HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-03/18/2015John M. Bredemeyer III, President
Michael J. Domino, Vice -President
James F. King, Trustee
Dave Bergen, Trustee
SO(/T
y �r
COQ
Charles Jr. Sanders, Tlrustee
1
�yMUMN�v
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
5:30 PM
Present Were: John Bredemeyer, President
Michael Domino, Vice -President
Jim King, Trustee
Charles Sanders, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Clerk Typist
Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Town Hall Annex
54375 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-6641
RECEIVED a,lad
MAY
So thold Town Clerk
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 5:30 PM
WORKSESS16NS: Monday, April 20, 2015 at 5:30 PM at Downs Farm, and on
Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall
MINUTES:r Approve Minutes of February 18, 2015.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good evening, and welcome to our regular monthly meeting
March 18th, 2015. 1 just want to inform you that there are a number of postponements in
the agenda. Ifi you have a copy of the written agenda, on page four, item number four,
and the entirety of page seven in the agenda, largely dealing with issues surrounding the
rather severe winter we've had, some sites were not able to be inspected. They are
listed as follows:
Number four, on page four, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of JOHN VENETIS
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #4895 from Spyridon & Letta Kouzios.to John
Venetis, as issued on March 25, 1998; and for an Amendment to Wetland Permit #4895
to replace existing ramp with a 3'x16' ramp; and relocate 5'x24' float from a "T" shape to
an "I" shape with four (4) proposed piles. Located: 2600 Takaposha Road, Southold.
And on page seven, number ten, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of BARBARA
ADAMS requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing dwelling and garage and
construct a now 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,
�l
y
Board of Trustees i 2 March 18, 2015
Peconic.
Number eleven, McCarthy Management, Inc., on behalf of 850 PRESIDENT LLC
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 30'x59' single-family dwelling with drywells;
proposed sanitary system landward of dwelling; and driveway. Located: 7165 New
Suffolk Road, New Suffolk.
Number 12, Gary Steinfeld on behalf of MARK KING requests a Wetland Permit for the
partial demolition and reconstruction of existing 30.5'x22.4' dwelling including removal of
southern portion of structure (5.2'x22.2'); expansion of footprint to 28'x32' with additions
on north and east elevations; addition of a second story; and construction of a 12'x29'
deck on west elevation; and 4'x6' covered entry porch on north elevation. Located: 200
East Mill ,Road, Mattituck.
Number 13, Michael Kimack on behalf of MIMI COLOMBO requests a Wetland Permit
to remove existing +/-24' long wood. retaining wall, 4' wide wood decking and staircase;
and replace with a proposed +/-24' long ACQ wood retaining wall with shoreguard
sheathing; proposed 4'x+/-24' thru-flow decking along top of retaining wall; construct a
4'x60' fixed dock on 8" diameter pilings at 8'o.c.; a 3'x16' removable aluminum ramp; a
4'x16' floating dock with a 4'x4' float extension using trex decking; with four (4) 10"
diameter pilings in two sets; overall length of docking facility from retaining wall to be 80'.
Located: 350 Oak Street, Cutchogue.
Number 14, Michael Kimack on behalf of THOMAS & NANCY ESHELMAN requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x +/-120' walkway using thru-flow decking with 6"
diameter piles' following existing path through wetlands; remove existing 4'x32' fixed
dock and construct new 4'x79' fixed dock with 8" diameter piles at 9' finished grade
using thru-flow decking; install a 3'x16' removable aluminum ramp; install an 8' wide at
ramp end by 4' wide by 16' long with a 2'x2' at 45 degree corner brace "L" shaped
floating dock using composite lumber; install two sets of (2) 8" diameter piles to secure
floating dock; !and to construct a new 1,045sq.ft. attached deck to dwelling. Located: 695
Howard Avenue, Mattituck.
Those have all been postponed.
I would make a motion to hold the next field inspection April 15th, at 8:00 AM. Is
there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And to hold the next Trustee meeting April
22nd, at 5:30 PM, and to hold work sessions on April 20th, at
5:30 PM at Downs Farms, and on Wednesday the 22nd, 2015, at the
main meeting hall, at 5:00 PM. Second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll take a motion to approve the Minutes of
the February meeting.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to approve has been made, is there a
second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).;
I. MONTHLY, REPORT:
i
The Trustees monthly report for February 2015. A check for
$7,895.36 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the
General Fund.
1
Board of Trustees + 3 March 18, 2015
i
I
11. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for
review. 1
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, March 18, 2015, are classified
as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and
are not subject to further review under SEQRA:
Cheri Antoniello — SCTM# 122-9-7.20
Willem Kooyker & Judith Ann Corrente — SCTM# 3-1-5
Haywaters Road, LLC — SCTM# 111-1-2
Michael & Corinne Slade — SCTM# 110-7-26
Stelios & Penelope Nikolakakos — SCTM# 51-4-13
Jacoby Family Ltd. Partnership, c/o Winifred Breines — SCTM#125-1-5.3
Betsy Flinn — SCTM# 70-10-53
Vincent Fischetti — SCTM# 86-5-6
Mark D. King —SCTM# 106-4-5
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under item number 111, I'll make a
resolution for items which are herein listed that are considered
Type II actions under the State Environmental Quality Review Act
for review at this meeting, starting on the first page of the
agenda and ending on the second page, I would move that as Type
11 actions.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For administrative permits and applications for extensions,
transfers and administrative amendments, the Board typically will move these as a group
if the applications came in and there were no changes necessary to them and they
reflect minor actions that did not affect disturbance, actual disturbance of tidal wetlands.
Accordingly, ,I would make a motion to approve item number one under IV for
Administrative Permits, which reads as follows:
Number one,; Michael Kimack on behalf of 860 BAYVIEW DRIVE LLC requests an
Administrative Permit to construct a 390sq.ft. Second floor deck with a 3'6" wide
staircase and two (2) landings, and an outdoor fireplace; remove existing on -grade patio
and construct new 598sq.ft. patio under new deck. Located: 860 Bayview Drive, East
Marion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
1
Board of Trustees ! 4 March 18, 2015
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
i
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And under Item V,_ items one through seven as a group. Is
there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Just for the record, I'll abstain or recuse myself
from number three and number four.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For therecord, okay.
TRUSTEE KING: And on number six, I did the inspection on that
and there is, it's like an "L" shaped groin out into the
wetlands that I believe there is no permit, so it should not be
rebuilt or reconstructed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Let me refashion my resolution then. I'll
move to approve number one under Item IV; and Item V, one
through five, noting that Trustee King is abstaining from
numbers three and four. They are listed as follows:
Number one, Fairweather & Brown Associates on behalf of ISLE OF
CEDARS, LLC request the Last One -Year Extension to Wetland
Permit #7774 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7774C, as issued on
April 18, 2012. Located: 2450 Peter's Neck Road, Orient.
Number two, ,ANTHONY CAMPO requests the Last One -Year Extension
to Wetland Permit #7808, as issued on May 16, 2012. Located:
1165 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue.
Number three, MARK D. KING requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#993 from Charles A. King to Mark D. King, as issued on October
1, 1973. Located: 200 East Mill Road, Mattituck.
Number four, MARK D. KING requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#454 from Charles A. King to Mark D. King, as issued on November
19, 1988. Located: 200 East Mill Road, Mattituck.
Number five, TODD FEUERSTEIN requests a Transfer of Wetland
Permit #6846 from Thomas Giese to Todd Feuerstein, as issued on
April 16, 2008. Located: 5860 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue.
And we'll take, six forward separately. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES)., (Trustee King recused for item three and item four).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For item number six, do you want to take
that, Jim? With I guess a stipulation?
TRUSTEE KING: Number six, DAVID KRUPNICK & LOWELL BLUMENTHAL
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #1708 from Scott D. &
Julia A. Osler to David Krupnick & Lowell Blumenthal, as issued
on October 25, 1983, and Amended on June 18, 2014. Located: 880
Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck.
There was no problem with the transfer -- we were down there
not too long ago -- but there is a structure right in the vegetated
wetlands, very old and deteriorated, and I don't believe there is
any permits or anything on it so it should not be re -built when
the time comes. It's in pretty bad shape now.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So move to approve and entered with a stipulation
Board of Trustees 5 March 18, 2015
not to rebuild.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item seven, DAVID TURNER requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #8244 to
construct a 10'x14' wood deck attached to the west side of the
dwelling. Located: 640 West Shore Drive, Southold.
We didn't have an issue with that, I'll move to approve that.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item number eight, BRADFORD WINSTON
& SANDRA POWERS request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit # 5562 to add two (2) diagonal 6" diameter, pile dolphins to secure the
existing two (2) vertical 6" diameter float piles. Located: 485 Breezy Path,
Southold.
This is an application where the applicant requested to use two two -.pile
dolphins to deal with ice issues. The Board,. based on the field inspection and
experience with this winter, believes that for the location, the
two -pile dolphins would be no more effective than single pile.
Accordingly, the Board discussed this at worksession and
believes that single pile with the tapered, with the butt end
down, so the taper would prevent, help decrease lodging, with no
guarantees. So accordingly, based on discussion and inspection I
move we deny this application without prejudice, suggesting the
applicants reinstall their ice piles with the butt end down, and
accordingly there is no permit necessary because it's an
ordinary repair under ice damage. So that's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES)..
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next item, item number nine, David
Chicanowicz on behalf of KEVIN BARR requests an Amendment to
Wetland Permit #8337 to install a 6' wide buffer in lieu of a
10' wide buffer landward of top of bluff; as -built 6' high
fencing along'the side yards and across midway section of bluff;
as -built 138sq.ft. permeable patio with fire pit landward of 6'
non -turf buffer; as -built kayak rack landward of bulkhead;
174sq.ft. deck landward of bulkhead in lieu of 10'x19' deck; and
for as -built electric to bulkhead. Located: 200 Basin Road, Southold.
The Board revisited the application with a request to make
narrower a non -turf buffer. Based on the field inspection on the
site and discussion at the worksession, the Board feels that the
ten -foot non -turf buffer should stand as originally.permitted.
Accordingly, the language that has been posted will need to be
amended to remove that.
Additionally, there was a request to include a deck on the
Board of Trustees 6 March 18, 2015
property in this permit, but for which it already had a valid
Trustee permit. So that language will have to be removed from
the permit issuance language. I'll read the amended permit
language for approval. This would be David Chicanowicz on behalf
of Kevin Barr requests an amendment to wetland permit number
8337 for an as -built six-foot high fencing along the side yards
and across the midway section of bluff; the as -built 138 square
foot permeable patio with fire pit within the previously
permitted ten -foot non -turf buffer; and as -built kayak rack
landward of the bulkhead; and as -built electric to the bulkhead.
Located: 200 Basin Road, Southold. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. HULSE: Do you want to condition that at the end of April?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, do we reopen that?
MS. HULSE: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I move to reopen item number nine. I
neglected a condition we had discussed at worksession.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and seconded. All in favor to
re -open?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Also as an addition to the approval, the
stipulation that the non -turf buffer of ten feet shall be
installed by April 30th and inspected at that time. That's my
motion. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. MOORINGS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under Item VI, SAMUEL SINGER requests a Mooring
Permit in Richmond Creek for a 20' motorboat off private property. Located: 44030
Route 25, Peconic.
We reviewed this. There is no issue with it in that location. I would move to
approve that item. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time I'll make a motion to go off
the agenda, go on to the public hearings. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
i'
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time we'll entertain our amendments to hearings. Try
Board of Trustees 7 March 18, 2015
i
to keep your comments as brief as possible, if you would. That would be appreciated.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, CHERI ANTONIELLO requests an
Amendment to Wetland Permit #8497 to change the location of the
proposed pool. Located: 2404 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC,
on March 11 th,� resolved to support this application.
The Trustees did a field inspection on March 11th, and no conditions
have been noted. Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. PETROWSKI: Rich Petrowski, on behalf of the applicant.
MS. HULSE: If ,I may, do you have authorization from the Antoniello's?
MR. PETROWSKI: They were supposed to call for it. Yes.
MS. HULSE: Would you just mind giving us something in writing at
your convenience indicating you are authorized to speak on their
behalf? Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: This amendment was at the request of the DEC, if
my memory serves me right.
MR. PETROWSKI: They just wanted to move the pool a little closer
to the house, to get within the setbacks.
TRUSTEE KING: I had talked to Ms. Antoniello about this and she
said any trees that will be removed will be replanted.
MR. PETROWSKI: If not more.
TRUSTEE KING: In my mind it was a little closer to the wetlands,
but the DEC has a different look at it, I guess.
TRUSTEE BR EDEMEYER: The site has already had a very substantial
and beneficial jwetland remediation, and the wetlands that are in
question here,1 that are in this vicinity of the pool, are not
really high-grade wetlands at this point. I'm thinking that it's
not going to be a material change; the big change was that
beautiful wetland that was constructed on the property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do we have a diagram of the work to be done?
TRUSTEE KING: (Handing).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: My question is, is this going to be, this pool
going to be on grade, above grade, below grade?
MR. PETROWSKI: Above grade.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: How high above grade will this be?
MR. PETROWSKI: I believe 18 inches.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are also looking for a pool fence on this set
of plans, and I don't see one. Unless I'm missing it, I don't
see one on here, which of course'is required by code
MR. PETROWSKI: On my plan I don't have a fence, but.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Wait a second. I have here penciled in a
four -foot tall fence, half a foot to one foot around perimeter.
It looks like it was drawn in after the fact on here. So we do
'have a pool fence drawn in here.
I'm looking, just for the record, these are plans dated 9/17/14,
received August 8th, 2014..
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And we have the stamped DEC plan here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That has the DEC stamp.
TRUSTEE B�RGEN: The reason I ask about elevation is obviously
the whole house was required to be elevated during construction,
Board of Trustees 8 March 18, 2015
so I was just wondering if the pool was also.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is that the old or the new one?
TRUSTEE KING: That's the old one. Now that the pool has been
moved here, this is the approved DEC permit and that doesn't
show -- we just need to see a plan with the fence on it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MR. PETROWSKI: Okay, I'll make that happen.
TRUSTEE KING: Because it's not on this one. The pool location
has been changed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And if the new elevations can be shown on that
new set of the plans, depicting that the pool is above grade.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Does anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion
to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
subject to submission of new plans reflecting the fence and the
elevation.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application is Docko, Inc., on
behalf of WILLEM KOOYKER & JUDITH ANN CORRENTE request an
Amendment to Wetland Permit #7375 and Coastal Erosion Permit
#7375C to install a 6'x20' float with associated restraint piles
alongside the existing pier; and relocate two (2) associated
batter -braced tie -off piles, all. waterward of the apparent high
water line. Located: East End Road, Fishers Island.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. NIELSON: Keith Nielson of Docko, Inc., on behalf of Ms.
Corrente and Mr. Kooyker. First of all, I have the certified
mailings and photograph of the posters on the site.
This is basically the same project that we presented in a
workshop several months ago. We modified the location of the
float slightly based on the DEC concerns, but everything that is
in your application packet otherwise is the same as previously
presented.
If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to
answer them..
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's not entirely a question, but the Board,
when we reviewed the plans for this, the Wetlands Code where you
have a float doesn't allow for pilings offshore seaward of the
float line, by code. So you show batter brace tie -off piles
that are seaward on the plan. They can't even be relocated -- in
Board of Trustees 9 March 18, 2015
other words the ones that are there can't be relocated to the
seaward of the terminus of the dock.
MR. NIELSON: Okay, you mean the two tie -off piles on the east
side? Or do you mean the two -float restraint piles off the end
of the float?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The two off the end of the float, what would
appear all three piles that are seaward of the float, one which
you are trying to relocate, would have to be relocated so that
they would be inland of the end of the dock.
MR. NIELSON: I see what you are saying.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In other words, so if an additional tie -off
is needed from the fixed portion of the dock or the float, it
would have to be to the sides of the dock and not in front of
the dock.
MR. NIELSON: Can I just step up to the dais, please.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You may.
MR. NIELSON: (Handing).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: (Indicating) This you would want to move,
would have to be in line.
MR. NIELSON: Okay, so we either leave that one there or --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the granting of this permit
really makes it --
TRUSTEE KING: The way the code reads, if you have a dock, you
can have a tie -off pile seaward of the dock. If you have a dock
with a float incorporated with that, you can't have a pile
seaward.
MR. NIELSEN: So would this do away with this tie -off pile
entirely or do I have to bring it back?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You have to bring it back.
MR. NIELSON: But these two are okay the way they are?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They were part in parcel --
TRUSTEE KING: If that's part of this original permit.
MR. NIELSON: They were.
TRUSTEE KING: Then they should be --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the code imputes one dock for one
Boat, and where the float is the tie off, that is your tie off. I
think that's the reasoning. I was not there for that, but I
think it's to try to --
MR. NIELSON: It looks like at the time you didn't get this copy.
This is where the DEC asked us to move the float out so that we
would be beyond the two -and -a -half foot contour. Should we move
that out? So what you are saying then is --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would be at the four foot underwater
contour. If it was in line.
MR. NIELSON: You're okay with this?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We can take it as a modification on the plan
showing --
MR. NIELSON: And I bring the tie -off piles back here, and this
back here, and this here (indicating).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So it's clear what we just discussed, we are
Board of Trustees 10 March 18, 2015
discussing tie -off piles that would not comply with the dock
requirements, that the dock modification to add a float requires
them to be moved landward. So we are providing the guidance.
MR. NIELSON: Does that look good?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
MR. NIELSON: One, two, three, four, the float there (indicating).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
MR. NIELSON: Okay, I'll agree with that. Do you want me to
revise these and approve next time, or approve subject to
receipt of my --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, is there anyone else that wishes to
speak on behalf of this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application subject to submission of plans showing that the new
location that is required by the Department of Environmental
Conservation for the float, and depicting the batter brace
tie -off piles no further seaward than the terminus of the dock,
and minus four foot underwater contour with the plans submitted
subject to issuing a permit. We don't have to bring it up at
the next meeting. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, MARK D. KING requests a Transfer
of Wetland Permit #687 from Charles A. King to Mark D. King, as
issued on October 4, 1971; and for an Amendment to Wetland
Permit #687 to remove and replace existing +/-68' long bulkhead
with two 10' long returns at each end using vinyl sheathing;
remove and replace existing 32' long by 31' wide fixed dock; and
incorporate by reference Wetland Permit #993 to widen existing
dock 10 ft. By 23 ft. Located: 220 East Mill Road, Mattituck.
The Board did go out and looked at this. This was reviewed
under the LWRP and found to be consistent. It was noted that
this property is located within an M2 zone and it is used for
commercial fishing purposes.
Like I said, the Board did go out and looked at this, and
this is basically trying to clean up, the purpose is to clean up
what had been previously permitted under two separate permits
and then to again to remove and replace the existing
structure that is there.
Is there any anybody here who wants to speak on behalf of
this application?
TRUSTEE KING: Just for the record, I'm recusing myself from this
application. The applicant is my brother.
Board of Trustees 11
March 18, 2015
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any comments from the Board regarding this
application?
(Negative response).
As I alluded to, it was fairly straightforward, and when we
went out and looked at it in the field, it was everything, we
didn't have any issues with what we saw out there.
There are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close
this public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the transfer and the
amendment as described, noting it was found consistent under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
((Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye.
Trustee Sanders, aye). (Trustee King, recused).
TRUSTEE KING: Number one under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits,
En -Consultants on behalf of THEODORE & NATHALIE STRAUEL requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Permit to construct a fixed
timber dock consisting of a 4'x97' fixed timber catwalk with two sets of 4'x6' steps
at landward end; a 3'x14' ramp; and a 6'x20' float secured by two (2) -pile
(10" diameter) dolphins. Located: 220 Bay Lane, Orient.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent with the LWRP.
The location of the proposed dock is within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area.
All development is prohibited in the nearshore area pursuant to Chapter. 111-11.
That's basically the main reason for the inconsistency. And the CAC resolved to
support the application as it was submitted.
Is there anyone here. to speak on behalf of or against this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, good evening. Rob Herrmann of En -Consultants
here representing the applicants. The applicant Ed Strauel is also here, as is his
contractor Ian Crowley of Crowley Marine.
As the Board knows, this is actually a site where we had
requested and had with the Board a pre -application conference
prior to the time that we submitted the application. We had
originally had the dock situated centered on the property. It's
not a very wide property. We had it more or less centered so
that we were more than 15 feet off the right angle extension of
each side property line.
When the Board was out and we met with Mr. Strauel and
looked at the staking, the Board felt, I believe, if I'm
characterizing your thoughts at the time correctly, there is
already an existing dock, the Bahrenberg dock to the north, which
angles sharply to the north, and there is no dock located
immediately to the south, and so there was some concern that we
would try reorienting the position of the dock as much as
possible to the north rather than to the south.
So consistent with those conversations, we went back, we
revised the plan -- the plan is dated January 7th of this
Board of Trustees 12 March 18, 2015
year -- and we put an angle in the catwalk close to the shore,
not too far seaward from where we have the two access steps down
to the beach to maintain public access along the shoreline. And
we have it angled to the north a little bit so that at its
nearest point the float is as close to that property extension
line to the north as we can get it, which is 15 feet, and it is
now I think almost 35 feet from the extension of the property
line to the south. So that adjustment had been made, consistent
with our conversations at the site meeting.
As the Board is aware when we met at the site, this is an
area that is well protected in Orient Harbor, although it is in
a coastal erosion hazard area. The Board recently in 2013 issued
a Coastal Erosion Management Permit to Linton Duell to extend
his dock, which is a couple of properties down to the north.
The other docks that have been around there have been maintained
here for a long time, and obviously there has been maintenance
of Orient Wharf Company Marina a couple doors down to the south,
which is depicted in that photo.
If the Board has any further questions of me or Mr. Strauel
or the contractor in regard to the design, we are here and happy
to answer them.
Ted, did you want to speak?
MR. STRAUEL: (Negative response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think there are any questions. I
think we did enumerate during the course of the worksession and
had communicated with the applicant previously that the Coastal
Erosion Hazard Act in this nearshore area doesn't allow
construction, so that while this would typically meet all of the
parameters required of a dock with respect to distance from
property lines, proper construction above the water, that would
enable the Board to consider a wetland permit, it puts us in a
position that because of the code restrictions under Coastal
Erosion we are really not authorized to do that unless the
structure was less than 200 -square feet above the constructed dock.
In the case of the Duell dock extension which is nearby, I
think it was less than 200 -square feet, and the dock may have
had a history that preceded coastal erosion.
To try to keep consistent with that law and some of the
knowledge that we gained in terms of properly writing permits
under this law came after Tropical Storm Sandy when the beach
front in East Marion lost probably in the order of 12 or 13
decks on the properties there. And we had been in regular
communication with the State Coastal Erosion Hazard people, our
attorney has, and to get clarification.
So my understanding is the Board, and during the course of
the pre -submission conference and during the course of the
worksession, we don't really have a problem with the wetland
attributes for this application, but we are simply not allowed
as a Board to approve a Coastal Erosion Hazard Permit, based on
what we have been told.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay, well the question I guess I would have for
Board of Trustees 13 March 18, 2015
the Board in that regard, I mean we can discuss the code if we
want, but one question I do have, just when you mentioned the
consistency. If I understand the code correctly, if the idea is
that if it's a seasonal dock or it's a fixed dock that is
200 -square feet or less, it's defined as an unregulated
activity, which means you don't need a coastal erosion permit
for it. It sounds like what you are saying and what Mark Terry
writes in his recommendation is that because it's not an
unregulated activity, it's a regulated activity, and the Board
is prohibited from issuing a Coastal Erosion permit without
variance relief from the Town Board for a dock structure in the
nearshore area.
In other words either it's unregulated or it has to go to
the Town Board. That's basically what you just said. So my
question is, regardless of, I don't know -- actually, I ended up
representing Mr. Duell in front of the DEC and the Core of
Engineers. But my question were with respect to this Board is
you actually issued Coastal Erosion Permit 4338C in 2013 to
Linton Duell for that extension. And if you issued a permit, a
determination had to have been made whether it was a regulated
activity. And then you issued the permit, without variance
relief from the Town Board.
So I'm trying to understand why here you are saying that
you could not issue a Coastal Erosion Management Permit without
variance relief from the Town Board, because clearly you did a
couple years ago just two doors down.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It may be a valid question. We certainly
have to review the permit history and discuss it with our
attorney to answer that question with respect to the Coastal
Erosion Hazard Act. Because it also relates to the age of the
structure, whether the initial structure had a permit prior to
coastal erosion. I don't have all those facts. But if you
wanted to enumerate your questions and concerns specific to that
for another dock, I'm sure the Board would take a look at it.
There has been a bit of a learning experience with respect
to the code, and I'm sure we could review that and then provide
a separate answer on that. But with respect to the current
guidance we have, we are sort of locked in this position.
It's an interesting code because it says there is no
development in the nearshore zone, while it defines all manner
of things which you might be able to do in the beach or bluff or
the various zones. It uses the word "no development" and the
word "development" is not even defined with these other
attributes. It's, you know, I don't know what to tell you,
because it is what it is.
MR. HERRMANN: So my understanding then is that this term as it
is used here, "no development," the Board is interpreting that
to mean any construction, any structure, whether it was a
bulkhead, whether it was a groin, whether it was a house.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Not so, because the nearshore zone I think
goes on to enumerate that you are allowed erosion protection
Board of Trustees 14 March 18, 2015
structures in the code. I don't want to get involved with a
discussion of the code at this time as I don't think it's
appropriate. But there is --
MR. HERRMANN: It doesn't --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, not nearshore. It would be in the
beach zone. Sorry. The beach zone does allow for the coastal
erosion protection structures, and that's where we get involved
where we can grant a permit for bulkheads and replacement of
bulkheads and revetments.
MR. HERRMANN: Right. So I guess the only other comment I would
make, and maybe this is -- if the end result is here we have to
go to the Town Board for relief under Coastal Erosion, I would
just point out to the Board that ultimately, as I understand it,
you get your jurisdiction, you took your jurisdiction for
Coastal Erosion from New York State, and just as a point of
interest to the Board, one thing that I did notice as this issue
had been raised was that you have the nearshore area restriction
section that mimics the nearshore restriction section in the
state code. And what I did notice, in the State Code 505.8, on
nearshore area, a lot of language is similar, except that one of
the paragraphs states that Coastal Erosion Management Permit is
required for new construction, modification or restoration of
docks, piers, wharves, groins, jetties, seawalls, bulkheads,
breakwaters, revetments and artificial beach nourishment. Docks
piers, wharves, or structures built on floats, columns, open
timber piles or similar open-work support, having a top surface
area of 200 -square feet or less, or docks, piers, wharves or
other structures built on floats and removed in the Fall of each
year are excepted from this permit requirement. Whereas in your
code that paragraph doesn't exist.
So in your code the way -- a strict interpretation of code
would prohibit your board from ever issuing a Coastal Erosion
Management Permit literally for anything in the nearshore area
other than what is listed under Section 111-11(a) and (b) which
all relates to excavation, grading, mining, dredging. But
nothing about structures.
So if you had a groin or if you had a breakwater, if you
had anything, this Board would never be able to use its own
judgment to issue a permit in the nearshore area. Which doesn't
make sense. And I don't know whether, when this was written,
whether this was done by accident or by will. In other words
maybe the Town Board decided you shouldn't ever be allowed to
issue --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: My memory is not clear enough to totally
carry the institutional memory of the Board. I was on the Board
at the time, and essentially my understanding was we were taking
lock, stock and barrel which is Article 34 of the State DEC Law,
incorporating it for town use for the betterment of people,
because we were most familiar with the conditions on the ground,
and at the time of the expansion of the jurisdiction of.the
Board to both the wetlands and that coastal erosion was to
Board of Trustees 15 March 18, 2015
provide some local oversight. But I was not involved in that
discussion. I was not involved personally with the legislative
adoption of that.
. But clearly I think it was just basically an empowerment of
the town, and fill in the blanks for us, so whether this was an
administerial error in the adoption or whether something was an
amendment and the DEC subsequently found a defect, I don't know
the legislative history.
What you propose is very interesting because this is one of
the things we are getting hooked up on this, the discussion,
which really shouldn't necessarily be part of this permit
because we don't legislate, but maybe as far as future
discussions concerning the code, this is one of those things
that gets us hooked up with problems. And not just the coastal
erosion in Orient, but we have a place called Fishers Island as
well where docks are considered a primary means of access, at
least under the LWRP.
So it's a serious matter. So it's a very interesting fact
that you brought to light concerning the parent legislation of
that. Very interesting.
TRUSTEE KING: Rob, have you got a copy of our code in front of
you?
MR. HERRMANN: I do.
TRUSTEE KING: 111-10(b)?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. I start on the following page. Are you -- is
this the construction of non -moveable structures? That's in a
structural hazard area. Remember, a structural hazard area is
actually the part of the coastal erosion area that is located
landward.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's one above the bluff.
MR. HERRMANN: In other words, where you have a one -foot erosion
rate per year or more. So the only relevant section of the code
here is nearshore area, really. I mean there is a part of this
that is a little bit above that, but for all intent and purposes
you are guided by 111-11, and if you strictly interpret
111-11(c), where "development" means a dock, then I understand
your position. To me it just flies in the face of logic, and it
also would be inconsistent, as I said, with the Board's issuance
of other Coastal Erosion Management Permits in the nearshore
area. But if that's your position, I don't think I'll be able to
talk you out of it.
Is the Board willing and able to act on the Wetland
application?
TRUSTEE KING: I would say yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: And I was just looking at 111-20, and I think this
is where they kind of -- they left an opening here where strict
application may cause difficulty, whatever, you can appeal the
process.
MR. HERRMANN: Right. No, I definitely understand it, and as I
started to look at it more, and, you know, reading it as
Board of Trustees 16 March 18, 2015
objectively as possible, I understand the Board's position with
respect to the way the code is written.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As far as the legislative history, you might
request of the town clerk the legislative history of the town in
perfecting an appeal, and that might be an issue for the good
and betterment and ease of this Board to do its job.
MR. HERRMANN: That was the reason I brought it up. I'm not sure
why the Town Board would be better equipped than you all to
determine whether this is a proper location for a dock. It's not
really, but, having said that, I understand what the letter is.
So if the Board is willing to act on the Wetlands permit, I
mean, speaking forthrightly, I would make that part of my appeal
to the Town Board saying obviously the Board of Trustees doesn't
feel that this is an objectionable location for a dock but we
are forced to come to the Town. Board under procedure.
MS. HULSE: That's not proper for them to comment on at this
point.
MR. HERRMANN: I'm not asking for them to comment.
MS. HULSE: I know, but you just brought it up. It's not relevant
for their consideration this evening, the comments you are
making now.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else?
(Negative response).
Any other comments from the audience?
MR. PARKER: Hi, my name is Gary Parker, I'm President of the
Orient Wharf Company which manages and owns that wharf right
there. And although we are not adjoining neighbors land -wise, I
think you might consider us adjoining neighbors water -wise. And
when this came up, I saw what was proposed and I just wanted you
to know and go on record that the wharf company really has no
objection to any of this. If this can be worked out, that would
be great. So to be organized and brief, that's it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm no big fan of docks on the bay, but this is a
very sheltered location and it's surrounded with a very
congested area already, so one more dock doesn't make any
difference in my mind.
Any Board comments?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just one question, Rob. On the cross-section
here of this proposed dock, I see there are ten -inch piles
out -- oh, here it is. I was looking to see what the dimensions
of the piles were on the catwalk, and it's ten -inch also,
correct?
MR. HERRMANN: That's correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. I didn't see that at first. Sorry,
that was the only question I had.
MR. HERRMANN: That was good. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was just thinking of the ice and what we've
been through recently.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Well, we usually show three -pile bents and
ten -inch piles on the walk for that reason.
Board of Trustees 17 March 18, 2015
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup.
TRUSTEE KING: Hearing no other comments, 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 dock under the
Wetland Code and deny it under Coastal Erosion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number one under Wetland Permits, Ural Talgat
on behalf of STELIOS & PENELOPE NIKOLAKAKOS request a Wetland
Permit to reconstruct and renovate existing 1,068sq.ft. dwelling
within existing footprint; existing exterior wall structure and
building foundation walls to remain; construct a 30sq.ft. addition onto northwest
corner; construct an 81.3sq.ft. addition onto southeast corner; construct
a 217.5sq.ft. covered screen porch onto south side of dwelling; construct a
708sq.ft. outdoor terrace on north side of dwelling using stone pavers on grade;
new 72.5sq.ft. outdoor landing with step from dwelling to terrace constructed with
stone pavers on concrete slab; install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof
runoff; and on landward side of dwelling construct a covered porch with
35sq.ft. steps leading to a 200sq.ft. walkway using stone pavers on concrete slab
to new 2,200sq.ft. driveway and parking area with asphalt surface and drywells
to contain runoff. Located: 20795 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
The LWRP states that they find this consistent. The CAC
supports with the following recommendations: The application of
Stelios & Penelope Nikolakakos to reconstruct and renovate
existing dwelling within existing footprint with new building
additions to the existing footprint. New addition to be
constructed on the northwest corner of the residence; new
addition to be constructed on the southeast corner of the
residence; new covered screen porch, new second floor addition,
new driveway and parkway areas; new walkways constructed with
stone pavers and concrete slab with new steps to covered porch.
They state that this area is a hotspot for erosion due to bluff
erosion as evidenced by the failed remediation efforts as well
as presence of the eight foot steel bulkhead, the CAC recommends
the dwelling be setback no closer than 50 feet from the top of
the bluff. In addition, the CAC recommends a permeable driveway
and parking area. It was also noted the proposed patio is 33%
larger than the width of the dwelling.
On March 11th, 2015, the Board went out and inspected this
property. The questions that we came up with: Is the patio
going to be permeable. There is no septic or drywells on the
plans. And what happens to the abandoned old septic. Those
were some of the issues that were raised when we came to do our
Board of Trustees 18 March 18, 2015
site visit.
Is there anybody to speak on behalf of the application?
MR. TALGAT: Yes, Ural Talgat, I'm the architect for Stelios and
Penelope Nikolakakos.
A couple of answers I have, the drywells are not shown but
were planned to be placed on the sides of the existing building,
and also to the south or landward side of the building. That's
for rainwater runoff from the roof. The proposed pavers on grade
on the seaward side of the house will be permeable, meaning that
there is no concrete slab there. And thirdly, the septic system
has not been shown because we are in the process of going to the
Health Department and getting an approved location and that will
probably be behind the hundred foot setback from the bluff.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Probably, or will be?
MR. TALGAT: Will be. And I also believe that we went in front of
the ZBA. The ZBA also wanted it non -turf buffer between the top
of bluff landward of that. And I don't remember what that
dimension was but I think it's in the ZBA hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: On the left side there, see if there is anything
from ZBA.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I didn't see anything.
TRUSTEE KING: On the left-hand side of the file jacket. Usually
at the end they make a note of what is required.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: (Perusing). The applicant shall install and
maintain a 15 -foot vegetated buffer with a pathway to get the
existing staircase on the bluff. So that answers that question.
MR. TALGAT: As part of the application to the Building
Department we put together plans for SWPPP, stormwater
improvement prevention plan, and all those details will be on
there going to the Building Department.
Do you have any other questions?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Any other thoughts, questions from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: If you can't get the septic out of our jurisdiction, you'll
have to come back to us.
MR. TALGAT: Okay. Right now we are in the process of going to
them and I can't really tell exactly. I'm sure that we are going
to need some kind of retaining wall that's pushing it further
south because of the contour of the land there. Since you did
inspect it, the contours do fall sharply away to a hollow, and
based on their requirements, the Health Department requirements,
I believe we are going to need some kind of waterproof concrete
retaining wall closer to roadside, which will basically put the
sanitary system closer to the road than closer to the building.
So if it is within your jurisdiction, within the hundred -foot setback,
then we'll have to come back here.
TRUSTEE KING: Where is the septic now, is that the seaward side
of the house?
MR. TALGAT: That's not on the seaward side. It's on the landward
side.
TRUSTEE KING: I thought I saw a cement cover there.
MR. TALGAT: That's the existing well locations. That's not the
Board of Trustees 19 March 18, 2015
septic system. The septic system will be landward of the house,
not seaward of the house.
TRUSTEE KING: Okay. No, I just saw the big cover there, I was
just curious.
MR. TALGAT: Actually, this house, the owner's father built it
many, many years ago, and during one of the hurricanes it was
basically, I think torn down, so he had to rebuild it further
back from the bluff, and that's where it sits in its present day
condition.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a possibility of moving the house
still further landward if you are being pushed forward, landward
with the sanitary?
MR. TALGAT: Can you say that again?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In other words if the Health Department is
compelling you to move the sanitary system further landward, is
there a possibility you could accommodate the suggestions of the
CAC to move the house itself further landward, because it is
quite close to the bluff, and you have an area where there is a
lot of bluff erosion. With the extent of construction and new
sanitary, you are talking about maybe another generation of
homeowners enjoying the property before the bluff falls in.
MR. TALGAT: Right. And, I don't have the power to say that the
owners would be willing to do that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Understood.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: One of my concerns here is that we still have
open the question of the septic system, as to where it's going,
whether it will be jurisdictional or not jurisdictional. We are
also lacking the stormwater runoff, Chapter 236 requirements, on
here. I'm just wondering if we should wait until the
determination is made in consultation, the applicant's
consultation with the Health Department, to see where that
septic system will be so we can make a more comprehensive
decision with this application.
MR. TALGAT: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: And consider the possibility of moving it
landward.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I agree.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That makes sense for the applicant's
position to do that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And then when you have that information, also
address 236 on the same plans, also with gutters, leaders,
drywells, and storm water runoff. Because as you pointed out,
this is a sloping piece of property. So we are concerned about that.
MR. TALGAT: Sure, absolutely. But in terms of moving the house
back I'm not sure if the owners would be apt to doing that. The
rest of the items, absolutely, without any doubt.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: It would be great to see all that on the plans
MR. TALGAT: I understand.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: That being said, I'll make a motion to table
this -- well, first before I do that, is there anybody else here
to speak on behalf of or against this particular applicant?
Board of Trustees 20 March 18, 2015
(No response).
Any other thoughts from the Board?
(No response).
Then I'll make a motion to table this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. TALGAT: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Wetland Permits, number two, Bill Gorman
on behalf of JACOBY FAMILY LTD. PARTNERSHIP, c/o WINIFRED
BREINES requests a Wetland Permit to replace existing 26'x14'
dock and 3' wide steps attached to side with a proposed 4'x10'
steps and landing at lake edge; a 4'6"x3' hinged ramp; and 4'x4'
float. Located: 3055 Kirkup Lane, Mattituck.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency stems from the prohibition of wood treated with
fungicides or insecticides in construction of dock structure in
important lacustrine wetland area. Use of ACQ materials does not
comply with Chapter 275-1. The CAC voted to support this
application and just had a question about the dimensions of the
dock conforming to Chapter 275.
The Trustees did a field inspection on March 11th and noted
under conditions that request the use of ACQ materials in the
girders.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MS. CHAMBERS: My name is Joan Chambers. Bill Gorman is here but
he hired me to do the drawings, so I could probably answer the
questions better. And actually the owners have decided to make
a change, and I have new drawings (handing).
In brief, the change is that they still want to repair/replace the dock,
but they have eliminated the hinged ramp and the float, and they have one
set of two treads going down off the right-hand side of the dock now. So the
dock and the stairs leading down to the dock are going to stay the same
as they were on the original set of the plans but they decided
the hinged ramp and the float are not going to be replaced, it
will just be the dock now.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Ma'am, I'll have to refer you to counsel right
now because of the submission of the new materials.
MS. HULSE: Technically you are supposed to table this matter now
because of the .new plans. I know it's less structure, but plans
are supposed to be submitted in a timely fashion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: There is a code prohibition for new information
to be received more than seven business days from the public hearing. So
unfortunately, we'll have to table this.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: It will come back up next month.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right. We have to table this out of
necessity but before we do maybe we should discuss the materials
that way the plans that were submitted could be amended prior to
the meeting, maybe not include the ACQ materials.
Board of Trustees 21 March 18, 2015
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's a good point. I spoke with the LWRP
coordinator this morning and suggested that perhaps locusts
could be used for the pilings. He said that would be a very good
solution to the situation.
MS. CHAMBERS: Okay. So that was the only objection with the
pre-existing plans? Not the new ones I gave you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The new ones, the ACQ stringers, because
this is lacustrine, which is a fancy word for freshwater
wetlands that has no flushing, and the chemical reactivity of
the toxic preservatives in wood would have a more deleterious
effect on the freshwater organisms, I think we are looking to
have a non -preserved approved tropical hardwoods or plastic
lumber instead of all treated wood, so the pilings could be,
locust particularly, where there is very little oxygen in the
mud of the lake will probably last as long if not longer than
any ACQ. And stringers of a non-toxic material, considering
non-toxic plastic, to prevent rot, would be something you might
want to consider. But we definitely don't want to see toxins.
MS. CHAMBERS: Understood.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further discussion, I'll make a
motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number three, 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.
The application has been deemed to be consistent by the LWRP
coordinator with concerns that we are absolutely certain that the navigation
is not impeded. Similarly, the CAC supported the application with the request
that we make sure that the dock does not go more than one-third of the way over
the creek.
There was a letter that was submitted by Stephen Fealy who
voiced concerns concerning the project, that it would
potentially impede his ability to get to his dock.
The Board of Trustees visited the site this month, having
not been able to do it previously because of the inability to
stake during the winter.
The Board had reviewed, in light of the neighbor's letter
which was in the file when we were there, the Board
determination based on the plans and the site condition we found
during inspection, we saw no impediment to navigation based on
the plans submitted and the staking. The only consideration
that we had based on field inspection was to request
through -flow decking, because it is a marsh area.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
MS. RIGDON: Good evening, Agena Rigdon, DKR Shores, here to
represent the applicant Mark Davis. I have no problem with the
Board of Trustees 22 March 18, 2015
through flow.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. Any questions or concerns from the
Board?
(No response).
Not hearing any, is there anyone else here to speak on behalf of
this application?
(No response).
Not hearing any, motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted
noting that the Board did review the navigation issue that was
brought up by all parties. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. RIGDON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number four, 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.
It looks like this was found inconsistent and consistent.
The inconsistency is the dock, ramp and float. And it goes on to
say the subject parcel already has access to public waters via
existing dock. The proposed dock is 132 feet in length. This
extension would gain the applicant plus or minus six inches in
water depth and results in a loss of public use of public
waters. This goes on. The dock if approved would result in
perpetual loss of unobstructed public access, use of public
underwater lands; it's located within a critical environmental
area; loss of recreational shell fishing areas will occur as a
result of this action. The extension of pre-existing dock
structures into public waters to accommodate larger vessels is
changing the public use of the waterway. That's most of the
inconsistency for the dock.
It is recommended the Board require silt boom be deployed
during construction. That would be on the bulkhead, I assume.
And the CAC does not support the application to remove and
replace the existing dock; because the project was not staked it
was difficult to make an assessment on the location of the dock.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was just asking if we had a picture. That's
Davis, the previous one.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or
against this application?
Board of Trustees 23 March 18, 2015
MS. RIGDON: Agena Rigdon, DKR Shores, to represent Kelly Myers.
I did stake it. I'm not sure when the CAC came out. It was
staked on the 9th. I have photographs of it. I'm not sure if
the Board, whether the stakes were still there when you visited
the site on the 11th.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I remember the stakes.
MS. RIGDON: It was quite an ordeal. The bulkhead seems run of
the mill. There is a small, low sill area we are actually closing
off. And everything will be the same height as the adjacent
neighbor, and it will be the same height across. I did propose a
non -turf buffer area as well. That should not be too much of a
problem. When I initially visited the site at low tide, I did
note that the existing float is completely sitting on the
bottom. I suggested to Kelly to reconstruct the dock properly,
so it could get to adequate water depths, approximately 2.4 feet
at low water. The dock as it is right now is completely
non-functional. You can't pull a boat up. Approximately -- the
dock to the north is exactly the same length as what we are
proposing. And the dock as proposed should not interfere with
navigation of that waterway whatsoever. I can leave the
existing dock as it is, but it's sitting on the bottom.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else?
Any other comments?
(Negative response).
How does the Board feel?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is something for the record, that the LWRP
coordinator, the decision arises from the fact that increasingly
we have been asked to look at longer docks and increasingly the
length of docks to accommodate larger and larger vessels. Seems
like a self-fulfilling prophecy here, and it is changing how the
public is using the waterways. It's something the Trustees will
have to deal with at some point in time.
TRUSTEE KING: Isn't there a dock to the south also?
I'm trying to remember
MS. RIGDON: Yes, there is.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, there is a dock to the south, I believe it
was two sections of floating dock.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was pulled back for the winter storm.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
TRUSTEE KING: And this one here is just about the same. It's the
same pier line as the neighbor to the north, if you look at it.
I agree with you, Mike, it's something, that'll just keep
growing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And in relation to a property, I think they
may be proportionately how far you go out. Some of the
property is so deep or so much of an angle, how far is too far?
TRUSTEE KING: I agree. It's going out an awful long way just to
gain a few inches of water.
MS. RIGDON: Would the Board have any suggestions?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For myself, the fact there is docks immediately
to the north and south and this dock that is proposed falls
Board of Trustees 24
within the pier line, I don't see this as an extension out into
the waterway. That's my own opinion. So I do not have a problem
with the length of this dock as proposed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would parallel Trustee Bergen's feeling on
the matter. I agree. But I think that may need an independent
discussion of some limits, maybe tied more directly to the land
use development on the upland side at some point for the subject,
for the Board to take up at a worksession. It's just something
that probably should be dealt with. And it does not appear
we'll have a change in the policy concerning not dredging
pre -pond, let our clammers do that.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I concur with David. What it appears to be is.
we'll get that current float out from the bottom of the creek
anyway, so I think actually it's an improvement from the current
situation.
MS. RIGDON: Right. When I first initially looked, I called
Kelly and said the float is on the bottom. I can't leave that
here. And she wanted to reconstruct the dock as it is right
now. And I said, no, no way. Can't do it. It's not where it
should be. Obviously we know the disruption of the bay bottom
when the float sits on it, it's not environmentally friendly the
way it is now, so she did go with my suggestion to build it
correctly, the right way.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: If it's shortened will it still keep the float
off the bottom?
TRUSTEE KING: You have 2.2 feet at the end of the fixed catwalk,
from the looks of the soundings here. The float sitting on the
bottom the way it is now is doing damage, there is no doubt.
MS. RIGDON: Definitely.
TRUSTEE KING: And a fixed catwalk beyond there, it will be less
damaging on the bottom.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That would handle the inconsistent aspect.
And we have a dock in the neighbor's that is already longer than this.
TRUSTEE KING: And if we use through -flow grating on the catwalk.
MS. RIGDON: That sounds very acceptable to me.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't know what else to do. I don't think we had
any problem with the bulkhead replacement. And there will be a
ten -foot non -turf buffer behind it.
MS. RIGDON: Yes, sir.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I just want to interject something, not for
this hearing, but for the previous one we just did, before you
leave, Ms. Rigdon, I did not stipulate the flow-through decking,
and after we complete this one I'll reopen that to stipulate the
flow-through.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought we did.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I just approved it as submitted. I was just
informed.
MS. RIGDON: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Is there anybody else, any comments?
(Negative response).
If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
March 18, 2015
Board of Trustees 25 March 18, 2015
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with
the use of through -flow grating on the catwalk. And there is
already a ten -foot non -turf buffer behind the bulkhead on the
plans. And as far as the inconsistency goes, the existing float
as it is now is sitting right on the bottom at low tide, and I
think by removing that and building the catwalk it will be less
damaging to the bottom, and even though it's a fairly long dock,
the neighboring docks are, it's within the pier line of the
neighboring docks. I would think that brings it into
consistency. And a silt boom during construction of the
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just to backtrack to item number three, Mark
Davis, I would like to reopen the hearing in this matter to
stipulate a through -flow decking. Move to reopen the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I move to amend the approval to stipulate
the use of through -flow decking on the decking of the dock.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. RIGDON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five, En -Consultants on behalf of
SHATSWELL PROPERTIES, INC., requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 4'x ±134' elevated timber bluff stairway with
railings, consisting of 4'x4' entry steps to a 5.5'x8' entry
platform with bench at top of bluff; 4' x ±10' steps; 4'x8'
landing' 4' x ±18' steps; 4'x8' landing with bench; 4'x ±18'
steps; 4'x4' landing' 4' x ±18' steps; 4'x8' landing with bench;
4' x ±18' steps; 4'x8' landing; 4' x ±14' steps; 4'x6' landing;
4' x ±5' steps; 4'x6' landing with bench; and 2.5' x ±2.5' steps
to grade to access lifting mechanism for retractable stairway to
beach; construct seaward of bulkhead a 3'x3.5' aluminum platform
and +/-3'x7' retractable aluminum stairway to beach, both with
railings; and restore/re-vegetate areas landward of bulkhead
disturbed during construction with native vegetation. Located:
450 Castle Hill Road, Cutchogue.
We'll note that this application was brought to a public
hearing last month, so I'll stipulate that all the comments made
last month will be entered into the record for tonight.
Just to review this, the CAC visited the site. The CAC
resolved to support the application with the condition that the
structure is properly designed for coastal erosion area. It was
Board of Trustees 26 March 18, 2015
last month's public hearing, a question came up about covenants
and restrictions that were part of this property when this
property was developed a long time ago. A review of that was
done by legal counsel, and upon review of this matter by legal
counsel it was determined that the original limitation placed on
the location of the stairwell, as in the Planning Board
limitation, is no longer an enforceable covenant on the property.
So that was the question we had from last month.
Again, last month, I don't think we had any questions about
the actual construction itself.
So is there anyone anybody here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En -Consultants on behalf of
applicant. I'm happy to hear the issue with the C&R's was
resolved. If I recall correctly, the Board did not seem to have
any objections or concerns regarding the substance of the design
by Jeff Butler. I did want to make note, since the last hearing
we had gotten a couple of comments back from the DEC that caused
us to revise the site plan just a little bit, reduce the scope
of a couple of the landings, and I, just for the purposes of the
plans being consistent, would like to enter that information
into the record and hand up a revised engineering plan
accordingly, along with a letter dated March 18th, 2015, which
is today. The change is really pretty small. They requested
that the two quote unquote non-essential 48 landings, in other
words those that are not associated with the designed turn in
the stairway, be reduced to 46. So two of the originally
proposed 48 platforms have been reduced to 46.
They had also had a question on sheet one where we had
shown a work area quote unquote, where we were trying to convey
the fact that within a given area of the stairway, that any of
the incidental disturbance to existing bluff vegetation that
occurred as a result of the construction would be restored upon
completion of the construction. And so that area has been
reduced from approximately 3,300 square feet to 2,300 square
feet.
And the third item was that we had, the plan had
incorrectly noted the access to the site coming along -the beach
from Duck Pond Road, which would really not be necessary. It
will come in through Castle Hill Road, and through the yard. So
with that, I'll hand up this letter that simply articulates what
just stated, and along with that shows those changes. Liz, my
letter states that I have a revised project description. There
are only two numbers that change. Two of the 48's changed to
46's, and I apologize, I forgot to print that and attach it to
the letter, but I can E-mail it to you tomorrow.
And I'm also handing up a revised site survey only to correct
a clerical mistake which is we noticed is the survey by Nathan
Corwin had shown Section 472 instead of Section 72. So to keep
that for accuracy sake we are submitting that survey also for
your file to replace those that were originally submitted.
Board of Trustees 27 March 18, 2015
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, I'm looking at the, obviously the plans
that were submitted, the Butler plans that were submitted with
this. Specifically, which 4x8 landings was the DEC asking to be
reduced in size to 4x6 landings? Because I see four 4x8 landings
on the plan.
MR. HERRMANN: If you look at the beach stair plan, these two
eight foot landings here are involved with the turns and
stairway to help maintain a proper elevation. (Indicating) But these two
here which are now shown as six feet on the plan you are looking
at, should show as eight feet, where they were just really shown
as eight feet to provide for a bigger sitting bench. So just in
an effort to try to reduce the coverage over the bluff, they
asked us to cut that back.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So if I am going to start at the top of the
bluff, the first 48 landing I'll say is landing number one,
followed by two, followed by three, followed by four --
MR. HERRMANN: Three and five.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So it would be items three and five.
MR. HERRMANN: That's correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that's in the
record. And thank you for that information on access. Because
that was a question I also had. And I noticed that the platforms
are going to be retractable down there at the bulkhead.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, down at the beach. The idea is to be able to
bring the stairway up off the beach during the off season. So
there is a landing and there is the need for a little set of
side steps the landward side of the bulkhead where you would be
able to walk down and turn the crank from the landward side of
the bulkhead. Jeff left no detail uncovered on that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I notice in the construction details you have
vegetation plan of planting in the disturbed area where the
stairs are going down. I'm trying to address one of the concerns
from the CAC.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, and we were, too. Because we have seen a
couple of these applications that have come before you where
when the stairway is finished, I know you have had a couple
cases where the contractor has sort of left a mess behind,
vegetation is lost, it's not replaced, there is pieces of lumber
around. So what we are trying to do here, I guess it threw the
DEC for a loop, but what we trying to do is sort of cover that
base for the Board and for the sake of our client so it's clear
on the set of construction plans for the contractor that they
have a responsibility to restore any of these areas that they
may disturb incidentally during construction. So we are going to
try to make a habit of including that on all of these kind of
stairway plans to try to reduce the possibility of a contractor
leaving the site cleared at the end then saying, well, I didn't
know I was supposed to fix that. So we assume the Board would
welcome that part of the plan.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Thank you. Was there anybody else here who
wanted to speak for or against this application?
Board of Trustees 28
(Negative response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Rob, would you be willing to submit a new set of plans to
reflect reduction in the size --
MR. HERRMANN: I just handed that up to Liz.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. I didn't have them down here. That's
the problem.
MR. HERRMANN: Sorry, I should have handed them up and then talk.
I just handed them up. And for your resolution, since I'm hoping
you'll have one of approval, that last revision date is March
12th, 2015, on the Butler Engineering plan.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right, hearing no other comments, I'll make
a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of
En -Consultants on behalf of Shatswell Properties with a
condition that the construction plans used for this project will
be the ones date stamped March 12th, 2015. That's my motion.
I'm sorry, before we take a vote on that motion, I want to
enter into the record there was no review under the LWRP done on
this property, so it does not have an LWRP determination. So I
would ask the Board deem it consistent. under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The LWRP coordinator was satisfied with whatever
we determined on this, that will make it consistent.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number six, En -Consultants on behalf of
HAYWATERS ROAD, LLC request a Wetland Permit to construct a
16'x32' in -ground swimming pool and raised ±1,628sq.ft. pool
patio with adjacent planters; using approximately 25 cubic yards
clean sand/loam fill to be trucked in from an approved upland
source together with on-site soil material obtained from pool
excavation; construct ±8'x ±9' wood stoop/steps off existing
dwelling to patio in place of existing stoop/steps; install
drywells to collect potential runoff from patio; and install
pool enclosure fencing. Located: 75 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue.
The LWRP has found this to be consistent, and the CAC
resolved to support. The CAC supports the application, however
the property was not posted and the proposed structures were not
staked as of March 10th. The CAC recommends a comprehensive
drainage plan for the pool, and the dwelling and the line of
shrubs along the shoreline should be designated as a non -turf
area. And they also say, the CAC questions how the limits of
moderate wave action as indicated on the plan affects the
March 18, 2015
Board of Trustees 29
location of the proposed pool.
MR. YOUNG: Peter Young, from the CAC. We didn't really know what
the significance of that marked limit of moderate wave action
line, what that means. I don't think we have seen it before. I'm
not sure.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: No problem. I'll ask that question when it
comes to that point. No problem.
On March 11th, 2015, all were present. The notes indicate
basically, the fill, what is going to happen with the fill of
the pool. The question also, is the fill-in grade question, how
is that going to be executed once the plan is done.
Is there anybody here who would like to speak on behalf
of this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Sure, Rob Herrmann of En -Consultants, on behalf of
the applicant. This is the second month in a row the Board has
been sent down to this one. We had a dock application a month
ago.
There's been a few questions. Let me try and take them in no
particular order. The limit of moderate wave action or LiMWA
line, is a FEMA designation. In 2009 when the FEMA boundaries
were changed they added what is called a LiMWA line that can
affect your FEMA construction standards. But that line is the
landward limit of that zone. So the existing dwelling, the
proposed swimming pool and patio and so forth are outside of
that zone. So the answer to Peter's question on behalf of the
CAC is it doesn't impact us because we are not inside that zone.
With respect to drainage, there is a proposed drainage plan
consisting of two drywells with corresponding storm drainage
calculations that are included on the plan that cover potential
surface runoff both from the pool and the proposed patio.
The patio is going to be raised now, I have to -- I think
I've reached the point in my life where I need reading glasses.
Dave, maybe you can lend me yours. We have an elevation on here,
and it looks like, the proposed raised patio, elevation eleven.
So that is the surface of the patio. And it looks like on a
contour line at its low point there, it's probably, it runs,
well, the pool runs eight feet. I'm sorry, the contour line
under the pool runs eight feet. Then it hits the seven foot
contour on the outside of that. So Mark Schwartz had actually
helped the owners design this, and the idea is that the fill
would be brought in to create this raised area, but the patio
itself will really form a retaining wall. So in other words
this will be a raised platform. This won't be something where
we'll then pour fill and grade on the seaward side of it. This
will be a raised concrete, it will be a masonry structure at its
base, with the pool inside that area.
The pool and patio of course exceed the 50 -foot wetlands
setback under your code, but it's been designed, you can see
there is even a couple of angles cut into the sides of the
patio. It's designed to meet a 75 -foot setback in order to avoid
the need for variance relief from the DEC under the states
March 18, 2015
Board of Trustees 30 March 18, 2015
75 -foot setback regulation.
So that addresses the elevation, the drainage, and the
LiMWA line. I don't know if there was another question. And
need to take a look, because I thought I even had a section from
Mark. One thing I'll note, too, following the FEMA theme,
you'll notice that there is a planter that is shown that wraps
around the screen porch. And that is just to make clear that
there is not a structural connection between the house and the
patio. Because there is a FEMA boundary line that runs through
there between the Zone X and AE -7. So as a Building Department
matter we have to make sure the patio is not structurally
connected to the house or else it would pull the house into a
more restricted FEMA zone.
The other thing, if you would not mind, we should have
submitted to you a plan that clarified that the planter wraps
the whole way around the porch. Can I just see what you are
looking at?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I don't see that but I do see the two planters
in the front of the house.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, there is on the south side of the porch, that
planter is supposed to wrap around. So you see this section
here, there is supposed to be the planter here at the corner.
And I know revised plans were prepared and I don't know how but
somehow it doesn't look like we got them to you.
So the only thing I would ask, if the Board is satisfied
with the application and is, willing to make a motion on it
tonight, I would just ask you to allow it to be conditioned upon
receipt of revised plans showing the additional planter on the
south side of the existing porch. Again, this really has no
wetland relevance but we want to make sure the plan is
consistent with what we have to submit to the Building
Department. And I apologize for that. I thought that had come
in and gone to you, but apparently it did not.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, because I believe the planter you are
describing is actually outside of our jurisdiction, but I
understand why you want it included in here.
MR. HERRMANN: That's a good point. It has to be close at that
point.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking at the 75 -foot setback is on the
seaward side of the pool. So you have the length of another 30
feet approximately of the pool there. That brings it up to
roughly 105 feet. So it's probably non jurisdictional.
MR. HERRMANN: That's actually right. The hundred -foot, even from
the nearest part of the wetland to the south on the other side
of that fence, at its hundred foot setback, that nearest point,
it's right in the middle of the proposed pool.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The question is since it's out of our
jurisdiction, we don't even have to put it in there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We don't have to address it.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: That answers that question. Any other thoughts
Board of Trustees 31 March 18, 2015
from the Board or anybody else some time from the audience?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Just a question, Rob, on the photograph, I
believe that stake is labeled the limit of the patio. I'm a
little concerned, is this tree going to be allowed to stay?
MR. HERRMANN: Mike, I can't get any perspective on that with
that shot. But I would have to guess that tree would come down.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Perhaps if we can go back to the previous
photograph.
MR. HERRMANN: I have not been there since Ken staked it a couple
days before you were there. Or even a year or two.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: You see the stakes.
MR. HERRMANN: I would have to err on the side of caution and say
think that tree would come down. I mean, again, I can't tell
how close that corner is. But in order to dig in to get that
patio in, I think they would have to take it out.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would think so, but I would ask if at all
possible, to save it. That's all.
MR. HERRMANN: I'll pass that along.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Anymore thoughts from the Board?
Anybody in the audience?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve this application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number seven, En -Consultants on behalf of
MICHAEL & CORINNE SLADE request a Wetland Permit for a Ten (10).
Year Maintenance Permit to maintenance dredge an approximately
10' wide by 45' long area adjacent to bulkhead to a maximum
depth of -7' ALW and truck maximum of 25 cubic yards sand/silt
spoil to an approved upland location. Located: 1435 West Road,
Cutchogue.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC,
on March 11th, resolved to support the application. However
there is a note. The CAC observed an impediment to public
access which is being denied. And I at least on this Board, am
confused on that. Perhaps Peter Young can explain that to us.
While you are looking at that, the Trustees did a field
inspection on the 16th --
MR. YOUNG: Yes, Peter Young, from the CAC. I'm just looking at
the boundary here along Wickham Creek and I guess the certain
members of the CAC felt that the public access along the
shoreline was obstructed by the existing structures- and
bulkheads and whatever, to walking around the shoreline there.
So this is nothing unusual.
TRUSTEE KING: There is really no shoreline here. It's all
Board of Trustees 32 March 18, 2015
bulkheaded.
MR. YOUNG: It's just a comment.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you, very much, Pete. As I noted before,
the Trustees did a field inspection on March. 16th and there are
no comments. Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En -Consultants on behalf of
the applicant. This is an application that relates to just one
smaller area of a larger area of the boat basin that had been
previously permitted by the Board to be dredged to a maximum
depth at this west end of this property back in 2009. The issue
that Mr. Slade is having is that there is a drainage pipe that
is located at the end of West Road that dumps a lot of sediment
material that comes really right out of the bulkhead and then
shoals up against the wall here. I think it was right after your
field inspection I had a chance to speak to Jay and I understood
there was some concern about the depth and I had relayed back it
was a previously permitted depth. But in looking at it, I did go
back to Mr. Slade and conveyed that concern nevertheless. And he
had indicated to me that he believed that the landward sheathing
that was put in behind the bulkhead was at least 16 feet long.
With that length, if you went right to seven feet against the
bulkhead, you would only be leaving yourself a few feet of room
for error. So I did caution him and suggested that probably he
did not want to dig to that depth right physically up against
the wall. Because the keel of the boat that he would dock there
that needs whatever it needs, six feet of draft, won't be hitting
against the wall, it will be hitting a little further out. So
he appreciated the observation, actually, and indicated he would
bear that in mind with the contractor when they did the
dredging. He did point out when it had been dredged previously,
he had this problem where it very quickly filled in, so I think
he's just trying to cover himself so he keeps a standing permit
there, so that if this material comes out of the pipe he's able
to go in and pick it back up. But I did make him aware of the
potential risk associated with over digging next to the wall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mr. Slade is on the Town Shellfish Advisory
Committee that I Chair. He did encourage me to try and jump the
distance between the bulkhead and his dock so I would have an
appreciation for the drop. I know it was way out there. He's had
his .problems with that and it's acknowledged that pipe is less
than desirable, no doubt about it.
TRUSTEE KING: Does he have to go to DEC with this, too?
MR. HERRMANN: Actually, we were able, the DEC was able to
reissue the previously -standing permit.
TRUSTEE KING: They gave him the seven feet?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, they just reissued the ,previously -issued
permit. In other words he had gotten permits from you, the Corps
and DEC. Just you obviously both have different regulatory
timeframes for the permits. So they reissued the original permit
as it had been granted from the start. It was not seven feet for
the whole basin. It started I think it was like four or five
Board of Trustees 33 March 18, 2015
feet, inside, and then wraps around. And I think you all had
maybe even talked to him, or maybe Jay did, about coming back,
but I explained to go back in for the whole thing would be a
very, very long time period to get the permits because he would
need a new individual ten-year permit from the Corps, which they
can take the better part of a year to issue. Whereas the 25
yards of spoil they can issue a nationwide general permit
confirmation just for this work, and this is really the only
work he needs for this season. That's why we came in with this
now, so he could get an approval for this and get it done for
this summer.
TRUSTEE KING: It just seems unusual to let him have seven feet.
They usually stop around five.
MR. HERRMANN: It's the deepest I have seen. But I didn't get the
original permit.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments or questions from
the Board, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as submitted, noting that the seven -foot depth will not be right
upon adjacent to the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting, Inc., on behalf of BETSY FLINN requests a Wetland
Permit to reconstruct/re-align the existing +/-132' long
bulkheading; reconstruct and reduce existing bulkhead platform
to 4'x13'; install two (2) 15' long bulkhead returns on either
end of the bulkhead; reconstruct existing 4'x20' catwalk;
construct a 4'x69' catwalk extension for a total proposed length
of 89'; reconstruct existing 3'x15' hinged ramp; and a 6'x20'
floating dock. Located: 320 Beachwood Lane, Southold.
The application has been deemed inconsistent and consistent
under the LWRP. The bulkheading has been deemed consistent. And
the dock, with the exception of the ramp extension, is
consistent -- excuse me. The ramp extension is what is being
considered inconsistent for reasons of the dock extending into
public waters, and. Goose Creek is a significant coastal fish and
wildlife habitat. And preserved -- public trust lands
underwater. The dock structure is set further in public waters
resulting in a net decrease of public access to public
underwater lands in the nearshore area. The CAC voted to
support the application with the recommendation that the float
be seasonal. There is a letter in the file from the neighbor
which requests we consider some concerns. It's from Marlene
McMahon who indicates she is disabled and unable to attend the
Board of Trustees 34 March 18, 2015
meeting. And she said we don't have a bulkhead and have one
question. Will this project have an impact on our property or
the ability of others to reach the channel with their boats. We
lose land during a storm -- will we lose land during a storm
because of this proposal. We like our neighbors and don't want
to cause a problem however we do have these questions. Thank
you, for your help and consideration. The Board on the field
inspections on the 11th, we noticed at that time it was a
moderately low tide, but the float, entirety of the float was on
the bottom. It seemed like the catwalk didn't fit the size of
the location even for a dock that has been there a while. This
was a bit odd to see the catwalk seemed too short. And there is
specific concerns we had relating to the project design. We
wanted to include a discussion concerning having a 15 -foot
non -turf buffer as well as the fact that the bulkhead as it's
constructed we felt that it should start landward of the rebuilt
platform. Straightening it out, we felt the bulkhead was too
close to the wetland and to minimize impacts to the wetland that
we were seeing that the existing bulkhead there is extremely low
profile. I don't know if it's railroad ties. It was never formalized.
MR. ANDERSON: It's sheathing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So there was a question, we were able to
scrape the snow off on the landward side of the existing
platforms and felt that straightening, it looked like
straightening from the corners as proposed, the corners where
you proposed, but bringing it instead of the outboard side of
that platform, on the inboard side would minimize disturbance of
the wetland, particularly with disturbing the soils with putting
the new dock piles in and doing the dock work.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
for the applicant. Let's start with the bulkhead. I thought that
was kind of interesting. When we looked at this, it is just kind
of similar to other projects I have seen where the bulkhead
there is really more of a retaining wall anyway. The land
actually slopes up almost to the top of this bulkhead in many
spots because of a, just a buildup of land behind it. So when
you say to consider placing that bulkhead along the landward
edge of the platform, I think personally that's a very good
suggestion, and I'm amenable to do that.
TRUSTEE KING: One of the reasons, too, is there some jogs here,
we just wanted to get it back, straighten it out and you would
gain a little wetland area there, too.
MR. ANDERSON: I agree with that. And I don't think -- the
bulkhead that is there is rotting. I don't think I would want
to get in there and rip it out. I think I would just let nature
take its course there. That's what prompted the application.
And I think that's fine and I'm perfectly happy to amend the
plan accordingly. So that's the bulkhead issue.
The next is the dock issue. And it's kind of a curious dock
Board of Trustees 35 March 18, 2015
because this dock as existing was built so close to the
shoreline there is no water. The float itself would be sitting
on the bottom and, I don't know, I don't quite understand why it
was designed that way. But it's not really a functional dock and
can only be used really during high tide. And of course at low
tide you have whatever boat that is tied up, and the dock
itself, sitting on the bottom. So --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm wondering do we have -- I'm wondering
about a permit history here. Otherwise it seems it would have
been an amendment.
MR. ANDERSON: I don't really have any specific information on
this. What we did, though, when we laid this out, and the reason
why we got involved in this is because the dock, in essence,
doesn't even function except at high tide. So I said, well, we
would have all the depths certified, which is done on your plan,
and we brought it out to a depth of two -and -a -half feet. And
that's why it's laid out the way it is.
The waters are very broad. I don't think it will impact
your navigation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm sorry, Bruce, could you repeat the last
thing you just said?
MR. ANDERSON: We don't believe there is an impact to navigation.
Compared to a couple aerials, you see how it sits relative to
the shoreline in the creek.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's just surprising that -- (Perusing).
MR. ANDERSON: So we are trying to take a bad situation and
really just make it better. We are, if you are going to have a
dock, you want it be functional. And when you go to the second
page, you'll see there is hundreds of feet between one shoreline
and the next. There appears to have been a dredged canal that
bisected the waterway but diminishes in front of the property,
in any event. And that's why it's laid out the way it's laid out.
Now, as for the LWRP, the concern mentioned there doesn't,
frankly, make any sense at this point. Because all docks would be
built over public lands, so I don't know how you could
distinguish this from any other dock. So I can't really comment
on that other than I don't understand its logic or rationale.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The dock appears, the ramp section of the
dock, goes over water that is essentially 2.3, 2.4 feet. I'm
wondering if we have an opportunity to bring this back to be the
width double of maybe ten, 12 feet, and put the float on chocks.
MR. ANDERSON: That would be acceptable.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What's the depth then?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They could get 2.4 feet. 2.3 to 2.4 by
moving it double the width of 6x20, which puts it right in here.
That would eliminate a little bit of projection into the creek.
Are there any other questions or concerns?
MR. ANDERSON: This is what you are saying.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Precisely.
MR. ANDERSON: I think that's fine.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I think we covered it. So just to
Board of Trustees 36 March 18, 2015
recap, so there is no objection then to try to leave as much of
the existing retaining structure there, without creating soil
disturbance, and then moving the boundary of the bulkhead
landward of the reconstructed deck, and that to help address the
inconsistency, because there appears to be a large amount of
marsh that this would go over that might re -vegetate, to put
through -flow in, and that the float could be seasonal so that we
don't have -- the float there now has done a lot of damage. I
think a seasonal float is a reasonable request of the CAC.
Is that amenable -- do you think that's amenable on the
applicant.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And to move the float itself approximately
ten to 12 feet landward so it's employing chocks with the depth
being approximately 2.3, 2.4 feet, as we noted.
MR. ANDERSON: Now, one thing I want to say about the float, if
we are going to chock it, we probably will need four piles.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would say if the DEC doesn't require
chocking, we are probably over two feet, it's a vast improvement
over what we have, it would not be on the bottom. I guess
would not compel that. Are you before DEC yet?
MR. ANDERSON: I don't know a way of doing it unless I could
secure all four corners.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would say instead going with additional
piles and bottom disturbance, unless you are compelled to do it
by the DEC. Do you have a DEC permit?
MR. ANDERSON: We filed with them, they are looking for
two -and -a -half feet of water around the entirety of the dock.
But first of all, applications with the DEC have not gone well
over the winter. We finally met one of the DEC field people,
happened to be in Sag Harbor, Chris Arfsten, who told me they
have not done any inspections in at least eight to ten weeks
because of snow cover. So we really have a whole bunch of these
projects that are just backlogged with the DEC because they
won't go out with the snow on the ground. Unlike you guys.
Having said that, what I would be saying to DEC is that right
now I have a float on the bottom. I have boats on the bottom. So
if they are going to be flexible, if that's their concern, you
know, and it's not two -and -a -half feet but it's 2.3 or 2.4 feet,
if I were them I would take that because its vastly better than
what they have now. That's would be my response to them if they
raised that as a concern.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right. So I guess the direction I was
going with the Board to consider favorable and with these
measures that would help address the inconsistencies. I'm just
wondering the advisability of moving a permit you might have to
get further amended by the DEC.
MR. ANDERSON: Just so you know, what we do, we do send your
permits to them and say this has been vetted locally, and this
would be the result of that process. And I find that helps.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, any other questions or concerns?
Board of Trustees 37 March 18, 2015
MR. ANDERSON: I want to talk about the non -turf buffer for a
second. Now, are we talking 15 feet from the existing wall
landward?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, I think we were talking about,
generally, from the new construction so we could measure during
the course of the compliance inspection.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. I don't have anything to add. My client is
unaware of that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I want to just make a comment. Before, when you
were questioning the inconsistency. This creek is in New York
State Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. And it's a
DEC critical area. So what the LWRP coordinator is suggesting
is that we move towards alternative means of seasonal moorings,
for example.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll tell you, I have a big problem with
that because a mooring in this creek just chews up the bottom.
You know, the thing is DEC has documents of presumptively
compatible use. I think the LWRP document doesn't, if anything,
I think we need a full blown study that compares the
environmental impacts of dock structure, particularly non-toxic
dock structures that allows for through -flow would compare to
just say putting a seasonal mooring out there when you have six,
eight, ten feet of chain just chewing the bottom up.
understand where he's coming from, but this, you know --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: What I was going to say, seasonal moorings and
shortening docks wherever possible. So this in this case, by
doing this we have addressed the inconsistency.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: By shortening it.
MR. ANDERSON: If I were the coordinator I would be more
concerned about the dock sitting on the bottom, the boat sitting
on the bottom, and the impact that has. That's just my own view
as an environmental professional.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I appreciate that. It's a difficult
call, but this community has been long in supporting of
individual access to the water. We have submissions here I think
probably we should have a continuing dialogue maybe concerning
some Wetland Code amendments, but not on the horns of an
individual applications, if we are going to come up with more
stringent standards here. But it is what it is.
Any additional comments of the Board members?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I would make a motion to approve this application subject to the
following stipulations: That the float be located some ten to 12
feet landward of the position on the plan currently submitted
dated November 5th, 2014; that the decking of the dock be
through -flow decking; that the proposed bulkhead be relocated so
Board of Trustees 38 March 18, 2015
that it goes to the landward, runs in a straight line to and
landward of the proposed rebuilt platform; that the float be
seasonal in nature; and that we receive amended plans detailing
the changes to the location of the float and the bulkhead.
And I did include the seasonal nature, that the float be
removed seasonally. I believe I covered all the items. And to
have a 15 -foot non -turf buffer that would run landward of the
bulkhead to be included on the plans.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thereby, by increasing the amount of
buffered area and by reducing the size and length of the dock
over the water providing through -flow decking, we have addressed
at least a portion of the concerns of the inconsistency and the
concerns of the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number nine, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc. on behalf of VINCENT FISCHETTI requests a Wetland Permit to
reconstruct the existing ±4' x ±53' ramp and dock including
twelve (12) 4"x4" timber pilings in-kind/in-place using
open -grade decking and removing seaward 4'x10' steps; off of
seaward end of existing dock construct a proposed 4'x24'
elevated walkway with two (2) handrails supported by eight (8)
6"x6" timber pilings; an elevated 6'x20' platform including an
access ladder supported by six (6) 6"x6" timber pilings; all
decking to be open -grate decking; and all hardware to be
hot -dipped galvanized. Located: 650 Spring Lane, Peconic.
This application has been found inconsistent by the LWRP
coordinator. The purpose of the dock extension has not been
identified; the applicant has not demonstrated the following
dock standards pursuant to 275-11 construction and operation
standards have been met; that the dock will impair navigation.
And it goes on to the standards. Richmond Creek is a New York
State Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat; New York
State Department of Conservation Critical Environmental Area;
and the dock structure will extend further into public waters;
and the applicant currently enjoys access to the public water
via existing private dock structure.
And the CAC resolved to support the application as it was
proposed. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against
this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
for the applicant Vincent Fischetti.
I appreciate you going out to. the site, and what you saw
when you were there, as you see, this fixed structure that goes
up, goes out, and there are steps right back down. You probably
saw a couple of kayaks there. And the client Vincent and his wife
are in their 70's, and the dock they have is in essence
unusable. You can't load from that dock onto any kind of kayak
Board of Trustees 39 March 18, 2015
or boat of any sort, and the reason is because it gets you out
to like zero water, and what you have is just very soft, mucky
kind of bottomland here. So we need to get out in some sort of
depth to have something usable.
The second thing I told him, in my opinion, the dock is way
too high. It doesn't need to be. And coming down the steps and
trying to climb into a kayak, I can fully understand his thought
process there. So what we thought we would do is we would lower
the whole structure, we would do it in a way that would not
impact navigation, which is why we surveyed both sides of the
creek, which is in your application, because we are well aware
of the one-third rule, and we comply. So we are not impacting
navigation as alleged. And we also took the depth soundings
across the entirety of the creek, so you see that also in your
application.
So we are getting to something of two feet of water from a
point of one foot of water. We are picking up one foot of water
is all we are really doing here. So that was the rationale. And
also the orientation of the dock is not the way we would
normally do it. So we have to sort of straighten it out, at
least the seaward end of it. If you see what I'm talking about,
it doesn't set up well for the creek. It's kind of built on a
slant. So we didn't like that. So we tried to lower it, we are
trying to utilize the through -flow decking. And that is the
rationale for the dock as you see it before you.
don't have 275-11 in front of me so I don't know what
standards he's specifically talking about. And in his review, he
doesn't list them. So I would have to get back to you on that.
The purpose of the dock is obvious. This is to gain
reasonable access to the water, because we don't have reasonable
access today. I think it's an honest application to accomplish
that. I draw your attention to the dock immediately to the south
there, and here, to get to deep are water, what appears to have
happened the fellow brought a pontoon boat in, with an engine,
ties it up to the dock and then ties his boat up to the other
side of the pontoon. Which is a clever loophole. But that's not
really our style.
So we are not looking to do that sort of thing. But it does
indicated problems that he obviously had the same problem that
this fellow had. So with that, I'm anxious to hear what the
Trustees have to say about it.
TRUSTEE KING: Bruce, why couldn't you just extend the original
dock? I understand you'll lower that and everything, just extend
it as it's going rather and put the little dog leg to the north.
MR. ANDERSON: Because I wanted to square it to the creek, and
maybe it's better to just re -do the whole dock so it's straight.
That's why we did that. Because it's a bit strange to have a jog
in a dock.
TRUSTEE KING: I know. That's what I'm saying. If that came out
straight and just made an "L", you are still in good depth of
water, and even though it's not parallel with the shoreline, I
Board of Trustees 40
don't think that matters. As a matter of fact to me I think it
would look a little better if that was straightened out.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a point of information, 275-11 deals with
all the dock construction standards. It's the whole broad range
of them. And the discretionary powers of the Trustees for
locating the docks and protected navigation with ramps and hand
rails, et cetera.
MR. ANDERSON: I think Jim's suggestion, as far as I'm concerned,
still gets you out to deeper water.
TRUSTEE KING: And it looks less intrusive, to me. This is all
being replaced with open -grate low profile, just instead of
putting that dog leg in, it would make it go straight out.
MR. ANDERSON: I think it would work.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: And the only other issue we spoke about is two
handrails versus one handrail.
TRUSTEE KING: I think he said they are elderly people, like me?
MR. ANDERSON: They are in their 70's.
MR. FISCHETTI: I'm Vincent Fischetti, Bruce is representing me.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The code says you can only have one handrail,
unless you demonstrate the need for two.
MR. ANDERSON: I think one handrail would be fine.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Unless if you want to demonstrate the need for
two, you can certainly do that.
TRUSTEE KING: If you have some sort of handicap, we can look at
that
MR. FISCHETTI: Just my wife has an unstable back. But we can go
with one if we had to.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Reducing the height off the water, along with
two handrails if there seems an established need, that would
make the dock a lot safer as well.
MR. ANDERSON: So we would have two handrails.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments?
(Negative 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 with
the changes we made. We'll allow the two handrails, which makes
it a little safer for these folks, and we'll have new plans
indicating the change in direction of the ramp and the platform.
And I think by re -arranging this, it's actually not as far out in the creek.
And with the open -grate decking all the way through, I think that brings
it into consistency with the LWRP.
I'm familiar with this creek because our previous attorney lived
on the opposite side further down. And it's the same old story,
these creeks are just getting filled in with silt. And what's
the alternative. Someday we'll have to start addressing it.
don't know when. I know we used to call it black mayonnaise,
that's what the bottom looks like.
March 18, 2015
Board of Trustees 41 March 18, 2015
MR. ANDERSON: And we had a great deal of trouble initially
staking this dock out. And then of course when the creek froze
it actually made it easier for us because we could walk out,
drill a hole in the ice and had Matt Ivans install the necessary
stakes.
TRUSTEE KING: So my motion is to approve the new dock with
open -grate decking. It will be at a lower profile. And it will
go straight out with the "L" shape, not with the dogleg in it,
and with two handrails. And we'll get new plans indicating that.
And that addresses the inconsistency.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
John M. Bredemeyer III, President
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED "
C 3:30Pr„
MAY
Southold Town Clerk