HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-01/21/2015John M. Bredemeyer III, President
Michael J. Domino, Vice -President
James F. King, Trustee
Dave Bergen, Trustee
Charles J. Sanders, Trustee
pF SOUj�,o�
� O
O
KCOUNTi
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
5:30 PM
Present Were: John Bredemeyer, President
Michael Domino, Vice -President
Jim King, Trustee
David Bergen, Trustee
Charles Sanders, Trustee
Amanda Nunemaker, 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
E:i;f;�J
F_E'`-1) r.
L' �v
Sowi'iojr' T._wn rip
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, February 11, 2015, at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, February 18, 2015, at 5:30 PM
WORKSESSIONS: Tuesday, February 17, 2015, at 5:30 PM at Downs Farm, and on
Wednesday, February 18, 2015, at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of December 17, 2014, and December 23, 2014
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good evening, welcome to the January 21, 2015, regular
meeting of the Town Board of Trustees. At this time I'll take a motion for the next field
inspection for Wednesday, February 11, 2015, at 8:00 AM.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make that motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to hold the next Trustee meeting on
Wednesday, February 18th, 2015, at 5:30 PM.
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll move to hold work sessions Tuesday,
February 17th, at 5:30 PM, at Downs Farms, and on Wednesday,
Board of Trustees 2 January 21, 2015
February 18th, at 5:00 PM in the main meeting hall here in Town
Hall. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of
November 19th, 2014; December 17th, 2014; and, December 23, 2014.
Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for December 2014. A check for
$14,450.46 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for
review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the
following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, January 21, 2015, are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
SEQRA:
Paul Holobigian — SCTM# 87-3-38
J. Geddes Parsons — SCTM# 10-9-3.1
Mark Davis — SCTM# 122-4-4
Adam Willets — SCTM# 123-5-22
Kelly Myers — SCTM# 115-12-23.2
Vincent & Michele Scandole — SCTM# 97-7-4
Greg Cahill — SCTM# 53-5-9
Barbara Adams — SCTM# 86-7-9
Eugene P. Lewis — SCTM# 111-14-20
North Fork Kiwi, LLC, c/o Karen Hauser — SCTM# 111-10-13.1
Jay P. Quartararo — SCTM# 111-14-27.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion. Do I have a second to that motion?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under Resolutions for Administrative
Permits, we have several of these that will require some
Board of Trustees 3 January 21, 2015
conditions to the requested permit, based on field inspection
and/or the comments of the LWRP coordinator.
The first one, number one, Daniel Fischer on behalf of
HAROLD & PENINAH NEIMARK requests an Administrative Permit to
demolish and remove 12'x24' first floor concrete base of existing two-story
covered open porch; reconstruct in-place with wood framed first floor on
concrete footings. Located: 575 Hoey Lane, Southold.
Based on our Trustee field inspection it is recommended
that the permit include a stipulation for a silt fence and
downspouts to drywells and a five-foot non -turf buffer. I would
move to stipulate those conditions.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, Nicholas Zoumas on
behalf of ROBERT $ KATHLEEN CUNNINGHAM request an Administrative
Permit to construct a 2,469sq.ft. Single-family dwelling with
attached garage. Located: 380 Hickory Road, Southold.
The Board of Trustees reviewed this application on field
inspection and determined that the project is nearly out of the
jurisdiction of the Board, and accordingly, in cases such as
this, the Board does consider it an Administrative Permit.
I would move to approve this Administrative Permit as
applied for.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item three?
TRUSTEE KING: Item three, En -Consultants on behalf of JOHN
HESLIN requests an Administrative Permit to construct 4'x +/-8'
wood steps off retaining wall; and a 4'x6' wood platform with 4'
x +/-6' steps to beach off bulkhead. Located: 60 Great Peconic
Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
I went out and looked at this. It was found consistent with
the LWRP. It's just a simple set of steps from a retaining wall
down into the area that's between the retaining wall and the
bulkhead, and then a set of stairs, a little platform and set of
stairs to the beach. I met with the owner. The owner was there
when I went out there and I mentioned to him if he would be
interested in having retractable stairs and he said yes, that's
what he would like very much. So I would like to just say, I
would make a motion to approve this, and the steps can either be
retractable or fixed, whichever he prefers. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 4 January 21, 2015
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under item five for extensions to permits
and transfers and administrative amendments, amendments to
administrative permits, where the applications are straightforward and the
Board has reviewed them during the course of work sessions and field inspections,
we will approve these in a group approval for those that will not be amended or
have stipulations. Accordingly, I would move to approve under Item V, numbers
one, two, three, four and five as a group.
One through five. They are listed as follows:
Number one, SEAN McCOYD requests a One -Year Extension to Wetland
Permit #8059, as issued on February 20, 2013, and Amended on
December 17, 2014. Located: 3360 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold.
Number two, En -Consultants on behalf SOUNDFRONT HOLDINGS, LLC
requests a One -Year Extension to Wetland Permit #8047 and
Coastal Erosion Hazard Permit #8047C, as issued on February 20,
2013. Located: 20275 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
Number three, LAURA A. YANTSOS requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit #8177 to install an on -grade
+/-21.5'x14' stone patio adjacent to dwelling consisting of
irregularly shaped flagstones with a crushed bluestone pebble
base. Located: 3455 Bayshore Road, Greenport.
Number four, BRUNO FRANKOLA requests an Administrative Amendment
to Wetland Permit #5999 to construct an 8'x +/-11' extension
onto existing deck; and relocate existing +/-5' wide steps to
grade to end of new extension. Located: 840 Northfield Lane,
Southold.
Number five, STEPHANIE NECKLES requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit #8528 to construct a 6'x12'
two-story addition; and a 4'x12' stoop on the landward side
of the dwelling. Located: 130 Cleaves Point Road, East Marion.
Is there a second to that?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item six, the application of LUAN SADIK
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #8405 to
install 4' high pool enclosure fencing approximately 1' landward
of top of bluff, alongside yard lot lines, and towards sides of
dwelling; and install a wood gate in front of existing bluff
stairs. Located: 2200 Sound Drive, Greenport.
The Board, in performing monthly field inspections on this
site, was concerned that the fence within one foot of the crest
of the bluff would endanger the bluff. It also would diminish
natural travel lanes for wildlife and probably might accentuate
the destruction of the bluff since there are numerous deer in
the area would tend to run along that crest line and probably
break down the crest of the bluff and it could lead to a
blowout. Accordingly, the Board felt on field inspection that we
Board of Trustees 5 January 21, 2015
should request that the fence is no closer than ten foot from
the crest of the bluff, and that the space between the fence and
the crest of the bluff be a non -turf buffer.
I would move to stipulate that in effect that what we found
on field inspection and saw as a solution to protecting the
bluff be incorporated into the permit and have the fence ten
foot landward and have a ten -foot non -turf buffer.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: How about that one little structure that was in
front of the stairs, was that included in here?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It actually was included in the language.
Thank you. Motion made. Second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number seven, Eugene
Burger on behalf of MILL CREEK PARTNERS LLC requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #8029 to shift the
parking lot 5' to the east and add a 5' wide brick walkway;
relocate eight (8) parking spots from the front of the main
entry to the southeast in order to create a pick-up/drop-off
area; and to raise a 50' section of bulkhead located at the
southwest section of the marina approximately 5' to 6.5' higher
in order to match the current height of the adjacent sections;
the as -built extension of retaining wall at Gangway A behind the
ramp and loading dock by 30' with a return to the bank; extend
the retaining wall at Gangway B behind the ramp and loading dock
by 30' with a return to the bank; and install a timber guard
rail at the west side of the property similar to the east.
Located: 64300 Route 25, Greenport.
In this instance the Board performed a field inspection and
carefully measured out the additional change in the five foot of
the brick walkway to ascertain that it would not impact the
freshwater wetlands to the east and in fact it is within the
bounds of the previous flagged wetland line that the Board of
Trustees had approved during the course of this, the original
issuance of the permit. The alterations to the Gangway A and
Gangway B were essentially switchbacks to the existing
retaining, bulkhead section, to prevent erosion. And the raising
of the bulkhead to be consistent on the southwest was deemed to
be an answer to avoid erosion up and over the bulkhead section
from wave fetch that would come up Peconic Bay and cause
siltation in the marina over an extended period of time.
I believe that based on the application, and we have
actually been to the site twice in relation to these issues, I
don't believe the Board had any problems with this amendment as
proposed. Are there any questions on anything?
TRUSTEE KING: The only thing we had talked about in the field is
where the bulkhead section was raised, if they could do more
extensive plantings on the east side to try to compensate for
the possible loss --
Board of Trustees 6 January 21, 2015
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I did forget that. This project is unique in
that before it started, it incorporated, there were no wetlands
on the site, but with the construction of a low sill bulkhead
there probably will be many hundreds of square feet of wetlands
that will ultimately be created, if not ultimately thousands of
square feet of wetlands. And this section of bulkhead which needs
to be raised to actually protect the shoreline. The Board is
requesting there be a creation of essentially 75 to maybe 100
square feet of additional wetlands elsewhere in the marina. So
that would be in the stipulation, that we would request an
additional 75 square feet to 100 square feet. Mind you there is
no wetland presently where this bulkhead height change is being
requested. So thank you, Trustee King. Accordingly, I would move
to approve this with the stipulation of the creation of between
75 and 100 square feet of intertidal wetland within the basin.
TRUSTEE KING: I would just like to add that there has been a net
gain of wetlands, which is very positive.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. RESOLUTIONS - OTHER:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next resolution, which reads as follows:
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees AMENDS a
Resolution Adopted on January 23, 2013 to include the following:
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees APPROVES the
request of JOSEPH G. MANZI, JR. for an Administrative Amendment
to Wetland Permit #7160 to establish and subsequently maintain a
Non -Disturbance Buffer behind the proposed residence to be 40'
wide along the landward edge of the wetlands; and a
Non -Disturbance Buffer along the side yard to be increased from
50' to 75' in width. Located: 355 Midway Road, Southold, is a
curative resolution which is essentially housekeeping in order
so that permit language and a restrictive covenant filed with
the county clerk match exactly so that in the future owners who
are trying to transfer permits and/or sale of the property will
have a consistent property record. Accordingly I would move to
approve item number six under Resolutions -Other.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time we'll go off our regular
meeting agenda to open public hearings. I'll make a motion to go
to our public hearings.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 7 January 21, 2015
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, under Amendments, PAUL HOLOBIGIAN
requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #8151 to install a
3'x15' ramp and a 6'x20' float onto seaward end of dock.
Located: 3300 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency arises from the section of the Wetland Code 275-11
that requires an indeterminate permitted length of the proposed
residential dock, the Trustees shall seek to maintain lengths
consistent with other docks, that's the pier line, and the
waterway which meet the requirements of this chapter. It goes on
to state that the proposed dock structure, if approved, will
result in the perpetual loss of the unobstructed public access
and use of public underwater lands equal to the dock and vessel
dimensions.
And the LWRP states piers, docking facilities, catwalks must
not result in an unnecessary interference with the use of public
trust lands. Alternatives to long piers or docks include the use
of dinghies to reach moored boats and mooring in nearby marinas.
The CAC voted on January 14th to not support this
application. The CAC rationale, the application recommends
staying within the limitations of the wetland permit that was
issued on April 17th, 2013. That's permit 8151. The described
burden is self-imposed and access with can be made at high tide.
This eventually will become an open-ended process of larger boat
versus larger dock, larger boat, et cetera.
The Trustees did a field inspection on January 14th, and it
is evidenced by the photograph. And it is noted that it was
already out too far seaward. And it was a site for a possible
mooring.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. HOLOBIGIAN: Good evening, I'm Paul Holobigian, I'm the
property owner. Gentleman, what alternative structure can you
offer me? Would I be able to somehow reconfigure the float so it
would not project further?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We are here to address the application, and the
question is not relevant.
MS. HULSE: If I could just interrupt for a second. Your
application is being considered as requested by the Board
tonight. If you want to propose something other than this, you
can choose to withdraw the application and ask for a
pre -submission inspection, if you want to gather ideas as to
what you could possibly have there. But this Board is
considering this application before it tonight as it was
publicly noticed.
MR. HOLOBIGIAN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are there any other questions or comments from
the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: Does he want to come back?
Board of Trustees 8 January 21, 2015
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If he wants to come back with a different
plan and request that we table this.
MS. HULSE: Are you requesting -- sir, could you just step up for
a second. Would you like them to continue with the public
hearing or are you requesting this be tabled or withdrawn?
MR. HOLOBIGIAN: I'm going to resubmit plans and a different idea.
MS. HULSE: So would you like this to be withdrawn or just tabled
and put on the next agenda?
MR. HOLOBIGIAN: I'm not sure what the difference is.
TRUSTEE KING: If we table this, it continues on and you come in
with a new set of plans. If we don't, you have to come in with a
new application.
MR. HOLOBIGIAN: Yes, I would like to table it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: With fees.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Provided the plans are received at least
week before the meeting so we have the opportunity to review
them.
MR. HOLOBIGIAN: Understood.
MS. HULSE: So if you need more time, you just ask for more time,
sir.
MR. HOLOBIGIAN: Okay.
MS. HULSE: Very good. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further questions or comments I'll
make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing, under Wetland and Coastal
Erosion Permits, Chris Edwards on behalf of J. GEDDES PARSONS
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Hazard Permit to
construct a 132' long retaining wall +/-1.9' tall to be
installed 4' landward of existing retaining wall, with one set
of steps; remove and replace existing 7'x132' concrete cap on
existing retaining wall; place +/-95 cubic yards of clean
fill behind new wall; finish grade; seed and mulch area; and for
the existing 4'x3' fixed landing leading to a 5'x77' fixed dock
with a 3'x14.67' ramp; a 8'x18.95' float; two (2) float support
pilings; and four (4) tie -off pilings. Located: 515 Sterling
Street, Fishers Island.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
(No response).
The Board is familiar with the site, having visited it last
year on at least one occasion during the course of our
inspections on Fishers Island.
The LWRP coordinator has deemed this application to be
inconsistent in that the structures did not have the benefit of
a Trustee permit. That also includes the dock for which has a
Board of Trustees 9 January 21, 2015
top surface area of more than 200 square feet in the coastal
erosion area. It has been customary that this Board would
determine that these applications are deemed consistent for
Fishers Island where the island as insular and remote as it is,
the prior constructed docks that have been repaired, we have
allowed them to continue to be repaired on permit and the
inconsistency for the lack of permits is because the structures
are longstanding and have existed prior to the effective dates
of the town ordinance, giving the Trustees jurisdiction on docks
over the water on Fishers Island.
The CAC reports that they did not make an inspection and
therefore no recommendation. This is also not uncommon given the
difficulties of getting to Fishers Island and the attempt to
make field inspections there in December was thwarted by severe
weather. We try regularly to go out there during the course of
the year.
The Board reviewed the application and believes that the
history of providing permits to reduce the inconsistency and the
layouts of docks as a water -dependent structure on Fishers
Island, we could move a permit to make this application consistent.
Is there anyone here on the Board who wishes to speak with
respect to the hearing?
TRUSTEE KING: If we could just talk about the space between the
new wall and the old wall. Pervious and possibly non -turf buffer
on the upland side of that retaining wall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board did discuss in reviewing the plans
at the worksession both in the office and last night at Downs
Farms, that the space between the retaining wall and the
existing bulkhead that will be recapped would best be left with
a pervious material, so it would be a splash pad or non -turf
material, and that so that the whole structure itself was not
having fertilized, maintained lawn up to the area. I believe we
considered that a five-foot non -turf buffer would help protect
the West Harbor in this location from undo direct influence of
lawn pesticides and chemicals.
The five-foot, non -turf buffer, in addition to the new
retaining wall and the space between of the existing seawall and
cap means that there is essentially a non -turf area of in excess
of eleven feet so that it is in keeping to typical ten -foot,
non -turf buffer that we approve on most projects that would have
a brand new seawall or bulkhead.
That said, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application as submitted, stipulating that the area between the
retaining wall and the existing bulkhead that shall be recapped
be of a porous, non -turf nature, and that the five-foot,
non -turf buffer be included landward of the retaining wall.
Board of Trustees 10 January 21, 2015
This, and providing a permit, permitting in the structures, will
bring this project into consistency with the LWRP. That's my
motion.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
MS. HULSE: Is the five-foot non -turf buffer in addition to the
ten foot?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The two combined make ten feet. The unit
structure is in excess of, the five foot is on top of the
retaining section, which is almost two feet on top of the two -foot porous
buffer we are considering, and the seawall itself is
several feet wide. So the net area that is not in turf is well
in excess of eleven feet.
MS. HULSE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With respect to the agenda, my apologies,
when we opened the meeting, we have a number of items that were
postponed this evening, and they appear on page seven of the
agenda. I'll move through these very quickly, so those of you
sitting here waiting anxiously, they may have been postponed
likely by an agent and/or applicant. They are listed as follows:
Number eleven, DKR Shores, Inc., on behalf of MARK DAVIS request
a Wetland Permit to construct a landward set of 4' wide steps
leading to a 4'x27' catwalk with steps; a 3'x10' ramp; and a
6'x20' float with (2) 8" diameter pilings. Located: 1700 Ole
Jule Lane, Mattituck.
Number 12, DKR Shores, Inc., on behalf of KELLY MYERS request a
Wetland Permit to remove +/-70 linear feet of timber bulkhead
and construct 52' of bulkhead in-place using vinyl sheathing and
closing off ramp; new bulkhead to be same height as neighbor's
bulkhead to north; construct two (2) new 10' long vinyl returns;
backfill disturbed area with 50 cubic yards clean fill; remove
existing dock and construct a 4'x111' fixed dock; a 3'x15' ramp;
and a 6'x20' float secured by 10" pilings. Located: 1730 Deep
Hole Drive, Mattituck.
Number 13, 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
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 14, 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.
And number 15, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. On behalf of PASQUALE &
Board of Trustees 11 January 21, 2015
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.
My apologies for not reading those off earlier in the meeting.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Under Wetland Permits, DKR Shores, Inc., on behalf
of ADAM WILLETS requests a Wetland Permit to construct new 58'
long bulkhead in-place of existing using vinyl sheathing; raise
the bulkhead 15" higher to match the neighbor's bulkhead;
construct new 15' long vinyl return; backfill disturbed area
with +/-65 cubic yards clean fill; construct new 4'x6' beach
access steps; and establish a 10' wide non -turf buffer along the
landward edge of the bulkhead. Located: 4415 Camp Mineola Road,
Mattituck.
This was found consistent with the LWRP, with a
recommendation that a non -turf buffer be vegetated with
salt -tolerant native plant species.
The CAC supports the application and recommends retractable
stairs off the bulkhead and installation of gutters, leaders and
drywells to contain roof runoff from the dwelling.
As a rule we don't address drywells and leaders off the
house because this is not what is being applied for. This is a
replacement of a bulkhead. On the stairs, I didn't even notice
that there were stairs when we were out there. I guess there
were. Their recommendation is to make them retractable.
Is there anyone here speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MS. RIGDON: Good evening Agena Rigdon, DKR Shores. This is a
typical bulkhead reconstruction. Robert Czenszak (sic), which is
right next door to the east, I did make it 15 inches higher,
which is what you had requested there. So that's it, it's
reasonable.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had any real issues with it. The
only thing is the neighbors on either side have buffer areas,
and we would like to be consistent with those. I'm not sure what
the measurement was. It's right around ten feet.
MS. RIGDON: I plotted it ten.
TRUSTEE KING: But if we could just draw a line between their
buffers on either side and make this one the same, the same
depth. I think it's all just about ten feet, within a few inches
of that.
MS. RIGDON: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: And on the CAC recommendation on retractable
stairs, I don't know, those stairs are existing now as they are.
They have been there in place. My preference would be, I would
Board of Trustees 12 January 21, 2015
just give the owner the option to either have the stairs the way
they are or make them retractable. I think that's a fair way to
go on that. Anybody else to comment on this application?
(No response).
Board comments?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted with the stipulation that the non -turf buffer remain
the same as the neighbors on either side, and they have the
option of having retractable stairs or fixed.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, VINCENT & MICHELE SCANDOLE request a
Wetland Permit to install an approximately 10" high by 4' long
berm along the landward edge of the driveway consisting of
either asphalt or bluestone, sand and clay behind; existing
approximately 12' wide by 38' long driveway on side of house
shall be filled with W bluestone to an average depth of 12"; at
north end of driveway, imbed a 10" gravel encased perforated
drainage pipe running the full length of the driveway which will
terminate into a 4' drywell; install a 4' precast concrete
drywell with inspection cover; replace existing shed with new
shed less than 100sq.ft. In overall size; install approximately
190-220 cubic yards of sand or clean fill; install approximately
85-100 cubic yards of top soil; area of fill to cover
approximately 80'x95' with slope to be approximately 25-30
degrees; area of proposed fill to be no higher than abutting
properties. Located: 500 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue.
This is a property we had gone out and looked at a month
ago, and felt that under, as an application for an
Administrative Permit we, after going out and looking at it we
felt it should be amended to be a full permit. So the applicant
complied with that request. They complied with the request to
put up a silt fence in the meantime down along the shoreline.
The Board did go out and looked at this.
The CAC supports the application with the condition the
paved areas are permeable and there is a ten -foot non -turf
buffer installed landward of the shoreline. They also questioned
the adequacy of the four -foot drywell to contained storm runoff.
The LWRP reviewed this, found it inconsistent, stating the
following: The project has not been defined. The assisting
grade elevations and finished grade elevations have not been
provided; impact to adjacent properties have not been analyzed;
no storm water erosion controls or buffers are proposed; no
plans to mitigate impacts to existing trees bearing of trunks
Board of Trustees 13 January 21, 2015
has been provided; replacement of shed is exempt.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
And, before you start, sorry, I did exclude one item. In
the application the applicant has addressed a runoff problem
coming from the road down to the waterway, and just to, for
clarification, on your site plan, the area marked as Area A and
Area B, are really non -jurisdictional for us, so any changes
that you have been proposing for the driveway plus the slight
berm that has been proposed for the driveway are
non -jurisdictional for us. So you don't need permission from us
to do those things. We did recommend in the field, of course,
that you consult with the Highway Department regarding any type
of berm in the front of your driveway, because the last thing we
want to see you is you install something and the first time a
plow comes along down the street and they completely destroy
what you put out there. So, just work with the Highway
Department with regard to that berm. So with that, ma'am, if you
would please introduce yourself.
MS. CIRILLO: My name is Diane Cirillo, and I actually represent
the neighbor, the house adjacent to the people who requested
this. I'm the executor or executrix for my dad's estate. And I
have really just some questions, and they really are borne of a
little naivety as to how this works. But we will be selling my
dad's house, so we want to protect the interest as far as
encroachment. And we don't really understand how, if the permit
is allowed, how do you define the property lines? Do you have
somebody come and stake it out? How do we know there won't be an
encroachment? That's all.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we require as part of the permit
application is a survey, so there has been submitted a survey
dated September 26th, 2013. So it is a relatively recent
survey. And obviously all the work -- I should not use the word
"obviously" -- but all the work proposed is within those property
lines. So it's on their property.
MS. CIRILLO: That was our main concern.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the other thing we look at, because it's an
understandable concern, was the elevation, because we would not
want to see a situation for the property owner where they are
building a structure that was going to drain onto the adjoining
properties. That's actually a violation of Chapter 236 of the
Town Code. So as part of this project, the applicant would
ensure that would not happen.
MS. CIRILLO: In the paperwork that was mailed to us, it did
mention that it would be no higher than my dad's property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
MS. CIRILLO: Okay, thank you, very much, for your time.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You're welcome.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. Again, is the applicant here tonight?
If you would just introduce yourself for record, please.
MR. SCANDOLE: Good evening. Vincent Scandole, 500 Beebe Drive,
Cutchogue.
Board of Trustees 14 January 21, 2015
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. With regard to the inconsistency
determination by the LWRP, part of our role here is to see if we
can bring this into consistency. We had mentioned installation
of a non -turf buffer out here. And because this is an undulating
property line, what we had suggested, ten foot landward of what
is marked here as the tie line, on your survey, with the
understanding as you get toward the dock area, the deck of that
dock, it be reduced to five foot there. So you would have a five-foot
non -turf buffer there in front of the deck and a ten -foot,
again, along what is landward on the survey as described as a
tie line. Is that something you would agree to?
MR. SCANDOLE: I have no problem with that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Besides that, I didn't have any other
questions for the applicant.
Is there anybody else in the audience who wanted to speak
regarding this application?
(No response).
Were there any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Only, I guess, if there is a need for any
clarification at all, that in consideration of the permit there
can be no fill that would be put in that would actually be
higher than the neighbor, which is essentially covered because
of the comment made by Trustee Bergen concerning keeping the
project in keeping with Chapter 236. That's all.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup. And actually, on the set of plans that was
submitted here, it shows a fill line that would not bring it
higher than the adjoining properties.
MR. SCANDOLE: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other questions?
(No response).
If not I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application
with the condition that a non -turf buffer is created landward of
the tie line that will be ten foot, except for in the area of
the deck of the dock, that would be five foot. And that the
elevation of the fill that is brought in would not exceed the
elevation -- would not result in the elevation of the property
being higher than the two adjoining properties, so as to comply
with Chapter 236. In doing so this would bring it into
consistency under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Page five, number three, Chris Mohr Enterprise
on behalf of GREG CAHILL requests a Wetland Permit to replace
existing dock in-kind with a proposed 6'x8' platform; to a 3'x8'
ramp; to a 4'x30' floating dock; to a 4'x17' floating dock; and
Board of Trustees 15 January 21, 2015
replace existing timber retaining wall in-kind with new
8'x48'x5'x12" high retaining wall using 6x6 ACQ timbers.
Located: 1180 Sage Boulevard, Greenport.
The LWRP has found this to be inconsistent, and for the
following reasons: With Policy Standards, policy number 6.3, and
therefore is inconsistent. Protect and restore tidal and
freshwater wetlands. Alpha. Comply with statutory and
regulatory requirements for the Southold Town Board of Trustees
laws and regulations for all Andros Patent and other land under
their jurisdiction. Basically the dock structure and retaining
wall were not constructed pursuant to a Board of Trustee permit.
The CAC has resolved to support this application, and we
also received a letter dated January 16th, 2015, from the
neighbors. This is a handwritten letter, so I really can't read
the handwriting of the name of whoever wrote it, but it says:
We are neighbors of Greg Cahill and we support his application
to replace the dock and the retaining wall. We have no
objections at all. That was dated January 16th, 2015. And then
on January 14th, 2015, the Trustees went to this property and
examined it. The couple of questions that we had were the
gabion, we did not know if there was a permit for that, and we
found that there was not a permit for that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There was no permit.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is there anybody here who wishes to speak to
this application?
(No response).
Does anybody else need to see the plans? Jay?
TRUSTEE KING: He's asking to replace the existing dock. The
existing dock is floats.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The existing dock is floats and here --
think we have to table this and communicate with the
owner/applicant. And I'm not sure the gabions is to scale. If
you want to permit that in, maybe it should be brought to scale.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Wayne, are you able to pick up this conversation?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm concerned in looking at the plans and
discussing this with Trustee King that we found that the gabion
structure does not have a permit. It does not look as if it is
to scale on the scaled drawing. We have an inconsistency between
what the published request is for the public hearing and what
the set of plans is. So it leaves us in a position to not act
rationally on this application. So it might be something we
should table.
TRUSTEE KING: And get a more detailed set of plans.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to table this.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of JAY P. QUARTARARO requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a two-story 640sq.ft. addition atop the northern
Board of Trustees 16 January 21, 2015
section of existing dwelling; construct a one-story ±430sq.ft.
garage/addition/porch off the northeastern section of the
dwelling; relocate ±80sq.ft. masonry stoop off the southeastern
section of dwelling; construct ±76sq.ft. rear steps off the
northwesterly corner of the dwelling; construct a ±120sq.ft.
rear deck extension off the northwestern corner; construct a
648sq.ft. swimming pool off the west side of dwelling; construct
an at grade 756sq.ft. pool patio; install 169' of pool fencing
surrounding the proposed pool and patio; construct a ±50sq.ft.
pool equipment area off the southwestern corner of the
dwelling; install a ±2,OOOsq.ft. driveway with Belgian block
curbing; and install a ±900sq.ft. driveway off the northern
section of the dwelling. Located: 4294 Wunneweta
Road, Cutchogue.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC
voted on January 14th to support this application, with the
condition that the pool backwash device in exact location
specified on the plan, and the drainage plan for the roof
runoff, and existing driveway to remain permeable.
The Trustees did a field inspection on January 14th and
noted, again, that the driveway should remain pervious. And also
questioned the need for drywells to handle the roof runoff from
the existing structure.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicant Jay Quartararo.
As a first order of business, there is some disagreement
among the town officials as to the pool. There is discussion
that the pool may be in a technical side yard due to the
orientation of the house relative to the rear lot line. So I'm
here to remove that from the project today. We'll be back with
the pool for that.
You actually have two surveys. You have one before you that
shows the pool, when you went out you probably considered that.
We wanted to move this along, so we provide you with a second
survey that shows, that depicts the proposed two-story addition,
the garage addition, the deck extension and the removal of that
sort of lower driveway. The house itself will be renovated, and
it may be there is some disagreement among various officials in
the Building Department as to whether the pool requires a
variance. So just in an effort to get the renovation going,
withdraw without prejudice our request for the pool, the pool
equipment and the surrounding patio to that pool.
MS. HULSE: Does that also include, Bruce, the at -grade pool
patio, pool fencing, proposed pool --
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
MS. HULSE: So that entire section which starts "construct 648
square foot swimming pool" through "pool equipment area off the
southwestern corner of the dwelling," all of that you are
requesting to be removed from the consideration of this Board
tonight?
Board of Trustees 17 January 21, 2015
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. And to be clear, what we are asking for is
the two-story addition, the one-story addition garage and porch,
off the northeastern section of the existing dwelling. And
we'll relocate the masonry stoop, construct rear steps,
construct rear deck extension; removing the pool, pool patio,
pool fencing, pool equipment area. We also want to install,
obviously, a driveway and remove the driveway that is on the
water side. And that is the request that we make tonight.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: For the record, doing our field inspection, we
were aware of the plans that were received on January 13th, that
showed the pool removed from the proposal.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, I appreciate that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else? Any questions or comments from the
Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further discussion, 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
if I can read the request -- as amended, will suffice.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion is made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Discussion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Discussion on the motion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Inclusion of -- I didn't notice on the plans is
there inclusion of storm water runoff, excuse me, water runoff
from the house; gutters, leaders leading to drywells. Is that
on the plan?
It seems to me we noticed right now --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you, for bringing it to my attention. It
does not show that here.
MR. ANDERSON: We'll add that to the plan.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Add that to the plan there will be drywells to
handle the roof runoff.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second.
MR. MCGREEVEY: The driveway, is there anything recommended on
that?
MR. ANDERSON: The driveway will be gravel.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's proposed as a gravel driveway.
Motion made and second and amended to include drywells.
Any further discussion?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further discussion, vote of the Board?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 18 January 21, 2015
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number five, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf
of BARBARA ADAMS requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing
dwelling and garage and construct a new 3,198.12sq.ft. two-story, single-family
dwelling; a 26.3'x8.3' attached rear seaward deck; and an 18.'5x18.1' front
deck. Located: 8100 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic.
MS. MOORE: Good evening. Patricia Moore.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The LWRP has found this to be inconsistent.
According to them, the number three, move existing development
structures as far away from flooding and erosion hazards as
possible; maintaining existing development and structures in
hazard areas may be warranted for; and structures which
functionally require a location on the coast or coastal waters.
That was under 4.1, minimize losses of human life and structures
from flooding and erosion hazards. That's according to the LWRP.
And the CAC has resolved to support the application.
Then when I look at, January 14th, 2015, when we were
there, the one thing we were pointed out that you have 75 feet,
we are looking at 100 is our jurisdiction. So is there anybody
here would like to speak?
MS. MOORE: Yes, thank you. Patricia Moore on behalf of Barbara
Adams and also Jan Nicholson who is in contract for the
property. She is here. And this is her plan. Barbara Adams
plans to sell and move to Peconic Landing. So with respect to
the LWRP, as you know, we did go to the Zoning Board to get
approval for 75 feet. Well, actually we had originally applied
for 50 feet. The Zoning Board and LWRP encouraged us to move to
the compliant 75 feet, which we did. LWRP would have come in
consistent at that point, so we actually did comply with LWRP
through the Zoning Board process.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Can I ask a question, real quick?
MS. MOORE: Sure. And I have the LWRP right here, if you would
like, from the Zoning Board, just in case.
MS. HULSE: We have separate a LWRP from the Trustees as well.
MS. MOORE: I know. That's the problem with our law, we do it
multiple times.
MS. HULSE: Or advantage, depending how you look at it.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I know you have been before us many times.
When you went in for the 50, why wouldn't you go in for the
hundred because you the know you have in come in before us?
MS. MOORE: Because the placement of the house and then the
garage. We originally went in with the proposal to relocate the
center part of the house, which is about 18, early 1900's,
believe, the center portion of the house. And we wanted to
reuse it and place it toward the street in the back of the
property so it, you know, functionally, keeping that structure
made us move everything closer to the water. But when the Zoning
Board and LWRP pushed us to 75 feet, we had to unfortunately
eliminate that aspect of the job. So now we have the garage and
we have the house. I also would point out that the reason the
Zoning Board granted or had no issue with 75 feet and pushed it
to 75 feet is we had a bay front survey prepared, which I
Board of Trustees 19 January 21, 2015
believe it is in your file. I have additional prints of it. And
I would ask the Board to note that if you look at the
development of the entire community, what we had pointed out to
the Zoning Board was that in fact the average setback of the
bulkheads was 50 feet. And so in fact now that we are pushing it
to 75, we are behind, certainly our neighbor's house and most of
the other homes that are there. Wendell is the property owner
next door. You can see his house is about, we have it measured
41 feet to the bulkhead. So our surveyor had placed everybody's
setback, all the different homes. (Handing).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I mean, the Wetlands Code --
MS. MOORE: Yes, we understand the Wetlands Code requires a
permit from you if less than 100.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We don't deal with area setbacks. We usually
deal with, generally, with the homes on either side. We have a
public road intervening here which for owners that are placing a
house closer to the water, they might find that the beach goers
and people using the road end may become inconvenient with
respect to noise and issues there. I'm just bringing -- we have
restrictions to public access to our waters, because people do
things untoward on beaches and make extra noise and such, and
just want to bring it up.
MS. MOORE: Thank you, it's like a farmers bill of rights in the
sense if you put your house next to beach end/road end, don't
complain. So, it's so noted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Or go there for a bath occasionally.
MS. MOORE: Right. I think the way that this property is going to
be developed, they'll be mindful of privacy and maintaining the
privacy. The Zoning Board placed conditions on the property
which were certainly, I checked with my client, and they
understand that was a condition of the Zoning Board, and
typically a condition that you impose as well. So.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Since the Zoning Board couldn't give you the 50
feet and they went back to 75, if you are at 98 currently,
what's the real difference between executing what you have
currently? And, I mean you are not going to lose, you are just
pushing it back. You'll gain more waterfront land but you won't
lose your ability to do what you want, correct?
MS. MOORE: We are. That garage, the garage is placed in the
backyard, as you see, the proposal, the plans, the house that is
there now, is completely different than the proposed house. It
is, it's a significantly different design. So the proposed
house is more of a rectangle and it's, as I said, placed at 75
feet, and that was certainly a very reasonable setback. The
garage in the back creates somewhat of a courtyard and then you
have a very small what is left of the backyard.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: You still have 63 --
MS. MOORE: The property also does, thank you, she was reminding
me. The property as you can see narrows as you get toward the
back. So at 75 we actually got variances for the house to be at
a certain distance from Indian Neck Lane. Because the
Board of Trustees 20 January 21, 2015
development of most of these houses face the water and obviously
this house will want to face the water. We have front yard
setbacks that we have to deal with from Indian Neck Road. So our
application to you is variances from every single side because
of the placement -- because of the configuration of this
property which was intended to be a development facing the
water. The narrowness, you would presume that the two sides of
the property are side yards, but in fact they are rear yard and
front yard. So when we went to the Zoning Board we needed
variances from the technical rear yard which is next to Wendell,
and the technical front yard which is Indian Neck Road. So we
went through an awful lot of effort to design this in such a way
that we make sense and comply, you know, essentially comply with
the character of the neighborhood, and as you can see, we are
certainly, the proposal is certainly further back than all the
other homes.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: It's further back than, may be further back
than the other homes but it's also closer than the current
existing home that has been there for years.
MS. MOORE: I understand. But it's not that we are doing an
alteration to the existing home. That has to go. So it's being
demolished. So we made a very strong effort, I mean we complied
with LWRP when we went to the Zoning Board. We got multiple
variances. As you can see, the development of this property is
with the bay front view so we can have the house that has been
planned and now that we have spent months getting if we were to
push this house back to 100 feet. That is certainly not
something that is necessary, given the circumstances.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I think the thing I struggle with and the Board
can chime in when they want to, is you have a lot of experience
with us and the Board and if one designs a plan according to the
rules that already exists, you would not have had to have lost
all that time. Do you understand what I'm saying? If you built
the structure and got your variances according to the 100 -foot
setback or where the current property is located, then you would
not have lost that time period.
MS. MOORE: I understand. But applicants, property owners have a
right to ask for what makes sense to not devalue the property.
This is a multi-million dollar piece of property, as you know.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: That's a valid argument and it's a valid
point.
MS. MOORE: And we certainly don't want to devalue it by placing
a house almost -- this house that is here in a sense devalues
the property because it was not really developed with the idea
of enjoying the views of the water. It is kind of, it's an
unusual house to say the least.
MS. HULSE: That could be the applicant's position but that is
not a consideration the Board of Trustees -- let me finish my
sentence please -- uses as a standard for considering issuance
of a permit. So that's just a point I want to make.
MS. MOORE: But given the standards that the Trustees do apply,
Board of Trustees 21
which is environmental standards, we are not impacting any of
the environmental standards that you consider in issuing a
permit when you routinely issue permits within your
jurisdiction, it's a recognition that if it's built within your
jurisdiction, then we may have to comply with additional
conditions to mitigate whatever you feel is an impact. Here we
have a bulkhead. So the property is completely protected. We
are, it has the road next to it. So it has no environmental
issues there. If anything, the road is probably more of an
environmental damage than any development of the house, because
we control our water runoff and the road doesn't. So, you know,
I would, my client and all of us would seriously object to a
denial of this application, given the fact that we have
mitigated every impact. It would really devalue the property to
develop it in any other way than the way it's been proposed, so.
TRUSTEE KING: Pat, it's been my experience on this Board,
whenever we have a demolition of a house on a waterfront
property, it's either rebuilt in place or moved landward. We
have never moved a house seaward, in my experience on this
Board.
MS. MOORE: Well, I would respectively disagree because you have
applications of people that have 200 feet back and obviously
nobody would want to build a house that is so far back from the
water. You get those on a regular basis, applications before
you. I think what you have applied, routinely, is looking at the
neighborhood and not going closer to the water than the adjacent
properties. We have shown you that we --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are getting off track here a little bit.
I think what Jim was trying to do is trying to convey some of
the institutional knowledge of the Board. He's been on 19 years,
Jim, and I have been on and off for a total of 16 years. And
it's hard for me to recall where ones that were jurisdictional
where it was a rebuild where we would have gone closer, with the
possible exception of a small appurtenance such as an open deck
or viewing area. But I think we are on a slippery slope of not
staying on the task of a public hearing when we start to go into
the specifics, and of course every situation is to be taken on a
case by case basis.
MS. MOORE: I understand.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Did you do a site visit before? I've only been
on the Board for a year. Did you do a site visit of this project
beforehand?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Plus we had all the documentation, the aerials
and everything.
TRUSTEE KING: I think Charles is saying did we look at all this
before the plans were drawn up.
MS. MOORE: Oh, you. I thought you said me. I don't know that you
did.
TRUSTEE KING: We hadn't seen this until we went out.
MS. MOORE: Because it would have gone to the Zoning Board first
rather than come to you.
January 21, 2015
Board of Trustees 22 January 21, 2015
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Pat, I have a question. I'll call it the area
of the proposed garage, kind of northward. Because that is
considered a side yard now. When you went for a
variance, that's considered a side yard rather than a rear yard?
MS. MOORE: Yes, that's a side yard. The side of the house is
considered a rear yard. So --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So that is a side yard. And side yard setbacks
are usually around 15 feet with the town. And I'm noticing you
have 63, if I could read this, it's very small print, looks like
63 feet. So what I'm hearing is there is plenty of room to move
this entire project, in other words not changing the size of
your proposed garage, not changing the size of your parking
area, not changing the footprint of your house, the whole
project could slide back and still be within 15 feet of that, it
would be plenty of room there.
MS. MOORE: No, that's the problem. Our property narrows as it
goes back. So the variances that we have --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking at the survey here.
MS. MOORE: The house is what we are impacting. By pushing the
house back, the property is narrowing. So the variances that we
got are going to be enlarged because the house, you know, the
property lines don't change. And as you move back, you are
squeezing that distance.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The house itself is getting squeezed.
MS. MOORE: Right.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have one person, do you want to get up
and speak? We are getting way off target here.
MR. MCGREEVEY: I want to deal with the application as it is. The
comments that I want to make is that the CAC, based on past
experience, would like the total recommendation that is on the
application read into the record. Not just support or not
support. Because we do have conditions we have concerns about.
And we would like it as a matter of record that I can go back to
the CAC and at our next meeting and be asked questions on it and
how it was addressed. So if the full report from the CAC could
be read into the Minutes, we would appreciate it.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: At the meeting of the Southold Town Advisory
Council held Wednesday, January 14th, 2015, the following
recommendation was made. Moved by John Stein, seconded by Peter
Meeker, it was resolved to support the application of Jan
Nicholson and Barbara Adams to construct a new two-story
single-family dwelling located 75 feet from bulkhead, attached
rear deck and front deck. Located 8100 Indian Neck Lane,
Peconic. Inspected by John Stein, Keith McCamy, Doug Hardy,
the CAC supports the application with the condition a survey is
submitted that is certified by a licensed surveyor, the driveway
is permeable and drainage plan. The CAC also questions if the
new construction will be on the existing footprint. That's hard
to answer in terms of the 75 feet versus 90 feet back.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Thank you.
Board of Trustees 23 January 21, 2015
MS. MOORE: There is some overlap of the footprint, but not
completely. It just encompasses.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is there anybody else who would like to speak
on behalf of the applicant?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Sanders, I'm concerned, one, that we
might be setting a precedent here in regard to the testimony
from Trustee King about going in a new area. And I also,
personally, would like much more time to review the survey and
the setbacks to see what sort of building envelope really exists
here.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Are you suggesting we table this application
for further review?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would not mind the extra time to look at it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would behoove us to possibly table this
and review this with the Building Department to see what kind of
envelope would exist with allowable setbacks.
MS. MOORE: My client would like, the buyer -- I have two
clients; Ms. Adams who will be very upset by that, and I have
Jan Nicholson whose plans you are looking at. So she would like
to have the opportunity to discuss it with you. If you want to
adjourn after that, so be it.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is that good for everybody on the Board?
(Affirmative response).
MS. NICHOLSON: I would just say, respectfully, that if I had to
be 100 feet back, I would not buy the property. The house would
be squeezed narrower, and I would feel very disadvantaged with
respect to Wendell's position and, you know, what I would see in
terms of my view of the water.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: When we were there, I understand you do have a
lot of trees right in front of the house, so it makes it
difficult for you to have a nice water view. We did discuss the
possibility of the removal of one tree and trimming of them to
give you a better view, because it's not necessarily a negative
environmental impact, plus you should have, you have the ability
to enjoy the view that you are paying for. I want to also add
that for discussion.
MS. HULSE: If I could just make a point that none of what this
conversation entails, with all due respect, is a standard
that this Board can use to make a decision whether to issue a
permit or deny a permit. So with all due respect, I mean I
understand your position, but this Board is not allowed under
the code to consider those variables in rendering a decision.
MS. NICHOLSON: I care. The implication is what difference does
it make to be 100 feet back rather than 75 feet back. And I'm
just saying that to this purchaser, it makes a huge difference.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Understood. Would anybody else like to speak?
MS. NICHOLSON: The site is 13 feet above sea level, so it's
protected reasonably well from storms.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Any other thoughts from the Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to make a little more in-depth review
Board of Trustees 24 January 21, 2015
of this.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I would make a motion to table this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: You're welcome.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number six, 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. SCTM# 63-7-33
REVISED DESCRIPTION AS OF 12/10/14: Construct an 18'x36'
swimming pool with 4'x10' steps into pool; existing pool drain;
pool equipment area; install 4' high pool enclosure fencing;
install a stoop from house to patio; install 1,620sq.ft. patio
pavers on concrete at grade (at 19' existing contour) with
French drain to drywells; repair/reset stones at existing stone
patio; add approximately 100 cubic yards clean fill, if and as
needed, to pitch grade for drainage and plantings; install a
landscaped buffer with landscape boulders and natural drought
tolerant native vegetation along landward side of pool fence;
install stone walkway and stone steps to existing slate patio;
install stone steps from walkway to dock, and from patio area to
side yard; install stone base for outdoor grill area; and
install an outdoor shower.
The Board reviewed the planting plan and site plan on the
January 14th field inspection. The LWRP coordinator indicated
that he's continuing to consider the project inconsistent with
concerns due to even with the ten -foot buffer there was concern
that the erosion of the bank may increase due to runoff.
The Board reviewed this application in detail. I believe
it is fair to characterize that after taking measurements off
the set of plans to check the distance that the lawn area will
go toward the creek, on both the north, if you will, on the
north and the south corner, the Board, at least based on what we
are seeing in the field, we want to open the dialogue here.
Briefly, we think that the consistency can be met, based on what
we saw on the lawn area on the north side and the left side as
Board of Trustees 25 January 21, 2015
you look at it, as prepared on the plans stamped received in the
Trustee office December 10th, but we still have concerns for the
lawn area and the extent seaward in that southern lawn area that
would be as you face the water, that would be the area to the
right, and I believe the Board felt that this area, if it were
to be withdrawn and kept in line with the patio, it would
provide additional protection. We felt that was probably most at
risk based on what we were seeing out there. And this would be
a way for us to address the inconsistency. The slopes were more
severe there, some of the vegetation had been cut and --
MS. MOORE: You are talking about as you face the water on the
right-hand side, the sloped area.
MS. MAURI: Mae Mauri. That was like that when we bought this
house. And we do plan, on the edge of that, about four feet of
whatever plantings we are allowed to put there so the runoff
would not go down the slope. I don't want the slope to disappear
either. So we are going to do everything we can, and anything
you suggest so that is protected. But I have grandchildren.
need some grass area.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Perhaps you are speaking of a different area,
because the area that Trustee Bredemeyer pointed out was not
like that on our previous site visitations.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are not tracking when you took over
ownership of the property. But we have been here over several
years now. It's been a couple of years, and this was fairly
heavily wooded, and heavily vegetated, and actually during the
course of our field inspection on the 14th we actually that saw
some of the vegetation had been sheared and cut off.
MS. MAURI: It was lowered because the gardener told me, that if
we cut back, some of these Rhododendrons had to be 50 -years old
and they don't flower, they are spindly, he said if we cut them
back, we didn't take them out, he said they grow up thicker and
maybe we would get some flowers from them. That's the only
reason we did that. We didn't remove them. They are not removed.
Nobody removed any plants there.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That may be correct but it's now showing lawn
area there. And that's our concern and consideration. In this
area right here (indicating).
MS. MAURI: But how many feet of bushes do you want from the
cliff to the house?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: What we are proposing is just keep a parallel
line, and that would all be non -turf and/or bush.
MS. HULSE: We have to have one person speak at a time because he
can't take the Minutes properly if both people are speaking, if
you don't mind.
MS. MAURI: Can we compromise, I'll cut it back another four
feet?
MS. MOORE: If you recall, that is actually, it's a bank that
slopes down towards the house. So there is really, there is no
water runoff because the slope, the water doesn't go uphill, it
comes downhill.
Board of Trustees 26 January 21, 2015
I mean, we could increase the size of that buffer by some
plantings which would essentially take in some of the slope that
is there, the concave slope. The property is actually higher
and it slopes back, if you recall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What if the buffer area could be increased
by approximately four to six feet, keep the same form, esthetic
form where you have it rounded.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: And you get two extra feet.
MS. MAURL That's fine.
MS. MOORE: If you would like to draw it right on those plans.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe we could do that.
MS. MOORE: I mean I could draw it on this but I believe this is
laminated.
TRUSTEE KING: So what did we come up with?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Four to six feet.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Four feet from that section down.
MS. MOORE: Four feet where --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: From the curve.
MS. MOORE: An additional four feet of landscaping.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are going to move this application and
then take a five-minute recess.
MS. MOORE: Just for the record, this application was approved
previously but it expired during the construction of the house.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, is there anyone else who wishes to
speak on behalf of this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comments, 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 as submitted
with the stipulation that the lawn area on the south of the
property be reduced by four feet in accordance with the line we
added, the four feet measured on the set of plans stamped
December 10th in the Trustee office. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Let's take a five-minute break for the good
and welfare of the members of the Board, please.
(After a recess, these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of EUGENE
P. LEWIS requests a Wetland Permit for the removal of existing
timber bulkhead and replacement of 103 linear feet of vinyl
bulkhead with 8 linear foot and 20 linear foot returns all in
same location as existing with raised height of 1' above
existing top cap elevation; remove existing timber platform,
Board of Trustees 27 January 21, 2015
ramp and float and construction of new 4'x6' timber platform;
3'x14' aluminum ramp; and 6'x20' floating dock; install a
maximum of 20 cubic yards of clean sand fill landward of
bulkhead and provide 10' wide non -turf buffer along the landward
edge of the bulkhead. Located: 1800 Little Peconic Bay Road,
Cutchogue.
This is found inconsistent with the LWRP. Evidently the
original dock and bulkhead did not have Trustee permits. They
were probably, by the looks of them, were constructed many years
ago. So, whatever happened here, but that's the reason for the
inconsistency.
The CAC resolved to support the application. They recommend
a ten -foot non -turf buffer. I don't know if that was on the
plans or not.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. There is
a ten -foot, non -turf buffer shown on the proposed plans, and
it's remove and replace existing bulkhead, and actually
shrinking the size of the floating dock down to 6x20 from the
6x32 that exists there now, putting this in conformance with the
latest requirements.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm reading Mr. Bergen's handwriting. We should
call him Dr. Bergen.
MS. HULSE: Please don't do that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question we had was about if you wanted to
permit in now the walkway that is within our jurisdiction, the
shed and the pole lights, so that you can have the pole lights,
but of course it would have to be Dark Sky compliant now. And
the shed and the walkway, because we noticed the walkway was
falling into disrepair, and if you permitted it in you would at
least be able to do the repair on that part in our jurisdiction
without coming back to us again.
MR. PATANJO: Mr. and Mrs. Lewis are not here. Yes, I would like
to permit those. In this configuration, apparently, it's going
to be. Can I have permission on square footage, same square
footage as existing, if they want to re -align it?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are talking about the walkway?
MR. PATANJO: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. It's a nice, wide walkway. It was just
starting to fall apart.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: He's asking if it has the same square footage
but not in the same spot.
MR. PATANJO: Not in the same exact spot. Maybe if they wanted to
go straight into the bulkhead or something.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are permitting it in as the dimensions are
there. That would give you the opportunity to make the necessary
repairs to that structure. It's jurisdictional. If they want to
change the size and dimensions of that structure, they would
have to come back to us and amend the permit.
MR. PATANJO: That's fine.
Board of Trustees 28 January 21, 2015
MR. MCGREEVEY: Would that be in-kind/in-place?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It would have to conform to our building
standards.
TRUSTEE KING: It's bricks and timber but the timber is rotten,
the bricks are all starting to fall apart. This way they can
repair it because it's a permitted structure.
Is there anybody else here to speak on behalf of or against
this?
(No response).
Board comments?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
it's been submitted with the addition of permitting in the small
shed and brick walkway so they can be repaired, and any lighting
on the dock there shall also be Dark Sky compliant.
MR. PATANJO: Do you need revised plans?
TRUSTEE KING: No. Because the walkway will be where it is. If
you want to change the location of that, you'll have to come in
for an administrative amendment.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number eight, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of NORTH
FORK KIWI, LLC, c/o KAREN HAUSER requests a Wetland Permit for
the removal of existing timber bulkhead and replacement of 73
linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in same location as existing with
raised height of V above existing top cap elevation; removal of
timber bulkhead return and installation of 64 linear feet of
vinyl bulkhead return; removal of existing timber retaining wall
and replacement with 104 linear feet of vinyl retaining wall;
removal and replacement of existing timber stairs to beach;
replenish area with 20 cubic yards clean sand fill landward of
bulkhead; and re -vegetation of eroded bluff and area between
bulkhead and retaining wall. Located: 5700 Vanston Road,
Cutchogue.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be
consistent, recommending that the applicant identify plant
species, spacing and maintenance of area to be re -nourished.
The CAC reviewed this. The CAC does not support the
application because the shoreline is out of alignment and the
project could negatively impact the adjacent property. The
project is also inconsistent with the overall plan for
stability, and the CAC recommends a comprehensive management
plan for this area.
Just for clarification, when the CAC says "this area," are
Board of Trustees 29 January 21, 2015
they talking about just this property or that entire shoreline
area of Nassau Point?
MR. MCGREEVEY: I think they took in a wider area. I didn't do
the inspection personally.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, so they are referring to more than just
the property.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Yes, because the property can be limited.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. Thank you. We did receive one letter,
actually an E-mail, from an adjacent property owner. This is
from Barbara Braatz, and it is dated today. And it says, my
question regarding the proposal from North Fork Kiwi are the
proposed 64 foot length of bulkhead return along the northwest
boundary is not shown in the sectional drawing. How far above
the bluff surface would this extend? How deep into the bluff
face would this wall be buried? How will it be anchored in
place? Also, given that this new wall is to be installed from
the beach just beyond the top of the bluff, what will be done to
mitigate the collapse of the bluff during the installation?
stipulate this entire E-mail will be admitted into the entirety
of the Minutes.
Given that, is there anybody here to speak on behalf of
this application.
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. I don't
know where to start right now. Let's start with the bulkhead
return. The 64 foot bulkhead return. To answer the questions
from the E-mail. The height of the top will be about a foot out
of the ground with eight foot sheets, so seven feet penetrated
into the ground. The install will be with a vibrator driven from a track
mounted excavator on the bluff. No jetting or anything like
that. It will be vibrated in. The whole purpose of that is as
you could see from this photo, which is a very good one, and the
additional ones I provided to you, which was the same questions
that I had to make revisions to the DEC for. They were
concerned with the erosion on the property to the north.
My client's whole idea right here to do this bulkhead
return wall is to stop that from setting any further. We looked
into options such as revegetation, coir logs, any sort of jute
meshing, stabilization fabric. Even plantings of any type, just
in my opinion it won't work. It looks like they started to
start something down below on the left of that photograph, and it
didn't do anything. From what I have been told, I never been out
here during a storm, but apparently all this erosion is due
storms coming from the Peconic Bay. So any erosion coming from
the top, I don't think is really an issue for this. I think all
the erosion is coming from the bay side. And apparently the
property to the north, the one that is eroding right now, is
somebody passed away, it's in a trust, I don't know what the
situation is. But rumor has it they can't afford to fix it, so
it will keep on going, and my client will lose their property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could just provide a little history of
that. You can see down at the bottom some coir logs here. I'm
Board of Trustees 30 January 21, 2015
sorry, I was looking to see if it was in the file here, but it's
not. So it was the previous owner of this property before the
Hauser's owned it. They did come to this Board and got a permit
to put in coir logs and I believe some jute matting in there. And
some plantings to help prevent this erosion from happening. I
also remember that because they had to get permission from the
adjoining property owner to do that work, which they succeeded
in obtaining for us as a condition of the permit. So when you
look at that, you are exactly right. There was an attempt by the
previous property owner to mitigate the erosion that was
happening from this property. And it did fail, as we can see.
This side of the Nassau Point in Tropical Storm Irene took a
real pounding, and my best guess, and it would only be a guess,
is whatever was put in there got destroyed by Irene.
I share in the adjoining property owner's concern that in
the cross section there is no diagram to show this return. And
think it would be a good idea to obtain that, to have that in
here as part of the file so, as part of the application, excuse
me, since it usually is required to be part of that application.
So the access to this would be totally from the applicant's
property, not from the joining property, for all the work to be
done?
MR. PATANJO: Correct. We do have, as part of what I'm doing, we
did have a DEC permit for this that expired this month, so I'm
renewing that with the addition of the bulkhead return.
Everything else remains as per the approved DEC permit. So it
will be a renewal with the addition of the 64 foot of return.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I can only speak for myself, and I'll open it up
to the opinion of the other Board members here. I'm not
comfortable going forward from the entire project as described
without a cross-section or diagram of the proposed construction
of this return. I understand we have it on record now that you
verbalized the construction, but as we know with applications we
require cross-sections with the application itself. That's just
my own feeling. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels
about that.
TRUSTEE KING: He has a pending application with the DEC, right?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. It won't hold up the project. A question we
also had on here, we noticed, because it's not on the plan,
there is an existing deer fence located, I'm just saying
approximately in the middle of that bluff, and since that has
not been applied for, that would have to, a permit would have to
be obtained or it could be included in this permit, the deer
fencing itself. So I would suggest that also as you are
revising the plans for the return, to revise it, if they want
that deer fence, revise it to include the deer fence, referring
to the current Town Code for deer fencing so it complies with
current Town Code.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You definitely want to check with the
current Town Code. We were hoping to review them before
tonight's meeting. We didn't have an opportunity to.
Board of Trustees 31
TRUSTEE BERGEN: With regard to the rest of this project, I don't
know that we had any questions. The area between the proposed
bulkhead and proposed retaining wall, was that going to be
planting with Cape American beach grass?
MR. PATANJO: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just trying to address what the LWRP
administrator placed in his report.
MR. PATANJO: That whole area will be replanted and maintained.
That's not a problem.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would address his concern. Is there anybody
else here who wanted to speak regarding this application?
(No response).
Any other comments from the Board? Questions from the Board at
all?
(No response).
MR. MCGREEVEY: I would like to make a comment, Dave.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure.
MR. MCGREEVEY: The CAC has met with the Town Supervisor and he
pointed out this piece of property in this area in particular,
we were requested, the CAC was requested to put together a
comprehensive plan dealing with the wider area, using this as an
example. It should be forthcoming within the next couple of
days, our intention, and we sat down with the Board at the last
Board meeting on Tuesday, and we made the presentation. What we
are talking about here is situations like this, not only this
one but many others, I think as we are going forward, we are
going to have to look at situations like this and come up with
proactive addressing these problems. Because what we have here
is, as this gentleman is well aware, we can take care of that
property and protect it to a great extent, but because of for
whatever reason, financial reasons or it's in trust or whatever,
the property is being destroyed. And it's an ongoing thing. So
you will have something on your desks very shortly of the
problem, the overall problem and solutions.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Are there any other comments?
(No response).
If not, I'll make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number nine, 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'.
January 21, 2015
Board of Trustees 32 January 21, 2015
Located: 350 Oak Street, Cutchogue.
Without reiterating and repeating what was adequately
recorded in last month's Minutes, the LWRP coordinator found
this to be consistent and inconsistent. The consistency refers
to the deck. The inconsistency is that it does not follow dock
standards pursuant to Chapter 275-11. And that's more adequately
described in the Minutes from the previous meeting.
The CAC voted to support this application. The vote was on
December 10th, 2014. 1 would note for the record that we
received the letter from Michael Kimack, received January 12th,
2015, and it references the fact that this Board rejected the
fixed dock, correct that, that we did not reject but we tabled
this hoping that the applicant would come back with revised
plans that might help us address the inconsistency.
Having said that, is there anyone here to speak to this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Mike Kimack, on behalf of the applicant, who is also
here tonight, Mimi Colombo. You are right, the Board had really
tabled this on two concerns. And that actually concerned the
height of the fixed dock, which was about 8.75 feet, and which
can be corrected by probably about two feet. We are required to
be 18 inches above the wetlands by DEC standards and regulations
for a flow-through decking. The elevation at the base of that
deck right there is about five -and -a -half feet. And the
elevation at the top of the deck is about 8.75 feet. So in a
sense, the fixed dock can be lowered by probably no more than
two feet in order not to be out of sync with the DEC, with their
standards, basically. It would basically be the top of the fixed
dock would go from about 8.75 down to about six -and -a -half feet.
But it could go no lower simply in order to stay 18 inches above
the wetlands.
TRUSTEE KING: The one in that picture, in the previous picture,
the dock to the left --
MR. KIMACK: That's about five -and -a -half feet, Jim.
TRUSTEE KING: I was going to say, do we know what the elevation
of that dock is? Because that's more in line with what we are
looking at.
MR. KIMACK: Yes. I went out there today. We didn't take a shot
on it. We took a shot at the base of it, if you look at that.
The natural ground is about two six six. And I put a, before I
came out here, I put a ruler on it. And the top of that is
about, between five, five -and -a -half feet. The problem is that
ground is lower than where we are. The base --
TRUSTEE KING: It's not five -and -a -half feet above grade.
MR. KIMACK: It's five -and -a -half elevation.
TRUSTEE KING: So what's the distance off grade, do you know?
MR. KIMACK: About two -and -a -half feet off of grade. But the
difficulty there is that grade there is two six six at the base
of that dock. The grade where we are is 5.5 to six. And we are
considerably higher to begin with at the base of the wetlands.
And as I had quoted, DEC standards require that if you are going
Board of Trustees 33 January 21, 2015
to put -- the inch and inch standard, basically. So even if I put
two steps out and drop it two feet and move it away from there
about two or three feet, I would probably be still at the five
foot level. So the top of the deck would have to be about
six -and -a -half, or about two feet roughly down below where it
is now. It would make a big difference, obviously. It would drop
it by a couple of feet. But it could not be simply because of
the difference in height, the same height as the one next door,
as the fixed dock.
TRUSTEE KING: By being lower you could use a smaller pile.
MR. KIMACK: You got me on that one. You do like those six-inch
Piles, don't you.
TRUSTEE KING: Going back to DEC, wasn't too many years ago you
would be putting 4x4's there. That was standard. There was
nothing through wetlands any larger than 4x4's.
MR. KIMACK: You are right. I went with eights because I was up
higher. And sixes made no sense --
TRUSTEE KING: And rather than go with the six-inch piles through
the wetland and then go to eight -inch out in the water --
MR. KIMACK: If we dropped it to six, six -and -a -half, it would be
less disturbance.
TRUSTEE KING: It would be less disturbance to the wetlands.
MR. KIMACK: Sure, we could do that. As far as the floating dock
aspect, which you had a resistance to, and you had recommended
the fixed dock with a buoy that went out there, I just want to
indicate to you, you had on two previous occasions in the last
two years approved two floating docks relative -- one right next
door, about 30 feet away, the other about 180 feet away
upstream, at roughly the same elevation of the floating dock to
the bottom of the, about one to one -and -one-half. The one next
door is actually identical, only 30 feet away on the same line,
to one foot. And that was on chocks. And the one about 180
feet to the east, if I have it correctly is also on chocks. And
the water was about a foot -and -a -half deep.
TRUSTEE KING: The one we are looking at, with the four piles,
you are saying that's on chocks --
MR. KIMACK: That's on chocks to the float. One one. That
proposed dock goes no further out. The front of that proposed
dock is exactly the same distance on center.
TRUSTEE KING: I always had the question in my mind, you put the
chocks on so the float does not contact the bottom. What about
the boat tied to the float, that doesn't touch the bottom?
That's floating. Come on.
MR. KIMACK: It's an interesting point, Jim, in the sense that
you are right that the standard is two -and -a -half feet, but the
DEC is approving it. It has apparently, had to have approved
these two docks at the one one level. And with the chocks,
because they do recommend the chocks, or some variation of the
chocks, I've seen chocks, I've seen chains where they had
chained them down. Pick your poison on this particular one. So
we would ask for a reconsideration, if you could.
Board of Trustees 34 January 21, 2015
MS. COLOMBO: I would like to address the purpose, the reason I
have a kayak that I actually love, my rheumatologist says it's
good and with the marshlands I can't get the kayak out, and I
have a grandchild now and we have a whaler and there is no way
to pull it. So I just want to be able to use the water without,
I mean, I've never touched all those wetlands, there is no way
to pull a kayak in. To me, it would damage it. So that's like I
just look around and I see my neighbors and I said well if I
could do that, within whatever regulations you give me, I'll do it,
so that I could use the boat and the kayak without dragging it.
can't do it, you know, on the beach.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There were some people that had the same type
goal as yourself, and I know in Wickham Creek in particular,
similar conditions, and what they did was a fixed dock to a
kayak slide and they actually put the kayak on it and it slides
down into the water.
MS. COLOMBO: I have a whaler, though.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, I'm just addressing the kayaks now. That
would enable people to get kayaks there. The other thing, I know
these pictures show the docks you are describing and you mention
the docks to the north. The dock that is not in that picture
immediately to the south, your next door neighbor, I believe
that's a fixed dock with stairs going down to the water. That
would also achieve the goal of enabling you to get a kayak down
there. And we talked about last month without going into the
same detail over again, the use of a buoy. A mooring. That you
could keep the whaler at a mooring and use your kayak to get out
to the whaler or dinghy to get out to the whaler, or another
small vessel to get out to the whaler.
MS. COLOMBO: It scares me though, to be pulling it in.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just saying it's a method of access for you.
MS. COLOMBO: I understand. I used to, years ago, have a, I call
it in/out, a pole on the beach and pull it in. But I can't
physically pull the boat anymore. And it actually scares me to
try to get in it doing that. I just, you know. I can't.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Considering the issue before about the chocking,
it's more than an interesting point to us because it goes right
to the heart of the inconsistency that was pointed out
repeatedly last month must be addressed, and still remains here.
And that is the problem that a motorized, not the dock, but the
motorized vessel will create propeller, scouring of the bottom,
increased turbidity, it's here in writing and it has to be
addressed. And I would also like to point out that the
comparison of this application to the Cooper, which is the dock
visible there on the left in the photograph, is not quite fair.
Each application that comes before us has different criteria and
constraints. The Cooper application, I pulled the file and
looked at it. And that resulted from the repairs that were
damage caused by Superstorm Sandy. It was decided at that time
to upgrade the permit to include what had been grandfathered in
1984 and to make the permit match the structure, so to speak.
Board of Trustees 35 January 21, 2015
And extension to reach deeper water. It does reach deeper water.
It's noted on the file that the water depth is 1.8 feet at the
landward side of the float. So it is different physical
characteristics than this application. And this application we
still need to address the fact that the water is only one foot,
1.09 foot at the seaward end of the float that you are proposing,
and does not get deeper. As you pointed out last time, 30 feet
out still won't get you two -and -a -half feet of water. We have to
address that. And we were hoping that you would go away and
somehow come back with an application that helped us address
that inconsistency. But I'm seeing basically the same thing.
MS. COLOMBO: Is there any way I could adjust it to like do what
they have? I would be willing, I'll do anything, I mean if I, if
it's off, I'll, you know, I don't understand the level water,
but I'll do it, I mean whatever you say. I'll do.
MR. KIMACK: I would respectively disagree with Mike on that
particular issue. I personally did the soundings out there and
the proposed dock is at the most seaward aspect of that, we were
at the 1.1. And that dock is 20 feet long coming in. We are only
30 feet away and I was at 1.1 at low water. I cannot see where
his landward side of the dock is 1.8. It just can't be. It just
can't be.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm only going by what was in the file that I
reviewed this morning. I didn't do the soundings. But that's
what it shows on the application that we addressed, and that's
why we moved that forward and are reluctant to move this one forward.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just as a point of clarification, you are
saying that you're questioning the validity of the soundings
which are already a couple -years old on the other file.
MR. KIMACK: I'm not quite sure if it has moved that much in that
particular period of time, but I'll tell you that, see the two
outer posts there, which is the outer dock, which is the most
seaward level of the proposed dock that Ms. Colombo's is the
floating dock, at that point, at the 1. 1, her dock was literally
30 feet away. What they are claiming is they are claiming it was
1.8 feet on the two landward posts on the floating dock. If I
read mine correctly. And I can't see where it's off nearly a
foot in 20 feet, 30 feet away.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I don't want to belabor that point. But the
point is --
MR. KIMACK: We were both in shallow water.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We have to address what is presented to us and
what is presented to us shows 1.1 foot at the end of that float,
which does not allow us to move forward on this. It may not be
fair but that's what it is.
MR. KIMACK: Let me ask you, what doesn't allow you to move
forward on it. The one one?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, we have to address the inconsistency
with the fact pattern that is there. The circumstances of this
dock appear to be different from the neighbor's, although -- in
other words what we can't see is what the difference is, and the
Board of Trustees 36 January 21, 2015
difference is in the inconsistency of the LWRP coordinator. I
think the Board is trying to politely indicate that we prefer to
work on revisions and you work with the applicant so we are not
in a position to be denying this and she loses her stake in the
current application process. I think that's it in a nutshell.
MR. KIMACK: Do you have any standard of depth that is
acceptable?
TRUSTEE KING: We need to just get creative here.
MR. KIMACK: I'm trying.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just trying to rack things in my head. If you
did away with the float and just had the fixed catwalk, like was
done in so many other creeks that is shallow, we put a little
"T" at the end of the fixed docks, you can even have a step down
"T" area for your kayak launching.
MS. COLOMBO: Would it fit the boat there?
TRUSTEE KING: And maybe put a pile outside and tie the boat fore
and aft with the stern out so you don't dig up the bottom.
mean, you have to think this out.
MR. KIMACK: If we set the top, the water comes up, on that
particular one, we are at high tide right now.
TRUSTEE KING: That was an exceptional high tide when we were out
there. I remember.
MR. KIMACK: It was pretty high, Jim. It was about 18 inches or
two foot below that, the top of that dock next door. Which is
five -and -a -half feet. The dock was running about
three -and -a -half there at that particular time. So if we set it
then, the problem is if I meet the criteria of DEC and set the
top of the deck at six -and -a -half, that means at low tide I'll
be three feet, three feet down in the water at low tide. At the
fixed end of the dock.
TRUSTEE KING: What if you have a section that was two feet lower
than the fixed dock itself.
MR. KIMACK: And drop it down.
TRUSTEE KING: Step down and be closer to the water. And even if
you had an exceptional --
MR. KIMACK: What they are proposing, I'll speak it out, what
they are proposing is go out with a fixed dock and at the six
foot level or so, which will be three feet above the water, and
when you get to the end of 60 feet, step it down a couple of
feet so there is a small section that is a fixed dock that is
maybe 4X10 or something like this or almost, the floating dock
but it's a fixed dock, that is only going to be at the
four -and -a -half foot level so it's only 18 inches above high
tide.
TRUSTEE KING: It's just an idea.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We don't design things. We are not really
proposing this is a --
MR. KIMACK: We never asked for you to give us -- but you are
giving us some direction in terms what you think might be --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Appropriate for reconsideration.
MS. COLOMBO: Because the funny thing is when I had the
Board of Trustees 37 January 21, 2015
inner/outer, and I was able to pull it in a little, a lot of
times I got in and put it in reverse, I'll admit, I was kicking up
the bottom because I physically, that was as much as I could get
it in. And I just hate to tell you that to reverse would get me out
to get going. So I was kicking up the bottom.
MR. KIMACK: We would ask to table again and I'll redesign and
resubmit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mike, I did have one question again about the
retaining wall. In the description it says 20 foot long ACQ
wood retaining wall with shore guard sheathing. Shore guard
meaning vinyl sheathing, so that's totally a vinyl sheathing in
front?
MR. KIMACK: Yes, in the front. In order to meet the
requirements. It has to be the 6x6 ACQ simply because we are
putting a deck on the top of it and it's all being filled in.
And the through -flow will go on top of that, too.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The confusion was it doesn't have the word "vinyl"
in there in front of sheathing, that's all.
MR. KIMACK: I think I did put in the 8x8 hot tub, at your
suggestion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes
MR. KIMACK: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments?
TRUSTEE KING: No.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing nothing, I'll make a motion to table
this application and give the applicant the opportunity to
design something that addresses the LWRP inconsistency.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 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 ±528sq.ft. covered terrace; construct a 7,564sq.ft.
tennis court; a 480sq.ft. tennis viewing area; install
1,510sq.ft. of walkways; construct a ±3,320sq.ft. auto court;
and install a septic system and storm water management system.
Located: 14911 Main Road, East Marion.
This is a matter that we tabled last month. Without
reiterating the testimony and the Minutes from last month, if
may, I just want to update the record for what is in the file.
The Board of Trustees started the review of the materials which
were submitted only the day before yesterday, or yesterday, at
our worksession last night. We had the beginnings of starting
the discussion. So opening this I would say we don't need to
reiterate. We have in our possession both a fax copy and now the
original of Mr. Jannuzzi's affidavit and affirmation of an
Board of Trustees 38 January 21, 2015
attempt to contact the neighbor Mr. Barhoff, to the west. We
have the inclusion of the Trustees wetland line on the survey
that was revised dated the 16th of January of this month. And we
have a purported line drawing which resulted from some
discussions that I understand you might have had with Jamie
Richter, Mr. Kimack?
MR. KIMACK: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think that brings us up to date, and
correct me if I'm wrong, with the materials that you submitted.
MR. KIMACK: You are correct. Those are the areas, I believe,
that where the major concerns of the last meeting, one was
having the survey with the new line on it. Now I'll say we have
two lines. You have the En -Consultant's line and you have the
Trustees line.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The determination of consistency that
previously was in the file that was the subject of the hearing
last month was based on activities that were on the northerly
end of the property abutting Dam Pond as opposed to the area of
question where we flagged the new wetlands adjacent to the
proposed road on the right-of-way. So we had informal
discussions with the Planning Board representative to gather
information on that. But the consistency review would be called
into question where we are finding that there are wetlands
activities proposed in an area of wetlands ordinarily you would
not get a consistency review. We are not dialing that back
because we are still trying to keep this in an information
gathering and productive mode so we can continue the dialogue.
Now, in that vein, I know we were looking at it in the work
session last night, the thought was if you already started to
re -do the road construction standard to eliminate the drywells
to obviate the concerns of the neighbor concerning saltwater
intrusion with ever-present high tides and overtopping, is there
any consideration in the possibilities of the road, renegotiating
the right-of-way for the road so the road actually ends up as
the barrier to the wetland; in other words basically flipping
the right-of-way on the Campbell property with the new road
construction standard presumably all okay with Michael Collins
and Jamie Richter. The road then would be the barrier for the
protected wetlands, it would also, a slight elevation would also
tend to keep the additional tidal waters from going up and on
the Campbell property. It was just a thought that was launched.
Here again, one of those conceptual things but, and I guess it
would be in bearing with how well negotiations or discussions
are going with Campbell's. The young man who spoke, and I don't
have his contact information, he was trying to be reasonable and
I think he had a concern we could all appreciate, protecting his
water supply and his public water. This Board has already gone
on record with respect to the extension of public water and some
of those issues, so it's not likely any time soon the public
water supply is coming to properties in that section of East
Marion and Orient.
Board of Trustees 39 January 21, 2015
MR. KIMACK: No, the closest lines are roughly fifteen -hundred
feet away at the present time. Going on the other side of the
causeway, going in a westerly direction if you drive out you'll
see it there. As I understand your concern, when I talked it
over with Mr. Richter, basically, and we looked at it, the way
that he conceptualized it to me, and that was, that's what that
drawing is that I gave you, was that by raising it up, right now
it runs, the average elevation that runs through that wetland
area is roughly anywhere from four eight to four three from the
driveway side, all the way to where the Baccharus are right now.
That's roughly how high it is at the present time. What he
suggested as a conceptual approach was to raise the road up so
the road itself became the barrier. And we picked the six foot
line because six foot is the height of where the road would join
the existing driveway. And then swing in and hit the six foot
elevation going up the hill. On the Dam Pond side of that road.
As you can see. And having that little bit of a curve line. The
top of the curve is six six. Then the road would slope down from
south to north, basically with the drywells would still be there
because he cannot, they still are part and parcel of his
requirement to be in place. However by raising the road up, in
most cases it would eliminate the intrusion of salt water,
because the road itself would become itself in fact the dam
against the intrusion of saltwater.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If that's the case how would that not be
still more beneficial if that dam is moved to the north and then
the wetland is protected.
MR. KIMACK: You mean onto the Campbell property?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, the right-of-way is already on the
Campbell property.
MR. KIMACK: No, no, that's not a right-of-way.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's not a right-of-way. Okay, so in other
words the road as it is now --
MR. KIMACK: Is the property of Treasure Island Cove.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I'm sorry. That is Treasure Island
Cove's property. Now, what about the issue raised by Campbell
though that you access the curb cut from the state highway
across their driveway to get on to your property. Why are you
not having a curb cut directly out on to the state road.
MR. KIMACK: Because when we went to the Planning Board we did
have curb cut going out to the state road but we basically,
Treasure Island Cove, or that particular original development,
had not only this access in, which was part of the property,
which is where the water is on the right-of-way, but also had a
right-of-way over what is the Campbell driveway that goes up to
Reis, goes past Reis and goes up. I think it's Reis on the
water side. Right there. It was that right-of-way when we went
to the Planning Board, that they had a strong suggestion that we
do not have another road cut between two existing driveways, one
for Barhoff, one for Campbell, at all, because Campbell serves I
think three or four lots up through there. It was that existing
Board of Trustees 40 January 21, 2015
driveway to the east that the Treasure Island Cove property or
the development, had a right-of-way across that brought that
driveway mid-range into the Treasure Island Cove property up the
hill. They asked us and we complied by basically removing our
road cut and tying it into the existing one, since we had a
right-of-way to that, and doing away with the rest of the
right-of-way. And it's that drawing that you have in front of
you showing the connection to the Campbell road right-of-way
going there. This basically also meets the letter of the law,
because in a sense what you have is the inner section of two
driveways with one entrance point. But we still have two
driveways. So our driveway does not violate the two lots per
driveway rule.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Does the entrance share with Barhoff?
MR. KIMACK: The entrance is shared with Campbell. And Barhoff
has his own.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, it's still separate. Because Barhoff
doesn't show on the drawing. Now, I need clarification, because
I'm confused. I thought that the drawing you gave us of the
conceptual rendition of what your discussion with Jamie was, was
going to eliminate the drywells, and it doesn't.
MR. KIMACK: No, and I was very cautious about this and I talked
to Jamie about this. I'm going to go to the Trustees. What
can I say, without putting words in your mouth, because I don't
want to do that. Nor would I. And he said you can tell them we
worked out the conceptual aspect of this. We also had a
discussion about whether or not the intrusion of saltwater, if
the water overtopped this six -and -a -half foot level and got into
there, whether it was going to be even more egregious than what
had originally occurred in natural conditions, and it was my
opinion -- and I will not say what Jamie's opinion was, it won't
make that much of a difference.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, I didn't understand. Is it your
opinion or Jamie's or both?
MR. KIMACK: Mine was going into that with Jamie, but it was
Jamie's opinion whether or not the drywells are there or not,
but they have to be under the storm water management plan, that
if there was an overtopping of that 6.5 level and by the Dam
Pond and some water got there, it would also have to be
overtopping of the road.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So what you are telling me, the offhand
discussion we had last night to move the road further to the
north would result in drywells that would be closer to their
water well, if it were to be overtopped, and there is no question
overtopping will happen in this location, those of us have been
through Irene, Sandy, multiple Nor'easters, I can't even count
on two hands the number of times as a firefighter I have been
landlocked or couldn't get home to Orient because of sea
conditions there. It's just a fact of life.
MR. KIMACK: Whatever overtopping has occurred in the past,
whatever brackish water there may be on that lower side there
Board of Trustees 41 January 21, 2015
has already occurred and already in place, will not be added to
with the putting of the drywells in there. Now, putting the road
on the elevated level will not stop all of the overtopping, but
it should basically keep a large portion of the normal amount of
runoff coming against there going to the north side of that and
even closer to his well.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So periodic storms --
MR. KIMACK: Right. We are not dealing with the 1% storms.
Perhaps what we might be dealing with is a good number that
raise it a couple of feet. This will keep that in there. That's why
Jamie, we basically picked that six-foot elevation line. And
that six-foot elevation line if you look coming back pretty much
ties in with the high point coming back to the existing driveway.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you have any additional information to
add to the materials you have submitted? We are still in the
process of reviewing them. Do you have anything additional that has
come about since then to add to the information?
MR. KIMACK: From the road point of view, no. I mean, the main
concern obviously was the intrusion of the drywells being a, the
vehicle by which additional saltwater might be added over and
above what would be naturally occurring.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Have you had an opportunity maybe to or
maybe are waiting to communicate with Campbell concerning
Jamie's conceptual design to see the thoughts of the Campbell family
with respect to the security of their water supply?
MR. KIMACK: On that particular one, Mr. Campbell had actually
met with Jamie prior to my meeting. He went in on his own. I did
find that out when I went in to talk with Jamie. I was not a
participant in that one, but I think probably Jamie --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I could check with Jamie to have him
articulate those discussions.
MR. KIMACK: I'm more comfortable with that because I'm not here
to speak on behalf or indicate --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I didn't know which -- I think at this point
we are still looking at this and we need to provide and get our
own verification on some of the discussion and dialogue and also
get a better understanding of where we are finding ourselves as
a Board with respect to a very difficult application for us.
MR. KIMACK: I know. I can say with some level of clarity that
Jamie did indicate that this particular approach with the
elevated road, he felt, would diminish greatly the amount of
overflowing that might result in any additional waters getting
in there. But we, and also if you think about it, by doing it
that way and by tipping the road the way we tip the road, and by
curbing it on the other side, we are collecting all the fresh
water from the road that is in there, and any salt water coming
in over there will be blocked from coming across there.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: This may have already been asked. Why do you
want your own private road versus the one that is already being
utilized?
MR. KIMACK: Primarily because the Planning rules indicate you
Board of Trustees 42 January 21, 2015
cannot have, number one, when this was done in 1980, that piece
of property is the private road going in for that. It was going
to be four lots. Now it's two. And Planning Commission rules
and regulations are by definition you can't have more than two
lots on a private driveway. Which I submitted that to you the
last meeting.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have that in the file.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Can that be mitigated by a variance?
MR. KIMACK: It's not our land, basically. All we do, this is the
access in, basically.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Do you have a right-of-way?
MR. KIMACK: No, it's our land, it's our property.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The road that is currently being used, not the
one you are proposing.
MR. KIMACK: The one currently used is not our property.
TRUSTEE KING: Wouldn't it have been better if we addressed this
situation before you started doing all that construction and
using this old road all the time for trucks and everything? It
doesn't make sense to me.
MR. KIMACK: Basically, when it was laid out, En -Consultants laid
the wetlands line out.
TRUSTEE KING: It's a huge amount of traffic going in and out of
these properties, over these two properties, over somebody
else's property. .
MR. KIMACK: And that has been going on for a long time.
TRUSTEE KING: Why hasn't anybody complained?
MR. KIMACK: There is no easement nor right-of-way to it. Going
forward. And from a legal point of view, that guy can come in
and stop us at any time. From a legal point of view. Has he
done it, no. Can we find him, no. Do we know where he is, no.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With an extension of that thought, if you
don't mind me asking, is there any information at all on
Barhoff? In other words is there anything as far as local lore
knowledge, like had he been there summers, anything that you can
speak of, even a bit offhand? I know we are getting far afield.
We have your affidavit.
MR. JANNUZZI: Yes. David Jannuzzi, for the applicant. I don't want
to malign him but there was, he's involved in a very high-profile case
of grand indictment about copyright infringement for his company.
He was a purveyor of Russian movie titles and --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe I shouldn't have asked. I was
concerned whether there was a possibility of a history of him
coming out summers.
MR. JANNUZZI: We never seen him involved with the property for
some time. He has not contacted -- the address we used is the
mailing address that the tax send their bills to. That's all we
have been able to. And no other contact, unfortunately.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Does the Board have any
additional questions? I'm not sure we will be able to --
MR. KIMACK: Mr. Chairman, we would respectively request that we
have duly answered your three major concerns giving you the
Board of Trustees 43 January 21, 2015
information. I know that you still have some deliberations on
the road going in, but we would respectively request a
reconsideration of the bifurcation so that we could, because the
environmental aspects of the road are not for the rest of the
project. So that's why we ask for the separation of the two.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: My understanding is you are asking us to
consider the bifurcation and you have the understanding that we
have to review the documents further. They came out a little
late under our guidelines and wetland ordinance and we'll likely
be communicating obviously with Jamie Richter and the
Campbell's, or through Jamie Richter to the Campbell's, and
reviewing this of our own accord.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Two quick questions. It shows on the plans
received January 20th, 2015, a right-of-way approximately 1.1 acres off
the Main Road. I was wondering if you could clarify what that is.
MR. KIMACK: What that is, that's the lower section of the
right-of-way that Treasure Island Cove had. That particular
right-of-way ran all the way up the existing road and then
connected into the Treasure Island Cove property about halfway
up between what was then the separation between-- they had one
time, Mike, four lots on that property. And it came in and kind
of cut across that. We did away with all that, basically, except
we preserved that 1.1 acres in order to make the connection with
the -- we had that right to make a connection from our property,
from the Treasure Island Cove property, to the right-of-way
that we had. Which was the lower section of the road. That's the
1.1 acres.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Don't laugh at me, but I have a question.
MR. KIMACK: I never laugh. I laugh at myself a lot, but.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: From an engineer's perspective, what about a
Bridge?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Elevated roadway. It's an option.
MR. KIMACK: I have to laugh.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: You said you wouldn't laugh.
MR. KIMACK: I'm laughing because this was something kicked
around internally. So I'm not laughing at you guys at all. The
bridge going, you mean from that right across?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Whatever land would be touched by, whatever
wetland would be touched, would be a bridge overtopping them.
MR. KIMACK: It would be about 320 feet, approximately. That's
the distance from the existing driveway until we got past the
Baccharus on the western side that made the turn up through
there. It would be roughly elevated the same way. Um, I don't
know, Jim, could we use six-inch or eight -inch piles?
I had to throw that in for you.
Look, it's not beyond the realm. They had already thought
about that, in essence. But, it would, I guess it would be
pretty much like a flow-through situation, in a sense, in many
respects, because it would be a galvanized type of webbing
basically on a 12 -foot wide thing with protection on both sides,
maybe even a little wider because if you elevate it there you
Board of Trustees 44 January 21, 2015
don't want anybody to fall off.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: You'd probably make it into Architectural
Digest
MR. KIMACK: Right. Maybe make it 15 feet. Because you have to be
able to get a fire truck up there. Because it has to carry the
weight of a fire truck.
Charlie, I'm not quite sure what the cost would be from a
point of view of carrying a 20 or 30 ton fire truck up there.
It's not -- you are right on point because they thought about
this, basically, but I'm not quite sure what the cost of that
structure may be. In essence, it's easy. Now, you have to do it with
the right reinforced concrete piers and stuff like that. But I
would imagine that a bridge would probably be in the range of
a quarter million dollars.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's an option to think about.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: One quick question, the test hole, soil analysis
done here, can you show me approximately where it is on this?
MR. KIMACK: The test hole was done at the 20 -foot line. I went
down 17 feet, which put the bottom at three feet, basically. The
test hole was up here over here, I think. No, sorry the test
hole is over here on this property here. It was dry at that
particular point.
We are required also, one reason for having raised it up is
that Jamie, his code requires it be two feet underneath the
drywell, to groundwater. By raising it up an extra couple of
feet we have that extra, because they are two -foot drywells.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I guess when I look at this project I see right
now on the table, I see two avenues of the approach. One, the
bridge, which is a lot of money. And the other one is finding
somehow to get in contact with that other homeowner and getting
permission to utilize it to have a right-of-way through that
existing road you are utilizing now. That's what I see currently.
MR. KIMACK: You are absolutely right. And we agree with you on
that. We'll have a road into the property, it will be either the
existing roadway in, either with cooperation with yourself on
something like that, and a raised level or the bridge type of
approach and elevated situation. Or for some miracle with
Barhoff there will be a driveway in. But that consideration
and that discussion doesn't impact us at least asking to be able
to move forward with the rest of the project.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I was going to say cut that down in half and
move forward with the rest.
MR. KIMACK: There will be a resolution to that. There is two or
three options on the table right now. Two of which are within
the existing property they have, the other was with Barhoff. And
Dave is right, I mean the guy, he may be in prison. We have no
clue.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm just thinking we probably, as a Board,
need to go over these materials and handle this in worksession,
unless you have something real pertinent.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I was saying if you cut that out of the
Board of Trustees 45 January 21, 2015
application, would anyone have an issue with moving forward?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we are probably not wanting to do
that at this point. We have to review all the documents and
check with Jamie.
MR. KIMACK: Can I get some direction from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We can't give you direction because we are
still at the point of reviewing your documents and what you have
submitted. And we have on the record your request to consider
the bifurcation. I don't believe we have a problem with that at
all. We'll go and review these materials and it will come in the
course of our monthly work sessions now as we get the monthly
information in.
MR. KIMACK: We can -- talking with Jamie will be a critical aspect
here in terms of how he looks at the engineering aspects of the
raised road. I hesitate to spend much time coming up with a
price and concept on the bridge until we have at least looked at
that aspect and either modified it or rejected it out of hand,
whatever you want to do. But I can tell you from my experience,
and I just, as an example, somebody asked me to design a
tertiary plan and they asked how much, and I said it was going
to be $4.7 million and it came out to $4.9 million. So I know my
numbers. I have done this kind of work before. It's expensive.
I'm not sure the applicant would want to absorb that particular
number, but then again, it's an option, and I'll take it back to
them. But I don't want that to diminish from the fact that we
submitted the raised elevated road.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: My understanding is we have an application
certain, a request to continue to review a bifurcation. The
Board will look at that and then will be in a position to make a
determination based on the facts. And that if in the
intervening time something else comes your way or you have
additional thoughts, it would be up to you to request it. If the
Board felt very strongly about some other avenue which has only
been thrown out here as a possible of possibles, I'm sure we
would be communicating that with you, maybe at the earliest
possible time --
MR. KIMACK: Obviously, you have to become comfortable with the
fact that when and if, when you hopefully vote for the
bifurcation and you have in fact looked at it and digested the
information and recognize that these are the remaining options,
none of which will impose any reason for not doing the
bifurcation and moving forward with that as a separate issue.
And you obviously have not reached that point yet. And I just
want to make sure we have given you enough information at the
present time for that consideration to occur. So, because, we
addressed what we felt was your, the issues you raised the last
time
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else that
wishes to add any comment?
(No response).
Board of Trustees 46 January 21, 2015
That being said, I'll make a motion to table this matter and
reconsider the request to bifurcate at the next formal
worksession at Downs Farms with additional information garnered
from the application itself and talking to Jamie and possibly
the Campbell's.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
John M. Bredemeyer III, President
Board of Trustees