HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-06/17/2015®��°�
John M. Bredemeyer III, President s°Uj�®�
Michael J. Domino, Vice -President
via
James F. King, Trustee
Dave Bergen, Trustee
Charles J. Sanders, Trustee
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
5:30 PM
Present Were: John Bredemeyer, President
Michael Domino, Vice -President
Jim King, Trustee
Dave 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
� I
JUL 2 3 2015Q11q5,'
���
So hold Town Clem
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 5:30 PM
WORKSESSIONS: Monday July 20, 2015 at 5:30 PM at Downs Farm
and on Wednesday, July 22, 2015 PM at Main Meeting Hall
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of May 20, 2015
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good evening. Welcome to the Wednesday,
June 17th regular monthly meeting of the Southold Trustees. To
my far right is our clerk Elizabeth Cantrell. To my immediate
right, is Mike Domino, our vice-president. I'm John Bredemeyer,
chair the Board. To my left is past President and Trustee Jim
King. And to his left is Trustee Dave Bergen.
In this night's meeting agenda there is only one item that is listed
as being postponed, located on page ten, number eleven,
Michael A. Kimack on behalf of KEVIN & PAULA FLAHERTY requests a
Wetland Permit for the demolition of an east side extension and majority
of its foundation; construct a one-story 298 square foot 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,
Board of Trustees 2 June 17, 2015
Mattituck, has been postponed.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Excuse me, where do you get the agenda?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The agendas are up at the podium
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time I'll take motion to schedule
the next field inspection for Wednesday, July 15th, at 8:00 AM.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make that motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And to hold the next Trustee meeting on July
22nd, at 5:30 PM, and work sessions on July 20th, at 5:30 PM at
Downs Farms, and on Wednesday, July 22nd, a work session at 5:00
PM before the regular meeting at the main meeting hall.
Resolution to approve those dates.
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of
May 20th, 2015.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for May, 2015. A check for
$10,995.23 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 VIII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee
agenda dated Wednesday, June 17, 2015, are classified as Type II
Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not
subject to further review under SEQRA:
Kirk O'Ferall & Denise Cerasani - SCTM# 31-13-9.1
Glenn Heidtmann, Jr. - SCTM# 57-1-21
John Fischetti & Deborah Deaver - SCTM# 86-2-1.2
Brick Cove Marina, c/o Diane Vail - SCTM# 57-1-38.3
Board of Trustees 3 June 17, 2015
James & Nancy Reidy - SCTM# 123-4-14
Leslie LLC - SCTM# 34-5-13
Kuhl Family Trust - SCTM# 70-12-38.1
Those jobs are listed. That's my motion. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In order for the meeting to remain orderly
and to move at a reasonable pace so everyone can have their
matter heard before being too late in the evening, we request
that during the course of public hearings if you would try to
keep your comments as brief as possible. Usually we try not to
have them go much beyond five minutes. We don't have a steadfast
rule for the exact amount of time. We try to keep a reasonable
dialogue. But we'll politely remind you, if you repeat yourself
quite often. Also, to keep meeting moving a pace, because we
have a lot of items on the agenda, for matters that are
administrative, where the Trustees have already performed field
inspections and office reviews of projects that are minor in
nature, we'll often group them together for a vote to expedite
the matters.
IV. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Having said that, under item IV for
Resolutions for Administrative Permits.
TRUSTEE KING: I looked at numbers one and two, under Resolutions
and Administrative Permits.
Number one, Joan Chambers on behalf of JAMES & CAROL SCHERER
request an Administrative Permit to add a roof and screened
panels to an existing 273 square foot deck. Located: 1015
Bungalow Lane, Mattituck.
looked at this. It's a very minor project, just having a
roof over an existing porch. I would recommend approval.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: And I also looked at number two, Michael Kimack on
behalf of JOHN D. HELSIN requests an Administrative Permit for
the as -built construction of a 20' diameter irregularly shaped
bluestone patio on -grade; a varying width gravel path with a
fire pit area on -grade at 4'6" in width; an area of 2'x3'
bluestone pavers against bulkhead in front of proposed beach
steps; and for the revegetation of the area. Located: 60 Great
Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
This was found inconsistent. Why it was found inconsistent,
I don't know. Possibly because there was no permit when he built it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Approaching the dais now is our Town
Board of Trustees 4 June 17, 2015
Attorney Lori Hulse, for those of you who don't know Lori.
TRUSTEE KING: The reason it was found inconsistent is it was
built without a permit. So I went out and looked at it. It's a non -grate
patio, with pervious gravel underneath it. It's behind a retaining wall
which is about 50 feet behind the primary bulkhead, so there is no
environmental impact whatsoever. So I would make a motion to approve this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Being we now have the permit on it, it brings it
into consistency.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item three, Number three, Michael Kimack on
behalf of NABIL EL-SHERIF & GIOIA TURITTO requests an
Administrative Permit to remove the five dead trees located in
the wetlands along the shoreline. Located: 1800 Park Way,
Southold.
The Trustees inspected this site. I believe the Board,
based on the field inspection, realized that these trees are in
fact dead and can be removed, and that this is the limit of any
approval with respect to this property at this time, since there
is an active violation there, which the Board is expecting a
return of a restoration plan and a plan to remove structures
from the property.
I would move to approve this limited to the removal of the
five dead trees that were flagged.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next item is number four,
EUGENE & MARY KRUPSKI, request an Administrative Permit for the
as -built 11'x16' chicken coop with attached 11'x20' chicken run; and
install a 4' high by 250' long fencing for larger chicken run
attached to side of coop. Located: 2230 Soundview Avenue,
Mattituck.
The Board of Trustees reviewed this proposal last month,
and based on the return from the Local Waterfront Revitalization
Program, which determined that the project was inconsistent with
the goals of the LWRP. The Board revisited the site and
discussed mitigation with the owners. It's a relatively small
chicken operation. It just has like 20 or 30 hens. But the coop
is built fairly close to a pond. And based on the inspection,
the Board requested that the owners increase a buffering area
from five feet, which was originally discussed, to approximately
ten feet. And the Board flagged it, with the condition that the
Board would revisit the site in the fall to determine that the
buffer in fact was adequately containing impacts from the
chicken yard. And since the Board has increased the amount of
mitigation surrounding this project, I would say that in
Board of Trustees 5 June 17, 2015
approving this application with a ten -foot non -turf buffer and
the approximately 250 feet of fencing for the larger chicken
coop, that we would be bringing this application into conformity
and into consistency with the LWRP. Accordingly, I would move
to approve it with those conditions.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, Frank Uellendahl on
behalf of STEVE CURRY & CAROL GRONEMAN request an Administrative
Permit to replace waterside windows on existing dwelling with a
12' wide sliding glass door; install a 4'x13' wood landing
from door with steps leading down to a proposed 13'x18' paved
patio on grade. Located: 645 Bayview Avenue, Southold.
The applicant in order to bring this application into
conformity with the zoning code, without having to make an
appearance before the Zoning Board of Appeals, has requested us
to allow a minor amendment to the application so that this does
not have to appear before the Zoning Board. Accordingly, I would
move to approve this application with those minor changes so
that the application would read: The administrative permits to
replace the water side windows on the existing dwelling, with a
12 -foot wide sliding glass door, and install a six foot by three
foot landing from door with steps, leading down to a proposed
13 -foot by 16 -foot paved patio on grade.
That will bring the application in conformity with the Town
zoning ordinance. Accordingly, I move to approve this with the
above language I just read.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number six, Frank
Uellendahl on behalf of BASIL BOZIOTIS & SOFIA LIOREISIS
requests an Administrative Permit to replace waterfront facing
windows on existing dwelling with a 10' and a 5' wide sliding
glass doors; install a 16' wide by 3' deep wood landing from
doors with steps leading down to a proposed 16'x16' bluestone
patio on grade; stone pavers to be set on gravel and sand bed
with 2" wide joints for drainage. Located: 320 Lakeview
Terrace, East Marion.
Similar to the aforementioned number five that I just read,
the applicant has requested a minor amendment for this
application to bring it into conformity with the town zoning
code. And accordingly, this application would read: To have two
separate landings and the landings would be three foot by five
feet, and three foot by two feet by six inches high instead of
the aforementioned landings that I read off in the record.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
Board of Trustees 6 June 17, 2015
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven, JAMES J. BRADLEY requests an
Administrative Permit for a Ten -Year Maintenance Permit to trim
the vegetation between the bulkhead and the waterline. Located:
765 Cedar Point Drive West, Southold.
This was deemed consistent under the LWRP. The Board did
go out and looked at this. The only concern we had was that the
area in which he is requesting to trim vegetation has phragmites
and also has Baccharus. And Baccharus is a protected species that
cannot be trimmed. So the Board was willing to amend this to
approve and trim the phragmites only, by hand. So it would read:
Administrative Permit for a Ten -Year maintenance permit to trim
phragmites by hand between the bulkhead and the water line.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. RESOLUTIONS - MOORING PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item V, under Resolutions, the Board has
reviewed both in the field and in-house applications for mooring
permits. Nearly all of these are replacing existing moorings
that individuals have no longer renewed their permits for, and
there are several new ones. The site-specific inspections were
made on the new moorings that are applied for here and I believe
that the Board had no problem with these.
The amendments to these, or changes to these applications
were made during the course of the field inspection and office
review. Accordingly I would move to approve all resolutions for
moorings. All applications for mooring permits one through 16 as
a group. They are listed as follows:
Number one, CRAIG RICH requests a Mooring Permit in Town Creek
for a 19' outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring #001. Access: Private.
Number two, JOAN H. BISCHOFF & NICHOLAS J. PLANAMENTO request a
Mooring Permit in Town Creek for a 30' sailboat, replacing
Mooring #64. Access: Public.
Number three, DOUGLAS MCKEEVER requests a Mooring Permit in Town
Creek for a 22' sailboat, replacing Mooring #448. Access: Public.
Number four, KARL SPIELMANN requests a Mooring Permit in East
Creek for a 10' outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring #429. Access: Public.
Number five, LLOYD R. WEATHERS requests a Mooring Permit in East
Creek for a 12' outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring #90 -EC.
Number six, BERNARD ROBINS requests a Mooring Permit in Mud
Creek for a 14' outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring #105.
Access: Private.
Number seven, TOM GOELLER requests a Mooring Permit in Mud Creek
for a 24' sailboat, replacing Mooring #24. Access: Public.
Number eight, FRED WALLING requests a Mooring Permit in
Board of Trustees 7 June 17, 2015
Broadwaters Cove for a 23' outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring
#BC -1. Access: Public.
Number nine, GRACE LEVINESS requests a Mooring Permit in Little
Creek for a 25' outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring #65.
Access: Public.
Number ten, STEPHEN BOULUKOS requests a Mooring Permit in Little
Creek for a 24' motorboat, replacing Mooring #991. Access: Private.
Number eleven, KENNETH D. MARSHALL requests an onshore stake
with offshore pulley system in Narrow River for a 14' sailboat,
replacing Stake #S-8. Access: Public.
Number 12, ELIZABETH THOMPSON & MIMI FAHS requests an onshore
stake with offshore pulley system in Narrow River for a 17'
sailboat, replacing Stake #S-19. Access: Public.
Number 13, JOAN TURTURRO, requests a Transfer from Mooring
#30-1-113 to an onshore stake with offshore pulley system in Narrow
River for a 13' outboard motorboat, replacing Stake #S-29.
Access: Public.
Number 14, MATHIAS MONE, requests an onshore stake with offshore
pulley system in Narrow River for a 12' outboard motorboat,
replacing Stake #S-3. Access: Public.
Number 15, IRENE TREIBER requests an onshore stake with offshore
pulley system in Narrow River for a 14' outboard motorboat,
replacing Stake #S-4. Access, Public.
Number 16, JOSEPH O'LEARY requests an onshore stake with
offshore pulley system in Narrow River for a 14' motorboat,
replacing Stake #S-21. Access: Public.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move that resolution. Is there a
second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. RESOLUTIONS - OTHER:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item number VI under Resolutions is a
housekeeping resolution to correct a prior approval. I'll read
out the resolution that we have to amend.
RESOLVED that the Trustees of the Town of Southold rescinds
their Resolution adopted on May 21 st regarding Michael Gill on
behalf of the property located at 1325 Lupton Point Road. And
be it resolved that the Town of Southold Trustees approves the
request of Michael Gill for a Wetland Permit to construct a
22.5'x30' swimming pool, 37.5'x60' deck surrounding the pool;
install five-foot high pool fencing around the perimeter of the
pool decking; and install a 12 -foot wide sliding glass door into
the dwelling for pool access. Located 1325 Lupton Point Road,
Mattituck.
Is there a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is a second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 8 June 17, 2015
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just before Trustee Bergen reads the next
one, I would just like everyone to know that the immense amount
of time that some of the individual Board members spend on
special projects. I know several of us spend many, many hours
putting in new mooring piles for the previously mentioned
mooring stakes, and in the area of dredging and dredge
approvals, Trustee Bergen spends a lot of his personal time
going around with the bay constables surveying our creeks to see
the extent that we need maintenance dredging, which serves the
function of protecting the health of the creeks by providing
flushing and fresh oxygenated water and by also providing
navigation.
I'll turn it over to Trustee Bergen.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Before I read the resolution, the Suffolk County
Department of Public Works asked the five east end towns each
year to submit to Suffolk County a dredging priority list. The
dredging priority lists that are submitted by each of the five
east end towns are then taken by the Suffolk County Department
of Public Works. They then merge those lists together and they
determine a dredging priority list that the county will adhere to.
So what we are about to approve is Southold's request to
them. Sometimes people get confused and think this is the actual
priority list that they go by. No. Each of the five east end
towns submit the priority list and the county then develops it.
So, number two: WHEREAS the Town of Southold Board of Trustees
are requested by Suffolk County Department of Public Works to
provide a priority list for Dredging Projects within the borders
of the Town of Southold; and WHEREAS the Board of Trustees have
made its annual review of the creeks and ponds within the Town
and makes the following recommendations; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED that the Town of Southold Board of Trustees 2015/2016
Dredging Priority List be provided to the Suffolk County
Department of Public Works and shall be as follows. This is in
priority order:
Deep Hole Creek and Deep Hole Extension
School House Creek
Budd Pond
Brushes Creek
Cedar Creek
Corey Creek
Little Creek
Richmond Creek
That is the motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
Board of Trustees 9 June 17, 2015
VII. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next item, item seven on the agenda is
applications for extensions and transfers and administrative
amendments to permits. These are actions that the Board has
inspected or reviewed or performed in-house review plans on, and
similar to the previous items that we indicated are minor in
nature and administrative in nature, we can move these as a
group. I believe that we were holding out number five on the
agenda. So I would move that we approve items one through four
and six through eleven. They are listed as follows:
Number one, NANCY S. TALCOTT & ELAINE N. ABELSON requests a
One -Year Extension to Administrative Permit #8281 A, as issued on
August 21, 2013. Located: 2335 and 2545 Arrowhead Lane, Peconic.
Number two, MARGARET HALLDEN requests a One -Year Extension to
Administrative Permit #8231A, as issued on June 19, 2013.
Located: 1625 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic.
Number three, ROBERT M. SINGER & LYNNE D. VITALE, request a
Transfer of Wetland Permit #1992 from Edward Brennan to Robert
M. Singer & Lynne Vitale, as issued on August 2, 1985. Located:
1865 Little Peconic Bay Lane, Southold.
Number four, Thomas J. McCarthy Real Estate, Inc., on behalf of
JOHN IANNACITO & ROSARIO DIMARCO request a Transfer of Wetland
Permit #5138 from Emma Tschiember to John lannacito & Rosario
DiMarco, as issued on March 22, 2000. Located: 3640 Minnehaha
Boulevard, Southold.
Number six, ELIZABETH PENNISI requests an Administrative
Amendment to Administrative Permit #8119A to add 4' high fencing
installed approximately 83' landward of the water. Located: 1425
Pine Neck Road, Southold.
Number seven, ROCHELLE BYRNE requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit #8212 for the as -built 3' high
Timber -Tech railing surrounding the bulkhead capping. Located:
360 North Riley Avenue (R.O.W. off Ole Jule Lane) Mattituck.
Number eight, JAMES & NANCY CLOUS request an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit #8205 to install 10'x100' of
composite decking material with 1/4" spacing for drainage along
the landward edge of the bulkhead within the 10' wide non -turf
buffer area. Located: 3805 Bay Shore Road, Greenport.
Number nine, En -Consultants on behalf of PATRICIA
GILCHRIST-MANCINO requests an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit #8255 to install approximately 86 linear feet of
36" tall picket fencing, where 83' section of fence will be
located along seaward edge of wood cap decking atop bulkhead
return (with untreated wood posts bolted to outside face of
bulkhead walers), instead of split -rail fencing located on
landward side of wood cap decking. Located: 15 Fourth Street,
New Suffolk.
Number ten, Nancy Cervelli on behalf of WILLIAM & LOUISE
SEGALLIS request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
Board of Trustees 10 June 17, 2015
#5279 for the 30"x54" cantilevered platform leading to
aluminum temporary access stairs to beach. Located: 1170 Willow
Terrace Lane, Orient.
Number eleven, SANFORD FRIEMANN requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit #4318 to reconstruct and downsize
the beach house with attached decking for a 7'x14' (98 square
foot) beach house and a 12'x20' (240 square foot) deck with
railings and three foot wide steps to beach. Located: 1165 Old
Harbor Road, New Suffolk.
Is there a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number five, Thomas McCarthy Real Estate, Inc.,
on behalf of JOHN IANNACITO & ROSARIO DIMARCO request a Transfer
of Wetland Permit #2016 from Martin Tschiember to John lannacito
& Rosario DiMarco. Located: 3640 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold.
I did the field inspection on this and noticed there was a fixed
dock in place that was grandfathered. But this permit was not
available at the time, so that we need approve this transfer
with the addition of a caveat that if this dock is ever replaced
or repaired, it has to be downsized to meet the new code
restrictions. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time I'll take a motion to go off
the regular meeting agenda to hold public hearings.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The first application under Wetland &
Coastal Erosion Permits, En -Consultants on behalf of KEVIN
GALLAGHER requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Hazard
Area Permit to removed 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 100 pound 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 onsite material excavated from
Board of Trustees 11 June 17, 2015
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 ten -foot wide non -turf buffer with native plantings adjacent
to bluff crest; and construct new three-foot 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.
This hearing was opened last month and it resulted in a 2-2
failed motion to table, and the hearing was never closed. By
reference, I'll incorporate the proposal into the meeting
Minutes without reading it at length, since this was read at
last month's meeting.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Good evening. Rob Herrmann of
En -Consultants, again, on behalf of the applicant Kevin
Gallagher. At last month's hearing we had reached a point, as
Jay just alluded to, where I believe a couple of Board members
had been ready to act on the application and another couple of
Board members had wanted to take another look at the site.
Because the hearing was left open and we never came to an
agreement, we continued on and went and did meet at the site.
There had been some questions, I know that the chairman had
raised, in particular, in response to some information that was
brought about the groundwater seepage at the base of the bluff
and had wanted to take a look at the site again.
I don't have any new information to present tonight unless
it's in direct response to any additional questions the Board
may have. I did ask the project design engineer Jeff Butler of
Butler Engineering to also attend tonight in case the Board
would have any specific design or technical questions for Jeff.
So with that, I'll leave it to you to let us know.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. Yes, the Board met in the field again
to address the specific concerns that were raised by the CAC
members in their individual capacity and also as a group. In
addition to the Board, the members here meeting with Mr.
Herrmann and Mr. Butler during the course of routine monthly
field inspections, Vice -President Domino and myself also met
with the Chairman of the Conservation Advisory Council to also
go over specific concerns of Conservation Advisory Council
members. So we had an opportunity to review all the various
issues that had come up during last month's meeting. And I don't
know if the Board members have any additional questions, but I
would just run through some of the findings we had from that
additional field inspection.
Before I do that, are there any other questions?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What we found, essentially on doing a fairly
Board of Trustees 12 June 17, 2015
lengthy walk of the site, both the easterly almost quarter of a
mile and to the west probably the better part of maybe half a
mile to Hortons Point, was that there was very little beach
existing; beaches we would ordinarily define as fairly small
granule, unconsolidated material on the entire beach. As it stands
now it's limited to fairly large cobble. So the concerns that we
would lose beach are probably not entirely accurate.
If you view a beach made up of cobbles that are about as
big as Belgian blocks, I think most of us don't consider that,
and that it indicates the extreme amount of erosion and the
erosional forces that the beach is subject to, particularly when
Vice -President Domino and myself walked with Peter Young, the
Chairman of the CAC there, the only place where we found a beach
with smaller materials, and even at that was probably pea gravel
size, in fact had a bulkhead in front of it. So it runs counter
to some of the notions that bulkheads or revetments are not
always appropriate for this type of a setting.
So that we think, based on our visual observations, this
particular piece of shoreline is absorbing a tremendous amount
of energy on a regular basis from northeastern storms, but also
had extreme amount of beach loss because of toe failure of the
bluff directly attributable to Tropical Storms Irene and Sandy.
The Board also reviewed the groundwater inflow at the base
of the bluff in the context of would the proposed revetment
structure negatively impact that, and note, because unlike a
bulkhead, a revetment is designed so it allows free flow of
water in and out of it, what with the materials locked in, and
the discussion we had in the field with Mr. Butler confirmed
that, we don't feel that there is an issue with loading,
hydraulic loading or waters being held and the soils and
materials behind the bluff that would lead to a bluff failure.
So based on his engineering assessment and the type of
construction, the Board feels that this is the most appropriate
type of construction for protecting the toe of the bluff.
I believe those were the primary issues we had. We did have
photographs and dialogue with, direct dialogue via speaker phone
with Peter Young when Trustee Domino and I walked. Peter Young
is the Chairman of the CAC, and CAC member John Stein was on
speaker phone, and we also addressed specific questions that Mr.
Stein brought forward in that he thought he saw several
properties that had low sill or a low retentive devices
protecting the bluff. We simply did not find any even remnants
of any low sill bulkhead or low sill stone work protecting
property. So we are not entirely sure what he saw there.
I believe I covered most of the results of the Board. And
the prior inspection just to let everyone know, we took a very
hard look at that. And I know the Board also, though, is
appreciative of the work that the CAC does, and we understand
that the coastal erosion issue is one that is much bigger than
us and that we are largely constrained by our Coastal Erosion
Hazard Act and our current marine construction standards. But we
Board of Trustees 13
appreciate the CAC. We understand they had been to talk to the
Town Supervisor and talk to the Town Board about these issues.
And we would encourage them on these sorts of special projects
in viewing the issue of the coastal erosion at large, because
every single coastal community is suffering from this, on the
north shore from Southold to Riverhead, right on through
Brookhaven, Smithtown, right on through Nassau County. So I
believe we gave full coverage to this and we fully respected the
deep concern and emotional, some of the emotional -- we
understand some of this was drawn on emotion because everyone is
trying very hard to deal with this issue, both the CAC, the
applicants and the property owners. It's not an easy issue.
It's something to continue to be visited. I know the Board,
during our work sessions we discussed supporting the CAC for,
you know, when they go before the Town Board to look into these
areas in the future.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak on behalf of
this application before I go forward?
(Negative response).
Any other Trustee questions?
(No response).
Hearing none I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made and seconded. All in
favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Based on the foregoing and the lengthy LWRP
report which reviewed the matter and deemed the project
consistent, I would move to approve this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE KING: Second
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you. Thank you, for your time.
MR. MCGREEVEY: John, would it be possible that Peter Young get a
copy of the complete disposition on this?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Absolutely, in the Minutes, absolutely.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number two, En -Consultants on behalf of KIRK
07ERALL & DENISE CERASANI requests a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit to permanently remove most seaward 19'
of existing 57' timber groin; and remove and replace in-place
remaining 38' timber groin with 41' low -profile, vinyl
groin including 3' landward extension of groin to bulkhead
that was recently relocated landward. Located: 11292 Main Road,
East Marion.
The Trustees did a field inspection on the 10th of this
month, and noted that the low profile groin will be four foot
below the top of the existing bulkhead. Everything else is
straightforward.
June 17, 2015
Board of Trustees 14 June 17, 2015
The CAC voted to support this application, however
questioned the purpose of the groin. And the LWRP coordinator
found this to be consistent.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En -Consultants on behalf of the
applicants. It is a fairly straightforward application in that
we designed a replacement groin in accordance with the Trustees
and the DEC's typical policies for groin replacement which
require the new groin to be constructed not only with untreated
sheathing but also in a low -profile design, and also only out to
the length it is currently functional. It is currently a 57 -foot
groin that is there. The outermost 19 feet are being removed.
But after the reconstruction of the existing seawall pursuant to
the Trustees permit after Hurricane Sandy, the groin is now
about three feet -- I'm sorry, the landward end of the groin is
now about three feet seaward of the bulkhead. So we are adding
three landward feet. So there is a total change in length of 16
feet, but the seaward end is being cut back 19 feet.
That was the most challenging part of this application was
working with Elizabeth to figure out how to articulate that in
the project description. But I think the Board gets it.
Mr. O'Ferall is also here tonight. If the Board has any
questions, we would be happy to respond to them.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think there were any questions.
TRUSTEE KING: It's pretty straightforward.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: No questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you, again.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number one under
Wetland Permits, JMO 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.
Board of Trustees 15 June 17, 2015
The project has been deemed to be consistent under the
LWRP, and since the application had been submitted we have two
communications that were submitted to the record, which I would
like to briefly review. The first is a fax transmission which
was sent to the Trustees from Barbara Rasmussen PC, an attorney,
addressing the Board members: Please be advised I represent Mark
Andrews who owns a parcel approximately ten acres located on
Castle Road and abutting and/or surrounded by the Fishers Island
Club. The property is known as Sea Wind.
Mr. Andrews retained me to look into the aquifer that
provides water for his well and to determine whether this
project at the Fishers Island Club and the enlargement of the
irrigation pond will utilize the same aquifer and have any
potential negative impact on his water supply. Given the large
scope of the proposed project, Mr. Andrews would like some
confirmation as to whether the club and his property share the
same aquifer and, if shared, some analysis as to the impact same
may have on his property and water supply. I have exchanged
phone calls with the environmental consultant Glenn Just but
have not yet spoken directly to him about the project. I
understand the Board members may be visiting the site tomorrow,
June 17th, and wanted you to be aware of my client's concerns.
Thank you, for your attention to this matter, Barbara Rasmussen.
In fact, inspections did take place today. I was the Board
member present. I'll discuss that later.
Okay, the second communication that we have is addressed to
the Board of Trustees. It is from a CME Engineering firm, and
the letter reads: I was asked to review the reference project
plan and available information on the hydrogeology of the
shallow aquifer in the area of the proposed water storage pond
and to offer an opinion as to the potential impacts of the
proposed project on the surrounding aquifer and in particular on
the water available to an irrigation well located on private
property to the south. Based on my assessment it is my
professional opinion that the proposed project will have little
effect on the water table in the area of the pond and will cause
no significant impact to other users of the water in the area.
And I base these conclusions on the following factors:
Pumping water from a pond can have an effect on the water
table in the surrounding shallow aquifer. The degree of such
effect is primarily a function of the amount of water removed
and the permeability of the surrounding aquifer materials. The
plan involves removal of invasive phragmites and approximately
6,670 cubic yards of silt, mulch and peat accumulated in the pond
to create a pond with a maximum depth of eight feet and surface
area of approximately 30,770 square feet. The purpose of the
project is to increase available water storage capacity of the
pond for continued irrigation use. The existing water storage of
the pond receives water pumped from two irrigation wells located
several hundred feet to the northeast. This pumping is expected
to continue with little change in pumping rate and the new
Board of Trustees 16 June 17, 2015
storage pond will be connected to the existing storage pond with
a varied pipe. The greater capacity of the proposed pond
relative to the existing pond will allow the operators to store
a large volume of watering to be used for irrigating the golf
course, but there will no significant increase in the total
amount of water used for irrigation. The shallow water table
aquifer is composed of permeable sands and gravels with moderate
to high water yields. When water is pumped from the pond, the
lowering water elevation will induce water to flow into the
pond from adjacent saturated soils and the slight lowering of
the water table. Conversely, water pumped into the pond from
the irrigation wells will leak out into the aquifer until
equilibrium is reached. The net effect of alternately pumping
water into the pond and withdrawing water from the pond will be
minor fluctuations in the water table, an effect that occurs
already with the operation of the existing pond. The water
elevation in the proposed pond will be maintained similar to the
water level in the existing pond thus I would expect any change
in the water table elevation near the pond to be temporary and
minor and this effect would be dampened with increasing distance
from the pond.
Given the moderately high permeability of the shallow
aquifer, the minor anticipated changes in the pond's water level
and the fact that the expected rates of pumping to and from the
pond are not expected to differ significantly from current
conditions, I anticipate no significant impact to other wells in
the vicinity. This is signed by Wayne Bugden LEP. He's a
hydrologist and environmental director with CME Engineering.
Today I went to Fishers Island to perform Trustee field
inspections on behalf of the Board. And I did discuss this
proposal with the maintenance people at the pond and CME
Engineering, and in fact they don't have large plans to increase
the pond size. With me on inspection today at the site were two
DEC senior analysts and wetland specialists. One is Rob Marsh
and the other is Dan Lewis. And they informed me that their
technical unit that is in charge of natural resources has
already approved the project pending a dredge materials
analysis, which is typically done with respect to graining size
and how the dredge spoils will be handled onsite to make sure
that the dredge spoils themselves don't contain a toxic material
or would otherwise be mucky or silty and could kill vegetation
or harm vegetation in the disposal area. But from the DEC
analysts who have specialty in freshwater wetlands, from their
perspective, the project meets natural resource requirements of
a project of this type. I also asked them at the time, because
my observation that the pond border has the invasive phragmites
entirely around it, that I said is it reasonable to also assume
there will be less water wasted with the deepening of the pond
and planting of native vegetation, because it would not be
losing as much of the water through evapotranspiration because
the large amount of invasives there essentially acts like a
Board of Trustees 17
sponge. They seem to agree. To what extent I'm not sure how
much that would effect it. So based on the professionals that
were out looking in the field today I don't believe there was
concern about the aquifer per se.
That said, I know I have spoken a lot as to what took place
with this application, and I know we want to hear from the
applicants and I know obviously there is concerns of neighbors
who are adjoining this. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak
to this application?
MR. JUST: Good evening. Glenn Just, JMO Environmental
Consulting. That's a pretty thorough report from the engineer,
that's from Dick Strauss' firm, the designer of the project.
Relatively, as Jay explained, it's a phragmites, almost 100%
phragmites, very dense, probably 30, 40 stems per meter. And
it's just basically removing the phragmites, the root system, so
they don't grow back. And if you look at the cross-section the
pond only goes down six to eight feet, which will not go into
the aquifer or anything like that. The pumps are located quite a
distance away to the north, but towards the Sound, where the
water is actually being pumped from. And it won't create any,
as John said before, from that report, there will not be any
increase in pumping. The same amount of water will be used for
irrigation, but it's just storage. Instead of the pumps running
"X" amount of hours a day, it will run half of that. So whatever
the figure might be.
And they have just done a restoration project, part of the
bike path, adjacent to this, and they did a real good job of
coming back with natural vegetation and restoring the one pond
that is just built right there. So if there are any other
questions the Board has, I'll try answer as best I can.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The connecting pipe is put in at an
elevation of approximately three feet plus, so there will always
be water in the enlarged pond. So the first part, as far as
environmental purposes and water keeping, it's not that they'll
be drafting this pond down to, drafting water resources that
will result in diminishing the ponds themselves. And they did
say they were not planning to, it's not part of the planned
project to increase their water usage rate at the golf course.
So that was --
MR. JUST: And in speaking to the superintendent of the golf course
a while back, he said the existing pond has never been pumped all the
way down. It's always been water stand there. And when Jay made
reference to a pipe, there's two ponds side by side. The pipes
go through, the water level goes through and it runs into the
new pond and just stores it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, thank you. Any questions from the
Board members?
(Negative response).
MR. JUST: And if I may, if you go to the top, you can see, this
is the existing pond here. This is where they would propose,
this is the phragmites that they want to remove.
June 17, 2015
Board of Trustees 18
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So net, the project will be drawing on water
resources, as has always been the case for that area; net, it
will be improving the quality of the emergent wetland around the
pond because it's replacing an invasive, it's getting rid of the
phragmites, which are invasive, and putting natural planting
that will actually improve the fish and wildlife values for that
area.
Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak
to this application?
MS. RASMUSSEN: Yes. I'm Barbara Rasmussen, attorney for Mark
Andrews. He asked me to reiterate he's not necessarily opposing
this application at all. He's actually a member of club and has
family involved with the club. He just wanted to be sure that
he, as well as his neighbors, that their water supply won't be
affected, exactly as you read to the Board. I do have additional
copies of the letter, if any other members of the Board need it.
I don't know if you were given those copies. As well as a
copy of the Google Earth map that shows where my client's
property is in relation to the project. If you want that, I can
give that to you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That would be good to have in the record.
Do you have any additional questions for us?
MS. RASMUSSEN: No, I believe that what you read into the record
from the environmental engineer --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: He's a hydrogeologist. The gentleman from
the engineering firm is a hydrogeologist.
MS. RASMUSSEN: That seems to answer exactly my client's
concerns, I guess. I'm assume that was done in response to my
letter, although I didn't get a copy of that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, that and today's field inspection are
all late in coming, but if you have specific questions you felt
were not addressed and want to discuss it with the Board now --
MS. RASMUSSEN: His concern was what effect this would have on
his aquifer. That letter seems to answer that. The only
additional concern I would have is that Mr. Andrews is going to
the site on Friday with his irrigation and landscaping person
who I believe is centered in Connecticut. They're meeting at the
site. He would like the opportunity to visit, look at the site
himself; obviously, review that letter that you received, and
make sure that it is adequate and that his environmental person
or landscape and irrigation expert agrees with what that letter
states. This is obviously the first time I'm hearing of that
letter, so I'm happy that was done. That's exactly what he
wanted done.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under the circumstances I think we could
consider tabling the matter for them to have the opportunity to
meet. I know I specifically asked the questions of the manager
there and of the CME, the gentleman who took us around, who was
not the engineer, because I do have a little bit of a background
in water supply issues and I've worked for the Health Department
for about 35 years.
June 17, 2015
Board of Trustees 19 June 17, 2015
So I mean, but, and I'm not prepared in my, because I was
not an engineer or hydrogeologist, I'm not prepared to move
this, if you have some additional dialogue. Certainly, it's my
understanding that we are talking strictly irrigation wells,
because the island is served by a public water drinking supply.
Is that correct? You represent an owner --
MS. RASMUSSEN: He did tell me a little about the history of
that. Because I was not familiar either. There was a time when
they each had to, they were servicing the irrigation on each
individual home through public water. Then they were required
for irrigation purposes to create their own wells, which they
did. Many homeowners were then utilizing private wells for their
household use and drinking as well. Then Fishers Island I guess
put a stop on that, and for household use they have to use
public water. But for irrigation purposes they have to use
their private wells.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There are very serious public health
concerns when you have two supplies on a property. Because they
are concerned about interconnection. But one thing we said for
irrigation supplies, whether it is your personal garden or the
turf on a golf course, they are extremely sensitive to saltwater
intrusion, and one of the primary reasons that we take a hard
look at these as Trustees is because it's specific provisions of
the wetland ordinance require us to consider impacts that might
cause saltwater intrusion.
MS. RASMUSSEN: That was exactly his concern.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So drawing on wells actually closer to the
Sound than maybe even your client's, is not in the interest of
the country club to overdraw the aquifer because they would be
the first to know and they would be burning off their very
fragile greens. So there is a self-limiting aspect to this
regardless, you know, of the other questions. It's simply a case
that they are not growing lobsters in the water coming out of
those wells.
MS. RASMUSSEN: Then you just mentioned the DEC permit as well.
don't believe my client -- what's the status of DEC permit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The status of the DEC permit, it has been
approved by the natural resource group, but the group that
handles the soil analysis for the core samples has to review the
materials with respect to how the material is taken out and
where it is put, because there is DEC policy that generally
requires materials that are taken out from dredging, they have
to be placed in areas that have similar like -kind size -wise
materials, and they also have to make sure the sediments are not
biologically dangerous for the location that they put them. So
that analysis is still pending. The natural resource gentleman
spoke to today who were concerned with protecting fish and
wildlife values in the pond, making sure that any restoration of
the perimeter is done to current standards with the proper plant
species, and they are also looking at the water resources. Those
gentleman have, they have approved it but they are not the
Board of Trustees 20 June 17, 2015
permit issuing body. Once the soil analysis is completed for the
cores that were taken for the dredging, then it goes to their
permit issuing branch that actually grants the permit.
MS. RASMUSSEN: Okay, I don't believe my client received any
notice other than from the Southold Trustees.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't know the DEC notices neighbors when
permits are granted.
TRUSTEE KING: I think they just put it in the paper.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, since there are still some
questions, we'll give the opportunity to discuss these matters
between your client and the club, of which he is obviously a
member. So I think we tried to present to you the information
we have here. I would say it would be appropriate to table this
application to follow for discussion to take place and to
reconsider it for a vote at next month's meeting. Then if anything
should change, we would --
MS. RASMUSSEN: And, Glenn, would you supply that letter to the
Board?
MS. HULSE: You can only address the Board at this hearing,
ma'am, please. You can ask him after the hearing is over, if you
don't mind.
MS. RASMUSSEN: Okay. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make it in the form of a motion. I'll
move to be table the application for one month to allow Ms.
Rasmussen and Mr. Andrews to have the opportunity to meet with
respect to questions.
MS. RASMUSSEN: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you. Good evening, folks.
MR. MCGREEVEY: John, for a point of interest with the CAC, the
aquifer they are pumping from, that is at a lower level than the
pond level that is being pumped into, as I understand it?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's one and the same. It's an upper glacial
aquifer, with loose -- and below the pond, as described by the
engineer's report, it's loose materials, it's basically the
first layer that is collected, that's the only water, I believe
that they have at that location. It is their one, their sole
aquifer in that location would be their glacial aquifer.
MR. MCGREEVEY: So I assume, for point of information, the
present pond level is at a level of the aquifer that it's being
pumped from.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's roughly, that may or may not -- well,
pond levels tend to, in seaside locations, tend to mirror the
aquifer level and the water table level, with a little bit of
variation, yes.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Thank you.
MS. RASMUSSEN: The letter that you read into the record was that
an expert hired by the Board or was he hired by the applicant?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, he's with the engineer representing the
Board of Trustees 21
applicant and who draws the engineering plans in the
application. He's a hydrogeologist with the engineering firm
CNE.
MS. RASMUSSEN: Hired by the applicant.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
Okay, so we tabled that.
TRUSTEE KING: Number two, Ural Talgat on behalf of STELIOS &
PENELOPE NIKOLAKAKOS request a Wetland Permit to reconstruct and
renovate existing 1,068 square foot dwelling within existing
footprint; existing exterior wall structure and building
foundation walls to remain; construct a 30 square foot addition
onto northwest corner; construct an 81.3 square foot addition
onto southeast corner; construct a 217.5 square foot covered
screen porch onto south side of dwelling; construct a 708 square
foot outdoor terrace on north side of dwelling using stone
pavers on grade; new 72.5 square foot 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 35 -square foot steps leading to a 200 square
foot walkway using stone pavers on concrete slab to new 2,200
square foot driveway and parking area with asphalt surface and
drywells to contain runoff. Located: 20795 Soundview Avenue,
Southold.
This is an application that was tabled last month because I
think we had a question on drainage, and also on the sanitary
system. And it looks like -- I just looked at this before. We
have a site plan that shows the septic system is out of our
jurisdiction, and it indicates the drywells for roof runoff. I
think that's the only questions we had on this application from
last month, and they have been addressed. And it was found
consistent with the LWRP, and the CAC found it as a hotspot for
erosion. The CAC recommends a permeable driveway and parking
area and also noticed the proposed patio is 33% larger than the
width of the drawing. That's the CAC comments. I think most of
the driveway is also out of our jurisdiction.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MR. TALGAT: Ural Talgat, the architect, and I believe the owner
is here, Penelope Nikolakakos. I'm here to answer any questions
the Board may have.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we covered it all last month with
the exception of the drainage and the sanitary system.
MR. TALGAT: Which has been submitted to your Board.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't have any questions. Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else, any comments?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
June 17, 2015
Board of Trustees 22 June 17, 2015
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, 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"x61'-11'1/2"
deck with a pool equipment enclosure below the deck, an 18'x40'
gunite swimming pool and integrated 8.6'x6.6' 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 Rt. 48,
Greenport.
This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be
consistent. The CAC resolved to support the application, however
the proposed project was not staked, the property was not
posted, and the location of the sanitary system was not
indicated on the plans. The Board did go out and looked at this
project.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MS. STAGEBERG: My name is Jane Stageberg and I'm here to speak
on behalf of Georgia and Timothy Quinn. I'm here to answer any
questions you might have, and if you would like a description of
the property, I'm happy to give that as well.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have a survey and we have a set of plans
here. When we went out and looked at it, we didn't have any
questions for the project. The only question I do have on the
plans, I'm looking to see if there is a drywell for the pool runoff.
MS. STAGEBERG: There is a drywell, and that will be -- it is not
shown on the plans, the copy of the plans that you have. It will
be located to the south side of the pool on the western side of
the property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Between the deck and the property line.
MS. STAGEBERG: Correct. But south of the deck, but to the east
of the western property line.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, which would probably make it, since it's
approximately 60 feet to the deck, and then you have a 40 foot
pool, which is up to 80, and then you have another deck which is
approximately 20, this will probably be non jurisdictional, this
pool we are talking about. That was the only question I had.
Is there anybody else in the audience who wanted to speak
for or against this application?
(Negative response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
All right, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
Board of Trustees 23 June 17, 2015
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve this application
subject to receipt of the new set of plans. And as I stated, it
has been deemed consistent under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you
MS. STAGEBERG: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of BRICK COVE MARINA, c/o DIANE VAIL requests a Wetland
Permit to reconstruct the existing 13' wide by 57' long
boat ramp with a 13' wide by 16' long apron below AHW by
removing all existing asphalt and unsuitable base material from
boat ramp; within the section landward of the drain repave the
ramp with asphalt; within the section seaward of the drain,
repave the boat ramp with concrete; reconstruct the existing
runoff control drain; replace/repair the existing apron using
4'x4' sections of concrete slab; and a turbidity curtain will be
utilized during project implementation. Located: 1760 Sage
Boulevard, Greenport.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be exempt. This is a
maintenance repair, with no substantial changes in the existing
structure or facility. The CAC resolved to support the
application, noting that should be careful about the
installation of adequate runoff control.
The Trustees did a field inspection on June 10th, at about
11:20, which was very close to low tide, and noticed that
everything seemed to be okay. It is suggested that perhaps you
should check out other ramps in town that have worked out well
with sections below the mean high water. That's in reference to
the four -foot sections at the toe of the ramp.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. IVANS: Matt Ivans, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. I'm
here to answer any and all questions.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I guess the Trustees thought this was pretty
straightforward, but according to the plans, the bottom you are
going to use 4'x4' separate sections?
MR. IVANS: Well, we'll try and utilize what we can that is
existing down there. You can see in the photo there is maybe
four to six pieces maybe a little more that are salvageable. The
ones that are broken, those will be replaced. So we are trying
to keep it in-kind. That's basically the driving factor there.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay. That was the only question that we had.
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this
Board of Trustees 24 June 17, 2015
hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. (VANS: Thank you, Board.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number five, GLENN
HEIDTMANN, JR., requests a Wetland Permit for a proposed 16'x32'
swimming pool with 4' high pool enclosure fencing and pool
utility area; and install approximately 300 square foot of
walkway and bluestone patio with a 16" high seat wall.
Located: 600 Albacore Drive, Southold.
The CAC had voted to support this application, just noting
assurances that there is adequate drainage for the pool. The
project has been determined to be consistent with the LWRP. The
Trustees also had questions concerning the drywell for the pool
backwash/drainage, and noting that there is a high groundwater
condition in the area. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak
to this application?
MR. HEIDTMANN: I'm Glenn Heidtmann, Jr., I'm the owner. I'm
submitting the application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Concerning the question is the DW prop pool,
is that the proposed drywell for the pool?
MR.HEIDTMANN: Yes, on the survey.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay.
MR. HEIDTMANN: I have a letter from an engineer just stating
that, because it's a gunite pool, the water is always going to
stay in it. It's not like a lined pool where it's ever drained.
So any water that is coming out of it, according to him, is
nominal.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Nominal backwash. Okay, if you could submit
a copy of that for the record, that's fine. And I believe it may
be because the larger plan didn't have the drywell on it. And I
see the stamped plans here dated today. Okay, no wonder. That
shows the drywell. That answers the drywell question. Thank you.
That seems to be the principal questions. Also, for the Board's
edification, the principal building inspector reviewed this
application with respect to the ZBA and determined it did not
need ZBA, so the issues concerning the small pond on the
property were deemed not to be a concern with respect to the
building and zoning issues. Just to let the Board know. Because
I know it came up during the course of our review when we went
over the files the other night at the work session.
Any questions the Board members have?
(Negative response).
Board of Trustees 25
Hearing none, is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Also hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in
this matter.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Motion to approve this application as submitted, noting that
there is a drywell as requested. That's my motion. Do we have a
second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HEIDTMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number six, 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.
This was found consistent with the LWRP. He recommended
flow-through decking for the dock structure. And the CAC
supports the application, however the project was not staked and
the property was not posted. The CAC recommends materials based
on best management practices. Those are the CAC comments. The
Board went out there, we looked at it.
This is an area where there are no new docks allowed over
vegetated wetlands. But this dock has existed there and it is
there, so he wants to reconstruct it. I don't think we had any
real concerns with it, other than that. We do want to make sure
it's open -grate decking on the catwalk. And I think that's all
we need to know. Other than that, it was pretty straightforward.
And apparently, in looking at the photos and looking in the
field, the dock really has not had any effect on the wetlands
that are obvious. So I think the new dock with flow-through
grating will really have no effect.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It will increase the wetland, probably.
TRUSTEE KING: It might be better than the existing dock as it is.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MR. FOKINE: Yes, my name is Chris Fokine, I'm the contractor.
And I apologize, when the CAC came, not being staked. It was my
fault. Miscommunication. I think when you came out last week it
was staked. I apologize for that.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else?
(Negative response).
No other comments, I'll make a motion to close are hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
June 17, 2015
Board of Trustees 26 June 17, 2015
TRUSTEE KING: And I'll make motion to approve the application
with the stipulation that flow-through decking is used on the catwalk.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time I would like to take a
five-minute break
(After a five-minute recess, these proceedings continue as
follows).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, we'll get back on our agenda here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven, Samuels & Steelman Architects on
behalf of JOHN FISCHETTI & DEBORAH DEAVER request a Wetland
Permit to renovate the existing 3,074 square foot one-story
dwelling by raising the height of the first floor by 10' and
construct a new second floor; constructing a 92 square foot
addition on the west side with a 110 square foot covered porch
with stone paving and steps to grade; install a 380 square foot
stone paved -on -slab walkway connecting to porch; remove existing
concrete driveway and clear marked trees in area of proposed
driveway; install a 5,320 square foot permeable crushed stone
driveway and add drainage per Chapter 236 of the Town Code;
construct a 344 square foot addition onto existing wood framed
deck for a total of 1,410 square feet of decking attached to
seaward side of dwelling with steps leading to a proposed 1,099
square foot stone -on -slab pool patio; install a 20'x40' gunite
swimming pool; install four foot high pool fencing and pool
equipment area; abandon and fill in existing sanitary and
install new shallow sanitary system with a septic tank and eight
leaching pools; existing 1,097 square foot two -car detached
garage with patio to remain; existing 288 square foot shed to be
demolished; install and subsequently maintain a ten -foot wide
vegetated non -turf buffer along the entire landward edge of
tidal wetlands; toxic underbrush and trees under 4" caliper will
be removed in southeast corner of property and install non -turf
plantings; and for the installation of gutters to leaders to
drywells to contain roof runoff. Located: 2615 Wells Road,
Peconic.
The Trustees did go out and looked at this on field
inspections. This was reviewed and found inconsistent under the
LWRP. And the reason for the inconsistency is a portion of the
structure, that being the new swimming pool, is located within
FEMA flood zone, and it was noted that the water encountered was
6.1 feet below the surface. So will the pool bottom sit in
standing water. That's from the LWRP review.
The CAC supports the application, however there is a
concern over the number of trees that are being removed. The
ambiguous flagging made it difficult to determine the actual
location of the pool and setback from the wetlands. The CAC
requests the applicant demonstrate the adequacy of his claim for
Board of Trustees 27 June 17, 2015
not requiring the leaching pool for the backwash. And just to
note, when the Trustees were out there, we did notice all the
trees flagged in front of the house, and we were also concerned
about these trees, but obviously it's all non -jurisdictional for us.
So, is there anybody here to speak for this application?
MR. SAMUELS: Yes. Tom Samuels, the architect, on behalf of the
owners. I would like to also amend the description to include a
non -vegetated walkway from the catwalk, which was recently
approved by you guys, to what is now considered upland. When you
approved that dock a couple months ago, the wetland line was not
under question and so there was no provision made to get from
the end -- from the catwalk to what is now considered upland.
So we would like to add that into the description. And we show
it on the drawing which was recently submitted.
With regard to the swimming pool, we can demonstrate that,
I don't know that I have the information tonight, although we
did hear somebody in an earlier hearing describe a similar
situation, that a gunite swimming pool with a salt filtering
system does not require backwash. But we can give you that
documentation as required. As far as the depth of the pool is
concerned, we have not actually shown the depth of the pool
yet. There should be no problem with it sitting in groundwater,
but there is also a certain amount of fill being shown, and to
be honest, I'm not sure where the bottom of the pool is relative
to that groundwater condition. But it is not uncommon to have
pools that are sitting in groundwater, at least gunite pools,
which are monolithic structures, are not affected by the uplift,
which is sometimes a concern with vinyl liner in pools because
you drain them and the liner collapses and it's a mess. But this
is gunite which has four inches of concrete and a lot of rebar.
As long as the hole can be dewatered long enough to cast it,
there should be no problem, structurally or in other ways, with
that condition.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: As far as the process to be used during
construction to address that situation, I think that's between
the applicant and the Building Department to resolve. We did
also -- and before I forget, you had put in here a six foot wide
un -vegetated path. Normally what we do is a four -foot wide path.
Is there any objection to --
MR. SAMUELS: No, that's acceptable.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, we were concerned over the existing
vegetation, trees, et cetera, to be removed over I think it's
the southern part of the property. I know an observation, there
was some Baccharus in there, which as you know is a protected
species and can't be removed.
MR. SAMUELS: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So are you looking at removing the dead trees
that are in there?
MR. SAMUELS: Primarily, yes. And some of the more noxious
undergrowth. Specifically the poison ivy, because there is quite
bit of it there. I think in our description we described trees
Board of Trustees 28 June 17, 2015
over a certain caliper would not be touched, but obviously
wetlands plants that are in the wetland boundary, no, we
recognize that is non -disturbance, and nothing would be
disturbed within the wetlands boundary.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we would like to do, if okay with you, is
have you mark the trees, the specific trees you want to have
removed, and if it's okay with you to have a Trustee go out
there, look at it ahead of time to confirm yes or no that it's
okay with us for those trees to be removed.
MR. SAMUELS: That's acceptable.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, that can avoid a problem down the road.
TRUSTEE KING: Call it insurance.
MR. SAMUELS: Yes, you can't replant a 40 -foot tree, so.
TRUSTEE KING: What about hay bales.
MR. SAMUELS: We have hay bales, basically from road to road.
Because there is not that much upland there, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What about a non -turf buffer?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is a non -turf buffer.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The plans have a non -turf buffer next to it.
MR. SAMUELS: Yes. There is a ten -foot non -turf buffer along the
entire wetlands line. Of course most of that is going to be
remaining undisturbed, but in the areas that are disturbed,
where there is now lawn, that would be replaced by the required
plantings. And I think we have a list here of the type of
plants, they are things you see always in those conditions.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We just had the concern the ten -foot non -turf
buffer started landward of our Trustee wetland line and extended
landward of the Trustee wetland line.
MR. SAMUELS: And that change has been made on this drawing,
Dave.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, now, is there anybody else in the audience
who wanted to speak?
MR. MCGREEVEY: At the time the CAC inspection where Peter Meeker
went out, he said the markings, the flagging of where the pool
is to be located was ambiguous, and his impression was the
flagging that he saw was further seaward than depicted on the
diagram. So if the pool is actually in that position on the
diagram, and that is approved by you people, that's fine. But
the flagging was ambiguous to our inspection. It seemed like it
was further seaward.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We did, when we were out there, we initially had
the same concern and so we taped it off and measured it off, and
we figured out that it was, the flags were accurate. We agreed
with you on initial observation also and that's why we measured
it off with tape.
MR. SAMUELS: Between last fall and this spring, we went back.
The flags remained all winter long. When you and I went back out
there, we taped it all off again to make sure it is where we
thought it was. And your flags were still there, too. Everything
was left.
Board of Trustees 29 June 17, 2015
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else who wanted to
make any comments for or against this application?
(Negative response).
If not, any other comments from the Board.
(Negative response).
If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as per the plans stamped received June 12th, 2015, with the
conditions that the six-foot wide path be reduced to a four -foot
wide half leading from the catwalk upland, and that area marked
for existing trees and vegetation to be removed prior to removal
of any trees that will be marked and a Trustee will visit the
site and determine whether or not those trees can be removed.
And that the construction standards as dictated by the Building
Department will address the concern of the pool located adjacent
to the flood zone and as such we deem it consistent under the
LW RP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that motion. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. SAMUELS: And I'll then work it out with Elizabeth as to when
that inspection can happen.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, just mark it, let the office know, and one
of us will go out there and meet you there in the field.
MR. SAMUELS: Thank you.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Just a side observation. It has nothing to do
with this petition. Peter brought to my attention, Peter Young,
in his inspection of the property, he didn't observe anything
that is indicated on here as a dilapidated dock.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Oh, it's gone.
MR. MCGREEVEY: It's gone.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
MR. MCGREEVEY: I know he asked me.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That was conditioned on the approval to put
a new dock in was to get the old one out of there.
MR. SAMUELS: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number eight, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of JAMES
& NANCY REIDY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x63'
catwalk to connect to existing 8'x22' fixed dock, using
thru-flow decking on catwalk. Located: 2910 Deep Hole Drive,
Mattituck.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC
resolved to support the application, noting that the dock is
larger than 6x20 and should conform to Town Code. The Trustees
did a field inspection on June 10th and recommended downsizing
the fixed dock and use through -flow on the dock. The dock
exceeds the permit -- Permit #6408 was issued on June 24th,
Board of Trustees 30
1988, for a 6'x20' dock. Is there anyone here to speak to this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. With
regard to the dock size, we are going through this right now
with the DEC, actually, as far as indicating that the size of
that dock had been there since like 1963. That is what we are
getting from aerial photography. And Mr. Reidy who is here in the
audience, along with some other letters from surrounding
neighbors with some aerial photography. It's been there for so
long. I would assume that predates the requirements of certain
sizes as a nonconforming existing use, possibly. As far as
substantial proof, it's in the aerial photography, letters, I
have certified letters from surrounding landowners. And Mr.
Reidy is here, too, if he could explain it to you.
TRUSTEE KING: Mike, what's the date on the description?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I was just going to correct myself when Mr.
Patanjo was speaking. The permit that I referenced, June 24th,
1988, calls for a 12'x6' dock. The permit which was issued July
19th, 2006, references a 6'x20' dock. So none of the data that
is in this folder conforms to what is presently there what Mr.
Patanjo is asserting.
MR. PATANJO: Our application is really to renew the permission
under permit number 6408, which is to construct the 463'
catwalk to the existing dock. We would like to maintain the
existing dock in its current configuration and not change it.
That's the dock and the size that has been there since 1963.
Circa 1963.
TRUSTEE KING: But not according to the permits we have on file.
MR. PATANJO: There is inconsistency with your permits, too.
TRUSTEE KING: Why would a permit be issued if there was a dock
there already?
MR. PATANJO: I don't know.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We know what we did as a corporate body as
approvals, but we don't --
TRUSTEE KING: I think what we are trying to do now is make that
conform now to our modern code, you get through -flow decking on
that. It's a little more environmentally friendly.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I agree. The dock was not in the greatest shape
to begin with, so this is an opportunity to match it up to what
the permit says, and to improve the dock there all at once. The
catwalk, I don't believe is an issue.
TRUSTEE KING: No. If you are going to go through all this work
now putting the catwalk in now, now is the time to fix it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Approach the microphone and let us know who
you are.
MR. REIDY: James. Reidy, I'm the owner at 2910 Deep Hole Drive.
There are two docks there. We had one dock that was U-shaped,
that totally disappeared over the years. And this one which we
keep repairing and fixing. But, you know, it's basically just
putting different planks. What we probably did is was when it
was 6x20, we probably added a board on the side and used 12
June 17, 2015
Board of Trustees 31
footers instead of ten. If you want we can cut it down if that
will make it conform with the permit you were talking about. You
know, I don't know if we need the extra two feet of dock or
anything, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the other issue concerns the solid
decking you have is in a marsh area, much like the Board would
require open or through -flow grating on the catwalk section
where the Board would be asking that you convert to the 6x20
size with the through -flow decking so that way -- because the
entirety of the structure, maybe with the exception of the outer
two or three feet, is all over vegetated wetlands. The current
code encouraging the wetland grasses to continue to flourish
MR. REIDY: So make the whole catwalk out of that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The whole catwalk out of it, and then also
replace the decking on the existing dock while you are cutting
back to the 6x20 dimensions.
MR. REIDY: If that's better. You guys know what you are talking
about. I never heard so much terminology about soil and drainage
and wetlands. I'm total totally lost here. But if that's what
you want, that's what we'll do.
TRUSTEE KING: I think the Board's feeling, if you are going
through this trouble now to build a new catwalk, it's not in
great shape, now is the time to do the whole job. From a
practical standpoint, you'll have somebody come in there, now is
the time to do it.
MR. REIDY: Well, that's what the fellow who will replace the
dock, the path out to the dock, he said, oh, you are going to
step down on the dock anyway, that's wood, this is the proper
way, so I'm sure he'll be able to fix that, too.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are just doing a file search here.
TRUSTEE KING: Any dimensions on the piles supporting the
catwalk? I would like to see 4x4s.
MR. PATANJO: I have 6x6s. If you want 4x4, we can do 44.
TRUSTEE KING: 6x6 is all right.
MR. MCGREEVEY: What would the surface to the floating dock be?
Will that be like the catwalk.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, it will be through -flow.
MR. PATANJO: There's no floating dock. It's elevated.
MS. HULSE: I'm sorry, Wayne can't get any of this. There's three
people talking at one time.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. It is a pre-existing
non -conforming to current code fixed dock. And the discussion
that we had concerning putting through -flow in will bring it
into conformity for areas that are over vegetated wetlands. And
6x20 is the typical size of what would be an approved float, but
in circumstances such as these, the Board has deemed the 6x20
size, whether it's slightly outboard on a catwalk ramp assembly
or in this case fixed, provided it lets the light through in the
wetlands is considered in general conformity with the general
construction standard.
MR. MCGREEVEY: And the material of the dock will be the same as
June 17, 2015
Board of Trustees 32
the catwalk?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
MR. MCGREEVEY: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE KING: No, I think we beat it to death.
MR. REIDY: I have one comment. I have a picture from 1954, you
can look at and see this. Do you have that picture? You can
pass it up there. There is a picture from 1954. It looks like
another planet. The creek is about this wide, there are no
houses anywhere, and that dock is there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's amazing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion
to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion is made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
noting that it will have a 463' catwalk, with through -flow
decking, connected to a 6'x20' fixed dock on 44 pilings, also
with flow-through.
TRUSTEE KING: 6x6 pilings.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: 6x6. All right
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We were going to allow the 6x6.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, 6x6. With flow-through grating on the
catwalk. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Do we need new plans?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We should get new plans showing the new
amended size on that, please.
MR. PATANJO: No problem.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number nine, Jeffrey
Patanjo on behalf of LESLIE LLC requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 156 linear foot long vinyl retaining wall with one
4' return along top of bank; and to remove and replace in-place
approximately 100' of existing rip -rap as required. Located: 340
Robinson Road, Greenport.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The CAC performed an inspection of this site
and did not support the application because the bulkhead is
unnecessary. The CAC recommends the installation of a rock
revetment to harden the shoreline. The LWRP coordinator
indicated that it's inconsistent, indicating a vegetative
approach to controlling erosion are not effective, and then
June 17, 2015
Board of Trustees 33 June 17, 2015
going on to say that vegetation is currently in place at the top
of the bank and low marsh, and little to no active erosion is
evident. The rip rap coupled with vegetation is effective in
controlling erosion in this instant. And enhancement of natural
protective features will not prove practical in providing
erosion protection.
The Trustees inspected the site and walked the property.
I'm not entirely sure we are of similar mind to the LWRP
coordinator and CAC on this.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. As far
as the comments go with erosion at the top of the bluff, as we
saw in the field, a lot of this erosion is coming from the
landward side of the bluff and it's washing down as well as
during storms where the tide runs up and it undermines and
washes into the rip rap that is currently there. We have
approximately, I think about 100 foot of rip rap along the
westerly side of the bank. The proposed plan for this retaining
wall is to stop any future erosioh that could possibly happen if
the rip rap does sediment and fills up. As we saw in the field,
there was erosion at the top of the rip rap. The whole idea is
to put in the retaining wall with nothing really exposed at the
grade line. You won't see it. It's really a future preventive
measure that the client wants to take to preserve the loss of
any additional land.
As part of the application we are going to install a
ten -foot non -turf buffer which will capture any sediments or any
fertilizer and whatnot.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Let me ask you a couple of questions to
perform clarification here. It's called in the application and
what we saw on the site as staked and we viewed is a retaining
wall. So that it is not an erosion control structure design for
in the water, which is seemingly different to the two negative
reports, one being the CAC the other being the LWRP, and the
replacement of the rip rap at the toe of this retaining
structure, effectively provides a unit structure which would be
part and parcel, essentially the same, of putting in a stone rip
rap or revetment, which in fact would be a larger structure
which would require anchoring and might damage more of the
vegetated wetlands because it would of necessity involve more of
the vegetated wetlands in front to get the length necessary to
have the slopes for effective revetment. That's my take on it.
MR. PATANJO: That is completely the take on my end of it. The
whole idea of this and the construction methodology behind it is
we were going to work from the landward side of it. The whole
idea is to not touch any of the vegetated wetlands nor touch the
existing rip rap. We are going to excavate behind the rip rap, _
removing a couple of the upper boulders of the rip rap structure
itself, put in the retaining wall, backfill, and put the rip rap
back, which will allow the vegetation to stay where it was, work
Board of Trustees 34 June 17, 2015
its way back up and revegetate the bank area.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any board members, do you have any
additional questions?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had any with it when we were out
there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, because we noticed there was significant
erosion that was occurring on the site and so this seemed to us
like a good plan as already has been discussed here, to address
the existing erosion that is taking place.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Jeff, one question. The property to the west
has a bulkhead.
MR. PATANJO: Correct.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: How will this retaining wall mate up to that?
Will it be different elevation?
MR. PATANJO: Same elevation, and we'll tie into the corner. We
looked at that and there is a perfect spot. We can cut back the
top cap and wale and drive a sheet in. So it will be a solid
structure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You'll have the permission of the property owner
ahead of time to do that?
MR. PATANJO: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any other questions from anyone?
MR. MCGREEVEY: Can I ask a question? The retaining wall, is that
an erosion control device? Is that the purpose of it?.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Retaining walls by definition in the code
and the reason why we can approve them in creeks and bays where
no new bulkheads are allowed is because they are considered
soil -retentive features, and the predominant reason is soil
keeping as opposed to erosion control for the toe. In other
words protecting loss that is caused from the waterside. I mean
obviously it's not, you know, it's not an exact notion, but the
failure was at the top, largely at the top on this, in this
particular property as it was viewed. Obviously, Irene and
Sandy, Tropical Storms Irene and Sandy certainly came in and
there was overtopping of any rip rap or low structures in any
creek. So we don't know entirely the history of it, but what we
saw. So that basically is the difference and why we are
permitted to allow a retaining structure, retaining wall, as
opposed to we don't have new bulkheads in the creeks. Any other
questions or concerns?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application, noting specifically that the structure applied for
is a retaining wall, which was upland of the emergent tidal
wetland vegetation; that the stabilization of the soils of the
upper portion of the bank through the construction of a
retaining wall, will protect the area from additional wetland
Board of Trustees 35
vegetation loss; the stone rip rap being moved slightly to,
adjacent to the new proposed bulkhead will further stabilize the
base. Excuse me, the retaining structure. I called it the
bulkhead. The retaining structure will stabilize the shore
immediately adjacent to it and absorb any wave energy that may
come in --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is in your motion?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. Big motion. And because this is
predominantly a soil retaining structure, and where a hardened
rip rap revetment would entail more damage to the tidal
wetlands, that the Board would consider this bringing this into
consistency, because the alternative will have a greater
environmental impact. That's my motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KING: Number ten, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of KUHL
FAMILY TRUST, requests a Wetland Permit to replace existing 206
linear feet of deteriorated timber bulkhead with new vinyl
bulkhead in-place; installation of an eight linear foot return
and an 18 linear foot return; reconstruct in-place existing
4'x10' timber platform with stairs to beach; existing 3'x7'
platform leading to ramp to be re -decked using untreated timber
in-place; and install and subsequently maintain a ten -foot wide
non -turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead;
existing ramp and floating dock to remain undisturbed during
construction. Located: 1790 North Bayview Road, Southold.
This is for bulkhead construction. Primarily bulkhead
construction/creek construction. This was found inconsistent, I
believe. It was found inconsistent with the LWRP coordinator.
Structures were constructed without Board of Trustees review or
Wetlands Permit. It is recommended in the event the action is
approved, the non -turf buffer be planted with native vegetation.
The CAC does not support the application because the current
structure is sited on public property. It has destroyed/removed
the natural marshland that is apparent in the area. The CAC
suggests an alternative way of protecting the shoreline.
There is also a letter in the file received on June 16th,
it will be entered into the record. I'll try and summarize it.
Evidently neighbors Lori and Jay Mandelbaum. They fully support
the Kuhl's request to replace the bulkhead. Their concerns are
regarding the floating dock, because it obstructs the channel
and is not in compliance with existing permits. It goes on to
indicate it is very difficult because it does obstruct
navigation. The Town previously approved a T-shaped dock.
think we talked about that in the field even. That's basically
their concerns.
We looked at that last field inspections. There is an old
drawing in here that shows it as a T-config u ration, not the
straight-out bow that is presently there.
June 17, 2015
Board of Trustees 36
Is anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. The
proposed project is to remove and replace the existing bulkhead
in the same exact location as it is right now. There is no
proposed work to be done in the existing platform, ramp and
floating dock. We'll add a return on both the north and the
south end of the project to prevent from additional erosion.
And I was not privy to see the plans for the previous dock.
would like to see the projection out into the waterway, if it is
equal to or less than what is actually placed in the field.
I don't have a scale on me. I don't know if you have one.
TRUSTEE KING: You can't scale this off. It's just a simple
drawing.
MR. PATANJO: Okay. So how far out --
TRUSTEE KING: It shows a 3x10 ramp, a 3x6 walk and a 6x20 float
and T -configuration. So it's 16 and six. Maybe 22 feet, tops.
Overall.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: When we were out there, it was at low tide and
the water was fairly clear in the channel, and you could see it,
that this dock in its current configuration, clearly was out
into the channel.
MR. PATANJO: Okay, I was aware of that letter that it was going
to be coming your way. I spoke to the homeowner, I actually
spoke to the letter writer. The name slips my mind. As far as
William Kuhl, the channel there has definitely filled in over
time. He has been there I believe 16 years. Over time it has
filled in. He has many, many times that he said he has seen big
boats go by without a problem. Now that it's filling in, now his
dock is becoming an issue, I can see. One of the problems I'm
going to have is the water depth for him now, if he does move
his dock, his float in. And that's something I would assume
we'll have to address.
TRUSTEE KING: The only other thing we talked about is two
platforms, right? You have a platform that goes to the ramp and
another platform further down that has steps down to the beach.
MR. PATANJO: Correct.
TRUSTEE KING: Why can't the second platform be removed, put the
stairs on the present platform so you downsize some of the
structure out there and modernize this little platform that goes
out to the ramp.
MR. PATANJO: It's not a bad idea.
TRUSTEE KING: Those are the issues we looked at. I think the
best thing to do is table this, stake it out in either an
L -configuration or T -configuration so we can see the water
depths where it effects the channel and talk to your client
about removing that one platform and upgrading the present
platform with steps down to the beach from that.
MR. PATANJO: I'm okay with that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: A suggestion also, just a suggestion, because
you notice the dock is depicted there in the picture at low
June 17, 2015
Board of Trustees 37 June 17, 2015
tide, as well as neighboring dock which has a configuration of
what we are talking about, that maybe the floating dock be on
chocks to prevent it from sitting on the bottom at low tide.
MR. PATANJO: He'll have to.
TRUSTEE KING: So I'll make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second?
I'll second it. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
Z
John M. Bredemeyer III, President
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED
ti
JUL 2 3 2015
Q
$o tho{d Town r1erh