HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-05/20/2015John M. Bredemeyer III, President
Michael J. Domino, Vice -President
James F. King, Trustee
Dave Bergen, Trustee
Charles J. Sanders, Trustee
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
5:30 PM
Present Were: John Bredemeyer, President
Michael Domino, Vice -President
Jim King, Trustee
David Bergen, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior 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 4 A l e4
JUN 1 8 2015E 1' ygpn1
0
So old Town Clerk
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 5:30 PM
WORK SESSIONS: Monday, June 15,2015 at 5:30 PM at Downs Farm, and on
Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of April 22, 2015.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good evening, and welcome to our regular
monthly meeting of May 20th, 2015. At this time I'll make a
motion to have our next field inspection on Wednesday, June
10th, 2015, AM, and to hold our next Trustee meeting Wednesday, June 17th,
at 5:30 PM with a work session on June 15th, Monday, June 15th, at 5:30 PM
at Downs Farms, and on Wednesday, June 17th, 5:00 PM at the main meeting
hall before the meeting. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to approve the Minutes of April 22nd,
2015. Is there .a, second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 2
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for April 2015. A check for
$7,137.22 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the
General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for
review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold
hereby finds that the following applications more fully
described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee
agenda dated Wednesday, May 20, 2015, are classified as Type II
Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not
subject to further review under SEQRA:
Kevin Gallagher SCTM# 51-1-7
Tom Brennan SCTM# 52-2-7.4
Michael Gill SCTM# 115-11-9
Robert Anthony SCTM# 9-9-26.1
Fishers Island Development Corp., c/o Fishers Island Club
SCTM# 1-1-4
Timothy Quinn and Georgia Quinn SCTM# 40-1-14
Charles Kirsch, Mary Kirsch & Katherine Saccamano
SCTM# 87-4-9
Andrew Keating SCTM# 52-2-28.1
Glendalough Properties, Inc. SCTM# 111-10-14
Mimi Colombo SCTM# 136-1-48
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll take a motion on that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion is made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
May 20, 2015
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number one, HENRY SILVERMAN requests an
Administrative Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to hand -cut the Common
Reed (Phragmites australis) to not less than 12 inches in height; to remove the poison
ivy by hand, on an as needed basis; selectively remove dead brush and
trees throughout property; install a 15' wide access driveway from dwelling to the
water; and add approximately 160 cubic yards of clean fill for the installation of
public water and to re -grade an area adjacent to and landward of dwelling.
Located: 2800 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 123-4-12.
Based on our field inspection at the site, the Trustees are concerned that the
project description is overly generous. But I believe, based on what we saw, we feel that
it would be appropriate to grant the usual maximum of a four -foot wide path to the
Board of Trustees 3 May 20, 2015
waterfront and allow for the trees that immediately overhang the house to protect the
homeowner from damage.
Accordingly, I would make a motion to approve this Administrative Permit for a
ten-year maintenance, strictly to maintain a four -foot wide path to the beach, to the
water, and to trim the trees over the house.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Could I make a request that we have the trees marked that are
going to be taken down and then looked at ahead of time?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's very reasonable. And ask an area
Trustee to maybe stop by and update.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll amend my motion to also include the
trees to be pruned be marked ahead of time, and as a condition
of the permit, that the verification of the, that the trees are
suitable for pruning be made by the area Trustee.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: That's the restriction to this. It's a four -foot
wide path to water and trim the trees. Nothing else.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Nothing else. Right. Path to the water and
trim trees, with trees being marked ahead of time and inspected
by the area Trustee.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number two, EUGENE &
MARYANN KRUPSKI request an Administrative Permit for the
as -built 11'x16' chicken coop with attached 11'x20' chicken run;
and install 4' high by +/-250' long fencing for larger chicken
run attached to side of coop. Located: 2230 Soundview Avenue,
Mattituck. SCTM# 100-2-3.2
This project has been deemed to be inconsistent under the
LWRP. The pond is not located on the applicant's property only.
And the LWRP coordinator is highlighting that the pond is not
located on the applicant's property only, and the pond traverses
the adjacent property owner's parcel, as described in an aerial
photo that he submitted. So he's concerned about that. And
believe he's concerned about impacts.
In addition, he says the location of the chicken coop runs in
close proximity to a freshwater pond can lead to adverse impacts
of water quality from fecal matter, and that can result in high
nutrient levels and hypoxic conditions, potentially resulting in
die -offs of wildlife species, which would include vertebrates
and invertebrates within the pond. These conditions could also
result in undesirable odors, and in extreme situations human
health threats.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hold on, he's not getting all this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm sorry. I'll go a lot slower. Thank you.
(Continuing). In addition, the site topography indicates
that storm water runoff will enter the pond from the chicken
run. More information on farming practices of how the
applicants will prevent the chicken fecal matter from entering
Board of Trustees 4 May 20, 2015
or washing into the freshwater pond and handle the disposal of
the chicken fecal matter is needed. Mitigation to this should be
proposed. That is the report from the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: It raises a lot of questions.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It does raise a lot of questions. In
conferencing with Mr. Terry, the LWRP coordinator, in connection
with another matter, in brief discussion came up on this, he
felt that the field inspection concerns we had of a ten -foot
buffercmay not address the impacts here.
TRUSTEE KING: I think maybe we need to look at this again. I
would suggest maybe talking to the owners to see if a berm could
be built around that pond.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think along those lines is what Mark Terry
was indicating.
TRUSTEE KING: That would entirely stop anything from going into
the pond.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Possibly a berm, and even, I don't want to
use the term furrows per se, I'm not talking plowed land, but in
other words a land form that would be berm -like to have several' areas of
catching that.
TRUSTEE KING: Something to isolate the pond.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. I think maybe if there is no objection,
I'll make a motion to table this.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to table this to revisit
the site to try to develop some mitigation.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number three, MARY
HOVEY requests an Administrative Permit for the existing
accessory 6.8'x12.7' shed with attached gazebo covered 8'x13'
platform; separate the shed from the gazebo covered platform;
relocate the shed approximately 40' landward of top of bank;
remove the gazebo which will not be replaced, and relocate the
platform approximately 34' landward from the top of bank.
Located: 4500 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 122-4-32.
To bring the Board up to date, this is one where there was
a question of a frame building that was sort of garage size that
was not on our plans, and there was, an applicant was originally
applying to move both the frame shed and pergola, or call it the
gazebo, as it turns out. Upon further review with the Building
Department, the other shed structure that doesn't show up on the
plans would have to be relocated to be appropriate, and the
applicant has agreed to meet Building Department specifications
and move it out of our jurisdiction. But they are requesting to
amend the application so that they would move the gazebo and the
shed as a unit structure, one structure, because they found out
as of late, whether yesterday or today, they are not entitled
under the ZBA determination to split the gazebo from the shed.
Board of Trustees 5 May 20, 2015
So I would make a motion, it's pretty straightforward, that
they are in conference with the Building Department to meet the
requirements of the Zoning approval. So I would make a motion to
approve the application of Mary Hovey for an Administrative
Permit with the stipulation that the application be read that
the gazebo and covered platform shall -be relocated as a single
unit, and that the -- otherwise the building structure similar
to a garage be moved outside of the jurisdiction of the
Trustees. And that the shed would be, the gazebo, if you will,
the shed and platform, gazebo platform, will be moved a minimum
of 40 -feet landward of the top of the bank. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. RESOLUTIONS MOORING PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under item five, on the agenda this evening,
Mooring Permits, as a rule we review all these applications in
the office during work session. Accordingly, to save time and
efficiency, I would move mooring permits number one, number two
and number three, be approved as a group. They are listed as
follows:
Number one, DAVID KIREMIDJIAN requests a Mooring Permit in East Creek for a 12'
sailboat, replacing Mooring #61. Access: Public
Number two, MICHAEL GOLIS requests a Mooring Permit in Gull Pond for a 25'
outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring #20. Access: Public
Number three, KEITH L. WOODSIDE requests a Mooring Permit in Gull Pond for a 25'
outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring #10. Access: Public. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
Also, we have item six on the agenda, Applications for
Extensions Transfers Administrative Amendments. Where these
actions are generally administerial or minor administrative
actions in nature, and each one of these has been reviewed by
the Trustees during the course of field inspection and
work session, I would move to move them all as a group, except
number four. And if someone else wants to add number eight.
I'm not sure if you want to have a discussion on Krupski.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would hold number eight out.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right. We'll hold number four and number
eight out. Otherwise I would move to approve under Item Six,
Applications for Extensions Transfers and Administrative
Amendments, one through three, five through seven and nine
through 12, which are listed as follows:
Number one, JOAN R. CHISOLM requests a One -Year Extension to Wetland Permit
Board of Trustees 6 May 20, 2015
#8207, as issued on June 19, 2013., Located: 200 Macdonalds Crossing, Laurel.
SCTM#145-4-16
Number two, Docko, Inc., on behalf of HARRINGTON FAMILY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, c/o DAVID HARRINGTON requests a One -Year Extension to Wetland
Permit #8235 and Coastal Erosion Management Permit #8235C, as issued on June 19,
2013. Located: Private Road on Clay Point Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 2-1-12
Number three, PAUL & MARGARET KOBALKA requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#8213 from Karmen & Gregory Dadourian to Paul & Margaret Kobalka, as issued on
June 19, 2013; and for a One -Year Extension to Wetland Permit #8213, as issued on
June 19, 2013. Located: 695 Petty's Drive, Orient. SCTM# 14-2-23
Number five, LEONARDO SESSA requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #678 from.
Stephen & Barbara Friedmann to Leonardo Sessa, as issued on August 9, 1971, and
Amended on May 31, 1994. Located: 2140 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck.
SCTM#123-4-4.1
Number six, JAMES J. BRADLEY requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #4596 from
Thomas J. McDonagh to James J. Bradley, as issued on May 23, 1996, and Amended
on January 29, 1998, and Amended again on October 16, 2013. Located: 765 Cedar
Point Drive West, Southold. SCTM# 90-1-6
Number seven, Michael Kimack on behalf of SHAMGAR CAPITAL, LLC, c/o DANIEL
BUTTAFUOCO requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #8271 to add
a one-story open porch addition and wood deck (280.74sq.ft.) onto the landward side of
the dwelling. Located: 1165 Kimberly Lane, Southold. SCTM# 7013-20.7
Number nine, VICKY PAPSON requests an Administrative Amendment to
Administrative Permit #8416A to replace approximately 14' of existing 4' high chain-link
fence with 4' high aluminum fencing along the side yard. Located: 11120 Route 25, East
Marion. SCTM# 31-13-7.2
Number ten, En -Consultants on behalf of HAYWATERS ROAD, LLC requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #492 for a proposed 3'x16' ramp in lieu of
a 3'x14' ramp; for the in-place replacement of existing 4'x32' catwalk and steps using
open -grate decking; and to add a 2'x4' ramp pad to the inside of the 6'x20' float.
Located: 75 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 111-1-2
Number eleven, En -Consultants on behalf of MARY VAN COTT requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit # 8588 for the in-place replacement of
approximately 20 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead. Located:
4080 Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 111-14-23
Number 12, DKR Shores, Inc. on behalf of KELLY MYERS requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit #8574 to reconstruct the new bulkhead landward of the
existing timber bulkhead so as to be in line with the adjacent bulkheads. Located: 1730
Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 115-12-23.2
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: I'll second..
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item four, the application of JOE & LINDA
SCIOTTO request a Transfer of Wetland Permit #6623 from Robert
H. Dexter to Joe & Linda Sciotto, as issued on June 20, 2007.
Located`. 8380 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 126-11-20
The transfer, I don't believe the Board had an issue with.
But, there is a note of conditioning this, there was no non -turf
buffer landward of the retaining wall. That was a prior
Board of Trustees 7 May 20, 2015
condition of the permit of the former owner.
So what is your pleasure, just condition that or give them
a time limit or --
TRUSTEE KING: Condition it that we need to inspect it to see if
they put the required buffer in place.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Condition it ahead of the transfer or as a
condition of the transfer, and then inspect?
TRUSTEE KING: Make it a condition of the transfer it has to be
established -- or reestablished.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, reestablished. Right.
TRUSTEE KING: Because there was a sign -off on that that it did
conform back in 2007, 1 think.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. As of this time, this application and
inspection on this site did not, we did not see the required
ten -foot non-turf'buffer, and it's unclear whether or not the
condition had changed since the initial approval.
would move that we approve the transfer of the permit
#6623 from Robert Dexter to Joe and Linda Sciotto, which was
initially issued on June 20th, 2007, with the stipulation that
the non -turf buffer be installed within 60 days of the transfer
being granted. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Dave, do you want to do the Krupski one?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, thank you. Number eight, Joseph Enrico on
behalf of JOHN P. KRUPSKI, JR. requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit #7665 to add approximately 400 cubic
yards of clean fill and plant a 15' wide non -turf vegetated
buffer area along the landward side of the bulkhead. Located:
6025 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 111-13-7
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be
consistent. The Board did go out and looked at this. And
apparently this amendment is being required to comply with a DEC
action associated with this property previously. The only thing
want to add on the record is the Board was concerned that the
top of this bluff has started to slide, and strongly urge the
applicant to think about some type of retaining structures to
help mitigate that. But as far as this particular permit
request, I'll make a motion to approve it as described.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time I would make a motion to go off
the agenda and hold public hearings. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 8
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
May 20, 2015
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would request that individuals wishing to
speak before the Board, if you could try to keep your comments
as organized and brief as possible, hopefully less than five
minutes, if possible.
Before getting into the public hearing section, I want to
inform those of you here that have an agenda that a number of
applications for this evening are postponed. They can be found
on page seven, item nine and ten, on page eight, eleven through
14. They are listed as follows. So if you have come speak on
anything from page seven, number nine on, in the agenda, these
items have been postponed.
Number nine, Nancy Dwyer on behalf of ANDREW KEATING requests a Wetland
Permit to repair the existing 4'x25' bluff stairs; existing catwalk sections to be
reconstructed as needed for a 4'x36' catwalk; and install a proposed mooring pile 16.7'
off seaward end of catwalk. Located: 700 Ruch Lane, Southold. SCTM# 52-2-28.1,
POSTPONED
Number ten, Jane Stageberg on behalf of TIMOTHY QUINN AND GEORGIA QUINN
request a Wetland Permit to replace existing 20'x32.8' deck with a new 28'-1" x
61'-11-1/2" deck with a pool equipment enclosure below the deck, an 18'x40' gunite
swimming pool and integrated 8.6x6.6' spa to be installed no further seaward than
existing deck; install a 4' high pool barrier with locking access gates around the
pool; use excavated soil as fill to support the above -ground portion of the pool;
and install an approximately 3'x72' railroad -tie wall along the westerly side of
the property. Located: 63165 Route 48, Greenport. SCTM# 40-1-14
POSTPONED
Number eleven, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND
DEVELOPMENT CORP., c/o FISHERS ISLAND CLUB requests a Wetland Permit to
enlarge an existing water storage pond used for irrigation by excavating approximately
6,670 cubic yards of material to a depth of approximately -5'. The resultant material shall
be trucked to an upland site for disposal. The disturbed area shall then be restored by
utilizing native plantings. Located: 25185 East End Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1-1-4
POSTPONED
Number 12, Michael A. Kimack on behalf of KEVIN & PAULA FLAHERTY request a
Wetland Permit for the demolition of an east side extension and majority of its
foundation; construct a one-story 298sq.ft. addition with the installation of a drywell to
contain roof runoff for new addition; as -built 90' long fieldstone retaining wall of .varying
height with steps located approximately 10' landward of easterly side of existing
bulkhead. Located: 1250 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 115-11-12
POSTPONED
Number 13, 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
Board of Trustees 9 May 20, 2015
new 2,200sq.ft. driveway and parking area with asphalt surface and drywells to contain
runoff. Located: 20795 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 51-4-13
POSTPONED
Number 14, 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. SCTM# 117-5-31
POSTPONED.
These items have been postponed.
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under amendments, number one, 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.
SCTM#87-6-4
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency arises from two conditions. Number one, the
purpose of the dock extension has not been identified. And two,
that the new configuration would put the dock 30 feet further
into public waters.
The CAC did not, because of weather conditions, visit the
site, and therefore did not make a finding.
The Trustees visited the site, most recently on the 13th of
May, and notes show that it's a fairly straightforward replacement.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. Venetis.
Yes, we went out. I know the LWRP doesn't go out generally
to look at it. There is open water in front of this site. The
square footage of public lands being affected are identical,
it's just the positioning of the float being from a "T" to an
"I." And my client explained that his boat, the boat he has and
the winds and so on, it just made more sense to have the float
go out straight. I know that from previous permits the placement
of the float has in the past gone out straight. Probably because
of just the winds and the tide, in some cases the homeowners
find that the placement of the float works better one way or
another. So aside from that, it's, as you said, it's a pretty
straightforward application. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KING: What was the inconsistency?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That the use was not identified. And the second
was that it will extend 30 feet, according to his scale, into
public waters. In fact I scaled it off. It's closer to 20 feet further.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think, for myself, given the fact that this is
open water here, there is no designated channel in this ,
location, I don't think this will interfere with navigation in
Board of Trustees 10 May 20, 2015
any way for any other vessels that want to go in this area, so
don't have a problem with it.
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't have any huge issue with it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I would list those reasons so as to address the
inconsistency.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else here 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
as submitted, noting that it will address the inconsistency for
use and will not impinge upon the channels of navigable waters,
and will allow the owner to get to greater depth and mitigate
any impact on the environment.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, that's your motion. Is there a
second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second, and deeming it consistent under the LWRP
in the motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second, with the inclusion
of the wording it will be considered consistent with LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing for Coastal Erosion
Permits, number one, En -Consultants on behalf of KEVIN GALLAGHER
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area
Permit to remove existing bluff stairs including associated
decks, landings, and concrete pad; construct along eroding toe
of bluff approximately 127 linear feet of stone revetment,
including ±13' westerly and ±11' easterly angled returns, all
consisting of approximately 3 to 5 ton stone placed over 50 to
1001b. core stone and filter cloth; restore bluff face by
constructing terrace retaining walls and placing approximately
500 cubic yards of sand re -nourishment (including approximately
240 cubic yards of on-site material excavated from toe of bluff
for revetment installation and approximately 260 cubic yards of
clean sand to be trucked in from an approved upland source), to
be vegetated with native plantings; establish a 10' wide
non -turf buffer with native plantings adjacent to bluff crest;
and construct new 3' wide by ±78' long (top to bottom) elevated
timber bluff stairway with platforms (including 3'x6' entry
platform; 3'x6' and 3'x3' middle platforms; and 3'x4' platform
leading to 5'x6' platform connected to 3'x12' beach steps at
base). Located: 17975 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 51-1-7.
Board of Trustees 11 May 20, 2015
This project has been determined to be consistent under the
LWRP. The CAC does not support the application based on some
extensive attached comments. I'll do my best to give a summary
capsule of them, but by inclusion I'll see we can get a full copy of
these comments included into the public record.
Comments by the -- specific comments addressing the reasons
that the CAC cannot concern this application are for the
following reasons: The placement of this proposed isolated
revetment at the midsection of an extended stretch of unhardened
but eroding bluffs will force adjacent properties to harden
their bluff base. This is caused by a slowdown of erosion rates
in front of the revetment -hardened property and an increase in
erosion of the unprotected properties next door. The neighbors'
unprotected bluff becomes deeply indented by erosion. This
launches a domino effect where one by one each property owner at
each end of a revetment finds erosion accelerating on his or her
property at a rate faster than the newly built revetment next
door. Proof of this edge erosion can be seen at the Town -built
revetment at the end of Soundview Avenue and mentioned in this
application. At the each end of this Town -built revetment
erosion has cut into the unprotected bluffs from ten to twenty
feet in less than three years.
The net result is that this single application has the
potential to trigger a series of reactions by contiguous
property owners which will result in unwanted and unexpected
changes in the physical profile of the beach extending as far as
Orient Point. If this shoreline section is allowed to be
Hardened, it will strengthen the longshore current stripping away,
the lighter sand and gravel leaving behind a heavier cobbles and
boulders. The beach narrows and steepens and as the sea level
rises allowing storm waves to hurl repetitive waves closer to
shore with greater erosive effect. Often, revetments are not
designed to withstand the increased wave energy and begin to
move. Examples of scattered toe armor can be commonly observed
along hardened sections of the Soundview Avenue shoreline.
2. The CAC is troubled that a single application such as
this, if approved, has the potential to initiate a series of
harmful modifications to Southold's shoreline. What is needed is
a cohesive management vision.
It goes on to describe additional aspects under that
heading.
It also -- item three. There is an unfilled in item three.
That is the, largely the extent. We'll get a hard copy of this
for inclusion into the record.
The Trustees --
THE SECRETARY: Are you missing something?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is an item three here. I just don't
see it.
MR. SNEIDER: Excuse me, John, this is number three.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is number three the photo images?
MR. SNEIDER: Yes. This will save time for us reading it on the record.
Board of Trustees 12 May 20, 2015
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, that's fine. All right, we'll
make sure that gets included in the record.
MS. HULSE: Excuse me, sir, if you could identify yourself for
the record.
MR. SNEIDER: John Sneider, with the CAC, in Beixedon, Southold.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The apparent missing pages of the CAC report
provide us pictures of examples of a before and after series
where they show a predicted outcome of bluff hardening where
it's allowed, and they also show pictures of the Gallagher
application, and they also show at the end of the Town -built
revetment previously referenced, to showing where there is
serious erosion at the boundary between the revetment and
unhardened bluff. So we'll include that also into the public record.
The Trustees performed a site inspection on May 13th. The
principle concerns at that time were how access would be gained
to perform these activities and how will the material reach the
beach to perform the activities.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En -Consultants on behalf of
Kevin Gallagher.
Interestingly, we were here about almost a year ago to the
day, when. Mr. Gallagher had been before the Board. He was
contemplating at that time an application for a new bluff
stairway, which eventually morphed itself into a permit being
issued by the Board, primarily just for the existing stairway so
that it could be repaired, until we could come back with a bluff
restoration plan. And I think, interestingly, at that time, it
was the CAC's comments that they could not support a stairway
application here until a comprehensive bluff stabilization and
restoration application was prepared and filed. We have now done
that. It appears the CAC is opposed to it.
That letter basically speaks to some general ideological opposition
to a revetment, and the Board has been covering this for as long as I
have been doing this, which incredibly is about 20 years now.
The Town revetment was put in, obviously not because the Town
felt like spending money but because there was severe erosion
occurring at that site threatening to undermine Soundview
Avenue. Similarly, there is very severe erosion threatening this
site. This is actually, this property is located three doors to
the east of the McAllister and Nicholas properties, which the
Board, within the past, I'm not sure if I have a year here --
2011. Very similar designs, also prepared by Butler Engineering
were approved in November of 2011; Wetlands and Coastal Erosion
Management permits 7692 and 7692C and also 7693 and 7693C for
17665 and 17555 Soundview Avenue. Those structures have not yet
been installed, but again, this design is very similar.
Mr. Gallagher really has no interest to gratuitously invest
the kind of money that has to be invested in this project. But
what you can see here is this is a classic case of bottom up
erosion, where the very top of the bluff, probably top 15 feet
Board of Trustees 1.3 May 20, 2015
or so as the crow flies, is actually quite well vegetated. There
is still woody shrubs, small trees growing up there, except for
the fact that the slope face beneath it is steepening, the top
of the bluff is in good shape. So it's quite clear that along,
this stretch, as the Board is aware, has been occurring all along
Soundview Avenue over the past five years is getting very
severely eroded from the bottom.
So again, this plan, this design, is consistent with the
type of comprehensive bluff restoration that both this Board has
sought out and has also been sought out by the DEC. With respect
to the fact that it's consistent with the USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service recommendation, there is a rock revetment
proposed to first stabilize the toe and then additional
terracing as you go up the slope with significant beach
re -nourishment with significant revegetation with native plantings to
try to bring the whole slope back to a more natural angle of repose,
and doing so in a way using revetment that has less of the kind of
impacts we used to see from vertically faced bulkheads.
There is no way to completely escape that transition fight
between protecting the bluff and protecting the beach. In the
past we have had some applications that propose to cover the
revetment. I think this Board has found generally that those
tend to be drop -in -the -bucket type remedies where the sand is
quickly washed out in the first storm event.
So it seems like both the Board and the DEC for the last
couple of these that we have done have moved away from that.
Otherwise the design is very consistent with what the Board has
approved just up the shoreline.
With respect to your specific question about access, we did
look at that with the engineer, and it seems like there is going
to have to be barge access here. It will be very difficult to
get this material down from any long distance from either east
or west along the shoreline.
Certain materials can be brought down the bluff, like for
the stairway, when work is done, obviously some of the
re -nourishment, some of the terracing will require labor and
simple equipment on the face of the bluff itself. But the
materials, the heavy materials will have to come in by barge.
And that has apparently been done in this area. This is not one
of those spots where you have a lot of boulder material that
would block barge access.
That would be about the extent of my response, unless you
have something specific.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Not with respect to the Chair having any
questions. I wanted to also extend additional information for
discussion. I did not realize there were extensive comments from
LWRP coordinator Mark Terry, where he specifically detailed the
LWRP program policy number four concerning this project. And
that report came in yesterday. It was a number of days after, of
course the CAC had visited the site and submitted their report.
The LWRP coordinator states that the subject property is
Board of Trustees 14 May 20, 2015
located along the stretch of Long Island Sound shoreline running
parallel with Soundview Avenue that has been severely impacted by
increasing bluff erosion during the many nor'easter and other
significant storm events of the past decade, including the
Christmas 2010 blizzard and Superstorm Sandy in October, 2012.
In response to this accelerated shoreline, the owners of
Privately -owned properties throughout this geologic cell have
been forced to seek approvals for the construction of shoreline
stabilization structures such as those issued by the Board of
Trustees in November, 2011, for rock revetments along the
properties located three and four to the west of the subject
parcel, with coastal erosion permits enumerated herein. Also
located less than a mile to the east of the property is the rock
revetment that was installed by the Town of Southold in 2011 to
prevent the collapse of the Soundview Avenue itself.
Similarly ongoing bottom up erosion of the subject bluff is
evidenced by a landward transgressing bluff toe, a steepening
bluff face and a loss of naturally occurring vegetation from the
toe of the bluff up to a certain point below the top of the
bluff which is clearly illustrated in the attached site photos.
Therefore, the applicant is proposing to remediate this
ongoing erosion loss with an erosion control project designed in
accordance with the generally accepted eroding bluff
stabilization practices recommended by the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service, which is to simultaneously
stabilize the toe, top and face of the bluff by implementing a
combination of structural hard toe stabilization and both
structural and soft sand and vegetative bluff face re -nourishment.
Specifically, a stone revetment is proposed to stabilize
the toe of bluff which will occur first. Then the washed out
portion of the bluff face can be stabilized with terraced walls
and re -nourished with sand and planted with native vegetation,
including beach grass for ground cover and woody plants such as
northern bayberry and beach rose; a ten -foot non -turf buffer to
be planted with native vegetation will be established adjacent
to the bluff crest to provide improved soil retention and
increase absorption capacity for runoff landward of the bluff
during heavy rains. .
Pursuant to the principals set forth in 275-11 (b)(1 )(b),
the proposed stone revetment is.proposed in an area suffering
from extreme erosion as described above and noted in May 14th,
memorandum of the Board of Trustees for the LWRP coordinator,
who provided an aerial photograph as evidence the subject bluff
was actively eroding at the time the above -noticed stairway
application was submitted last year, consistent with the
sections of 275-11(b)(1)(b) and section 111-15 and policy for
the LWRP the revetment will be installed with a slope face and
angle returns and will be placed along the existing bluff toe to
avoid encroachment on the beach surface seaward of the existing
bluff, and to avoid causing measurable increase in erosion at
the site or adjacent properties, or result in any other adverse
Board of Trustees 15 May 20, 2015
impacts on adjacent properties or natural coastal processes and
resources.
Further, pursuant to 111-15, the purpose of the proposed
structure in integrated erosion control or remediation plan as
described above is designed specifically to stem the continued
denuding and loss of the bluff. The property's natural
protective feature and the design has been engineered in
accordance with generally accepted engineering principals and is
likely to control long-term bluff erosion of the site through
long-term maintenance, and its intended ability to withstand
inundation wave impacts, weathering and other storm effects
conditions for a minimum of 30 years. The project is further
consistent with policy four of the LWRP because the structure is
being proposed where one, non-structural vegetative means alone
will not be sufficient. Two, the natural protective feature of
the bluff cannot be effectively enhanced without effective
stabilization of its toe, and evidenced by recent a pattern of
severe erosion throughout the geological cell. And three, a hard
structure is the only design considered that can practicably and
effectively provide such toe stabilization. Four, the proposed
structure has been limited to the minimal scale necessary to
effectively stem the erosional trend and is based on sound
engineering practices. Five, vegetative restoration enhancement
is and will remain part of the long-term remediation plan. Six,
there will be no significant direct or indirect costs incurred
by the public as a result of this project: Ultimately, the goal
of the project is to stabilize or restore and enhance the
natural protective feature of the property for the purpose of
minimizing the loss of structures and natural resources from
erosion, which is consistent with the relevant permits standards
set forth in Chapters 2.75 and 111, and the goals of the Policy
Four of the LWRP. I just had to include that in the record, not
having initially seen it in the file when I presented it at the
outset.
Do we have any additional comments?
MR. HARDY: Yes. I would like to make a comment. I'm Doug Hardy,
Southold. While I'm on the CAC, I'm speaking pro bono as a
private citizen.
This particular application has struck some response from a
number of us. For some reason -- for the very reason that itis
situated between the Town beach, which is a troubled beach, and
has to be constantly re -nourished, and Horton's Point Light, and
on both east by the Town beach, if you take a walk perhaps a
third of a mile, it's entirely bulkheaded. And when you walk,
most people, many people could not physically walk it because
it's either the beach has disappeared or it's filled with
cobbles and boulders. And also some large boulder groin. So the
access by the public is extremely restricted. And this results
in a strengthening of longshore current against these bulkheads
during storms. And it leaves behind, it carries away, it's
strong enough to carry away the lighter sands and lighter
Board of Trustees 16 May 20, 2015
gravel, but not enough to carry away cobbles and boulders. And
so this is a type of beach that as you harden the shoreline you
would expect to get. It's the same on the west side where
Horton's Point Landing, you descend down the 127 steps of
Horton's Point Light. And that end is for short waves
bulkheaded. And again, you are confronted by heavy boulders and.
very treacherous walking. Then, surprisingly, you round the
corner and there is a great one-sided canyon of un -vegetated
bluffs. And a long, a wide sloping beach, probably one of the
best beaches in Southold, that consists of sand and light
gravel. And this is a natural beach, and this is what the system
should be doing and working in getting. The problem is that you
have houses built, for whatever reason, on the edge of these, at
the top of these cliffs.
The problem with thisapplication is it's in the middle of
this wide, this beautiful beach, and he intends to harden it,
where for hundreds of yards on either side it's unhardened.
These cliffs are badly eroding, which is a good thing, because
it's supplying sand for the entire beaches that stretch to
Orient Point. And once you cut off that supply of sand, you will
be left with either with a very narrow beach of cobbles and
boulders or no beach at all in front of a hardened structure.
The second danger of this application is there is no
mention of the revetment or hardening edge effect. And if you
place in the center of an unhardened shoreline, the edge effect
is such is that the hardened shoreline will retreat landward at
a slower rate than the unhardened. And so you begin to get deep
cliffs where the sand blast on each side of the hardening. This
then will require contiguous owners on either side to be
compelled or forced to build their own hardened structure. And
you get then a domino effect. And soon this great natural beach
is going to be destroyed. And you can see evidence of this on
both the east and west side, as I have described, the beaches
consist of cobbles and boulders.
Another evidence which the application saw fit to describe
was toting the Town beach revetment, which was compelled to be
built to try to protect the east end of Soundview Avenue, which
by then, was only probably ten feet before disaster. But if you
look at the Town revetment which was just so recently built, on
each end you see an edge effect where it has been severely
eroded, ten to 25 feet, depending on which end you want to look.
at. This is exactly what will happen here. And so this is a
litmus test for the Town Trustees, is it worthwhile to, does the
Trustees have the legal tools and the will to be able to manage
a shoreline in trust for the people. Because is it better to
favor the private property owner or for the public good which is
held in trust for lawful access. Lawful access will be
essentially denied. This will be over a decade. But the
applicant himself admits that this optimistically might have a
30 -year life span, if it's properly maintained. So there will -
be constant maintenance of this project. But in the 30 years the
Board of Trustees 17 May 20, 2015
sea level will have risen, conservatively, it's probably going
to be higher, but at least four to six inches. And depending
upon the frequency of storms, particularly from the northwest,
and then from the easterly gales, few projects of this type, of
hardened structures,, can withstand this type of force.
The other thing that is undefined, that I have noticed, is
it's unclear of what a revetment and a seawall is. Many of the
revetments being built that I have seen recently are huge slabs
of rock that essentially are almost vertical. And this
essentially is an end run around a seawall or bulkhead. And I
don't see in the Trustees any specification of what the specific
structure revetment. The revetment has been described or has
been hoped to function by creating a great number of interspaces
or holes to absorb the force of storm waves. But many of these
huge slabs, that are essentially near vertical, again, will
reflect the waves, which not only the reflection of the waves,
the energy goes back, and an incoming wave then hits this energy
and you get then huge touring waves. And I do have some videos
where --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mr. Hardy, could you try to encapsulate and
shorten it just a little built. And I think probably the Board
is aware of many of these things you speak of. And I did make
the effort, you came through on my personal E-mail to make sure
it got through the Town website to everybody. So everybody here
has seen it. The CAC report as well. Also because I understand
you are trying to wear one hat here as an individual citizen,
but we also recognize you are a valued member of the CAC.
Do you or the CAC have any particular recommendations for
what is seemingly mutually exclusive reports of the CAC, your
concerns and the LWRP coordinator, so that the very difficult
issues that the Trustees have to deal with might also consider
some thoughts on what we might do instead of the application
that is before us?
MR. HARDY: Yes, I do. When you are confronted with an
overwhelming force, you retreat. And that's what they did in
the past here. I have several friends who moved their house
backward. One of whom was Frank Wills, a venerated
environmentalist. He moved his house back. I know another person
who is long dead now, who moved his house back two or three
times. So this is the best permanent, semi-permanent solution.
The one offered by the applicant is only temporary, maybe 30
years, under constant maintenance. But it's merely a delaying
action. And the only permanent solution would be to move back.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you know, in your other capacity as a
member of the CAC or Mr. Stein can speak to, has the CAC
approached the Town Board to open a discussion concerning a
formal policy of coastal retreat? Because the tools that the
Trustees have in 275 and Chapter 111, leave us with largely the
supporting comments of the LWRP coordinator and what is standard
practice. I'm just wondering has the dialogue been started in
your capacity as CAC members. Because this is an important area.
Board of Trustees 18 May 20, 2015
MR. HARDY: All I can say is that what we have mentioned,
speculated as a possible fate of this application, has been
shown, demonstrated along the entire Atlantic seaboard, is that
often times hardening eventually you lose the beach. So, thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: John Stein, 295 Hippodrome Drive, Southold. I'm also
a CAC member, but I'm here as a citizen tonight. Mr. Meeker is
here representing the CAC. John, I know we are going to run this
over. I promise to be only all of five minutes. But in response
to Mr. Herrmann's comments regarding the staircases, you know,
of utmost importance. When we reviewed that, in May of 2014, 1
believe we were looking at that to taking a non -jurisdictional
staircase and make it within code. Obviously maybe the previous
owner or the property owner must have had a math background. But
you know there are seven trapezoidal landings on that, and it
zigzags, and right now it's covered over in a canopy with very
thick vegetated stuff on three quarters of it, and then it's a
straight run down there. But in relation to your question of do
we have any other ideas other than what the recommendations most
recently yesterday of the LWRP is, one just merely has to look
to the western neighbor, they cut back their top crest of the
bluff face and did two low sill, low profile bulkheads, and
fixed the drainage and also the profile. The subject property
has a gradient level that goes right into and very drastically
into the bluff face, in addition to the small concrete pad that
believe Mr. Herrmann is referencing will be removed and he
neglected to put down, or maybe he wants to keep, the suspended
wood platform over the face that has about eight to 12 feet in
air with no soil on it. But this completely has a much better
effect due to the fact that at the base, even when I inspected
this in May of 2014, 1 could not understand why the easterly and
the westerly property owners have four to five feet of
phragmites grass and reed grass, which is almost as good as a
concrete embankment or toe, but the subject property doesn't.
And I also noticed that I thought I was on dead low and there
was just maybe a storm tide, but there was always a pool of
water to the left of the staircase. But based on further
inspection and also with Doug's help and somehow, for lack of a
better word, the bluff is bleeding brackish water and fresh
water is coming out. Now to do terracing on such 55 foot beach
with the examples of east and west of toe armoring and
terracing, if I could just approach here, less than a half mile
away of terracing within the last year, three years, you can see
the gouging that will be applicable on both the east and west
property sides of this neighbor. This will inundate the
staircase and the staircase on the western side and eastern
side. That's why you are getting a three prong effect of all
three of us coming on our own two badly times and one of us
being required to come here. That's documented. We've, also, as
you know, we've approached the Town Board, we've submitted the
starvation of Southold beaches referencing this as a focal
Board of Trustees 19 May 20, 2015
point. When we did see this, this was a complete -- this was --
MS. HULSE: Are you submitting all these for the record?
MR. SNEIDER: Yes.
MS. HULSE: How many photos do you have?
MR. SNEIDER: Seven.
MS. HULSE: For the record, seven photos are being submitted for
the Trustees consideration in this hearing. Rob, would you like
to see this.
MR. HERRMANN: I can get a copy.
MR. SNEIDER: This is the subject property. But this is a
continued pooling of water and it has sea lettuce on it. And
it's been there for a good two years. I even went so far as to
take a more scientific approach, and I laid down and tasted it
and it's about 40% salt water and the rest is brackish water.
The reason the eastern and western staircases on the other
property owners still have the phragmites is because they have,
especially the western property owner, has cut back on that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Meaning he's establishing a new angle of
repose.
MR. SNEIDER: Correct. He has lessened the angle of repose and
it's taken the impact away on that. Most importantly, if
two-thirds of the staircase which is already canopied with trees
and vegetation and already strengthened trees is to be taken out
to have a front slide, it's our impression he should just take
the decking off, leave the posts, because they are actually
acting as natural caissons and they are putting in strength and
stability on that. And where it's washed out, let the homeowner
put the staircase straight to the, further west of where the
existing structure is.
And lastly, on top of Mr. Herrmann is asking for or
suggesting he can do a ten or 15 -foot buffer zone, we feel it
should go completely up to the coastal erosion hazard line
because of the gradient level and the existence of in -ground
irrigation. There is about 12 saplings that are put all the way
to the edge on the eastern part of the property. There is three
cobblestone terrace walls that are fed in with natural water
from hoses, and there is three hose beds with triple connections
water soaking this thing. As far as on the top of the subject
property, I've consulted with Mr. Verity of the Building
Department on the zone because it's my belief, just my
background as, not as a coastal engineer as Mr. Hardy is, but my
real estate from NYU, with property and air rights, but that,
our concern is that brick wall that is in there is possibly
adding to from, I'm looking back into the '30s and '40s and '50s
with the building codes in this, because this could be
demolished previous foundation with possibly an old well or a
cistern or possibly a foundation that was knocked out in the
'40s or'50s. But there is, this particularly will be, it's our
determination and with all the subject properties, the western
property owner will lose a good 25 feet of his shoreline
frontage up to his stairs and will have an adverse impact on
Board of Trustees 20
May 20, 2015
both contiguous neighbors supported.
MS. HULSE: When you are saying "we," earlier, are you talking
you and Doug or --
MR. SNEIDER: Myself and Doug Hardy. And also our work sessions
at the CAC.
MS. HULSE: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Dave, I think maybe we should table this. We
have an awful lot of issues. We have water coming through the
bluff --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are you picking this up on the record? We are
talking about the possibility of tabling this application due to
some of the issues being brought up.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We may have other comments. I don't want to
close this out before we have all the comments.
MR. SNEIDER: In essence, in just two sentences, you are getting
an application and request to put terracing, a rock revetment,
moving -- destroying a canopied staircase that is probably 30
years old; with a bleeding bluff, without -- and to the best of
my knowledge, I don't think there is a geoscience data to see
how far the sand and loam goes back into this from the top. And
with the runoff on the top of the subject property, with the
inundation of the watering that is occurring up there, and a
brick foundation wall with possibility there could be cistern or
other old expiring well in there, I think it's absurd to let
this continue without all three of us getting together or the
esteemed Trustees to review the necessary information. And
thank you, very much.
MR. MEEKER: One more comment. Peter Meeker, from the CAC. To answer your
question regarding the Town Board, the answer is yes, we have met with the supervisor,
we have started identifying stakeholders in this coastal erosion issue. We are gathering
information and we have agreed to meet again to further the process.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, very much. Is there anyone else
who wishes to speak on behalf of the application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En -Consultants. There is a
lot that has been stated and sometimes it's easy to
overcomplicate things -There are photos that you have with the
application that show the erosion of the bottom half of the
bluff and the maintenance of very healthy, very tall,
established woody vegetation and trees at the top.
With all of these bluff erosion situations, you do often
get two basic kinds of bluff erosion. There is bottom up and
there is top down. This Board has seen top down erosion situations
even in cases where there was a bulkhead or revetment at the toe
of the bluff. And due to a couple of instances, Jim picked out
one a bunch of years ago where some of the drywells that were
installed were installed very close to the top of the bluff, and
you are getting water actually firing out from the top of an
impervious clay layer up near the top of the bluff.
That is not going on here. To state that is what is
happening here belies the obvious evidence of the condition
of the bluff. And I have been looking at these bluffs both in a
Board of Trustees 21 May 20, 2015
professional and academic capacity going on 25 years. Hard to
believe I have gotten that old.
This is a bottom erosion situation. It is very, very
similar, I didn't see the photos the gentleman was showing you,
but just to the west of this site where you had looked at
McAllister and Nicholas, there are some old what looks like a
cesspool structure that is literally at this point coming
through the face of the bluff. These bluffs are severely,
severely eroding. While I commend the CAC for their efforts, I'm
going to give you a personal and professional and political
guarantee that the Town Board is not going to come up with a
geographically wide solution to stem all of the bluff erosion
that is occurring along Soundview Avenue or anywhere else in the
Town. This is an age old debate. It's an age old struggle. And
unfortunately we are still left with some basic simple tools.
In a way they have been improved on and in a way they are sort
of anachronistic, both from the code perspective and from the
engineering perspective. The way this project has been designed
is consistent with the standards of 275. It's consistent with
the standard of 111. It's consistent with the standards of the
LWRP. And been deemed consistent by the LWRP coordinator. It's
consistent with permits this Board has issued to property owners
within three and four properties of this property within the
past three years. It's consistent with the Town's own actions,
whether the CAC likes them or not, that was the Town's last
resort. I understand the theory that the bluff provides sand to
the beach. I also understand that when the erosion, as you can
see just to the west of this site, reaches a certain critical
mass, the bluff will begin to avulsively collapse. And if we
could all turn the clocks back and have nobody living along this
shoreline, which brings up all sorts of other, questions, too,
but if you could do that, I would tend to agree, there would not
be any, necessarily, any reason to do this. Because there would
be no private property owner trying to protect their structures
or a Board like yours being asked to help them carry out that
responsibility.
I do want to mention that one thing that does get a little
bit lost in the conversation is the fact that the bluffs
themselves, and I think this is recognized by the LWRP, are
themselves the natural protective resources, not just for this
one guy's house but for the entire developed shoreline of
Soundview Avenue and the Town and roads behind it, all together.
And you have situations where you have seen in many other places
as a result of permits this Board has issued, whether the old
style vertical face bulkheads or the newer angled sloped
revetments with angled returns such as what is proposed here and
what is designed to mitigate as much as humanly possible the
effects Mr. Hardy is talking about, you see these
extraordinarily reestablished, restored, very well -vegetated
bluffs. And I could challenge the Board to go out or the CAC to
go out and look at the projects we've designed with Jeff Butler,
Board of Trustees 22 May 20, 2015
and have been implemented by people like Costello or Ian
Crowley, and supplemented on the bluff with Peter Sterling, and
look at those projects, and look at your pre -project photos and
post -project photos. And they are restoring a resource. They
are restoring the vegetation, the habitat, the diversity of that
bluff system itself. So it's not just a house that is being
protected, it's the actual bluff system itself.
Once the bluff erodes to a point like this, where it is so
steeply eroded, we are talking geologic time before this thing
would move landward enough to completely re -grade itself to a
natural angle of repose where the vegetation would all just come
back. I have not seen that on any of these sites in my life
time. And I don't think you all have seen it either. The only
way you get the restoration and revegetation on the bluffs is to
stabilize the toe and work your way up. Its the reason it's
supported by your code. It's the reason it's supported by the
LWRP, and as I mentioned before, it's the reason why it's
supported by the.USDA Natural Resource Conservation people. It's
the means that we have, it's designed to be as comprehensively
appropriate a restoration project as possible and consistent
with your code. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. I would just, at this time, I
hope there is no one else who wishes to speak because we are
really going long.
MR. HARDY: I would like just a brief --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You already had your five minutes. Make it
one minute, please, Doug.
MR. HARDY: This was an elegant rebuttal that he just made, but
the fact is, is that when you choke off a supply of sand, the
beach narrows, it steepens, and the erosive force on shore
becomes magnified. And somewhere along that narrow beach,
they'll find an entryway. And so it's not just protecting the
single owner. You are trying to protect the whole island.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. I would kindly ask the CAC to
identify specifically the locations that the seven photos you
submitted to the record, give us Suffolk County tax map numbers
on them and names and identifying information.
At this time I would like to make a motion to table this
application for further review and consideration.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second. Dave?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm not in favor of that motion. I have listened
to all the testimony given here tonight by the representatives
of the CAC and by Mr. Herrmann. I have listened to what the LWRP
coordinator has said.
I know that the CAC has submitted to the Town Board a
request for a comprehensive plan to be developed, to address the
erosion on Long Island Sound. And I agree that this is going to
be a longstanding process. If that is even done by the Town
Board, it's going to be a long time before I think that is
completed. In the meantime, erosion continues to occur. And
Board of Trustees 23
looking at the plans, these plans do not provide a 90 degree
wall. These plans provide, looks like approximately 45 -degree
wall. Which is consistent with what we have seen and what we
have approved along Long Island Sound and the bays. So for
myself I'm ready to move forward with this application tonight.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, there has been a motion made and
seconded to table. I would just like to add as an additional
point of discussion, the reasons I'm concerned to table is some
of the specific information that I heard from the CAC members
concerning the infiltration of water through the bluff face to
the lower area. I feel that I would prefer to take a hard look
and revisit the site just to look at some of these conditions,
and possibly with the consideration that we need an engineering
report or report from Soil Conservation concerning the soil and
stability of the site.
In any case, that's sort of my thoughts. I understand that
the hard work of the CAC and their concerns here, as well as the
very detailed elaborated works of the LWRP coordinator.
Admittedly, I'm very conflicted about this. It's a new job in a
cove that has certainly been hammered. But I'm also concerned
about the future impacts.
Is there anyone else who wishes to add discussion on top of
the segment?
TRUSTEE KING: Rob, where are we with DEC on this?
MR. HERRMANN: I had a site meeting with the DEC last week, with
two of the staff people from marine habitat protection. We
actually looked at the water. When I mentioned before,
sometimes you have these situations where the clay is sitting up
in the middle and you get these blowouts. I'm not sure if that's
what you are inferring is being explained. There is like, almost
like a groundwater seepage at the base of the bluff, so when you
got down to the base of the bluff you see sort of like a ponding
of water. I looked at that with Jeff Butler and Jeffs
determination was that would in no way impact the design. It's
actually occurring down at the base of the area where the
revetment is, and when I DEC looked at it --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, we have a motion --
MR. HERRMANN: I have to finish the answer to the question. When
the DEC looked at the water, they said unlike a traditional
bulkhead where you would have the potential for that water to
build up pressure behind the bulkhead. The revetment is designed
with the interstices between them that the water can seep out.
So that is an issue that was looked at by the professional
engineer, it was looked at by the staff from the DEC. I looked
at it. It doesn't pose a potential problem for the project
design.
So anyway, we would expect that the DEC would probably
issue their permit within the next couple of weeks, and the
applicant is actually really quite anxious to get going on this
project because I don't know if you've seen, the stairs are in
bad shape.
May 20, 2015
Board of Trustees 24
MS. HULSE: Rob, that was responsive to the question. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made and seconded. Vote of
the Board to table.
MR. SNEIDER: Before you close the public hearing --
MS. HULSE: It's closed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's closed. Why don't you do a roll call vote
on this.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Aye.
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to move forward with this, to be
quite frank.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Your vote, aye or nay.
TRUSTEE KING: Nay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Nay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The motion is lost.
MS. HULSE: Is there another motion?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. I'll be glad to make another motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Comments first.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I understand your position, Dave, but I'm
looking at photographs here that have been submitted that
purport to show something and I have seen something else: They
are not labeled. I don't know where this place is.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We can't really have discussion on this. We
have to stay in motion.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This has to be on the public record. The public
hearing is closed, right, on this?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So we'll have to dispense with any further
discussion except as part of a motion. So, is there another
motion?
Do I hear a motion?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. I'll do it from my agenda here. I'll make
a motion to approve the application as submitted and deem as
it's been found consistent under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
I'll go for a roll call vote.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Nay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Nay.
TRUSTEE KING: Aye.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The motion is lost. We have to move on. We
are moving forward to the next item in the public hearing. The
motion has been lost to table.
MR. HERRMANN: What does that mean?
MS. HULSE: That means there was not a -- they didn't pass it, so
it's nothing. Basically your application is in limbo right now.
They did not pass the resolution to approve, so.
MR. HERRMANN: I guess what I have to ask you is what do I --
MS. HULSE: You can revamp your application, if you want. You can
May 20, 2015
Board of Trustees 25
resubmit it. But this application is not approved.
MR. HERRMANN: Is it denied?
MS. HULSE: It's not denied. But if it's not approved, it's not
being acted on tonight. So I could talk to you about it another
time. You can resubmit it in a different fashion if you'd like.
It has not been acted on by this Board tonight.
MR. HERRMANN: Wait a second. This sounds insane.
MS. HULSE: Rob, I'll explain this to you at another time.
MR. HERRMANN: No, I'm not going to step down on this. I'm sorry.
MS. HULSE: Rob, it's not an open hearing right now. You'll have
to step outside.
MR. HERRMANN: Well then come remove me. Because I would like an
answer to the question of what happened to my application.
MS. HULSE: To be passed, it has to have three members of the
Board approve. Or three members of the Board deny. That didn't
happen. It's two to two. So they are at a standstill. They are
at a stymy.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay. So can we ask for it to be tabled so that we
don't have to resubmit something that we've already submitted?
MS. HULSE: Its been done, Rob. The vote has been taken. If you
would like more clarification, I would be happy to do that for
you outside. They have to move on with their agenda.
MR. HERRMANN: This is insane.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Under wetland permits, number one, En -Consultants
on behalf of GLENDALOUGH PROPERTIES, INC., requests a Wetland
Permit to remove and replace in-place approximately 1,032 linear
feet of existing timber bulkhead forming boat basin and channel
jetties with vinyl bulkhead; a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit
to dredge an approximately 7,800sq.ft. area of channel/mouth of
basin to a maximum depth of four feet below mean lower low
water; place approximately 500 cubic yards of approximately
1,400 cubic yards resultant sand spoil as backfill around
replacement bulkheading and remaining approximately 900 cubic
yards'spoil in designated +/-9,100sq.ft. on-site disposal area
to south of channel; and remove and replace in-place 3.5'x36'
and 5'x81' fixed timber docks located inside boat basin as
needed during bulkhead replacement. Located: 5250 Vanston Road,
Cutchogue. SCTM# 111-10-14
This is found consistent by the LWRP, and he notes there
are conditions outlined in the past from the DEC that we should
look at.
The CAC moved to support the application with the condition
the bulkhead replacement is a onetime bump out. The CAC also
questions the long-term viability of this action as it is not a
long-term solution. I think there are some letters here, that we
have received also, that will be entered into the record.
I'll just briefly look through them and try and give you a
brief idea. There is a letter from an Antoinette Pizzola, and
May 20, 2015
Board of Trustees 26 May 20, 2015
it's for maintenance dredging. It concerns that. They feel the
spoils should be put not on the proposed place but I guess to
the north. I'm trying to look at it real quick. (Perusing). To
the north. They want the dredge spoils placed to the north
rather than on this property.
There is another letter from Arnold Blair. And this also
requests that the sand spoil be placed on the north side of the
channel. There is another, from a Melissa and Justin Billinghay,
concerned about native species of birds, and also dredge spoils
should go to the north.
That's basically just a quick review of those letters. Is
there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En -Consultants on behalf of
the application. As you read, the project consists basically of .
two primary elements; one is the in-place replacement of all the
existing bulkheading and jetty structures that form the boat
basin and channel of Cutchogue Harbor, and also the maintenance
dredging of the channel and mouth of the basin. As I indicated
in my application, portions of the bulkheading and jetty
structures have been the subject of previously permitted repairs
and replacement dating back to wetlands permit 3993, that was
issued by the Board in January of 1992. And also the channel and
mouth of the basin have been the subject of previously permitted
maintenance dredging dating back to Wetlands Permit 4277 issued
in January of 1994 and Wetland Permit 4634 issued in August of 1996.
Together, the proposed bulkhead replacement and maintenance
dredging will have the effect of restoring and maintaining
navigability and use of this historically existing boat basin
and channel. The proposed maximum dredge depth is four feet
below mean lower/low water, and access to the dredge site will
be gained both from the upland portion of the subject property
and also by barge from Cutchogue Harbor. The dredging will be
accomplished by land based excavator and also barge managed clam
shell bucket crane. We had met with the Board, you'll probably
remember very pleasant trip through a couple feet of snow to get
down to the basin area. And we had discussed the fact that in
the past there had been a request by the property owner of the
nature conservancy to place the spoil, as would typically be the
practice here, down drift of the channel. But the nature
conservancy did not want to become party to a privately
sponsored permit application, so at the time they had denied the
request. And so what we looked at with the contractor and with
the DEC and with the Board and actually, it was your Board's
recommendation, that we put the spoil on the up -drift side of the
channel, but in that sort of upland swale in a way that it would
not have the potential to reenter the waterway. And under those
conditions the DEC was also approving of that spoil disposal
site. So we went ahead with the application and did design it
consistent with our discussion with the Board, and so the spoil
disposal, I hope you saw it. I had it staked out with some blue
Board of Trustees 27 May 20, 2015
flags so you could see where the spoils would go, and I think
under some of the prior permits the spoil had also been put on
that side.
TRUSTEE KING: It looked to me there was previous spoil deposit
there.
MR. HERRMANN: Correct. A little closer to the channel itself.
TRUSTEE KING: One other question I have, Rob, this is an in-place
replacement of the bulkhead, correct?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: The CAC recommends a onetime bump out. It's not a
bump out. It's an in-place replacement.
MR. HERRMANN: That's correct. I mean it's, I don't know if maybe
they are referring to a bump out that occurred sometime in the
past. But for the active bulkhead and jetty structures that are
there, it'd an in-place replacement. The only difference is it is
the vinyl sheathing instead of the treated timber sheathing that
is there.
The project is large in scope but its a fairly
straightforward project conceptually. I know that the owner has
gone back and forth over a long period of time with various
different plans, back in the days when Chuck Hamilton was with
DEC, of how to open this up and keep it open. And the
maintenance dredging is really on the only -- similar to like
Wunneweta Pond that is something that will have to be done and
have to be done consistently after that to maintain it.
TRUSTEE KING: Just to make a note on what Mark Terry was talking
about with the DEC. No work which involves the operation of
machinery, distribution of sand or other physical disturbance
shall be permitted during the period from March 15 to August 31
inclusive. So we would have to make that part of our permit
also, I guess, to be consistent with them.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, I think you'll see dredge windows that are
established by the other agencies; the Army Corps will establish
a window, the DEC established a window here. So the window that
you just noted I think will wind up being within the confines of the
other agencies anyway, so we certainly have no objection to that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was just going say, I imagine the dredge
windows will be even more restrictive than that period of time
withstanding the DEC permit because the permits the county has
for nearby creeks expires December 15th. So the period of time
is around, approximately, beginning of October to December 15th
where dredging is allowed by them.
Rob, I had also noticed out there in the field that when
these bulkheads, when this basin was built, my guess is that there
has been a lot of sand accretion, and if there is any
thought to extend the, I'll say the southern wing out a little
further to help to protect that channel from filling in so
rapidly, because when this was built, since the time this was
built there has been a lot of accretion of sand so that the
southern branch of this entrance is now a lot shorter than it
used to be.
Board of Trustees 28 May 20, 2015
MR. HERRMANN: I don't think we'd get it. I think the Neil
McGoldrick applications were before your time, Dave. But Jim --
I don't think we'd get it.
TRUSTEE KING: I agree.
MR. HERRMANN: I agree with your design concept. You are on the
mark. But we would never get approved for it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments, Board comments?
MS. BILLINGHAY: I would like to comment. My name is Melissa
Billinghay and I live across the street from the bulkhead at
4505 Vanston Road.
am concerned with where the sand goes, where the spoil is
left, because the beach to the south is receding a lot quicker
than the beach to the north, and I feel it's very important to
preserve that beach. Not only is it our beach, but there are ten
families that are deeded to that beach in the area, and it's our
right to have that beach. There is also a nature preserve
further along that I believe should be considered. And the final
thing that I will say about any work that is done in this
property where people are accessing it by the road, I feel there
needs to be a stipulation in the contract with whoever is
serviced here that the speed limit must be adhered to.
MS. HULSE: Ma'am, this has nothing to do with the Trustees.
MS. BILLINGHAY: It does, because there is a bus stop at the end of the road.
MS. HULSE: They can't consider this information, I'm sorry.
MS. BILLINGHAY: There is children walking on the road --
MS. HULSE: It is not relevant to their consideration of this
hearing, ma'am.
MS. BILLINGHAY: Well, it should be relevant to any job. Because there is children
walking on the road and if servicemen are not aware that we have a bus stop on the end
of a dead end --
MS. HULSE: Ma'am, it's not relevant to the consideration of this Board. But, thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to clarify. Your first comments are, regarding the
sand location. Those are relevant to this Board. I don't want you to think all of
your testimony is not relevant to this Board. That is.
MS. BILLINGHAY: I appreciate that.
TRUSTEE KING: Is she trying to say she doesn't want the spoils
to be put where they are planned to be put?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
TRUSTEE KING: Where are they supposed to be put?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, ma'am, step up.
MS. HARRISON: My name is Pat Harrison, I'm at 4490 Vanston
Road, two houses north of the property we are talking about.
And 1 went down to the beach today and I took some pictures, and
I just think it would be important for you to just see for point
of reference and for information, there is a picture of my dog
taken in 1992 where the beach looks very different and the
bulkheading looks very different than it does today. My concern
is that when we were growing up out there, that beach was
straight, and now there is an area, because there is so many
leaks in the bulkheading, that is now vegetation down there. And
Board of Trustees 29' May 20, 2015
think that, I just think that people have to be aware that
it's a very different beach than it was, and if you want to take
a look at these pictures I would be happy to show them to you.
MS. HULSE: Do you want to submit them as part of the record?
MS. HARRISON: Sure.
MS. HULSE: If it's part of the record, they need to keep it as
part of the record.
MS. HARRISON: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can I see those? I'll pass them down.
MS. HARRISON: Yes. The picture with the dog is 1992. Everything
else is today. Just so you get a frame of reference how
different it is.
TRUSTEE KING: That's a lot of accretion. That's why they have
the batter piles.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There has been accretion on both sides.
That's why more sand --
MS. HULSE: Jay, could you move a little closer to the microphone.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It appears from the pictures and also from
the site conditions that there has been a significant amount of
accretion, or buildup of beach. The maintenance dredging
activities will have the tendency to put the sand and gravel
components back in play for additional beach nourishment. So
it's difficult to understand. Most people want to get more
beach. This project will provide more material in play for more beach.
MS. HARRISON: But my understanding is that the dredging material
is going on the south part, not on the north part. Is that --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what is proposed, yes.
MS. HARRISON: Okay. And the other comment I just want to make
is that every winter when I go down there, it changes
dramatically, dramatically, from year to year. I mean that build-up that
you are looking at now, if you look at that picture, the same view two or three
years ago, it looked a lot less severe than it does right now.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes
to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. DIPAOLO: My name is Jack DiPaolo, 4095 Vanston Road,
Cutchogue. I have lived here since 1997, and one of the reasons
why I purchased the house was because it had a deeded beach and
bulkheading. Not bulkheading there, somewhere else in Sailors
Lane. What I can't understand here, is since 1994, nothing has
been done to this. And now it is being done because the
property is up for sale. So what I'm saying here is had you kept
it up it would be in this situation that it is, because that
should be water all the way out to the bay. And it's not. So we
will have no beach on the north side, which is our property, our
deeded property, and where they have on the south side plenty of
beach, plenty of sand, they are going to get more beach and more
sand. So I think what the Board has to look at, and it's a request, that
feel it should be approved but approved with the spoils put on the north
side or at least at some point, at least divvy it up where we don't get
nothing and they get everything. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
Board of Trustees 30 May 20, 2015
MR. HERRMANN: Jay, if I could quickly respond. The concept of
placing the sand in that direction makes a lot of sense, but the
applicant doesn't own that beach. Its the nature conservancy
beach, from what I understand, as I already explained in the
beginning of my testimony. So if perhaps the property is sold
and at some point there is the ability to work out an agreement
with the conservancy and other owners to move the sand down
there, they may have to seek that out. Because they may run out
of place to put the sand on the up -drift side. And I agree with
the first speaker that the down -drift beach can use it. But right
now we are just trying to get this accomplished with what is in
the applicant's ownership and means to accomplish.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just looking at some older aerials here. It
appears there was more beach to the north than there was back 15
years ago.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's still accreting.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could just -make a comment, because I'm very
familiar with dredging and with this area. And the statement or
the idea that this material should go to the down -drift side is
absolutely correct, with common practice with dredging. So that
it can restore beach, it would naturally flow in that direction
if there had not been any type of structure or inlet there.
Unfortunately, the applicant doesn't own that property. So the
applicant is, right now, confined to finding a place on their
property, unless they get the permission of the other adjoining
property owners. Now, as I understand it, there is a nature
conservancy owns a piece of this land to the north and the
Harbor Cove Property Owners Association, is that property they
own or they have an easement to? If they own it --
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICES): They own it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: They own it. Then again, there is an
opportunity here, what I would like to suggest, there is the
opportunity for an agreement to be entered into between the
applicant and the community association to put the material there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's really not part of this application.
MS. HULSE: That's a separate application.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's my comment.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. I think we are now going to close
comment on this. You had an opportunity to speak.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Just one more comment.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have sufficient comments on this item
right now. I think we'll move ahead with the Board action on this.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Mr. Chairman, I think it's a pretty
important comment.
MS. HULSE: Sir, you have not been recognized to speak. They are
closing the hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
Board of Trustees 31 May 20, 2015
it has been submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. I'll second that. All
in favor?
(Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee King,
aye. Trustee Bergen, no).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: For the record, I'm going to vote no, and I'm
very troubled in voting no, because I think this is a project
that needs to be done. I think it's a project that is very
appropriate. And it's just unfortunate, I think there was
another way of going about this where it could have, the
material could have been put to the other side. So that's the
only reason I'm voting no.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, Eileen Santora on behalf of TOM
BRENNAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a one-story
13'x14' addition onto the seaward side of existing two-story
593.5sq.ft. dwelling with an existing 5.2'x16.2' front entry
deck and 6'x12' rear deck; existing 8.3'x11.4' shed; and
existing 9.8'x10.5' shed. Located: 235 Carole Road, Southold.
SCTM# 52-2-7.4
The Board did go out and looked at this. This was deemed
inconsistent under the LWRP because, number one, the structures
were not constructed with a Town Board permit. And number two,
the sheds are located in the FEMA zone, and it be recommended
the Board require the structures be removed from this hazard area.
The CAC resolved to support the application. Is there
anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MS. SANTORA: Yes. Hi. I'm Eileen Santora, I'm here to represent
Tom Brennan, the owner of the property. Can you repeat what you
just said? You are denying?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, the LWRP came up with an inconsistency
finding on this, based on two reasons. One, that the structures
had been there that had not been previously permitted. That can
be addressed tonight. And number two, that the two sheds are
located in a FEMA flood zone and should be removed, not be
permitted there. That's his recommendations.
MS. SANTORA: Okay. Should I speak?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure.
MS. SANTORA: My client Tom Brennan, who is here, he has
purchased this property with both sheds on the property. The one
furthest to the water, at the very end, I don't know how to
describe it. The one that --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Closest to the water.
MS. SANTORA: Closest to the water. That has been there since way
before my client has taken ownership. He never even knew he
owned it. He thought it was owned by somebody else who does use
the shed. It was used as, I think, a chicken coop. I don't
know. Now it's just used as a storage shed. But it is used by
somebody else, not even the owner of the property and of the
shed. It's been there I think since -- since before 1969, 1
Board of Trustees 32 May 20, 2015
think. That's the only.
The other shed which is on the property was in the
wetlands. And it had a CO on it. And it was moved out of the
wetlands by my client Tom Brennan. You can see by the
photographs they are all very well maintained. They withstood
the hurricane without any damage or movement. And the owner, Mr.
Tom Brennan, with very little storage because the house is, you
know, on a crawl space, his shed is very important to him. The
small one. That's closest to his house. So I'm just here to
state that we would like the two sheds to remain.
The addition of the 13x14, the one-story addition that we
are adding, is what it is. We are looking to enlarge our living
room. You see that our house is only 593 -square feet. The deck
that is there, the 5'2"x16'2" front entry deck, that was built
when the house -- the house really was not a house, it was part
of that motel. It was two units, and my client bought that, the
two units, raised it, and made it into a residential home and
put a second story on it. And at that time, that front entry
deck was built. It didn't -- obviously, what came about now,
when I went to file for this 13x14 addition, was that this
little entry deck -- well, it's not so little, it's 5x16. But
there entry deck was larger than the blueprints submitted when
the house was raised. The house that was raised, the house was
given a CO, which the deck was part of. This little entry deck
was part of.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could just interrupt you for just a second.
Because it might help you. This Board had no problem with any of
the proposed work on the house.
MS. SANTORA: Okay.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but.
MS. SANTORA: Thank you. Okay. So then if you have any questions
for me, I'll be glad to answer them.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No questions. But one observation, as the
Chairman, I had to do the preliminary environmental reviews on
this. The building inspector, chief building inspector has no
problem with the shared storage shed and the neighbor that is
out toward the front. But something to keep in mind, if they
were to try to remove that, it would require a Southold Trustee
wetland permit and remediation and reseeding and revegetation
because it's so close to that wetland area. So if you have
future plans to capture and use your property without sharing
with your neighbors, which is very laudable, it's the things we
do in this town, just keep in mind, you would want to come back
and talk to us about restoration.
MS. SANTORA: Thank you, I understand. We accept that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like
to speak for or against this application?
(Negative response).
If not, I would make a recommendation to the Board to address
the inconsistency that we condition this permit that should the
sheds be destroyed, they cannot replace them without a building
Board of Trustees 33
permit, which would take care of the FEMA regulations and it
would address the inconsistency.
Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
If not, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the stipulation if the sheds are destroyed it has to go
through the normal building permit application process. That
would address the inconsistency and deem this application to be
consistent under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO number three, MICHAEL GILL requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a 22.5'x30' swimming pool; a 7.5' wide wood
deck surrounding the pool; install 5' high pool fencing around
perimeter of pool; and install a 3.75'x18.75' walkway from pool
to dwelling. Located: 1325 Luptons Point Road, Mattituck.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC
voted on May 13th and passed a resolution to support this
application. The Trustees did a field inspection on May 13th
noting that the pool would be 58 feet landward of the top of the
bluff. And questioned the location of the pool fence, which was
later determined to be around the perimeter, and noted on plans
received May 15th, 2015.
Is any there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. GILL: I'm Michael Gill, I own 1325 Luptons Point Road. I'm
just here to answer any questions the Board has.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close
this -- sorry, is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. MEEKER: Is a variance needed for this pool, since it's on
the side of the house?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: No. It meets the setbacks and --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Peter -- sorry, go ahead.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's not needed because of the setbacks.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just so you know, with the current
procedures that the Trustees have, Peter, all the applications
get referred to the principal building inspector who does a
check off so we have automatically built in procedures, so we
have a review of the setbacks, so actually it gives more
information to the applicants. So it also makes it simpler for
those of us that don't have full knowledge of the building and
May 20, 2015
Board of Trustees 34 May 20, 2015
setbacks for which we can't enforce anyway. So the building
administrator, the chief building inspector looks at it and if
its necessary makes referrals to the Zoning Board of Appeals,
then we wait for the Zoning Board to rule before we act on the
application, typically.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: There is a sign off from Mike Verity from the
Building Department in the file. Hearing no further questions
or comments, I would make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion is made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion to approve this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next, number four, J.M.O. Environmental
Consulting on behalf of ROBERT ANTHONY requests a Wetland Permit
for the existing 4'x20' steps down embankment; reconstruct
existing 4'x16' ramp; replace existing 10'x10' float with same
in a different configuration; and to chock the float. Located:
3913 Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island. SCTM# 9-9-26.1
The project has been deemed inconsistent because in that it
did not have a permit for the pre-existing structure. It also is
recommended that this project be considered for a non -turf
vegetated buffer, given the slopes down to that end of Hay
Harbor. And the application has to be considered as well as a
coastal erosion hazard action for the zone that it's in.
Although I am not sure because of the exemption of the
200 -square feet or less that would not be an exempt action. Let
me just ponder that a second. 420, 10x10. So it's in coastal
erosion, it's open -constructed. Open -constructed steps and
stairs typically are exempt. And the CAC was unable to make a
field inspection. The Board is familiar with this location having
granted approvals for other dock structures in Hay Harbor.
Is there anyone here wishes to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. JUST: Good evening, Glenn Just of JMO Consulting.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't believe there were any questions
concerning this application.
TRUSTEE KING: What was the inconsistency?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Non -permitted. And the recommendation for a
non -turf buffer. It was a fairly stable lawn area going down.
They are not requesting a bulkhead or any stone revetment.
MR. JUST: If you don't mind, on that point, 1 would like to take
another look at the upland portion of the property. I have not
been there myself in quite some time. I don't know what it
consists of at the top of the bluff there. If it's lawn right up
at the top of the bluff.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We don't normally tie it in. And although
this, like most of the harbor there, both where the ferry comes
in and this one, on Hay Harbor, the tumble home is usually after
Board of Trustees 35 May 20, 2015
the vegetation, and it's just a short embankment down. I don't
see that as a problem. We can address the inconsistency by
bringing this into permit. And it's a case -- is the section of
these stairs just going to be rebuilt or?
MR. JUST: No, we are just trying to legalize them. Just the
float and ramp itself. And we pointed out, when we first visited
the application that he didn't have any permits or anything like
that. So we are just trying to legalize it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Essentially, it's exempt there from coastal
erosion hazard area based on its size. And if it predates it
they could maintain, you know, under coastal erosion they can
maintain what they have. I don't know what the Board's feeling
about coastal is on this.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's an issue.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think it's an issue either. Anyone
else? If the Board has a consensus there is no issue with
coastal erosion, they can move ahead addressing the
inconsistency. Anyone else wish to speak on behalf of this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in
this matter.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I would make a motion to approve this application as submitted
noting that the legalization of these structures will bring it
into compliance and into consistency with the LWRP report.
That's my motion. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. Have a good evening.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Could I ask the Board five-minute recess,
please.
(After a short recess, these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five, Land Use Ecological Services, Inc.
on behalf of JOHN PETROCELLI, SR., requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 1,892sq.ft. one story single-family dwelling with a
7'x12' front porch and a 14'x20' rear patio; install a sanitary
system on the south side of the dwelling; install gutters to
leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff; installation of a
driveway with drywells to contain runoff; a line of staked hay
bales with silt fencing to be installed prior to and during
construction; and construct a 5' wide set of bluff stairs to
beach with attached 14'x25' deck. Located: 2240 Paradise Point
Road, Southold. SCTM# 81-3-19.6
This application came before the Board last month. Just to
review, it was found inconsistent, and the reasons for
inconsistency were on the record for last month. And the CAC
Board of Trustees 36 May 20, 2015
resolved to support the application. Again, I'll stipulate all
the comments from the last hearing are entered into the record.
I know when we reviewed this last month we had a couple of
issues and requests, and since that time Land Use Ecological
Services has resubmitted plans to us where they have stated that
the proposed house has been moved 15 foot landward; there is now
a ten -foot non -turf buffer on the new set of plans; and the deck
associated with the stairs to the beach has been decreased to 100
square feet. So these are all depicted in the plans submitted
May 14th, 2015.
So, given that, is there anybody here to speak on behalf of
this application?
MS. PRIOLO: Yes. Julia Priolo, Land Use Ecological Services, on
behalf of the applicant Mr. Petrocelli. And as you had just
stated, revised plans were submitted which indicate that
landward retreat of the proposed house, the decrease in square
footage of the platform attached to the beach access stairs, um,
along with the retreat of the house, retreat of the sanitary
system. Um, no work proposed within the 50 -foot ground
disturbance area, and the showing of the ten -foot wide non -turf
buffer at the top of the bluff.
If there are any questions, I would be happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE BERGEN., We did have one question. I'm looking at the
March 25th plans that shows a distance of 75 feet to the front
of the deck from I believe the bulkhead. And then your new set
of plans shows 87.2. You say you moved the house 15 foot. So 75
plus 15 comes to 90, yet your plans show 87.2. Do you have any
reason for that discrepancy?
TRUSTEE KING: Fuzzy math.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, it's not that we had an issue here, it's
just the math didn't add up.
MS. PRIOLO: The house and deck were all moved as far landward as
necessary, so it was 55 feet from the top of the bluff. That's
what was the final say at the last hearing, since it was the 50
foot non -disturbance buffer plus the extra five feet just to
make sure, and so the house was moved landward so that at the
nearest point it is 55 feet from the top of the bluff. I'm not
sure exactly how the math --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: When we reviewed this we also noted it was
important to us the beech trees remain. So we understand you
have done a good job of trying to squeeze this all in without
impacting those beech trees. So we thank you for that. That was
the only comment the Board had -- well, excuse me. That I had.
Is there anybody else that wanted to.speak to this application?
MS. PRIOLO: I have one other question for the Board. For the
ten -foot wide non -turf buffer, is there any requirements for
that, since there will be some disturbance when they are
installing that stairway down to the beach? Should they just
let it grow naturally? Should they restore it? Can they
restore it with some seed, some Solidago, or some beach grass, or
anything like that?
Board of Trustees 37 May 20, 2015
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, a non -turf buffer means just that, non -turf
all the way down. No irrigation system as with a traditional
lawn. So regard to the disturbance they can put in some native
vegetation there. It won't be mowed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Solidago will be just fine.
MS. PRIOLO: Okay. And in the area of that platform and beach
access stairway there, obviously that vegetation will have to be
removed. If you could remember there is a dead pine tree there.
That also would be removed in that area. They are not proposing
to do anything else on that bluff.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.
MS. PRIOLO: I just want to make sure that's understood, that
something will be removed in that area, some vegetation. Thank
you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Now is there anybody else who would
like to speak for or against this application?
(Negative response).
If not, any other comment from the Board?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close this application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as per the plans submitted May 14th, 2015, and note that with
the downsizing of the platform and the other the changes that
have been made this is now found consistent under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number six, CHARLES KIRSCH, MARY KIRSCH &
KATHERINE SACCAMANO request a Wetland Permit to raise the
existing one-story +/-1,013sq.ft. dwelling onto a pier system
foundation using CMU blocks stacked onto a poured concrete
footing; construct new 5'x6' egress platform and stairs to grade
on northerly side; existing +/-5'x5' outdoor shower to remain;
raise existing +/-204sq.ft. southerly deck and install new
foundation and supports underneath along with a new staircase
with handrails to grade; and install gutters to leaders to
drywells to contain runoff. Located: 555 Windy Point Lane,
Southold. SCTM# 87-4-9
1 believe this was found exempt from the LWRP. The CAC
resolved to support the application as submitted.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MR. KIRSCH: My name is Charles Kirsch. This is my sister
Katherine Saccamono. We support this proposal.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you know where the septic system is located?
MR. KIRSCH: By the road. By the dirt road.
Board of Trustees 38 May 20, 2015
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. That's the only question we had, was
the location of that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Does that make it NJ for us?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think so. If I could scale it off. Let me
see. It will be close. It's close to NJ. It's borderline. This
is simply raising the house up and putting it on new pilings?
MR. KIRSCH: The reason is because we had some water damage the
last, and it was suggested we go up a couple feet.
TRUSTEE KING: There is no change in the footprint or anything,
it's just up.
MR. KIRSCH: Right. No change.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had any question about it.
Anybody else, any comments on this project?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
has been submitted to raise the home.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number seven, 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
shore -guard 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. SCTM# 136-1-48
REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AS OF APRIL 8,2015:
To remove existing 24' long wood retaining wall, 4' wide wood
decking and staircase; replace with ±24' long ACQ wood retaining
wall with shore -guard sheathing; install 4'x±24' thru-flow
decking along top of retaining wall; construct 4'x77' of fixed
upper dock with staircase and 3' high railing on one side off of
new deck; install two staircases to grade for public access at
landward end of upper dock; construct 4'x24' of fixed lower dock
with staircase from upper dock; overall length of fixed dock
structure to be 4' wide by 101.4' long.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency stems from the fact that the project is not
blessed with a permit, and that it extends on the one hand, and
the second point is it extends too far into public waters.
The CAC resolved to support this application on May 13th.
The. Trustees did a field inspection on May 13th and noted that
the proposed pier extends beyond the pier line of the
Board of Trustees 39 May 20, 2015
neighboring docks. The two adjacent docks.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. KIMACK: Mike Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. I had been
before you prior, obviously, and had a floating dock design,
which you had found to be inconsistent with what your future
ideas would be of the area. So this plan was submitted, I'm
talking with the landowner, basically, you had recommended doing
a buoy and she didn't want to do a buoy. She didn't want to have
a boat to go to a boat. So what I did on this particular design
is drop at your recommendation the fixed dock was too high, so
dropped the design to a six foot elevation, which would be in
conformance with the adjacent dock in terms of its overall
height. Putting two staircases immediately against the new
retaining wall for public egress and ingress over the top of the
dock. And then going, running it out about 77 feet and then
dropping it down another two feet to the four foot line so that
the fixed dock really worked in a sense from the one foot line
which is the low water line, and low water line to the high
water line. The homeowner would be able to then have access to
the boat. Because as it rose, at the highest level, the top of
the boat would be roughly even with the top of the dock and low
level would be the step down.'And we ran it out as far as we
could in order to pick up as much water as we could. We picked
up about another half a foot. But as you can see, if you looked
at the design, basically, it would, it doesn't gain that much
more. I mean another 20 or 30 feet, you might pick up another
six inches of water there.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: One point, Michael. The Trustees did not
recommend that you go to a mooring. We said that somehow or
other you had to address the inconsistency, and one of the
possibilities was a mooring.
MR. KIMACK: I thought you were leaning in that direction.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Just a minor point there.
MR. KIMACK: When we decided to go as far out as we could, which
was the request of the homeowner, you are right, it's a little
bit further out by about 20 feet from the floating dock, which
you can see in the picture right there. But because of the
inconsistency, because of the two on the other side of that, on
this side and on the other side, which extends much further out
than the two existing docks, there is an inconsistency there
between how far each one of them, I mean there is not really --
I know your policy is to go to the adjacent docks but when you
go to the docks on both sides of it, you draw a line across
those, we are in the inside of that.
TRUSTEE KING: I would be more comfortable with 90 feet. I would
I think that would help the Trustee inconsistency.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The LWRP coordinator report drew on the fact
that one of the other structures that you relied upon for your
pier line does not appear to have legal status. Sorry.
MR. KIMACK: It just gets better and better, doesn't it?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is a challenge for us.
Board of Trustees 40 May 20, 2015
MR. KIMACK: I know that. Can I request the Board, I know that
you had mentioned on there you would like to perhaps bring it
back. Can I request the Board if I could bring it back eight
feet, because then I could bring it back one whole pier piling
set, and then drop the other piling set down. So I can keep
consistency on my piling set all the way back.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It appears you read my mind. That would be a
slight decrease in the water depth, but --
MR. KIMACK: Mike, we are not going to gain much one way or the
other. Its just the way that whole area is there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you want step down the upper section so
that you afford them the same --
MR. KIMACK: No, I would bring it back. I'd keep the same 24
foot. I'd bring it back the eight feet.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You would keep the same lower section at 24
feet.
MR. KIMACK: Right, and cut the other one back and drop it down.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just lower and cut. Understood. Remove that.
Right. Remove the last --
MR. KIMACK: Just take that out and drop the six down to four,
and move the staircase back.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Any other questions or comment from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application with
the provision that it be that the seaward most section of the
upper fixed docks shown on plans submitted February 3rd be
removed, thereby shortening --
MR. KIMACK: It would be 69 feet then.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Correct. Shortening it, the overall plan by
eight feet, and bringing it into consistency with the LWRP
coordinator.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. And submit a revised plan
showing the --
MR. KIMACK: Easy enough. I'll have it to you in a day or so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KIMACK: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, Chris Mohr Enterprises
on behalf of GREG CAHILL requests a Wetland Permit to replace
existing dock with a proposed 4'x10' ramp at landward end to a
Board of Trustees 41
4'x36' catwalk using composite decking; a 4'x10' aluminum ramp;
and a 6'x20' float using composite decking; twelve (12) 6"-8"
diameter pilings to be installed; all of undercarriage will be
constructed out of ACQ and hot galvanized hardware; remove and
replace existing timber 22" high by 62' long retaining wall;
as -built 6' wide by 124' long by 2' high native stone gabion
revetment; and to establish and subsequently maintain an 8' wide
non -turf buffer area along the landward edge of the gabion
revetment. Located: 1180 Sage Boulevard, Greenport. SCTM# 53-5-9
This project was looked at initially by the Board and the
CAC, and subsequently we requested a staking, and subsequent to
the staking the Trustees made a second inspection.
Unfortunately the CAC was unable to perform an inspection
because it was not staked at the time they were out. The issues
that they did nonetheless put in their CAC report was that they
found it difficult to visualize the impact of a lengthy dock.
And the LWRP coordinator had deemed this project inconsistent
because it did not have a Town Trustee permit authorizations.
The Trustees basically felt the application was
straightforward but had expressed concerns to Mr. Cahill
concerning the seaward most three feet, which is the seaward
most gabion basket which had been installed on vegetated tidal
wetlands. And accordingly, we communicated our concerns with
him and Mr. Cahill did respond and he was prepared to remove the
stone from that gabion basket and then to place the stone upland
of the remaining three foot wide gabion basket so that way the
marsh could flourish again.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. CAHILL: I'm Greg Cahill, the homeowner, if you have any
questions.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We don't. And it is agreed, you have no
problem with moving the stone material to the landward.
MR. CAHILL: Correct.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That should work out very nicely. You should
have a nice marshland fringe that should come back for your
property. And the Board had no problem with the dock, bringing
it up to current code standards. I don't think there are any
questions. Do the members have any questions?
(Negative response).
Hearing no questions, I would move to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to approve this application
with the stipulation that the three foot width of the seaward
most gabion basket be removed with the allowance of the
placement of the stone material on the landward side of the
gabion. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
May 20, 2015
Board of Trustees 42
May 20, 2015
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
John M. Bredemeyer III, President
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED A -i " e j
JUN 1 8 2015 k"4'' \orrr
&,-"a Q. n
S thold Town Clerk