry, we did note there is included a ten -foot non -turf buffer
on the plans also.
MR. PATANJO: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
Board of Trustees 30 December 17, 2014
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number seven, PAUL PAWLOWSKI requests a Wetland
Permit for the installation of a 10'x20' inground pool with a
depth of 4'; proposed 450sq.ft. patio surrounding pool to be
bluestone; proposed 8'x12' shade trellis; install a 6'x7'
in -ground hot tub with a 185sq.ft. patio; and install 4' high
pool fencing. Located: 950 Luptons Point Road, Mattituck.
The LWRP has found this consistent. They make the note of,
the Board requires a non -disturbance buffer 25 feet in width
preserving the existing vegetation landward from the apparent
high water mark. The apparent high water mark is actually
determined on the survey dated December 12th, 2014. And the CAC
moves to support this. And the Trustees visited this site on the
10th of December. I was not there. And under the notes, there
are questions, but I need you to determine them for me, because
you wrote it. What is this, 86' from the proposed garage?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: My chicken scratch, I apologize. What we had
been asked to do is to look at the garage and see if it's
jurisdictional or non -jurisdictional, and we measured it off and
saw it was 86 feet to what is on the plan as a proposed garage.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: So it's in our jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Do we need to amend or modify in any way the
application?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That will have to be decided tonight.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay. Do you guys want a set of plans?
TRUSTEE KING: We're good.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Anybody here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. PAWLOWSKI: Good evening, I'm Paul Pawlowski, 950 Luptons
Point Road, Mattituck, I'm here to answer any questions. In
reference to the garage, I resubmitted a new survey taking the
proposed garage. I never had that as part of the application.
And I apologize. I didn't even realize it was on the new survey
that I submitted. So that has been removed. You have on file two
new stamped surveys showing there is no new proposed changes to
the current garage. And so the application submitted mirrors
what was sent out to neighboring properties.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Are you talking about December 12th, that's
your most updated one?
MR. PAWLOWSKI: What's today's date. Hopefully you have the
correct one.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Today is the 17th.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: So that's the 12th.
MR. PAWLOWSKI: There should not be any proposed garage on that
survey submitted.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The survey doesn't have it. The plans do have it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: When was this garage constructed, do you know?
MR. PAWLOWSKI: The house was built --
Board of Trustees 31 December 17, 2014
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Approximately.
MR. PAWLOWSKI: The house was built in 1976. It was refaced with
a building permit, I don't know, two years ago. But the new
survey doesn't reflect the proposed garage, as of December 12th.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For the record, a certificate of occupancy was
issued for the structure on 1/28/2014, and the Building
Department has stated that they approved a garage addition on
there without requiring a Trustee review of that. Liz, can we
keep this for the file?
MS. CANTRELL: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The challenge that we have with regard to the
pool, is the code says 50 feet from the top of bank is the
setback required for a pool, and you are suggesting a pool, you
are applying for a pool that is approximately three feet from
the top of the bank. That is quite a bit different from what the
code states.
MR. PAWLOWSKI: I thought the concern was high water mark, high
tide, along with the natural buffer.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, it's top of bank, also. It's top of bank for this.
MR. PAWLOWSKI: I was not aware of that, so I apologize for not
knowing that rule. As far as the pool itself, I'm proposing only
a four -foot deep pool. There won't be any sort of erosion
problems, settling problems. It's going on grade on a current
flat surface. I think you saw it during your field visit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But the challenge that the Trustees have, from
an engineering perspective, when you take a 10x20 foot pool and
four -foot depth of water plus the construction materials
required for the pool, that's a tremendous load to place into
the ground. And what you are asking to do is put that load three
feet from the top of the bank, and our code says 50 foot from
the top of the bank. So I'm just speaking for myself right now,
I'm not inclined to favor this pool. It's just, when our code
says 50 foot from the top of the bank and you are asking for
something that is three foot, that's too much for me. But I'm
just one Trustee.
The only other question I had, I'm trying to determine
where the pool fence is here.
MR. PAWLOWSKI: There is currently a fence which was approved, I
believe about a year ago, by the Trustees, by the Board. It
would go in the same position as the current fence, it would
just be code compliant for a pool.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You mean the pitched stockade fence?
MR. PAWLOWSKI: The stockade fence is my neighbor to the west.
And there is currently, call it a chicken wire fence that runs
along parallel with the stone work, and the hedges that are
there, just to the south of the pool, I would replace that with
a four -foot code -compliant fence. Currently it's three foot.
That was approved when I got the permit for the stonework and
the plants and that fence.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just didn't see that four foot fence in the
plans here.
Board of Trustees 32 December 17, 2014
MR. PAWLOWSKI: It's on the survey.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Right here (indicating).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
MR. PAWLOWSKI: As far as mitigating the load, you know, I would
put the pool right next to the house and then put the patio
further to the south. There is a house there that is only 25
feet away from the top of bank, which is probably similar
engineering weight distribution.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: When I look at the survey, you are proposing
the pool obviously to the left of the masonry patio that you
have. But you kind of have an "L" shaped house. If you have a
pool to the right, that will pull the pool a considerable distance away
from the bluff. Do you want me to show you what I mean?
MR. PAWLOWSKI: I understand what you are saying. I have a
limited amount of space in the rear part of the property, as you
saw, as the pictures show. So I'm not opposed to, again, putting
that anywhere into the rear yard with the least impact on the
top of bank. So if it has to be switched to the right side ten
feet from the easterly neighbor, I'm fine with that.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: How do we address something that there are no
new plans dictating that? We can't.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I'm looking at here, looks like the total
distance from top of bank, tell me if I'm wrong here, to the
dwelling, is 22 feet?
MR. PAWLOWSKI: That sounds accurate, yes.
TRUSTEE KING: A little more, 23, 24 feet.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: He could put the pool here, so he would be
basically pretty darn close.
MR. PAWLOWSKI: There is no getting around within the 50,
unfortunately. But I feel engineering wise, I don't foresee any
problems whatsoever with a four -foot deep pool.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Our hands are tied on this one.
MR. PAWLOWSKI: What sort of engineering problems do you
perceive?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: It's not engineering problem as much as it
is -- well, it is. But it's a code issue. Unfortunately your
house is so close to the bluff.
MR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes, there is nothing I could do. Then I would
have a code issue if I went in the front of the house and I
would never use it if we were in the front of the house.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we have a problem with the hot tub.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. What Trustee King was just saying, we
didn't have any problem with the proposed patio with hot tub on
it. Or the proposed deck, just so you know.
MR. PAWLOWSKI: So it's a code issue or engineering issue? I'm
just trying --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The code states 50 feet from the top of bluff.
The reason for that code, the rationale behind that code, where
part of it was the engineering perspective, the load, based on
the load that this, any structure would place on the bluff, and
the possible failure that would occur.
Board of Trustees 33 December 17, 2014
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: But there is no engineering that could trump
the code.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: So let me make a suggestion, because I just
don't know how this would work.
MR. PAWLOWSKI: How do you fix that?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: You don't. It is what it is. It's just
something you can't get around unless you move the house.
MR. PAWLOWSKI: And I'm just talking, so there is no pools --
TRUSTEE SANDERS: According to the code, we are not allowed pools
within 50 feet, and within the history of this, we have, correct
me if I'm wrong, allowed pools up to 35 feet in certain
circumstances. But even then you are way, you just don't have
the room. You are really limited in your ability to put a pool in.
MR. PAWLOWSKI: Absolutely. I'm aware of that. I just don't have
anywhere else to put it.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: But as they did indicate, you are good to go
with regard to the hot tub.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we could do is segment out the pool from
this application here tonight to -- and I don't want to get
ahead of ourselves here -- but to consider approval of the rest
of the application.
MR. PAWLOWSKI: I understand. So no matter what, even if I reduce
the size of the width of the pool, tight to the house, it's just
a code thing.
MS. HULSE: The way the code reads, I'll let you know, just so
it's on the record. Under 275-3, pertains to setbacks. And what
it says for setbacks, in terms of pools, is that a swimming pool
and related structures have to be 50 feet from the top of the
bluff. And that this Board can waive or alter those setbacks
only where site specific or environmental conditions justify.
That's the way the code reads.
MR. PAWLOWSKI: I appreciate that.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: That really just dictates to us our answer.
MR. PAWLOWSKI: So as far as site specific, we realize there is
nowhere else in the rear regard for a pool to go, right? And if
I was able to come back in with soil samples, an engineer's
report, would that help the situation? With the latter part of
the definition of the code, we are definitely site specific.
And, then again, I'm not, you know, I do this work for a living
but if I was able to put together substantial information to
show this would not create an environmental issue or an erosion
issue, for a potential next meeting, is that something to
consider?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't see how we could. I think any place there
would be too much of a stretch in the code. I think the closest
we've ever had was around 35 feet. That's, you know, that's
three-fifths of the code. This is down to the point -- it's more
than 90%. It's just too much.
MR. PAWLOWSKI: That's fair game. I'm just, if there was any
other pools and how they were able to make everyone happy that
Board of Trustees 34 December 17, 2014
is within this criteria, but if is there not, there is not. That's fine.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would be very reluctant to set a precedent
there of this magnitude.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I have to agree. Before I close the hearing,
let's talk language in terms of what to say regarding the hot
tub. Any discussion on the hot tub and approving it, separating
it from the current application?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think any of us have a problem with
the application as submitted, with the exception of the inground pool.
MS. HULSE: You can deny that part of the application. That's
the proper way to do it. Deny the one section that you want to
leave out.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I want to make sure I write this out right.
Are there anymore thoughts before I close the hearing?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay, I make a motion to approve this
application with the LWRP's recommendation of a non -disturbance
buffer of 25 feet in width, preserving the existing vegetation
landward from the apparent high water mark, which is indicated
on the survey dated 12 December, 2014; and deny the section of
the application for a 10'x20' inground pool.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second the motion for purpose of
discussion. Did I hear correctly, you are indicating a 25 -foot
non -disturbance?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Yes. If you take a look from the LWRP, if you
look at the survey where it says apparent high water mark, from
that point forward.
TRUSTEE KING: We have been out there before. There was a
violation here a few years ago, and that area was already
addressed. I believe it was replanted. I think we are going
places we don't need to go.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay, I was just following the LWRP suggestion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you want to withdraw the additional
condition of the 25 foot?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I withdraw that condition of the 25 foot
non -disturbance buffer. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that motion.
TRUSTEE KING: Can I get corrected on what the motion is exactly.
My understanding is we are voting to approve an 8x12 shed
trellis, install a 6'x7' inground hot tub, with a 185 square
foot patio and denying a 10'x20' pool and pool fence.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Correct.
MS. HULSE: Denying or denying without prejudice?
TRUSTEE KING: That would be denied.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the 450 square foot patio surround as
part of the pool, as part of the pool can't be --
Board of Trustees 35 December 17, 2014
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Do I need to restate that or is that okay for
him to state it and I approve it?
MR. PAWLOWSKI: The patio section would be denied?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The patio can't be that close to the bluff
either.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'd make a suggestion we re -open the public
hearing for comments. It sounds like the applicant wanted to
make comments.
MR. PAWLOWSKI: I'll pass on that. That makes sense.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: So, correction. Again, do I need to reiterate
what he just said or that's okay for the record?
MS. HULSE: That's fine.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: So the motion has been made.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The motion has been made and second,
with the clarifications so enumerated by Trustee King. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. PAWLOWSKI: Thank you, have a good night.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number eight, Michael Kimack on behalf of MIMI
COLOMBO requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing +/-24' long
wood retaining wall, 4' wide wood decking and staircase; and
replace with a proposed +/-24' long ACQ wood retaining wall with
shoreguard sheathing; proposed 4'x+/-24' thru-flow decking along
top of retaining wall; construct a 4'x60' fixed dock on 8"
diameter pilings at 8'o.c.; a 3'x16' removable aluminum ramp; a
4'x16' floating dock with a 4'x4' float extension using trex
decking; with four (4) 10" diameter pilings in two sets; overall
length of docking facility from retaining wall to be 80'.
Located: 350 Oak Street, Cutchogue.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent and
inconsistent. The construction of the 24' wood retaining wall,
the staircase and the proposed 24' long ACQ wood retaining wall,
sheathing and flow-through decking along the top of the wall is
all found to be consistent.
The inconsistency arises from the proposed action,
construction of the 4'x60' fixed dock and associated pilings and
float, the reason being the mean low water measurements at the
terminus of the dock is shown at one foot at mean low water,
which will create problems, scarring of the bottom, increased
turbidity due to prop wash, and other actions that will impact
the environment.
The CAC voted to support this application.
The Trustees did a site inspection on December 10th and the
notes indicate that the dock should be lowered, steps should be
added to the side to allow people to traverse the dock if they
are walking along during low tide, and questions the materials
on the wall. Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. KIMACK: Mike Kimack on behalf of the applicant. Good
evening. I would like to amend the application. If I may be
able to add the 8'x8' hot tub in that now exists on the deck.
That was picked up and I missed it. It should have been picked
Board of Trustees 36 December 17, 2014
up as something that has not been permitted before.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay.
MR. KIMACK: To address your concerns, the fixed dock basically
is designed at that level basically to stay out, at the same
level with the 424' being replaced to allow people to pass
underneath it. The DEC basically has a requirement that they do
not want the impediment from the high water mark landward in
order for people to pass. As you had noted when you were out
there, there were a set of stairs on the other dock next door
which had been permitted. But it also begins in a much lower
area than this one anyway. But by keeping it up at the
eight -and -a -half to nine foot level it was designed as, which
designed it, it allows people to pass underneath freely without
having to climb up stairs and go over it. It does keep it up
about three to four feet over high tide, which is a reasonable
amount of height above that. As far as the depth, basically out
there. That whole area is very shallow, as you had noted from
the bathymetrics, it goes out probably another 30 or 40 feet at
about one, one -and -a -half feet before it even begins to get
deeper. DEC code requirement is a minimum of two -and -a -half feet
at low tide, for the very reason that was stated, so there would
be no scouring on the bottom. In this particular case you'll
note on the drawings and the reason it was situated that way was
in order to have a chock system set up on both sides, both of
those ten foot diameter piers that support that dock on both
sides, one vertical and the other at an angle to it, basically
one to support the other, to fix it on both sides, to fix the
dock, also has a chock system underneath it so it doesn't touch
the bottom. It keeps them off. So the whole dock will not
settle. As far as the boat is concerned, the dock next to it,
you can see it just north of that or just the one that is drawn
out there. That one had been approved by both wetlands and also
by DEC. And pretty much under the same conditions in terms of
that one is chocked. That was replaced, it's a little wider, it
was chocked a different way, it's 6x20 foot long, the floating
dock itself. But it's in essentially the same depth of water
that this is in. And one of the reasons was that from a
construction economics point of view, it would have made no
sense to try and go out another 30-40 feet to try to hit the
two -and -a -half feet, number one because we would be probably
pretty close to the requirement of DEC of the 25%, not to
involve more than 25% of the creek from shore to shore. I know
that yours is a third, but theirs is 25. So it was really no
reason, no real capability to have to extend this out as far as
necessary to get the two -and -a -half feet depth. So I kept it in
on the design not going any further than the other dock next to
it, adjacent to it, in terms of the floating aspect.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: As a point of clarification, on the plans
received November 17th, 2014, shows handrails on both sides.
MR. KIMACK: Yes, and it was noted that apparently those
handrails can only be on one side, which I found rather
Board of Trustees 37 December 17, 2014
impractical. Apparently, but if it's code, it's code. If that's
the case, I can adjust it and take one side off. I mean if you
have kids running up and down over there, in any situation, the
code in the town is anything over 30 inches you put a rail on
it. So I don't see why that would not have basically applied to
a fixed dock situation, even more so because most docks go up
even higher. But if that's the code, I would be willing to pull
it off one side. I'll re -adjust my drawing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have for handicapped in the past --
TRUSTEE KING: If they can show the need for a second handrail,
we have approved them.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I mean, the thing here is the height. If you
had the height, maybe the handrails should be a consideration.
MR. KIMACK: I would design it on there almost under any
circumstances simply because you are walking, in anything over
30 inches, you are walking out, and kids are walking out there,
people of my age are walking out there, as Jim pointed out when
we were there. But the railings made sense to me. And I know a
lot of docks I see do not have it, and I find it, you know, more
of a necessity than perhaps a visual aspect to it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is it the sense of this Board that it's too
high?
TRUSTEE KING: It's my feeling. We have traditionally,
historically, tried keep these catwalks low, especially since we
started using the through -flow grading, because esthetically
it's much better looking. In this particular neighborhood, a
dock that high compared to the rest of the docks sticks out like
a store thumb.
MR. KIMACK: The adjacent docks are about that high, basically.
But the one up -shore which we took a look at is as equal --
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't see any docks in the area this height.
MR. KIMACK: There was one further up the stream we pointed out.
John basically noted it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was close but I don't think --
MR. KIMACK: No, it wasn't -- these stairs, it wasn't adjacent.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would agree you pointed it out but I would not
agree that we agreed it was the same height as this.
TRUSTEE KING: Typically with these water depths, we usually put
a set of stairs at the end of the dock for access rather than a
ramp and float. Because of the water depth being so low.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I believe we noted out in the field, the
dock immediately to the south, that is exactly what they have.
They have a catwalk leading to steps. I have the same concern
putting a float, even though it's engineered so it will not sit
on the bottom at low tide, it's in such a shallow depth that any
boat, the prop wash from any boat will just destroy the habitat
underneath that area. So for myself I'm just not inclined to
agree to a ramp and float. I would rather see a dock at a lower
level. Because I also agree with Trustee King as far as the
height issues go with a set of stairs at the end.
MR. KIMACK: A set of stairs at which end; at the retaining wall end?
Board of Trustees 38 December 17, 2014
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, at the seaward end so it could be used for
access into a rowboat. Or many people do that with kayaks,
rowboats, canoes, things like that.
MR. KIMACK: At what height would you recommend setting it, how
high above high water?
TRUSTEE KING: These stairs go right from the end of the dock
down to the bottom.
MR. KIMACK: Okay. Just right into the water.
TRUSTEE KING: This is typical in places like Richmond Creek and
other areas where it's very shallow.
MR. KIMACK: If you can see that floating dock we are seeing
right over there, that was taken out of that fixed dock, that
was approved by the Board. And not long ago. The guy just
finished construction.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It may have been more depth.
MR. KIMACK: It's the same depth.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The concern I have also, you are pushing the
height to justify what should probably be two rails, if it was
approved by the Board, then you can increase the pitch on the
ramp to the float and that's, it doesn't seem -- you know, they
get slippery and foggy or icy conditions even with the treads
and no skid on them, it just seems like it's counterproductive
also to personal safety where you don't have to, we have places
in town where you have the tidal waves, it becomes necessary.
But this seems like a lower alternative that Trustee King is
speaking of is the one that is most suitable to this site.
TRUSTEE KING: And that way there you don't need to use the
eight -inch piles either. You use six inch piles. And if this
was six or seven years ago the DEC would be demanding 4x4's
through the wetland. We increased that to six because we had
plenty of applications where we had to use 4x4's. And the
six-inch pile is more than sufficient through the wetland area.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to reiterate --
MR. KIMACK: Okay, if I can understand your suggestions, you want
the deck lowered to an extent that this is somewhat similar to
the one we are looking at there in terms of height, roughly?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Correct. Yes.
MR. KIMACK: And add steps at the end so it becomes a fixed dock
with a fixed set of stairs at the end.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And steps up and over on the landward end to
allow for access.
MR. KIMACK: Pretty much adjacent to the ones next door,
basically.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: For us the issue is the operation of a motorized
vessel. You understand that you addressed in your pilings that
are off the float, that chocks keep the float from impacting the
bottom, but that's not where the inconsistency is. The
inconsistency is the mean low water measurements at the terminus
of the dock shown between one foot operation of a motorized
vehicle to and from the dock will result in scouring of the
Board of Trustees 39 December 17, 2014
bottom and turbidity and so on and so forth.
MR. KIMACK: If I extend the dock out there will still be a
motorized vehicle sitting at one foot. I mean on a fixed dock,
basically. As a matter of fact I probably would not have to put
the stairs on the end, just run the fixed dock out there. It
would be run the fixed dock out perhaps another ten feet or so.
Because one foot runs out pretty consistently and I can't stop
it. And just put it at a depth they get to their boat either at
low tide or high tide.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The other thing to take into consideration with
that proposal is the pier line, and if that results in the dock
extending out beyond the pier line, that's an issue that would
have be addressed.
MR. KIMACK: That further pier line there, which is a floating
dock line, basically, is about the 80 foot line, which would be
the total. In essence what I'm may probably take a look at,
I'll take a look at my soundings again, but if I have to do a
fixed dock I'll probably run it out so the 16 or 21 -foot boat,
whatever they plan to put in there, would be somewhat within the
one -foot line when you pull it out at the end of the fixed dock,
basically. Their only thing would be, they would have to get to
it depending on whether it's low tide or high tide. But I would
have to set that at least maybe one foot, one -and -one-half foot
above high tide so that it would be acceptable, maybe even two
foot above high tide so the boat could be moored, up and down.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know there are moorings out there in this area
of the creek, and the option of having a mooring out there with
a boat and a mooring and then you have a small vessel, rowboat,
whatever, from the dock, you gain access to a mooring.
MR. KIMACK: It's a little tough to get to, Dave. The area you
can see, we were at pretty high tide right there when we walked
up the side.
TRUSTEE KING: While you bring that up, it was a very high tide.
You can see that that lower dock to the left still has plenty of
clearance to water. It's not like it's getting flooded, even
though it's low.
MR. KIMACK: I'm just thinking in terms, I'll take a look at the
high settings to see if we are going to moor a boat next to it
basically, and I have to make sure we have enough height
sufficient to put a boat next to it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I'm suggesting is apply for a mooring spot
out in the creek someplace where you have plenty of depth so you
don't have to worry about low tide and prop wash.
Before we leave the dock, though, I had a question about the
retaining wall. Most retaining walls approved nowadays are vinyl.
MR. KIMACK: This is vinyl faced.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is vinyl?
MR. KIMACK: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, I thought it was wood.
MR. KIMACK: The reason it's 6x6 design, which is there now
obviously, and vinyl faced, is in order to support the walkway
Board of Trustees 40 December 17, 2014
on top for the fasteners and something like that, if you look at
the design that is put together, you'll see 6x6 instead of 16
inches on center, parallel to the front face in order to secure
the eight screws fastener points for the through -flows on the top.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Going back to the dock, if you are pushing for
a mooring, Dave, then the utility of the owners of the, or the
applicant, is limited. The utility, their ability to just get
to their boat is really limited.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, what I'm saying is you go out the catwalk to
a dinghy and you take the dinghy out to your boat in a mooring.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: That's my point. They have the ability for a
dock. And putting them on a dinghy, it just takes away the
utility of it. It's a pain to get to your boat.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But I'm thinking from an environmental
perspective. This is the challenge brought up in the LWRP
inconsistency, that the challenge of the prop wash causing
environmental damage to the bottom. So what I'm suggesting, to
avoid that, and to address the inconsistency, is you have your
boat, the option of having your boat at a mooring offshore, then
you go down to your dock, get in a dinghy and go out to your boat.
I guess I still have a question about the retaining wall,
because what I see and the plans looks like as described here,
20 -foot long wood retaining wall.
MR. KIMACK: 24 foot.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sorry?
MR. KIMACK: 24.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In the description it's plus or minus 24 -foot
long ACQ retaining wall with Shore Guard sheathing. And I'm just
wondering why don't you just put essentially a vinyl retaining
wall all along there.
MR. KIMACK: Because the walkway on top is four foot, basically.
So in order to support the four foot, in order to carry the
through -flow on top, as you come back with your tie backs, the
top row of tie backs come back on six sixes, are set so that
they basically screw down the through -flows, and they hold the
through -flows down.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Shore Guard, the sheathing, is that the
corrugated type we see on bulkheading or is that smooth?
MR. KIMACK: It's corrugated.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm not seeing that on the plans here. The
cross-sectional which shows this dock, the start of the dock --
MR. KIMACK: Did I miss putting it on the cross-sectional?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe it's not labeled as such.
TRUSTEE KING: Everything is shown 6x6 pressure treated lumber.
MR. KIMACK: I thought I noted the fact there was Shore Guard on
front, in the detail.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The dimension of it looks like it might be
something that is about an inch -and -a -half thick, if that's the
44 members making up the ACQ with the retaining wall. The Shore
Guard is a typical, corrugated -- is almost four inches. The
corrugation is almost four inches.
Board of Trustees 41 December 17, 2014
MR. KIMACK: The Shore Guard is generally about a two inch, the
one we'll be using, on a thin basis.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mr. Kimack, would you consider going back to the
drawing board and coming up with some --
MR. KIMACK: Do I have a choice?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Some plans that might --
MR. KIMACK: What I'm trying to do is appease the owner here, who
desired a dock similar to the one next door, is my task as hand.
Your directions to me is to consider doing a fixed dock at a
lower height, at a point that I may be able to go out there, and
run it out, and perhaps use that as the attachment for whatever
boat we can put out there. And the one foot one level. Because
the mooring point, you know, then I get into the DEC, I'm not
quite sure -- we would have to go out there quite a ways. Then
I'm past the 25% point with the mooring point for the DEC. So
I'm stuck both ways.
TRUSTEE KING: The DEC doesn't require anything for a mooring.
MR. KIMACK: They give you 25% to take up of the cross-section of
your channel, basically. So the mooring, in order to hit the
two -and -a -half foot line would have to be out there considerably further.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Our understanding is the DEC does not have a
problem with moorings out in, approved moorings out in creeks.
Again, in this creek, versus winter time where you can't see
them, but there are moorings out there for other boats.
MR. KIMACK: I mean, if you looked at the drawing, just as an
indication, I went out 30 feet when we were doing the shots. And
the water depth at that point is only a foot -and -a -half. 30 feet
in front of the 80 feet.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's actually a little less than that if you do
the scale, from what you submitted to us. But I was asking you
if you would consider that because there is legitimate concerns
that the Board has, and we do have to address the inconsistency
in any motion that we make. We are not allowed to violate the code.
MR. KIMACK: I understand. Okay, from the sound of it, I'll have
to resubmit another drawing. If I can ask that you would table
this until I can get my information together.
TRUSTEE KING: Have you applied to the DEC yet on this?
MR. KIMACK: I have, with the same set of drawings. It's in
motion. It's pending. You never know with DEC. It's a crap shoot.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments?
(No response).
Any other comments?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I have one other comment. My goal was to
try to mitigate the environmental concerns with the utility for the
owners. That's what I was trying to get at, to marry those two
so that the homeowners can actually enjoy their property, and
the environment can be protected.
MR. KIMACK: Am I correct in understanding if I correct the
drawing on the retaining wall showing vinyl, that would be okay?
The retaining wall is not an issue?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It was pointed out it as far as the vinyl --
Board of Trustees 42 December 17, 2014
MR. KIMACK: It always was intended to be that way. I know the
description basically indicates that. The description indicates
the Shore Guard on it. It was just not indicated on that. I can
correct that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The applicant already enjoys access to the
public waters by the fact of having waterfront property. The
proposal, it's a private dock on public waters. So it's our job
to safeguard the environment.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I agree with you it's our job to.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to make a motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I would like to finish my statement first,
because now it's still open. I understand it's our job to
protect the environment but I also would like the ability for
people, just because somebody owns a waterfront property,
doesn't immediately mean they can enjoy it. They enjoy the
view. But if they have the ability to have a dock and it's not
an environmental impact, then I have no desire to deny that.
That's the point I'm trying to make.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I suggest you read the code. I would like tc
make a motion to table this.
MR. KIMACK: Everyone else has a dock.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next item, Michael Kimack on behalf of
TREASURE ISLAND COVE, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for the
construction of a two-story (768sq.ft. 1st floor & 1,536sq.ft.
2nd floor) dwelling; with a 768sq.ft. first floor exterior
covered area; and a first floor 240sq.ft. exterior covered
breezeway; construct a 756sq.ft. garage; install a 396sq.ft.
sitting area; construct a f528sq.ft. covered terrace; construct
a 7,564sq.ft. tennis court; a 480sq.ft. tennis viewing area;
install 1,510sq.ft. of walkways; construct a t3,320sq.ft. auto
court; and install a septic system and storm water management
system. Located: 14911 Main Road, East Marion.
The Board has been to this site for field inspection and
has been the subject also of inspection by myself and the town
engineer to address concerns of cut and scrape operation that
was underway to construct a temporary road for construction
purposes. The application has been considered consistent with
the LWRP. The CAC supports the application. However the concern
is adequate sanitary system the site plan does not indicate what
materials will be used for the driveway. And the Board did
discuss the wetland issues on December 12th with Mr. Kimack and
he flagged the wetlands and we expressed our concerns for the
largely Baccharus, largely the high tide bush, the Baccharus
exists in the area of the existing access and the south side of
the lot adjacent to Dam Pond.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
Board of Trustees 43 December 17, 2014
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. I would
like to amend the description. The exterior covered area of 768
square feet and the first floor exterior covered breezeway is
now enclosed and conditioned.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So the amendment is that there is no
exterior covered breezeway.
MR. KIMACK: Correct. And there is no exterior covered area on
the design, on the first floor. Originally half of the first
floor of this 24'x64' building, half of the lower floor was
open, adjacent to the breezeway, which was also open. And we
discovered that that would have been considered an open
breezeway that would not be required having an opening more than
80 square feet, unless we have to go back for a zoning variance.
So we decided to close it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We'll omit that entire with the 768 square
foot covered area and 240 square foot breezeway, that particular
phrase omitted from the application. That is going to be an
enclosed area of the same square footage?
MR. KIMACK: Yes. The square footage has not changed. It will be
an enclosed condition, in order to meet the ZBA terms.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So it's 768 square foot enclosed area
MR. KIMACK: Right. And part of it is, adjacent to it, is the
enclosed breezeway. And conditioned. I know it sounds a little
confusing but that's the way the architecture worked out on this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For the purpose of discussion here, someone
has made a copy of the Town Code on the, with respect to common
driveway access out of the Town Code.
MR. KIMACK: I did. Because to take you back in the history of
this, we started with the Planning Commission on this particular
application. Originally this was a minor subdivision in 1980 of
four lots with five appending lots to it. One of them being Dam
Pond, the other on the other side. And the owners of this wanted
to merge it into two lots. And when we went to the Planning
Commission we were informed at that particular time, under the
definition of "common driveway," that there could be no more
than two lots to a private drive. This particular subdivision
that was done in 1980 had a corridor already situated for an
entrance from the Main Road into the property, about 28.96 line,
about 360 feet long. It happened to be adjacent to and just
northerly of the existing driveway that serves the Barhoff
property which is to the west. When this was established, as
best that I could gather from the data that I have on short
notice, the Barhoff driveway had been utilized by the existing
home that is now under reconstruction, now for probably a number
of years. When the new subdivision was established in 1980, with
the new corridor to serve those four lots, nothing was ever
done, so therefore the road was never constructed within the
corridor. Planning, the only condition that Planning put on us
when we went to the hearing, is they had a concern about
another, adding an additional road cut into the main road
between two existing driveways. We were able to, because there
Board of Trustees 44 December 17, 2014
was an existing right-of-way to the driveway east that we had on
there, that we were able to maintain a right-of-way connection
to that driveway. So you'll see I'm going to hand you out a
drawing to that effect. You'll see that there are two separate
driveways with one entrance. So we were able to accommodate
Planning by not having three cuts next to each other in close
proximity, but really moving one over and making a rather sharp
turn back in, we would wind it to that particular point.
We were standing -- we had three inches of rain the day
before. To give you an idea, the corridor is roughly 360 foot in
length. It's 28.96 foot wide. And you are correct in terms of
what is there. That rope down there behind my little red car
there is Baccharus. That's the biggest stand on there. There is
some other small growth of Baccharus along that way, here and
there. The other -- of course this place has been mowed, so it's
been cut down. But we went out there and we took a look at what
else existed on the site in terms of plantings. And there were,
you can find toward the driveway and toward the east side over
there, there was an area of growth of emerging Baccharus that
probably, maybe about a foot or 18 inches high. And then walking
up through there, you would see, singularly, here and there,
probably more low -bush blueberry. But not in clumps. But coming
up in little spots here and there. And every once in a while,
occasionally some bayberry. The predominant growth in this area
probably attributing to, probably of the 11,600 square feet from
the road up to, if you make the turn and go up to the 100 foot
boundary, which is the wetland boundary, probably 80% of it is
upland grasses. There is rye grass there, there's switch grass
and there is course fescue that makes up most of it. However,
having said that, there is obviously some wetland growth in
there, some wetland plants, things like that. What we've
proposed, there is one for everybody.
(Handing).
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Excuse me.
MS. HULSE: One second, sir. You have to be recognized by the
Chair.
MR. KIMACK: What you are looking at there is the driveway that
had been on all the prior drawings, and the one approved by the
Planning Commission and everyone else, the area of disturbance
of the proposed driveway, it's a 12' wide driveway. It runs
approximately the length of approximately 360 feet up to the
wetland corridor turn there. The disturbance area, figuring
about a 20' wide disturbance area, about 12 foot on both sides
of it, is about 7,300 square feet. Of that 7,300 square feet,
about three quarters of that 7,300 square feet are the upland
grasses. And then I'm not, I know I'm being conservative, but
the rest are made up of the predominantly the Baccharus, and to
some smaller extent the blueberry, and to an even smaller extent
the bayberry.
What we propose here is to replant at least 8,000 square
feet on both sides. We can transplant the Baccharus that is
Board of Trustees 45 December 17, 2014
there now. It's a fairly immature plant but it actually
transplants fairly well, fairly easily. That we would restore
8,000 square feet of area on both sides of the road, and also
the area on the bottom of the property right there.
TRUSTEE KING: This proposed driveway, where is the existing
driveway that we are standing on now?
MR. KIMACK: Just south of it. See the dotted line, Jim.
TRUSTEE KING: The dotted line. So essentially you'll still have
two driveways paralleling each other.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Until they break off.
MR. KIMACK: The owner doesn't -- even though it was a driveway
of convenience, that driveway is not on the owner's property nor
does he have a right-of-way or easement to it.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there any way that could take place?
MR. KIMACK: I don't believe so.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Have you attempted that?
Have you pursued that?
TRUSTEE KING: Just a second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know this gentleman has been waiting to speak.
TRUSTEE KING: He's been waiting a long time.
MR. CAMPBELL: My name is Carl Campbell, I'm here on behalf of my
parents who live just to the east of this property. And I'm
concerned about the discrepancy in this drawing, if it's the
same one that we were sent. It shows that right-of-way at the
foot of our road. And this right-of-way is actually owned by
four of the property owners, all to the east of their property.
And, taxes are paid on it. It's maintained privately.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just for clarification, you are referring to a
right-of-way, is the right-of-way you are referring to their
proposed driveway, or is the right-of-way you are referring to
the current road being used?
MR. CAMPBELL: If I could show you the existing roadway on the
site plan we were given, I would be happy to clarify that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would be great.
MR. CAMPBELL: This is the drawing we were sent. The proposed
site plan, is that the most current one?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: December 16th this is dated. Is there a
date on this?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: This is August 18th, 2013. The one we have is
December 16th.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's revised November 14th.
MR. CAMPBELL: The concerns I have are basically the same. The
area here, where the proposed driveway ties in to the existing
road there, what they call on this drawing a right-of-way, is a
right-of-way for the owners of this property, this property,
this one and this one. It is actually owned, deeded to this
group of four people. And they pay taxes on it as well as
maintain the road.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Now you are suggesting it's not deeded into
your right-of-way; that section there is not for them?
MR. CAMPBELL: That's absolutely correct. I have a survey of the
Board of Trustees 46 December 17, 2014
Campbell lot here that was done in 1972, and unlike the more
recent drawing, it does not have a line across here indicating
that the right-of-way is just this area. The right-of-way
actually is this small road here, and an additional right-of-way
that goes to Dam Pond. This same group of people owns the bottom
of Dam Pond, and pays tax on it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That portion of the pond was excavated back
in the day by Latham Sand & Gravel, but not necessarily all
portions of the pond.
MR. CAMPBELL: That's correct, yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Can we take maybe a five-minute recess.
Trustee King had to leave, he's having trouble. Just take a five
minute recess.
(After a recess, these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Let's go back on the record at this point.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mr. Campbell, I'm very sorry, but I'm trying to
understand this survey. If you could help me out. This is the
one you just presented to us.
MR. CAMPBELL: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: VanTuyl survey, 1972. You have Main Road here
and Main Road up here.
MR. CAMPBELL: This is two views here. The same diamond-shaped
lot.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I see. This is a smaller scale version. Okay,
now I understand.
MR. CAMPBELL: Yes. In talking to these two gentlemen, they tell
me that originally their lots over here had a right-of-way, if I
understand correctly. That very recently they have given up
their right-of-way to this portion. Which I don't know to be
true or not. What I do know to be true is that for approximately
the last 40 years this lot and house, this house, the one that
is situated here and the one that is situated here, have paid
all the taxes and maintenance and upkeep on this road the entire
time. We see no evidence that it was ever connected. There is a
natural barricade across here.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's not entirely relevant to what we are
seeing here, taxes and other things. If there is something about
the construction as it relates to the wetland, of which the
Board has many concerns, that would be another concern that
maybe you would be able to address, outside of this context with
the gentleman that might be here or represent --
MR. CAMPBELL: My concerns --
MS. HULSE: Mr. Campbell, can I request you to go back to the
microphone so the stenographer and audience can hear you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You can take these, unless you are submitting
these to us.
MR. CAMPBELL: I don't have a copy, and that is mine, this is
yours.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: These are yours. Thank you.
MR. CAMPBELL: I do have some other questions though.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure.
Board of Trustees 47 December 17, 2014
MR. CAMPBELL: One of the reasons 1 think it might be relevant
is that I'm not certain they have the ability to actually cut
into that driveway, that road right there. I don't believe they
have a deed to do so. And I can certainly speak that they have
never maintained their portion of it, if they did.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Again, that's not really anything this Board
is empowered to address, unless I stand corrected by our
attorney. The Board's concerns deal with a Wetland Code that
sets specific provisions for protecting wetlands. Now, I believe
it is the Board's understanding, based on our field inspection,
that the creation of a proposed driveway does go over a portion
of your mom's or your property as has been applied for, and
that's the area of particular concern by the Board, because of
after the heavy rain but also we know high tides now are more
prevalent in Dam Pond throughout the year, and that the marsh
fringe, if you will, is going back up, in other words restoring
itself into the uplands. So I think those are primary issues
that the Board has to deal with.
MR. CAMPBELL: If I could address two other items. One of those
being an equal concern. If you look at the way they show their
tie in to the existing road, that right-of-way area, it shows a
hooking back up to the north, which would allow somebody coming
out of the large house under construction now to come down
there, turn north and go back up along my parents' house. I
think if they have indeed turned that deed over and relinquished
their rights to the property, we would rather not see that hook
there, for one.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I think that's outside of our --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It is within our jurisdiction in the
wetland, and that was --
MR. CAMPBELL: As far as the water supply goes, if you look at
the road they proposed, they incorporated a number of drywells,
that are ten feet in diameter, two feet deep, down in the lower
section, and one concern I have with that is that in a high tide
or a storm, the salt water does come up into that area and the
intent of those drywells would be to retain the water until it
can seep down into the soil, which with the very shallow aquifer
in that area we could have some contamination of the freshwater
supply.
I'm not sure if the drawing you just have received shows
those drywells.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: What plan are you working from?
MR. CAMPBELL: See these circles in the driveway, those are all
ten -foot in diameter by two -foot deep drywells.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is anyone's drinking water in the vicinity
of these drywells?
MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, there is a well -- if I could approach again
-- not too far away. Campbell. Our well is approximately right
there. And if you look at the contour lines you'll see there is
only two feet apart, I believe, elevation wise, between the
surface of the soil there, where the well goes down, and that
Board of Trustees 48 December 17, 2014
point.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's hard -- well, without knowing the
direction of groundwater flow, I think to make a definitive --
because of the irregular shape of Dam Pond, even though your
family homestead is at higher elevation, the soils in that area
and the irregular shape of the pond, without a study we would
not really know if those drywells are contributing or not.
Obviously we are having regular saltwater inundation because the
Baccharus is thick enough, it will grow, it's facultative. It
will grow in the middle of the town but to have pure stands of
it, it requires either salt spray or emerging. So there is
already some burden there of salt. But the point of the
drywells is well taken. As far as the engineering aspects of the
road, maybe an alternative -- pervious materials are still going
to load the groundwater table up at that point. The Trustees usually
don't encourage putting a macab or blacktop or impervious
material because that creates other problems as far as runoff,
and also if the tide is high enough to overtop a road that is
constructed hard, it would dam up saltwater still closer to your
well with no relief. So I think there is a lot of issues going
on here, particularly, obviously protecting wells from saltwater
is a concern of the Board.
MR. CAMPBELL: I agree that we don't know enough about it at this
point, but I think before we proceeded with something like that
it would be imperative to do a full survey of the aquifer and
make certain we are not creating one. There are no alternatives
for water there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There are no alternatives for water in
General, when you talk about Orient, but probably the Dam
Pond area, the way it's constructed, may be more heavily
constrained than even mainland Orient.
MR. CAMPBELL: Exactly. I just think it's such a heavy potential
with that number of drywells put there, their sole purpose to
retain the water as opposed to allowing it at least to follow
the contour of the hill and go back to Dam Pond.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This application is getting more complex as
we discuss it, with more and more concerns. And some of them are
beyond our purview, so we can't discuss them, but they might be
amenable to further discussion. I know I'm speaking probably for
the majority of the Board here, the concern that we thought one
unified driveway would be best, the question is it's prohibited
by code, is it time to look at this in terms of maybe talking to
the adjacent landowners and approach to the ZBA to try make
something that will work for the next 80 to 100 years, because
the Dam Pond has that low berm that is currently protecting it,
those berms are settling, the high tides are getting higher,
there may be mutual interest here, it's a difficult thing, but
there is a lot of stuff going on here. Maybe this is a case
where we should encourage a tabling of the application for Mr.
Campbell to talk to you; you know, the circumstances are unique,
it's a complex issue, and there are wetlands involved.
Board of Trustees 49 December 17, 2014
MR. KIMACK: May I address some of the concerns that came up?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Absolutely.
MR. KIMACK: We can provide Mr. Campbell with the deeds that
indicate that particular minor subdivision had the right-of-way that is
along the existing road right now, that we gave up a major portion of
it to save the lower section where we had to make the connection.
I think his concern was it was originally owned by those
four lots, and he was not aware, and we'll make him aware of the
fact that there is in fact, there was in fact a right-of-way
that went along that existing road, that was meant and intended
to cut through the four lots, to the southern end of the two
northern lots, and the northern end of the two southern lots.
And that right-of-way was given up all the way back down to the
connection. As far as that hook back is concerned, we can take
the hook out. That's not a big issue.
As far as the inground storm water, that is a requirement
of the Storm Water Management that no water leaves. And the
Storm Water Management Plan has been approved by the town for
both properties, because it was combined property. That was a
requirement of the calculations.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That said, calculations being what they are,
as far as engineered solutions because of concerns of saltwater
intrusion and maintaining the healthy wetlands, I'm sure the
Engineering Department and our town engineer, who is extremely
well versed in environmental issues, we might be able to provide
the accommodations to meet the calculations and address some of
the concerns of Mr. Campbell and your needs for proper access. I
think that is probably the least of the issues that we would
have. I think the Baccharus issue and how much wetlands we'll
lose in this or -- sorry, go ahead.
MR. KIMACK: Well, two points. Number one, you had some concern
about whether it was a paved driveway or a stone driveway. Storm
Water Management doesn't look at it any differently anymore. And
the reason they don't is whether you are doing a paved driveway,
which is obviously impervious from the start, which is always an
extra calculation, they now include even if you are stoning a
driveway, because you have to put down at least four inches of
RCA underneath it. That RCA really works as an impervious
layer. So whether it is stoned or not stoned, from that
perspective, the calculation for the amount of drainage you
would need would be exactly the same. So I don't know whether or
not the decision had been made to pave this or not pave this,
but if it was a concern of the Board that it left stones, that
would be something we would take up. But from the calculations
as far as Storm Water Management is concerned, it makes no
difference. We would not change the location or the size of the
operation of the storm water management system.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Here is what I'm hearing from Mr. Campbell,
and knowing from personal experience because I lived in Orient
since I was since I was 14, and I'm 65, 64, is if we have an
overtopping event of Dam Pond, which has concerned four times in
Board of Trustees 50 December 17, 2014
the last five or six years, if the road construction as it
stands is, with road drains but a hard surface, and the
elevation necessary to keep it from flooding regularly, to
provide safe access for residents, there will be repeatedly
times when saltwater goes up the Campbell's lawn and has no way
of receding, and it appears that it will saturate the ground
there. And that tells me maybe there has to be outlets or a
different road construction standard, a different approach to
it, because of these concerns, absent a detailed ground water
flow study. Because we can't approve stuff and all of a sudden
find Mr. Campbell's well went saline and he has no alternatives.
MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you. That's exactly what we are looking for.
MR. KIMACK: We can keep the proposed driveway at the same height
as the other existing driveway for Barhoff, so there would not
be any issue. So any over -flooding would -- Barhoff's driveway
would be, if we keep the same height, basically, all across
there, it would not be a problem with the over -flooding because
it would come back again.
MR. CAMPBELL: Well, with the drywells --
MS. HULSE: Sir, it's not appropriate for you to respond to Mr.
Kimack's comments.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Before Mr. Campbell spoke, I had asked a
question, were there any attempts to solve this right-of-way
issue so we might not have to consider this road within the wetlands.
MR. JANNUZZI: Good evening, members of the Board. David
Jannuzzi, I'm the counsel for Pablo Solomay who is the managing
member of the Dome Luca and Treasure Island entities. We got
involved I guess about a year -and -a -half ago with this property.
At that time we had reached out to Mr. Barhoff unsuccessfully to
have negotiations, to talk about finalizing of the right-of-way
that was there. Mr. Barhoff owns I believe it's two lots to the
west of our lot. So we were unable to actually even get a call
back from his side. And I did write letters to them as well.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could rephrase the question. Since last
week when this was brought, this issue was brought to the
Trustees in the field inspections, has there been any attempt to
work this out at all?
MR. JANNUZZI: With Mr. Barhoff?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If he's involved, or with anybody involved.
MR. JANNUZZI: There has been no involvement with him.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Has there been any attempts since last week to
make any contact?
MR. JANNUZZI: We were operating under the idea, the Planning
Board says no, we don't want this to serve. That's why we
submitted the letter from the Planning Board.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So your answer to my question then is, again,
what we did out in the field, is we pointed out to Mr. Kimack
this problem. And we said could you please get in touch with the
owner of this road prior to coming to this hearing tonight to
see if anything possible -- I'm not an attorney -- if anything
possible, legally, could be worked out for this one road. That's
Board of Trustees 51 December 17, 2014
why I ask has there been that attempt to reach out to this
gentleman in the last week.
MR. JANNUZZI: We have a 1(718) number, is the extent, apart from
where I can send the letters. And I did put a call in last week,
but no calls were returned. And that kind of replicates what
had happened a year or so before when we had first approached
this. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For myself, I agree with the comment that was
made earlier by Trustee Bredemeyer that this has become more
complicated. There are more issues involved with this than
think anybody envisioned. For me, again, going back and looking
at this in the field, plus looking at the pictures here tonight,
plus looking at the diagrams that have been submitted, to me,
clearly, the proposed road is in the wetland. And it even says
so in your planting plan. It shows it right in the middle of
the wetland. That is a serious issue for the Trustees.
And so what we discussed out in the field was, (a), to
either work something out with the owner of the property so that
could be addressed, so it's just one singular road; or (b), you
come up with some plan where wetlands are reestablished or
established in another area to offset the wetlands that are
going to be lost here with this.
So I would suggest -- and now you've also heard issues
tonight about the groundwater concerns. So my suggestion is you
take this information back and think about this, that we table
this, it gives you the opportunity to go back and think about
this and maybe come forward with another set of plans that might
address the groundwater concerns that Mr. Campbell has talked
about, and the concerns the Trustees talked about, about a
second road being constructed right through a wetland area.
MR. KIMACK: I'll respectfully submit that. Based upon the
Planning requirements we have no choice but to be in that
singular location with the road for two lots.
TRUSTEE KING: You mean the Planning Board says you have to put a
road in for those two lots?
MR. KIMACK: Their requirements are no more than two lots be
served by a common driveway. That's why I gave you the common
driveway definition. That's what we were working off of.
TRUSTEE KING: When I saw this common driveway definition, it
means to me that not more than two lots can share a common
driveway. How do they do it up on the Sound where we have
subdivisions of four and five lots with one driveway going into them.
MR. KIMACK: I have no idea.
TRUSTEE KING: It's kind of a conflicting issue, in my mind.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: When was this before the Planning Board; the
issue of the driveway, was that before the Planning Board when
it was a nine -lot subdivision?
MR. KIMACK: It was really a four -lot subdivision with four tax
lots, one of them being Dam Pond itself, with the other spit on
the side of the land. We took it back and we merged it back to
two lots. And in that particular case we were informed we could
Board of Trustees 52 December 17, 2014
not exceed, because the Barhoffs, the driveway that now serves
it, would have been three, because it serves Barhoffs as well
as the two lots. And we were informed that we needed to stay
within our own properties in order to bring the road in. Which
we did. We adhered to it all the way through the process.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So you sought and obtained approval from
Planning Board for this project that included this proposed driveway.
MR. KIMACK: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And when was that done, approximately?
MR. KIMACK: A couple of months ago. June. They finalized.
would like to reiterate one other point, when you indicated come
back with another plan, but I did want to point out to you, we
are, our proposal would disturb 7,300 square feet. But of that
7,300 square feet, literally three quarters of it is not wetland
material. It's all upland grasses. What we hopefully will be
able to achieve here is if we can reestablish more wetland
plants that now, that now exist in that particular location, by
replanting it to whatever you would like us to replant to in
that area, whether it's replacing bayberry with blueberry and
however much Baccharus you want in there. But it would be a much
hardier and more mature and more diverse wetland area,
surprisingly, with the road, than exists without the road.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This planting plan that I'm looking at from
Michael Bouchette, do you have DEC permission for this plan?
MR. KIMACK: For the planting plan?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This planting plan through the wetlands.
MR. KIMACK: We had not had to go back -- this only occurred from
last Wednesday, that you talked to us. The answer is if I have
to amend that permit, I can go back and amend that permit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Also, we did flag the property, and the
flagging represents the Board's view of what are the wetlands on
the site, so that as you go forward and we review this, the
Trustees' wetland line should be on here. I don't think any of
us have a problem with the flagged wetland edge in Dam Pond, but
clearly this is an adjacent area that includes significant
wetlands, and the line we proposed is adjunctive to, doesn't
necessarily replace, the notion with the previous flagging line
that I think was done by Rob Herrmann. But this really takes
into account the current vegetation as it stands, and it should
appear on all future plans that are dealing with this project.
Also, I would definitely note for the record, that you will
not get high bush blueberry to live in this site. I cultured
them for the last 35, 40 years. They are not salt tolerant.
Bayberry, yes. It's a possibility. But there is a reason why the
Baccharus is there. But certainly the grasses are very resistant
and are getting a good dose of freshwater. I think you would be
wasting your client's money to invest in the high bush
blueberry. They would be much better for the surround of it in,
for some of your purposes such as tennis courts or house where
they would survive and be trappers and be beneficial, but not here.
MR. KIMACK: But there are emerging blue bush, low -bush blueberry
Board of Trustees 53 December 17, 2014
coming up in there, some, in that area. Would you think that
low -bush would be able to survive?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't believe either -- I'm just offering
it up, I don't think either would be. Unless, I mean the
immature Baccharus in the early stages --
MR. KIMACK: No, we did see emerging blueberry, and some emerging
bayberry. Granted, the predominant was Baccharus.
Both emerging and --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm not going to quibble.
MR. KIMACK: But what we did, basically, when I looked at your
line, we didn't have a chance to re -stake it between last
Wednesday and this meeting, we just assumed that the property
line, we assumed that within that flagged area, and we assumed
all of that would be replanted. And it's probably pretty close
to your line. Your line may be actually over on the other
property, I'm not quite sure. Which we have no control over.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Notwithstanding the fact that you didn't get a
return call from the (718) number, I would suggest, tell the
applicant to make a renewed effort to do something in that
regard. There is an existing road, it's already damaged.
think that's the way to go.
MR. CAMPBELL: If I may --
TRUSTEE SANDERS: At this point he can't use that road. I may be
mistaken, he can't use that road because of what you just
brought up; is that correct?
MR. KIMACK: That's correct. That's our understanding from
Planning. I mean, you guys are putting us between a rock and a
hard spot on this one.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, sir?
MR. CAMPBELL: In the approximately 42 years we lived in that
house, that house has always used the road that they are now
unable to use. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The name
of the road that we use is private road number eight. Officially.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't believe we have enough to move this.
We don't have a wetland line on our plan. We have heard issues
raised during the public hearing that I think would be better
addressed outside the public hearing. I believe that concerns
surrounding water quality and protected water well quality are,
can be addressed possibly through revisiting and discussion with
the town engineers. It would be helpful to get a Trustee member
present, myself, or any other Trustee would be glad to sit in on
that and try to work some kind of accommodation out for a revised
plan; if we are truly locked in, through a prior Planning Board
decisions that we have, you know, dissolved certain rights and
rights of way, whatever, I guess the Board will have to honor
and move ahead with a planting plan that would preserve and
enhance and maybe replace those wetlands that are going to be
lost. But I think we are way ahead of that now. I don't think we
have enough information, we don't have enough information on the
plan to do that.
Board of Trustees 54 December 17, 2014
So my recommendation would be, now, that this be tabled.
I'll make that in the form of a motion. But I don't want to
close out any additional comment the Board members may have or
Mr. Campbell might have. And I see a gentleman putting his hand
up.
MR. MURRAY: My name is Nick Murray, I'm a representative of the
owner, project manager for the construction project. Just as an
issue of clarity for your suggestion of reestablishing the
wetlands, would that be a technical reestablishment of re -grading
and to address the soil characteristics, et cetera, or would a
simple replanting of riparian plants address your needs?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That is purely hypothetical. We have to
deal with the plans. But generally speaking the Board likes to
create non -turf or non -disturbance buffers, and since the site
wants to grow Baccharus anyway, I don't know how the Board
feels, possibly just leaving, during construction, leaving that
alone. I think it's premature getting into that discussion
because we don't know where the road also might be at this
point. We don't have our wetland line there, so we don't have a
calculation of how many square feet of wetland are involved with
that.
MR. MURRAY: Okay, well, if I'm to direct the architects to
create plans, then I would need to know are they to plan to
replant or plan to regrade, et cetera. So.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Usually, I'm not speaking for the DEC, but when
they find an area that has been disturbed, or someone proposes
to disturb, they usually require a harsh ratio in terms of
mitigation: Three acres mitigated someplace else, to one acre
disturbed. And this is going to have to get DEC blessing, I
would think.
MR. KIMACK: It already has DEC's blessing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I asked that before.
MR. KIMACK: Well, I should have probably been a little more
clear on this. We applied for and received from DEC a permit for
both lots together, both Dome Luca and Treasure Island Cove was a
combined DEC. And we got a jurisdiction and non jurisdiction and
on the map was a road extension like that. And they declared
that up to the ten -foot line on the lower section, the ten -foot
elevation line, which is about 15 feet below the end of the
thing is non jurisdiction, as far as they're concerned.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's confusing it. Ordinarily the DEC has
non -jurisdiction above the ten foot section. Below the ten -foot
contour would be within 300 feet of the flagged wetland line.
MR. KIMACK: I'm sorry, they have it up to the ten foot line, I
apologize. But the road, when we submitted, the road shown on
the drawings, that went to DEC. So they knew --
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The proposed road.
MR. KIMACK: The proposed road, yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was it in the project description?
MR. KIMACK: It was in the description that went in. And DEC
approved it accordingly. Now I will agree they have not looked
Board of Trustees 55 December 17, 2014
at a planting plan, but they certainly have the driveway and
everything else there as part of their approval.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I have one question for you, if you would
entertain it. Is there anything, when you look at this, you've
had your discussion, is there any way this could be modified to
satisfy you?
MR. CAMPBELL: Well, first and foremost we need to keep the water
supply totally safe. That's a given. I'm concerned about the
plantings we are talking about because if you are standing on
the causeway, on the break wall there and looking up, that's the
first thing that hits you. It's beautiful right there. And to
us, that's extremely important. I'm not saying that we couldn't
come up with something that was equally beautiful, but I have
not seen anything there.
Michael has been very helpful, he's going to provide some
deed information that will prove one way or another, hopefully,
where we stand as far as that right-of-way, as being able to tie
into it. So I look forward to getting that. I certainly would
like to see a copy of the investigation work done on the aquifer
there to make sure we don't create any problems. I guess there
is a number of pieces that all have to fit together to please me.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I think that's helpful for everybody that is
listening, so.
MR. KIMACK: Just to clarify in my mind and make sure of the
direction. I know what the Board's concerns are. Their
concerns are can we in some way establish a relationship through
a right-of-way with Barhoff that would mitigate having to put
that road in completely. That would be your first hope. I'm not
quite sure what form we could give you to indicate that is or is
not successful. That will be something that we'll try to work
on. That will be the first part. I think that's your top
priority. Number one. But we'll have to find, if not the case,
we'll have to find some format with which we can prove to you
this will occur or not occur. Having said that, on top of that,
we still have to be in conformance with what the Planning has
told us, which is just the two lots being served by one driveway.
I'll make this pitch, basically. Our concern right now is
the road coming in. Is there any concern by the Board of the
construction of the tennis court, the house and everything else?
The rest of the project. Because from what you are telling me
right now is that either we are going to somehow use the
existing road with that cut in, where it exists now, coming
back, if by any chance we are able to get Barhoff to do a
right-of-way or easement, or if we can or in fact show you that
is in fact the case, then we'll have to go back to the proposed
road that we have now structured with some kind of planting plan
acceptable to the Board. But in any of those narratives, it
doesn't forestall or should not forestall because one way or
other, whether it's the existing road or proposed, it has no
impact on your approval of the remaining project.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We flagged the wetland line, I don't know
Board of Trustees 56 December 17, 2014
how the Board feels, I don't know if there were issues that came
up with the rest of the construction --
MR. KIMACK: We did pull the septic back as far as we could. That
was one of your original concerns, it was too close to the line.
But as you can see from there we can only come back so far
because we have the 150 foot settlement from the well.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If one of these maps were submitted with
the wetland line at this time I don't know if the Board is willing
to segment the road out because there is these additional
discussions that have to take place with regard to disturbance
or changes to that area which the Board has deemed as wetland. I
don't know how the Board feels.
MR. KIMACK: That would give us time to work on the issue.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would want to confer with legal counsel on
that first, so. Initially my response is I don't want to give
any type of feeling on the rest of the project. This is part of
the project. It's in the plan. It was not in the project
description, but it is in the planting plan, it's in the plan you
gave us tonight. So it's part of this project. So I don't want to
segment it out. Obviously the road is critical to this project.
That's one thing everybody can agree to. You can't get access.
MR. KIMACK: That is critical. But it is going to occur in one of
two points. It either occurs in the existing road as it now
exists or occurs as a proposed road. Those two choices, one or
the other, your priority is the existing road with the existing
cut in, then swinging it back. That may not be possible from two
different fronts. From the Planning point and also from the
owner's point. So if that goes, then we are back to the
proposed road, which I think you have somewhat mentioned. And
if we can show you that we are not able to use the existing
road, that you'll work with us to try and find a way to mitigate
the disturbance of the wetland area by whatever planting scheme
we can come up with, whatever types of plants you would like to
see. So it will either be (a) or (b) as far as the road is
concerned. But none of that is going to affect what is
happening above.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: In my opinion, I agree with what you were
saying, John, and what he was saying. I think we can segment
this out and approve the other areas while we are holding off on
that, unless I'm incorrect.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is a Type II under SEQRA, State
Environmental Quality Review, by virtue of the description
because of the house construction, but SEQRA ordinarily
discourages segmentation but for the exception if you are going
to segment out environmental matters that are of your interest.
There is a house under construction, so far where there were
problems with the drainage, and issues with the clearing, the
matter has been referred to the court, and all the suggestions
of the Engineering Department to handle the runoff to protect
Dam Pond were taken, so that the applicant has also shown good
faith at this point, so I think that under the circumstances, I
Board of Trustees 57 December 17, 2014
don't know how our attorney feels, under the circumstances they
have shown to express good faith after some problems occurred on
the site, they followed direction from the engineer, so I don't
have a problem with the segmentation to deal with the relations
unless counsel has a different suggestion.
MS. HULSE: I would suggest that you can do that. If your
environmental concerns are strictly limited to that portion that
you are going to continue to consider and require additional
testimony, that would be fine.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is that acceptable to the applicant?
MR. KIMACK: Yes, I think we are well prepared to work with you.
I mean, it's going to take its own course. We'll have to do the
legal first and see what we can do with Mr. Barhoff, and then
prove to you one way or other that it will work or won't work to
your satisfaction. Then after that, if it doesn't work, then
we'll work with you to develop the plan. We will try to have
that meeting with Jamie Richter and yourself and Mr. Campbell to
indicate the drainage situation. But he looks at it from a
different perspective, but it may be a perspective we can tie
back to the environmental concerns. But that would allow us to
move forward on that section which we can move forward on.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This should have been addressed before
we went through this project. This is the danger with piecemealing
or segmenting.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Unfortunately it was not apparent until the
drainage violation had occurred that we knew we even had wetland
in this area. It's possible other boards and agencies seeing
the planning by Rob Herrmann made their determinations based on
a different wetland line other than what the standard vegetation --
MR. KIMACK: We were always working under the behalf it was a
buffer area and not a wetland area.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, do we have any additional
comments, questions?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close this hearing at this time. And --
sorry, I'll make a motion to table this hearing at this time.
And we are segmenting. We'll take the road construction out that
is seaward of the flagged wetland. So I'll make a motion to
table -- I'll make a motion to table that portion of the
application which is seaward to the closest, to Dam Pond from
the flagged wetland line of the Trustees, to be entered in a
new application and to close the hearing on that portion of the
project which is to the landward and includes the house
construction as described in the public hearing notice.
MR. KIMACK: The house and the tennis court.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: House and tennis court, with the alteration
in the language that was noted, that would remove the notion of
a 768 -square foot exterior covered area, and the first floor
240 -square foot exterior breezeway would otherwise now include
just a 768 -square foot enclosed breezeway. I can restate that,
if you want. Basically we are segmenting out for environmental
Board of Trustees 58 December 17, 2014
purposes for a separate application the portion that we flagged
as wetlands, and allowing the project to proceed on the upper
portion. Motion is made. Is a there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
MS. HULSE: If I could add, Mr. Kimack, could you supply language
regarding the driveway that doesn't appear in this application
language? Could you actually formulate something for the Board
to consider?
MR. KIMACK: My understanding is they want us to put in a new
application for the driveway, so we would then delineate exactly
the square footages in that application.
MS. HULSE: I'm just saying I want to make it clear that Mr.
Kimack is agreeing to file an application with language
pertaining to your concerns about the driveway, because it's not
reflected in this language.
MR. KIMACK: No, I'll do that. But from a sequential point of
view what we'll try to do before we do the application filing is
see if there is anything to work out with Barhoff. Because
there is no sense filing the application if that in fact can
occur or happen. If that's a failure, then I'll file.
MS. HULSE: If I'm understanding, you are going to approve the
application before you tonight, you are not tabling anything but
you are making it conditioned upon the application for the work
to --
TRUSTEE KING: For the work to be done in that area.
MS. HULSE: So you won't be able to, the condition that is going
to include in the language of the permit that you'll receive is
going to require you to submit the application for the rest of
the work concerning the driveway.
MR. KIMACK: Which is primarily the driveway seaward of the
wetland line, basically, all the way through, yes.
MS. HULSE: Do you agree that will be done within six months?
We'll have to put a timeframe in the condition.
MR. KIMACK: Yes. It will be quicker than that. We'll do the best
we can to work with Mr. Barhoff and try to resolve that issue.
Because that's prerequisite to what we do with the application
or don't do with the application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, we have a motion and a second.
Any further discussion?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm going to vote no on that. The reason I'm
voting no on that is because I'm thinking down the road, if we
run into a situation -- and I don't know whether we will or not
-- but if we run into a situation where the application comes in
for a road through the wetland and it's denied, and goes to an
Article 78, the Court saying wait a second, Trustees, you
approved this for a phase one, you approved phase two, you
approved everything knowing there is going to be a problem here.
And so you've left the Court no choice but to grant a road
through the wetlands. I would rather stop the project now,
resolve this key issue, because without this road issue being
resolved, as far as I'm concerned there is no need to proceed
Board of Trustees 59 December 17, 2014
forward with the project. So that's my reasoning for voting no.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's a classic argument for not
segmenting the project. I think that makes a lot of sense. We
already granted a permit for Dome Luca.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that. But that was before -- this
just came to our attention last week in field inspections. Prior
to we were not, at least I was not aware of any road going to
this project other than the existing road. For the first time I
was made aware last week in the field that there is another road
being considered here for construction through the wetlands. So
this is the time I feel to say stop, let's not proceed further,
let's not give permits for anything else until the access to
this property is resolved. Because I'm just concerned that you
are going to lose -- well, I already expressed my concerns.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll vote no and I thank Trustee Bergen for
phrasing my thoughts in an eloquent manner. I did not know about
this. This should have been addressed beforehand. There were
attempts, from my understanding, to reach out to the owner of
the property to the west. So.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll withdraw my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: (Continuing) so it should have been addressed
then. And I should not have learned about that in the field that
day. And again, Trustee Bergen said it far more eloquently than
I could have.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll withdraw my motion and just make a
clear motion to table the application, and then I'm willing and
I hope other Trustees are willing to meet with Mr. Kimack and
Mr. Campbell to try to open the dialogue, particularly maybe Mr.
Kimack can approach, try to get in touch with Mr. Barhoff and do
whatever needs to be done, I think we'll try and work together.
So that's a better idea.
I think Trustee Bergen carried the day with his analysis we
should not segment this. I move to table this application.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES). RECEIVED
TRUSTEE KING: Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
JAN 2 8 2015 e-I=CSP"'`
Q
sou otd Town Uerk
Respectfully submitted by,
dd— vw� � -M
John M. Bredemeyer III, President
Board of Trustees