HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-11/18/2015 /'���,,
John M.Bredemeyer III,President ��� *�®�SO(71, Town Hall Annex
Michael J.Domino,Vice-President ���� �O l® ; 54375P.O.Main Road
.O.Box 1179
James F.King,Trustee ` Southold,New York 11971-0959
co
Dave Bergen,Trustee 11
® a®��� Telephone(631) 765-1892
Charles J.Sanders,Trustee l ��� Fax(631) 765-6641
,0
�
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RECEIVED
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
DEC 18 2
Minutes
Wednesday, November 18, 2015 Southold Town (led
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
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday,:December 16, 2015 at 5:30 PM
WORK SESSIONS: Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:30 PM at Downs Farm, and
on Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 5:00 PM at the main
Meeting Hall
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of October 21, 2015.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good evening. Welcome to our November 18th regular
monthly meeting. At this time we'll pass some of our regular resolutions at the start of
the meeting.
I'll take a motion for the next field inspection to be Wednesday, December 9th, at
8:00 AM. Motion?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to have our next Trustee meeting on
Wednesday, December 16th, at 5:30 PM, and to hold work sessions
on Monday, December 14th, at 5:30 PM at Downs Farms, and on
Wednesday, December 16th, at 5:00 PM in the main meeting hall.
Board of Trustees 2 November 18, 2015
TRUSTEE KING: I'll move that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion is made.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll take a motion to approve the Minutes of
the October 21st meeting.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So moved. ,
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye.
Trustee Bredemeyer, abstains).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll abstain, I was absent.
I.,MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for October 2015. A check for
$3,400.12 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the
General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for
review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the
following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, November 18, 2015, are classified as Type II
Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review
under SEQRA:
Emma van Rooyen SCTM# 1000-70-4-29
Charles W. Riesterer SCTM# 1000-70-4-47
Jacob &Jill Kubetz SCTM# 1000-127-6-10
Dennis Donlin SCTM# 1000-104-3-12
Thomas Macari SCTM# 1000-111-14-19
Tom & Paulette Giese SCTM# 1000-104-13-4
Gardiners Bay Homeowners Association SCTM# 1000-37-5-23.2
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under Item III, are items which are deemed
to be Type II actions under SEQRA. Those are listed herein. I'll
take a motion to accept these as Type II actions.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 3 November 18, 2015
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I just want to bring to your attention,
those of you who may have come this evening to address a
particular concern that you saw in the public hearing notices in
the newspaper, a number of items were deemed to be incomplete
during the course of the Trustee work inspections or were
withdrawn by applicants to provide additional information. And,
they can be found starting on page seven of the agenda. Item number
seven, number eight, number nine, ten, eleven, 12 and 13 on the
agenda have all been postponed. They are listed as follows:
Number seven, Stromski Architecture, P.C. on behalf of JACOB &
JILL KUBETZ request a Wetland Permit to demolish existing
dwelling and construct new one-story dwelling with a 1,940
sq.ft. footprint that includes a 52 sq.ft. front covered porch,
a 170 sq.ft. rear covered screened-in porch, and an access area
to basement; for basement access area install two landscape
block retaining walls, one being 80 linear feet ranging in
height from 5.4' to 1.4' and the second being 43.1' linear feet
ranging in height from 5.4'to 1'; install a 328 sq.ft. paved
patio adjacent to screened-in porch; install a 2.10'x38.7' paved
walkway from the rear patio to existing 20.3'x30.4' detached
garage; existing detached garage framing to be repaired as
needed; install a 2,029 sq.ft. gravel driveway; for the existing
3.3'x47.3' brick walkway to dock; reconstruct existing
dilapidated dock by repairing existing 4.1'x11'fixed dock
supported by(4) 8" diameter piles underneath the framed
platform and surrounded by(6)6" diameter piles that extend
higher than the platform by some 36"-48"; construct a 4.1'x10'
seaward extension to fixed dock supported by(4) 8" diameter
piles underneath the framed platform and surrounded by(6)6"
diameter piles that extend higher than the platform by some
36"-48"; and install an 8'x10'floating platform anchored by 6"
diameter piles. Located: 1600 North Oakwood Drive, Laurel.
SCTM# 1000-127-6-10.
Number eight, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of DENNIS
DONLIN requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 1,750 sq.ft.
one-story dwelling with existing 612 sq.ft. attached wood deck;
construct a 10'x10'wood deck at the landward side of existing
dock; install a 4'x38'wood walkway from new deck to new stone
terrace; install a 10'x10' stone paving on concrete slab terrace
at the 10' contour with a 7'x14'x5'x2'wide retaining wall;
install a ±4' wide, 754 sq.ft. stone paving on concrete slab
walkway from terrace to dwelling and driveway; re-grade land
above the 7' contour in the area of the new stone walkway and
terrace; demolish and remove existing wood stairs landward of
dock; install 11.2' diameter(100sq.ft.)stone paving on
concrete slab terrace at the 12' contour seaward of dwelling;
install stepping stone walkway between stone terrace and
existing deck attached to dwelling; install a 9.2'x10.8'stone
paving on concrete slab terrace against the seaward side of
dwelling; install drywells for rainwater containment; re-grading
of land in the area of proposed pool; construct new 18'x25'
Board of Trustees 4 November 18, 2015
swimming pool; install an 8' sq. hot tub; install an irregular
shaped (14', 24'x38.6', 635 sq.ft.) stone paving on concrete
slab pool terrace; install 70 linear feet of retaining walls
south of the residence; install pool enclosure fencing; removal
of existing trees and plants and planting of new landscape
plants between the 4' and 12' contour; and install a line of
staked hay bales and/or silt fencing prior to and during
construction. Located: 8417 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue.
SCTM# 1000-104-3-12.
Number nine, Patricia C. Moore, Esq: on behalf of DAVE BOFILL
requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 9.1'x11.4' shed with
wood ramp; existing ±4'x23' wood steps on south side of property
and 4'x10'wood steps on north side of property, both seaward of
top of bank; existing 4'x4' landing with 4'x24' steps to 4'x10'
wood walk to irregularly shaped 12'x42' wood deck to a step, and
10'x15'wood deck with 8.7'x11.8' shed on deck; existing 13'
long wood tie wall; along seaward side of toe of bank the
remains of 22' of wood bulkhead; and existing 48' of functional
wood bulkhead. Located: 5785 Vanston Road, Cutchogue.
SCTM# 1000-118-1-1.4.
Number ten, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of KONSTANTINOS
ZOITAS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x52' set of
bluff stairs to beach with 6 landings consisting of a 4'x4' top
landing, one 4'x4' upper mid landing, one 4'x6' upper mid
landing, two 4'x4' lower mid landings, and one 4'x8' bottom
landing with 4'wide steps to grade. Located: 980 The Strand,
East Marion. SCTM# 1000-30-2-78.
Number eleven, WILLOW POINT ASSOCIATION, INC. requests a Wetland
Permit for a Ten (10)Year Maintenance Permit to maintenance
dredge and widen the channel entrance to a depth of 5 feet below
mean low low water; and place the resultant 500 cubic yards of
dredge spoil on the upland portion of the association property.
Located: 765 Willow Point Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-5-28
Number 12, Robert Brown Architect, P.C. on behalf of ELENA
COLOMBO requests a Wetland Permit to repair sections and replace
sections of damaged foundation of an existing 1,045sq.ft.
Cottage; and to replace the two existing cottage landings.
Located: 65490 Route 25, Breezy Shores Cottage #3, Greenport.
SCTM# 1000-53-5-12.6
Number 13, Michael Kimack on behalf of RICK NAPPI requests a
Wetland Permit for the demolition of existing dwelling with
foundation to remain; construct a two-story(1,140sq.ft. first
floor, 786.25sq.ft. second floor)dwelling with a 110.5sq.ft.
second story deck onto foundation; remove and reconstruct
concrete stoop on southeast corner of dwelling; add two (2)
cellar windows airways to south side of foundation; and install
gutters to leaders to drywells to contain runoff. Located: 5210
Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-128-2-22
And number two, on page five, under Coastal Erosion and Wetland
Permits, Michael Kimack on behalf of SOUTHOLD SUNSETS, LLC
requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to
Board of Trustees 5 November 18, 2015
demolish existing one-story dwelling, decks, enclosed porch,
concrete walk, foundation and shed; construct a raised
1,600sq.ft. two-story dwelling on a piling system with the first
floor elevation at 16ft., and a 1,104sq.ft. open deck covered
porch along two sides with ±18'wide stairs to grade for a total
first floor footprint of 2,704sq.ft.; a ±6'x5' side entry
platform with 5' wide steps to grade; a 158.6sq.ft. second floor
open deck; abandon existing sanitary system and install new
sanitary system; install a storm management system; install a
buried 500 gallon propane tank; and install buried electric
service. Located: 4200 Kenny's Road, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-54-4-3.
Those have all been postponed. These hearings will be
held subsequently when there is sufficient information to bring
them forward.
Also, as a point of information, the Trustees require all
paperwork relative to applications to be submitted at least
seven days before the meeting to provide an opportunity for
people who wish to review the files to see a complete file
before materials are brought before the Board. It also allows
the Board of Trustees to review materials during the course of
field inspections before the meeting so that we can process
these applications in an orderly fashion.
IV. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Also, in order to expedite matters that are
minor in nature, under the Administrative Permits, we will group
applications together for which the paperwork is complete and
for which field inspections have determined that there is no
significant impact to the environment, and for which the Local
Waterfront Revitalization Program coordinator has deemed to be
consistent with the Town's waterfront policies.
So accordingly under item IV, for Resolutions and
Administrative Permits, I would move to approve items one, two,
three, four and five as a group. They are listed as follows:
Number one, SCOTT & SUSAN AMBROSIO request an Administrative
Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to hand-cut the
Common Reed (Phragmites australis)to not less than 12" in
height on an as needed basis. Located: 1940 Mason Drive,
Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-7-16.1
Number two, WILLIAM H. CORWIN requests an Administrative Permit
for a Ten (10)Year Maintenance Permit to hand-cut the Common
Reed (Phragmites australis)to not less than 12" in height on an
as needed basis. Located: 14915 New Suffolk Avenue, New
Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-116-3-17
Number three, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of PAT
IAVARONE requests an Administrative Permit to install two (2)
retaining walls on the bluff using 6'x6"ACQ timber; lower wall
to be approximately 18" high by 50' long; upper retaining wall
to be approximately 24" high by 50' long; reallocation of
Board of Trustees 6 November 18, 2015
existing soil and re-vegetate area with native seaside
plantings. Located: 995 West Road, Cutchogue.
SCTM# 1000-110-7-3
Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of MARILYN ANGELSON
requests an Administrative Permit to construct approximately 258
linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in-place of existing timber
bulkhead; install +/-2.5'x14' removable metal steps to beach;
and backfill with approximately 75 cubic yards of clean sand
fill to be trucked in from an approved upland source. Located:
950 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-7-13.1
And number five, Charles R. Cuddy, Esq. on behalf of PECONIC
LANDING AT SOUTHOLD, INC. requests an Administrative Permit to
install an overflow pipe to permit accumulated rainwater runoff
to be dispersed into adjoining pond on property. Located: 1205
Route 25 (1500 Brecknock Road), Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-1-25
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is a motion. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item number six, BRIAN PARKER
requests an Administrative Permit to install four(4) 12'x14'floating
platform upwellers (FLUPSYS) against the existing bulkhead for
raising juvenile shellfish. Located: 305 Williamsburg Drive,
Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-5-15.
We were waiting for some additional information from the
Town Building and Zoning and Code officials concerning this
proposal, and since we have yet to receive a return from the
other town agencies, I'll make a motion that we table this
application until such time as we receive additional information
for consideration.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR
EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under applications for extensions transfers
administrative amendments, similarly, these applications are
minor in nature and have been reviewed by the Trustees during the
course of work sessions and field inspections. Accordingly, I
would move to approve item number one; number two; number three;
number four, with clerical corrections noted on correction;
number five; number six; number seven and number eight as a group.
They are listed as follows:
Number one, CHRISTIAN BAIZ requests the Last One-Year Extension
to Wetland Permit#8025, as issued on January 23, 2013.
Located: 120 Bay Home Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-5-1.3
Number two, THOMAS KENNEDY requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit
Board of Trustees 7 November 18, 2015
#5243 from Donna Wexler to Thomas Kennedy, as issued on November
21, 2000. Located: 200 Castle Hill Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-72-1-1.6
Number three, DOUGLAS C. FOLTS & KATHLEEN M. FOLTS request a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#1864 from Milton W. Folts to Douglas
C. Folts & Kathleen M. Folts, as issued on August 31, 1984.
Located: 90 Oak Street, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-136-1-54
Number four, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of ROBERT&
MARGARET SLIFKIN request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#1365 from
Christopher Gudis to Robert& Barbara Slifkin, as issued on June
5, 1979. Located: 2520 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-3-11
Number five, STAMOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. requests a Transfer of
Administrative Permit#8850A from Robert& Kathleen Cunningham
to Stamos Construction, Inc., as issued on January 21, 2015; and
for an Administrative Amendment to Administrative Permit#8550A
to slightly relocate the proposed 2,469 sq.ft. dwelling with
attached garage to approximately 96' away from the landward edge
of freshwater wetlands. Located: 380 Hickory Road, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-54-6-10
Number six, BRUNO FRANKOLA requests an Administrative Amendment
to Wetland Permit#5999 to construct an additional 10'x15' deck
extension. Located: 840 Northfield Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-71-1-19
Number seven, En-Consultants on behalf of MELANIE BELKIN
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8516 for
the installation of a 181 sq.ft. masonry walkway on-grade
between driveway and dwelling; and the replacement of portions
of existing driveway with plantings and/or lawn. Located: 1700
Cedar Beach Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-89-2-4
And number eight, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of
OLIVER FRANKEL requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit#8263 and Coastal Erosion Management Permit#8263C for
the as-built modification to the bluff stairs constructed with
the addition of two switchbacks including landings consisting of
two upper landings measuring 4'x5' and two lower landings
measure 4'x4' and 4'x5'. Located: 29821 Main Road, Orient.
SCTM# 1000-14-2-1.9.
Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Dave, would you take number nine?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll take it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number nine, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of LISA GRATTAN requests an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit#7647 for the reconfigured gravel driveway; a
small at grade patio at base of stairs; reconfigured drainage rings;
installation of a deck for the electrical meter; and clearing of poison ivy
at the southern portion of the site.
Located: 11860 New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-116-6-9.
The Board did go out and looked at this, and we did not
have any issue with this, except for one item, with the clearing of
Board of Trustees 8 November 18, 2015
the poison ivy in the southern portion of the site. We are
going to ask that that be done by hand only. And so that is my
only clarification to this application.
So I move to approve this with the stipulation the clearing
of poison ivy is by hand only.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number ten, Suffolk
Environmental Consulting on behalf of DAVID SCHAB requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8570 to increase the
diameter of the catwalk pilings to 8.0"; and add two (2) middle
pilings between the last two (2)sets of seaward catwalk
pilings. Located: 250 Midway Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-1-9
This is a return from a prior Wetland Permit that the
Trustees had issued, and the Board performed a field inspection
last Tuesday on this, and the Board is mindful of the need of
providing larger diameter pilings in a number of cases, with the
severe winters, but in this instance, based on the field
inspection and the location, the Board is compelled to restrict
the increase in the diameter of the pilings for just that area
that is seaward of the Spartina Alterna Flora marsh, and that
the pilings that are landward of the Spartina and the edge of
the marsh should remain at six inches or less.
I'll defer to the Board, I don't believe there was an issue with
the middle pilings between the last two sets. I don't know if there
was a problem with that. But I'm not recalling that.
TRUSTEE KING: No, that usually helps keep the end from lifting
up.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right, I don't think we had an issue with
that. And also the Board requests that the pilings be eight-foot
on center to minimize the number of pilings and the penetrations
going through the wetland.
TRUSTEE KING: They increased it to eight from the original six
anyway.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I stand corrected. The span was expanded to
eight feet, so that did meet the request of what we were thinking.
Accordingly, I would move to approve this requested
amendment with the stipulation that the pilings are eight-foot on
center, eight-inch diameter pilings, are approved seaward of the
Spartina, of the tidal wetlands, and that in the tidal wetlands-
and landward, the pilings be six inches diameter or minimum.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. DUCK/WATERFOWL BLINDS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item number VI, is-a request under item 1
IAN ZUHOSKI requests a Waterfowl/Duck Blind Permit to place a Waterfowl/Duck Blind
Board of Trustees 9 November 18, 2015
in Hashamomuck Pond using public access. Located: Hashamomuck Pond, Greenport.
This request is placing a blind in the location of a previous blind for which a permit
was held. I would move to approve this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time I'll take a motion to go off
the regular meeting to go into public hearings.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So moved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The first application under Amendments,
under a full amendment, GAYLE B. WALLACE requests a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#1866 from George A. Brown to Gayle B. Wallace,
as issued on August 31, 1984; and for an Amendment to Wetland
Permit#1866 for the existing dock consisting of an as-built
8'6"x11' platform; a 3'x25' walkway; a 3'x19'8" aluminum ramp;
and a 5'x30'float. Located: End of Right-of-Way on Briarwood
Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-136-1-1&5.
The LWRP coordinator has determined that this project is
inconsistent with the Town's local waterfront policies,
particularly in that the dock was built without benefit of a
Board of Trustee review and permits. Permit#1866 was issued for
a dock in 1984, however the application specifies a different
configuration. The plans are deficient to adequately assess the
dock structure. The existing dock line should be shown.
And the report of the CAC, the CAC did not make an .
inspection, however did note the square footage of the floating
dock exceeds the 120-square foot requirement as set forth in
Chapter 275 Wetlands of the Town Code.
The Trustees did perform a field inspection. The site has
also been subject of a visit by the bay constable as a result of
a complaint.
At this time is there anyone here who wishes to speak for
or against this application?
MR. WALLACE: Good evening, Mr. President, Members of the Board.
I am William Wallace, I am here on behalf of the applicant Gayle Wallace.
My business address is 229 Seventh Street, Garden City, New York.
This is the application, as you stated, for a transfer of
the permit that was issued to George A. Brown back in 1984.
George Brown was the father of the applicant Gayle Wallace.
This is at the foot or the easterly terminus of the private lane
which traverses from Harbor Lane to East Creek, sometimes known
I guess as Eugene's Creek or formally known as Eugene's Creek.
I have a pictorial history of what has been there. Since
Board of Trustees 10 November 18, 2015
1943 there has been a dock of some kind situated at that
location. Each one of the five lots on that private lane have a
- deeded right-of-way to the water. The easterly properties also
have a right-of-way to Harbor Lane. So it's the only access,
egress, from Harbor Lane, is through this right-of-way, as well
as the only access to the water, which is deeded in lots, all of
the lots, including three and four, which are lots owned by
Gayle Wallace, to the water.
So in order to access the water, back in 1984, there was an
informal, I guess, survey, in which by letter dated July 1, 1984,
I'm sure it's in the Board's file, it was asked of Mr. Brown would
greatly appreciate your help in this endeavor, please check your
records for a permit for the gray dock which appears to be at the
end of the right-of-way.
Mr. Brown evidently did respond. I don't have his response but I
do have that#1866 was issued to him under a grandfather
provision of the then law.
That dock, or essentially the same configuration, and
again, I heard that he had submitted something that said it was
a 16-foot floating dock with a 14-foot ramp. I don't think it
was measured. I think this was based on a visual survey.
personally have been involved with this family since 1970, and
have been down there. The dock essentially has not changed, as I
have depicted in this pictorial timeline, from 1943 to the
present time. What has changed, and what I think precipitated
the complaint, was the walkway from the bottom of the stairway
to the wetlands, which went from three feet to eleven feet wide.
And the purpose of that was we thought that we could put--
because the water does come up that high, and you can't get to
any dock, whether it was the#1866 dock or the present dock,
without crossing over that area. No material was removed from
that area, that was always a walkway, it's been a walkway since
1943, at minimum. And we would request that the application, the
transfer, the permit, to Gayle, it was done internally. Again,
we were ignorant of the law at the time. So Mr. Brown did sign an
assignment back in 2006 to his children, Gayle and Gary, and
assigned it internally; did not come here, we didn't file for
the transfer. So that's what we are doing here now, to transfer
that dock under that permit.
Significantly, nothing has changed down there since 1943.
And I have the photographs to show it, if I may hand it up or
ask the court reporter to mark it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to see them.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Possibly you can scan those or get
copies of those, to get copies of them in the record.
MR. WALLACE: Yes, they are family photos and have writing on the
back, so of course I would like them back.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: (Perusing). It appears, I'm looking at a photo,
obviously we are on the record, it appears in the photo here in
1990, that the only structure left of what had been there was a
couple of pilings going out into the creek.
Board of Trustees 11 November 18, 2015
MR. WALLACE: No, what happened, that photograph depicts --what
we used to do at one time is remove them. We have no pilings
there. The dock always was and still is affixed by two three-inch
galvanized pipes that affixes the floating dock. At a time when I was
much younger, and to avoid the ice issues we have in the winters, I
would sometimes pull them up on to the shore land. I don't do that
anymore, I leave them in. We got through the winter this year with
some damage but we were able to reset the pipes. We've never had
wood pilings there.
Back in the 40's they had some type of rudimentary, you could see,
pilings there.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mr. Wallace, the eight-and-a-half by eleven,
that is current?
MR. WALLACE: That is current and was submitted with the
application. That is a copy of what is already in the file, I believe.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, I believe if you would-be able to copy
these, scan them and submit additional copies to the file, that
would be appreciated. I'll return this to you, obviously it's family heirlooms.
Are you finished, Mr. Wallace?
MR. WALLACE: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to
this application?
MR. WALLACE: Sorry, I do have letters from two of the other
occupants, both of them could not be here tonight. One is,
concededly, my wife's mother, who is not here tonight, she will
be 97 on her next birthday, and the other is from the Curran
family who is on lot two.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If you could submit copies of those for the
record. Thank you.
Please identify yourself for the record.
MR. CUSUMANO: Matthew Cusumano, 435 Briarwood Lane, Cutchogue.
These are photographs that we have showing the increase in area
of walkways, ramps and none of which have permits.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you have extra copies or is this one
copy?
We might just distribute it and keep that for the file, unless you need
to make a copy for your file.
MR. CUSUMANO: No, you can take it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mr. Cusumano, are you also, there is a
letter attached here as well from Fred and Mary Ann Carcich.
Are you also entering that into the record or reading it?
MR. CUSUMANO: Yes, they'll be speaking in a moment.
MRS. CARCICH: We sent that in in August. I think they have it.
MS. HULSE: Mr. Cusumano, you can continue with your comments, please
MR. CUSUMANO: First and foremost, is that on the application to
transfer the 1866 permit, #1866, they have denoted here that
Gayle Wallace is the property owner. She is not the property
owner. I'm the owner of one side of the property, and my
neighbor Fred Carcich is the owner of the other side of the
property. The way I understand it, they have the right to the
Board of Trustees 12 November 18, 2015
water, and that's it. And we have no problem allowing them
rights to the water.
First I would like to thank the Trustees for this hearing.
To state the facts, in late August of 2015, our neighbors Bill
and Gayle Wallace proceeded to order, to work to build a new
platform or deck at the end of the right-of-way which leads to a
3'x25'walkway, then a 3'x19'8" aluminum ramp, and finally to a
5'x30' dock. This dock, which is in violation of the original
permit, is used by the Wallace family and by Michael Curran,
both having boats tied to the float. My neighbor Mrs. Carcich
who owns the other half of the right-of-way,join in objecting
to the construction. Not the least of which was the absence of a
permit. They proceeded to ignore our objections and aggressively
continued the construction. We informed them that we are the
legal property owners, and did not approve of this platform on
our property. That statement of truth was also disregarded as
the work on the deck was proceeded. In frustration Mr. Carcich
and I went to the Trustees' office to voice our concerns. I
believe the bay constable was dispatched to the site. I also
believe Mr. Wallace told the bay constable that construction was
remedial, due to the effects of Hurricane Sandy. Which was not
true, as the deck or platform had never existed prior to that
meeting. The Wallace's continued to construct the deck. We now
have a structure far in excess of permit#1866 issued in 1984, and
a deck which has never existed before. These structures
constitute a liability for Mr. and Mrs. Carcich as well as Mr.
and Mrs. Cusumano, the property owners. Additionally, we will be
liable for any agencies having jurisdiction over wetland and
subsequent violations. We the owners of the property would be
the recipients of any fines and assessments levied. To be clear,
we do not approve of this structure. The dock, ramp and walkway
were not built in conformity with permits previously issued. The
actions displayed by the Wallace's are in blatant violation of
the law and of the property owners' rights. Thank you.
Would you like a copy of the statement?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. We'll take a copy for the file.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. CARCICH: Frank Carcich. I'm the property owner of the other
side of the Cusumano's, 350 Briarwood Lane, Cutchogue.
Section 275-14 of the Town Code states that a valid Trustee
permit may be transferred to another upon determination by the
Trustees that the structure in its current state conforms to the
terms and conditions of the permit as originally issued. Permit
#1866 was for a 16x14 float and a 14-foot ramp. That is all.
Accordingly, the structure must revert, we feel that the
structure must revert to its original state before a transfer
can be considered.
Secondly, Section 275-11(8) of the Town Code states any
application for a dock to be constructed at the end of a
right-of-way or commonly-held land requires written consent--
written consent--of all parties having an interest in the
Board of Trustees 13 November 18, 2015
right-of-way, regardless of the property divisions upland. And I
think that I have, my neighbor has mentioned all the other
things I was going to mention, so I don't want to repeat what he
had said. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes
to speak to this application?
MRS. CARCICH: Good evening, my name is Mary Ann Carcich. I'm
Fred's wife. So we are on the southeast property on the right-of-way.
By constructing a deck on the right-of-way, despite our
objections and without a proper permit, the Wallace's and also
the Curran's who share the dock with a boat, have opened the
door to much needed scrutiny of their existing dock by the Board
of Trustees. We welcome a lawful resolution to the Wallace's
application before the Board. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Any additional comments,
and I think we can wrap it up.
MR. WALLACE: One more comment. I'll hand up the letters by the
other two on the right-of-way.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The clerk will stamp them in. We have
additional material that was submitted. Thank you.
Given the fact that there is a goodly amount of additional
material submitted tonight, and I did mention earlier we would
like to have the opportunity to review these materials and give
them consideration, I think it's appropriate, I would move that
the Board would either table this or reserve decision until
we'll have a chance to review this a little more.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to have the opportunity to ask some
questions first.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Please.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could have a copy of the survey again,
please. Thank you. I'm sorry, your name, sir?
MR. WALLACE: William Wallace.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mr. Wallace, I'm looking at a survey provided
here that shows the property line going down the middle of this
20-foot right-of-way?
MR. WALLACE: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It shows that the property on this survey does
in fact belong to one of the sets of neighbors that just talked to us.
MR. WALLACE: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I never like to assume anything, but I'm
assuming if I saw the survey for the Carcich house, it would
probably show the same thing.
MR. CARCICH: It does
MR. WALLACE: I'll give that to you, yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we have a situation here where the property
is owned by other individuals.
MR. WALLACE: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And there is probably easement rights, I
imagine, in deeds, to the use of this right-of-way.
MR. WALLACE: My understanding is -- I know what our deeds say.
That's lot three and four. Each one would have an easement from
Board of Trustees 14 November 18, 2015
the creek to Harbor Lane.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was there any reason why the Wallace's did not •
obtain permission from the property owners to do any work on
this dock on their property?
MR. WALLACE: I didn't know permission was required. As I said,
the dock was there since 1943. It's been used since. I have
been using it since 1970, personally. I never had an issue with
either one of these neighbors regarding the use of the dock. In
fact Mr. Carcich has helped me put in the aluminum ramp a number
of years ago. I never stated the repairs were due Sandy, they
were actually due to this past winter.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, you've answered my question.
MR. WALLACE: No, I didn't ask them.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And just for clarification, because I know it's
been brought up, the transferring process, what this Board
normally does when there is a transfer requested, we go down and
we look at the property and see if the structure that is there
matches what the structure that was approved. And if so,
usually there is not an issue with the transfer. When the
structure is very different, as in this case it is, what we
would ask the applicant to do would be, as part of the transfer
process, to ask for an amendment. That's what they are in fact
doing, is asking for an amendment to what was originally there.
I'm not, please I'm not saying yes to it or no to this. I'm-just
saying that's the usual process that is required, and that's
what they have done. But I think what Jay is suggesting to table
this to get a little more information is appropriate. But for
myself, you know, the challenges are the fact that you don't
have permission from the property owner for this, number one.
Number two, that the structure that is there today far exceeds
the structure that was originally approved and doesn't comply
with current code.
So my suggestion is while this is being tabled, there is an
opportunity for maybe people to get together here to see if
something could be worked out to come back to us at a future
meeting with appropriate approvals and with plans that would
somehow meet the current code. That would give the Trustees a
better opportunity to act on something here. But right now, it's
extremely challenging given what I have just talked about
tonight. Okay?
MR. WALLACE: Understood.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm reluctant at this point, there is a
number of defects in the actual construction. The platform which
is on the property, appears to be on the property of the
neighbors also, is not in conformity with the current standard,
and it's actually on intertidal wetlands, in addition to being
on the neighbor's property. It's in areas where we would
ordinarily allow a four-foot wide catwalk that would be elevated
and would also typically be constructed of material called
through-flow or material that allows light to penetrate the
wetland. Were the adjacent upland owners who own the property
Board of Trustees 15 November 18, 2015
where that platform is to grant permission, it would have to
meet the construction code for through-flow, be no wider than
four feet, and the elevation over the marsh, which is appropriate
for protecting that marsh, would have to be determined during
the course of an application. And also for the record, the bay
constable only gave a provisional approval to close that up
because he felt there was a safety hazard when he responded to the
complaint. So his determination does not provide any approval
for the construction there, and actually that particular platform
doesn't exist with any approval of the Board. It is actually
doing damage at this time. It might be in an object of good
faith, which I think that could probably be easily moved by a
couple of hefty young people, that that be moved to an
appropriate upland site away from the wetlands at this time
while you might engage discussion with your neighbors.
MR. WALLACE: Understood. And upon being notified by the bay
Constable, we did immediately stop work and closed up just that
section that, as a tripping hazard, and we put reflectors --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We also noted that your contractor
apparently didn't proceed in a very workman-like manner, because
there was loose lumber floating in the intertidal zone when we
were out on field inspection on Tuesday. That should be cleaned
up as well.
MR. WALLACE: We'll clean that up. We didn't want to touch
anything after the order to stop, except to close it and put it
back to be safe.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Also,just for the record, that Trustee
Domino has pointed out to me, that there are actually two floats
out in the creek, not one 5x30 but there is a 5x10 and a 5x16.
The current standard is for one 120-square foot float that the
dimensions can vary somewhat, within keeping within the
120-square feet.
Again, this is not really a design session but to really
just point out to you some of the defects you have to deal with
and we recommend you to look at Chapter 275 of the town code as
you might go ahead and talk with your neighbors.
MR. CARCICH: We certainly were aware of the dock and had no
problem with them using the dock, understanding that it was
grandfathered in. The platform was what precipitated our
complaints. The platform is clearly in excess of what was ever
there before and it was clearly on our land, and we were told by
the applicant that this is not our land, this is a right-of-way.
And our position on that is that clearly this is both our land
and a right-of-way. The two are not mutually exclusive.
And so again, that platform is on our property and we feel
very strongly that it must be removed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. I would like to wrap this up now.
If there is any last comments, let's make it quick, if we will.
MRS. CARCICH: If I could. Just to clarify, that dock has changed
a lot since 1984. I mean we have been there since 1983 and,
wanting to be good neighbors, we have always been amenable to .
Board of Trustees 16 November 18, 2015
the work that was done by Bill Wallace and Michael Curran. And
all the work was done by them. Perhaps, to avoid more scrutiny,
I don't know, but to say that this is essentially the same dock
that was there in 1984, is not correct. And I can pull out
photographs from my-family albums in support of that if need be.
Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, thank you, very much. At this
juncture, having basically heard a large amount of information
here and having reviewed this, maybe a tabling simply puts off
the inevitable.
The application is inconsistent with the Town's
requirements under the LWRP, and does-not have a permit, doesn't
have construction that comports with the current standard or
with the original permit issued by the Trustees, and includes
additional construction that was not permitted that is actually
• damaging wetlands.
Accordingly I would move to close this hearing at this time
for consideration of the facts that have been presented here.
So I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to deny this
application without prejudice to cure the defects which I just
previously noted during the hearing and which were noted by
speakers here through questioning of the Board, but specifically
it does not comply with the statutory requirements of Chapter
275, the structure is not in compliance with the original permit
issued by the Trustees, the structures has undergone a number of
iterations and changes which are in excess of the allowed code
requirement of a 6x20 or 120-square foot float, and that the
platform,of 8'6"x11'was placed on intertidal wetlands,
immediately on intertidal wetlands, and is now damaging the
wetlands. That is my motion to deny.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. WALLACE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm going to pass out the next file, kindly,
to former President of the Board Jim King. This requires some
institutional knowledge, which Jim has, on this particular
matter.
And as a side note, we are going to greatly miss Dave
Bergen and Jim King as Trustees as we go forward because
institutional knowledge does count for something here where some
of us have been here quite a while and we rely on the knowledge
that they have gained in their past experience on jobs.
WETLAND &COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: Okay, under wetland coastal erosion permit, number one,
Board of Trustees 17 November 18, 2015
Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of MICHAEL NIAMONITAKIS requests a Wetland Permit and
a Coastal Erosion Permit for the as-built 4'x70'fixed timber pier; and to add a 10'x12'
pier extension onto the seaward end. Located: 13220 Main Road, East Marion.
SCTM# 1000-31-14-12.
This application was found inconsistent by the LWRP coordinator. The dock and
proposed extension is located within the coastal erosion hazard area, and the threat of
competitive loss from storm/ice is high. The proposed fixed portion of dock equals
280-square and the extension would equal 120-square feet, for a total of four-hundred
square feet. So therefore it does not meet proper specifications.
The CAC resolved to support the application to construct a 10x12 timber pier
extension, however there is a concern with fertilized lawn and ten-foot non-turf buffer
should be installed along the landward side of the bulkhead. There are no docks in the
area and the existing dock could be impacted by a northeast storm. The docking facility
should not restrict the public right-of-way. Those are the CAC comments.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. And
as we discussed during a previous application, you guys want
revised plans showing water depths at the end of the proposed
10x12 platform, which I added to the proposed plans which I just
handed up. I discussed the project with my client. He has no
objection to providing a ten-foot non-turf buffer along the
bulkhead line, and I also added on a note stating that the
existing water and electric services are to remain on the existing dock.
TRUSTEE KING: So it looks like you have just over three feet of
water at the end of the existing dock.
MR. PATANJO: Correct.
TRUSTEE KING: There is a little history here. This concerns the
ten-foot non-turf buffer that was supposed to be installed a
long time ago and was never done. I know there was an old permit
for the existing dock.
MR. PATANJO: Correct.
TRUSTEE KING: My concern is the extension size of the platform.
That's one of my major concerns. I'm not a big fan of docks on
the bay, but this had a pre-existing permit, so it's a permitted
structure.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This dock, the dock, Orient Harbor, I used
to live on it. I have been here all my life. But the fetch is
considerable, and I question, similar to Trustee King, I
question the serviceability of the utility of the platform at
the end. You know, a two-pile dolphin or single dolphin with a
pulley line or similar, would be more serviceable. It's not a
site that is suitable for a float in any case, it will just rack and be
destroyed to pieces. And there is prevailing winds
from just about every quadrant other than north here. So it's a
questionable utility then to have a platform extension as it's -
configured, and it would be better if the applicant consider a
series of pulley line or offshore pile. I just don't see it.
Others that have put similar docks of this configure in the open
portion of Orient Harbor usually end up going back to a single
catwalk configuration with tie-off piles.
The application is also problematic in that the dock
Board of Trustees 18 November 18, 2015
reappeared after largely disappearing after Tropical Storm
Sandy. '
Accordingly, it requires a coastal erosion management
permit, but the size of the dock reappearing as basically new
construction, compels an automatic denial from this Board
because it exceeds the 200-square foot maximum size for the
Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. So that any determination of the
Board is automatic with respect to Coastal Erosion Hazard Area
regardless of what the Board may determine with respect to the '
Town wetland ordinance.
MR. PATANJO: Even though it was permitted previously.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Unless it had a coastal erosion permit, the
fact that the dock disappeared, it's considered new construction.
MR. PATANJO: I don't know the whole situation. I came into it
after it was in the current status that it is right now. So I
don't know what was there prior to doing some repairs. We all
know there was new wood added.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was totally re-built. Because I drive by
it a jillion times. It was, essentially, it was non-functional.
It was just a number of pilings
MR. PATANJO: Okay.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? I think we are all in the same page.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I mean I don't want to reiterate what has
already been stated, but I feel the same'as Trustee Bredemeyer
has just said. This was a dock that was destroyed and they
rebuilt it without permits. It doesn't comply with Coastal .
Erosion, and I also know there is a history of a non-turf buffer
that was associated with another permit that is not there. But
in regard to this application, I agree with what Trustee
Bredemeyer said.
MR. PATANJO: I did discuss the project with the client. He said
non-turf buffer is not an issue. He'll install that without a
problem. Let's say we took away the 10x12 platform. Would that
change anything with regard to an approval of what has been replaced?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We can't to a conceptual review. It would be
something to consider in an application. You actually heard
several of us speak specifically to that issue. But we can
consider that in a subsequent amendment that might include piles
with additional tie-off capabilities. We can certainly consider it.
The other point also is that irrigation had been extended
into and up to the bulkhead where we would want to see the
irrigation be withdrawn out of the non-turf area as well. So
that if it was a non-turf area it would be, let's say, reverted
to pebble material, or American beach grass will grow handsomely
in that location. It gets a lot of salt spray.
TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else on this?
(No response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 19 November 18, 2015
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the existing 70-foot
pier only, and deny the proposed platform at the seaward end.
And also to stipulate there will be a ten-foot non-turf buffer
installed on the landward side of the bulkhead. And the
irrigation within that area be removed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's under wetland permit.
TRUSTEE KING: That's under wetland permit. With new plans
showing that.
And under Coastal Erosion, it is a denial because of the size.
MR. PATANJO: Town Clerk?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The motion has been made.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under Wetland Permits, number one, John Berg on behalf of
EMMA van ROOYEN requests a Wetland Permit to install a 30'x14' swimming pool with
an additional 6'x12' wide entry stair; install a 639sq.ft. wood deck with steps and
planters; install an irregularly shaped 1,269sq.ft. blue stone paved patio; install a
4'4"x8'0" outdoor shower on stone deck area; and construct a 21'0"x8'3"wood pergola
on stone deck area. Located: 575 Hill Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-29
The Board did go out and looked at this during the field inspections.
It was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent with the
recommendation of a vegetated 20-foot buffer included.
And that the CAC resolved not to support the application. The CAC does not
support the application because the site plan is insufficient and lacks important
information. The CAC requests the requirement of a survey no more than a-year old
depicting the location of the proposed swimming pool and setback from the wetlands.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. BERG: Yes. John Berg on behalf of the applicant. I have a
survey in my hand that is dated June 13th, 2014.
Are you suggesting that survey is too old?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. (Perusing).
No. I just wanted to make sure what I have here in the
file is the same. So, understand, those are the comments from
the CAC. The Conservation Advisory Council.
MR. BERG: Okay, I think what I can say in support of the
application is that the proposed pool is landward of the Zone X
flood line, it's an elevation 12. The bottom of the pool is
about four to five feet above Jockey Creek. We have a proposed
drywell for pool backwash, and there is good drainage on both
sides of the proposed stone patio. There is a wood deck on one
side and lawn on the other. And the site plan includes
provisions for the proposed project-limiting fence, hay bales to
keep any runoff from going into Jockey Creek. I think that's it.
I didn't understand the comments about the 20-foot
vegetation buffer.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Normally what we look for is a non-turf buffer
landward of the wetlands, of some type. What I was just scaling
Board of Trustees 20 November 18, 2015
off is where you have edge of lawn right now is almost at 20
feet, understanding that the property line kind of moves around
a little bit. Would the applicant consider using what is on the
plan as Zone X line and anything seaward of that be left as a
non-turf buffer, meaning you can maintain all the natural
vegetation that is in there, it just would not be any sod grass
in there, it would not be fertilized, it would be no chemicals
put down in that area.
MR. BERG: I think so. Yes, absolutely. Seaward of Zone X.
Absolutely.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else here who would like to
comment on this application?
(Negative response).
Any comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
We did go out and we did take measurements,just so the CAC
knows, and measurements did comply with the measurements from
the wetlands to the proposed pool. As is on the plan. '
MR. YOUNG: Peter Young, from the CAC. One of the problems here
is we are not seeing that survey, and we do not see the drainage
plan for the pool. So that is what we predicated our comments
on. Because our package does not include the survey and the
drainage plan.
MR. BERG: I sent nine copies --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, that's okay. That's nothing that is the
applicant's fault.
MR. YOUNG: It's systemic.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Gentleman, if you could keep your comments to
the Board.
If there are no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this public
hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application
with a stipulation that a non-turf buffer will be maintained
seaward of the line indicating Zone X on the survey dated June
13th, 2014. And in doing so would deem it consistent under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number two, JMO Environmental Consulting on
behalf of HARRINGTON FAMILY LTD. PARTNERSHIP, do ELLEN CAMPBELL
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling
with a 1,350sq.ft. footprint; a 430sq.ft. seaward deck attached
to dwelling; a 170sq.ft. entry porch; install a sanitary system;
install a driveway with a 2,250sq.ft. gravel parking area with
three drywells for drainage; and install gutters to leaders to
drywells to contain roof runoff. Located: Clay Point Road,
Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-2-1-12.1
Board of Trustees 21 November 18, 2015
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency states that in the event the action is approved,
relocate the residence to maximize the distance from the
waterbody from the proposed structure.
This application was before us in October and it was tabled so that
there might be a revision to maximize that. We have a letter here
from JMO Consulting which indicates that the proposed single-family
dwelling has been setback so it's 51 feet from the top of the
bank, which is the maximum it can be done. And with a 20-foot
wide, non-disturbance, no fertilizer zone proposed, shown on the
plans that were received November 5th, 2015.
The CAC did not make a recommendation on this because there
was no inspection done.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. JUST: Good evening, Glenn Just, JMO Consulting, if there are -
any questions about from the Board. I think what you just read
over was in response to some of the questions the Trustees had
at the last meeting. We changed the configuration of the house,
set it back, about as far as we possibly could, and included
that buffer that was requested at the last meeting as well.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We appreciate that effort. Any other questions
or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
All right, hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as presently submitted noting that it will bring it into
compliance with the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, numberthree, J.M.O. .
Environmental Consulting on behalf of CHARLES W. RIESTERER
requests a Wetland Permit to replace the piles on the existing
4'x96'fixed dock; construct a 4'x4' platform; install a 3'x14'
ramp; install a 6'x20'floating dock; and install three (3)
tie-off piles. Located: 1945 Calves Neck Road, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-70-4-47
The LWRP coordinator has determined this project is both
exempt and consistent under the LWRP.
The CAC has voted to support this project.
The Trustees performed a field inspection last Tuesday with
a subsequent re-inspection by myself to confirm staking. The
project conforms with our standards and is pretty straightforward.
Is there anybody here that has any questions? Anyone wish
to speak on behalf of this application?
MR.JUST: Again, Glenn Just, JMO Consulting, if there are any
questions from the Board.
Board of Trustees 22 November 18, 2015
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can I see a copy of the survey? (Perusing).
I was just looking to see if it was 15 feet off the property line. And it is.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I checked that while I was in the field.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments, questions,
concerns?
(Negative response).
If not, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this
application as submitted.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much, have a good evening guys, and
ladies.
TRUSTEE KING: Number four, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of THOMAS
MACARI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 106 linear foot
vinyl retaining wall with a 12' return; and install a 10'wide
non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the retaining wall.
Located: 1320 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue.
SCTM# 1000-111-14-19
This was found consistent with the LWRP.
The CAC resolved to support the application, with no other
comments.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. If you
have any questions, I'm here.
TRUSTEE KING: I think one of the questions we had is why the
retaining wall was not planned further landward, and did you
ever consider perhaps a low sill bulkhead in that area instead
of a retaining wall.
MR. PATANJO: I did the one right next door, I think it's 1600
Little Peconic Bay Road. So the whole plan was to continue the
hard structure up in that area,just to prevent future erosion.
There is no real major signs of erosion over there. We wanted to
create a continuous bulkhead line.
TRUSTEE KING: That's one of the issues.
MR. PATANJO: It is above the high water line and it's also
beyond the wetland line.
TRUSTEE KING: Retaining walls have permitted, you know,
excessive erosion or severe erosion, and we didn't see it there.
MR. PATANJO: One of the things it would do is prevent erosion
running from the property. As you know the property is graded
directly toward the water. So one of the things that it could
do, and you see there is a silt fence and I think there were
maybe some hay bales there as well during construction, one of
Board of Trustees 23 November 18, 2015
the things a bulkhead would do is stop any erosion from entering
the waterway. If we have the bulkhead at the proper elevation,
matching the bulkhead elevation to the east, we can shape the '
land so that no water flows off of or even through a ten-foot
non-turf buffer. Anything that runs off that property could
eventually, if you did have a low sill bulkhead, run over
through a non-turf buffer and right into the waterway.
TRUSTEE KING: I myself am uncomfortable with the design.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm a little uncomfortable with it, too.
TRUSTEE KING: I have feeling it might turn into a bulkhead if
there is erosion on the seaward side of it. You would end up
with a bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: In addition, the bulkhead appears to us, or at
least to me, a bulkhead will endanger one or two remaining trees
on that property. Whereas a low sill bulkhead would probably
allow them to survive. Cedar trees.
MR. PATANJO: Any of those remaining trees, the roots are
slightly exposed already due to erosion, and I do feel that will
continue to happen if it's unprotected. And they are not really
nice trees anyway.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm sorry, but I think we saw about a
50-year old cedar tree there. You are not going to convince
anybody up here of that. That's was a gorgeous cedar tree.
Is it possible we could table this application for
review--the low sill concept, we realize there are some slopes
there, but I think we are all concerned that this is just going
to slough and become a bulkhead. The low sill option, we think
with buffering, would provide a good habitat. It would also,
because the neighboring properties run a little bit more
seaward, it would allow for dredging or, you know, deepening in
front of the low sill bulkhead. I think there has been a history
of dredge operations in that pond. I'm not sure, Dave could
speak to that, that would allow for ramp and float and boat
close in. I know there is a lot of possibilities. And at least
I think Trustee Domino, when we were out there in the field, I
don't recall seeing roots exposed. I might stand corrected, but
the low sill bulkhead, which would be with its feet in the
water, it would appear that the return on the low sill bulkhead
being slightly seaward is not going to destroy the trees which
are also not in the line of sight. It's not like the trees are
hurting the view on the property. It seems like there is a lot
of attributes, a lot of things going for a low sill bulkhead in
this case, that would allow for a decent-sized vessel, protection
of wetlands, handling the runoff on some of the slopes. That's
why I think the whole Board, during the field inspection, we all
kind of said, gee, this looks like a good opportunity for a low sill.
MR. PATANJO: Where are you suggesting putting a low sill
bulkhead, in between the mean high tide and mean low tide?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Essentially, yes.
MR. PATANJO: So you want to move the bulkhead pretty much say
ten feet into the water?
Board of Trustees 24 November 18, 2015
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think it would require that much. It
didn't appear to be. Jim has a scale.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: While Jim is scaling it,just to answer the
question of history of dredging. Yes, there was a commercial
dock building business down at the end of that finger of that
creek. So, yes, there is a history of dredging to support that
commercial dock building operation back in the day. I won't say
how many days. Just back in the day.
MR. PATANJO: What about the idea --
TRUSTEE KING: I want to say ten or 12 feet seaward of where the
proposed retaining wall is.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And there, it still places it landward of
the neighbor.
TRUSTEE KING: Was there any consideration of possibly a row of
large stone rather than a retaining wall there?
MR. PATANJO: We can consider that.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we need to go back to the drawing board on
this one.
MR. PATANJO: We postponed last month so you could see stakes on
it. I wish I would have known this was even a possibility. I
would have discussed with the client. Now we have another month.
But that's all right. What about the idea of low sill ten feet
seaward, then doing a retaining wall at the top of the bluff
like you were talking about. One of these goals right now would
be to level off this property a little better than it is.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That might even be better.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes. That would be a good -- like I say, go back
to the drawing board.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We can't design from up here. But that
sounds tempting.
MR. PATANJO: If that's tempting, I can't say it, can we table
and I would have to give you revised plans for that, because you
can't approve anything like that until you have revised plans.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have to do another field inspection.
MR. PATANJO: And I have to stake it again, and not forget like
last time.
TRUSTEE KING: We can meet you in the field out there, during
field inspection. So we are all on the same page.
Why don't we do that. All right, I'll make a
motion to table the application and we'll meet with the
consultant in the field on next field inspection.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next field inspection is scheduled for
Wednesday, December 9th. It comes up fast.
Number five, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. On behalf of TOM & PAULETTE
GIESE request a Wetland Permit to install a 16'x32' in-ground
swimming pool; install a pool equipment area and a drywell for
the pool; install an 850 sq.ft. blue stone patio around pool
Board of Trustees 25 November 18, 2015
located a minimum of 4' away from property line; install 4.5'
high pool enclosure fencing around patio; for the existing
50.3'x34.3' two-story dwelling with existing 14.2'x14.2'
attached deck on side of dwelling; and install a line of staked
hay bales and/or silt fencing prior to and during construction.
Located: 2195 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-13-4
The Board did go out and looked at this.
The LWRP found it consistent, recommending a non-turf
buffer be increased to ten-foot wide and vegetated with
salt-tolerant native vegetation.
The CAC also went out and looked at it. They support the
application with a ten-foot non-turf buffer installation of a
drywell to contain pool backwash, and gutters, leaders and
drywells to contain runoff from the structures.
Just to clarify, when we went out in the field, we did have
a set of plans here and it does include a pool drywell.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. And Mrs. Giese.
We did go to the Zoning Board for the location of this pool.
And yes, we were out in the field and I think we verified that
the setbacks as were shown on the survey. And everything else
is described. So I'll answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We did have a question out there where the
proposed pool is, there are several trees right in that area,
either in the area of the pool or the patio, and it seemed like
there was an opportunity here if the pool was moved, I'll call
it toward the north, you would still have the setback as
determined by Zoning Board, yet the trees would, you know, be
retained. Is there any thought to that possibility? •
MS. MOORE: I don't think it's possible. I mean, the location
further northeast, the zoning -- because the house is on an
angle, I don't think it allows us the flexibility to move the
pool in that direction, even though that would be the logical,
clear, unobstructed sunny area. The reason the spool placed
where it was is to maximize the distance to the bulkhead. So I
don't think that is possible. I mean we could, the pool is not
being built right now, so, with the winter coming on. So if you
want me to postpone tonight and have me talk to the client. No
matter what, if we were to move it, I don't want to have to go
back to the Zoning Board with a whole new application. The
Zoning Board would have to consider a diminimus modification,
but it's too tight to call. I don't think we can because, you
know, as I see it, if we move it in the direction you are
suggesting, we are going to get closer to the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's so close as it is.
TRUSTEE KING: Even if they turned it like this, it's still
pretty close.
MS. MOORE: We started in that area and I think we were like 30,
32 feet from the bulkhead, and we felt that was a little too close.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there any discussion from the Board you would
like on the record?
Board of Trustees 26 November 18, 2015
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, my suggestion would be you'll lose these big
trees here with the pool in its proposed location. Could we
plant three or four trees in that clear area to the northeast to
kind of mitigate the loss of the other trees? It's an open area
with nothing there.
MS. MOORE: I would not want to block the view of our neighbor. I
think that would be very un-neighborly. What we could do, why
don't we look at adding some-- I'm sure they'll have
landscaping. That I'm sure of. I would have to look and see if ,
we could plant some trees on the north end of the property.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You mean between the pool, the proposed pool
and the --
MS. MOORE: Sorry, maybe I'm misunderstanding.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: On the north side. Yes.
MS. MOORE: On the north side is the top of the survey.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct.
MS. MOORE: You were suggesting adding some trees over there. I
don't know where the neighbor's house is. I would not want to --
TRUSTEE KING: You can see it right there.
MS. MOORE: There it is. Thank you. Sorry, I don't have my
glasses.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Here is the neighbor's house, their line of
view. We are talking this area here (indicating).
MS. MOORE: This is a 1994 print, so I don't know.
THE SECRETARY: This is current. It comes up automatically with
the latest view.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you want us to table this and have a chance
to talk to your client about that.
MS. MOORE: Yes, I don't know how that impacts their deck and,
you know, how they have used this property. So let me talk to
them. Maybe there is some other alternative.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. And I did note in on the survey, you do
show a ten-foot non-turf buffer'there on the survey, which was
recommended by the LWRP coordinator as well as talked about by
the Trustees out in the field.
MS. MOORE: Correct. Yes. Which has increased, the five feet
was the ZBA condition, but in the field we looked at the
topography and ten feet was fine, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anybody else in the audience want to make any
comments on this application?
(Negative response).
MS. MOORE: So do you want to table it?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. I'll make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number six, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of GARDINERS BAY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a 67' long low-sill bulkhead with a
northerly 20' long return, and a 16' long southerly return using
Board of Trustees 27 November 18, 2015
vinyl sheathing with a ±2"x18"top cap; top elevation of
low-sill bulkhead not to exceed 2.0'; approximately 40 cubic
yards of dredge spoil obtained from an approved maintenance
dredging area to be used to re-nourish the area landward of the
proposed low-sill bulkhead,"and a second alternative dredge
spoil site to the northeast of proposed low-sill bulkhead which
will be planted with Spartina patens (±1,000 sq.ft. area,
planted 1' o/c), and Groundsel bush (±300 sq.ft. area planted 5'
o/c in 2 gal. pots); and re-vegetate an area adjacent to the
northerly return with Groundsel bush (planted 5' o/c in 2 gallon
pots in a ±50 sq.ft. Area). Located: 2600 Old Orchard Road,
East Marion. SCTM# 1000-37-5-23.2
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent with the
LWRP plan.
The CAC voted unanimously to support this application.
The Trustees did a field inspection on November 10th and
noted that this is a straightforward application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
for the applicant Gardiners Bay H.O.A.
I gather you were there on high tide,judging from the
photo there. I just want to point out, I don't need to say a
lot, but on the other side of the bridge, you may be aware that
was all low sill bulkhead was constructed underneath that
bridge. That sort of gangway where people dock at, you'll see it
on the plans where it says "dock,"that landward edge underneath
it is a low sill bulkhead that goes all the way back there. And
directly adjacent to that is some of the thickest, most densest
stand of Spartina Alterna Flora that you'll see in that whole
creek system.
TRUSTEE KING: They work.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, it works. And the reason why I want to do
this, they feel, and I think they are right about this, is that
it maintains the channel and it keeps them from having to
constantly re-dredging. That is what prompted this application.
That is all I really wanted to say. And of course I'll answer
any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE KING: Just to comment, I think one of the first ones we
did is, I think James Creek.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: James Creek, yes. Adjacent to the marina.
TRUSTEE KING: And it was unbelievably successful.
MR. ANDERSON: Because we are getting some pushback from the Army
Corps on it.
TRUSTEE KING: Really. I'm a big fan of them, because it gives
you a wetland area landward of it and it gives you deep water on
the seaward side for boats. To me it's a win/win situation.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 28 November 18, 2015
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
noting that it has been deemed consistent by the LWRP
coordinator.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to adjourn for the purpose of going
into a public work session.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
A'de•-• 411ek ,
John M. Bredemeyer III, 'resident
Board of Trustees