HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-02/17/2016 ,q soo
John M.Bredemeyer III,President �� As- ika '\ Town Hall Annex
Michael J.Domino,Vice-President ® 54375 Route 25
P.O.Box 1179
Glenn Goldsmith ;� •co
; Southold,New York 11971
A.Nicholas Kru ski .
p a® � Telephone(631) 765-1892
Charles J.Sanders iirc®19NTI,* Oa.
Fax(631) 765-6641
_',
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RECEIVED
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MAR 282016
Minutes ^ 1,a iled
Wednesday, February 17, 2016 uthold Town Clerk�y
5:30 PM
Present Were: John Bredemeyer, President
Michael Domino, Vice-President
Charles Sanders, Trustee
Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist
William M. Duffy, Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 5:30 PM
WORK SESSIONS: Monday, March 21, 2016 at 4:30 PM at Downs Farm, and on
Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall:
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of January 20th, 2016
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good evening and welcome to the February
monthly meeting of the Southold Board of Trustees. I just want
to introduce you to our Board members and Town attorney. To my
far left is Nick Krupksi; to his right is Glenn Goldsmith; to my
left is Charles Sanders; I'm John Bredemeyer, I chair the Board;
and this is Vice-President Mike Domino. The Town Attorney is
Bill Duffy, and to our far right is our very able clerk Elizabeth Cantrell.
There are announcements or agendas, if you will, located on
the lecterns. And at this time I will announce some matters
that have been postponed from this agenda. Typically, if there
is an item that we require more information on and/or something
has happened that an applicant can't make the meeting, health or -
otherwise, or travel, we'll postpone it to the next meeting.
So I'll announce those, per chance you are here to speak to
Board of Trustees 2 February 17, 2016
a matter but it had to have been postponed, then you'll know.
On the bottom of page four, number two, CARRIE TINTLE
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#1680 from Robert
Bleimiller to Carrie Tintle, as issued on September 27, 1983;
and for an Amendment to Wetland Permit#1680 to repair and level
the existing 4'x20' fixed catwalk; extend the fixed catwalk
seaward an additional 32'for a total of a 4'x52' long fixed
catwalk; existing 3'x16' ramp to remain; and relocate two (2)
existing 4'x16' floats by butting them together and installing
them in an "I"shape. Located: 1235 Luptons Point Road,
Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-11-8, has been postponed.
In the middle of page five, Thomas Wolpert, P.E. on behalf
of RIVKA SCHOENFELD requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to relocate an existing 660sq.ft. one-story
framed cottage approximately 37' landward of its present
location; construct onto cottage a new two-story 1,320sq.ft.
framed addition; two-story 624sq.ft. attached framed garage;
624sq.ft. studio addition; one new 800sq.ft. seaward deck and
one new 900sq.ft. landward deck attached to dwelling; the
installation of a 30"wide by 46' long path from seaward deck to
top of bluff; construct 3'x65' timber bluff stairs to beach with
an associated 3'x7.5'top landing, a 3'x3' upper middle landing,
a 3'x3' lower middle landing, and a 3'x8' lower landing;
approximately 30 cubic yards of fill to be added to regrade the
original footprint of the existing cottage and to regrade the
lip at the crest of the bluff to prevent storm water runoff and
bluff erosion. Located: 4790 Blue Horizon Bluffs, Peconic.
SCTM# 1000-74-1-35.56, has been postponed.
On page seven, items nine, ten and eleven have been
postponed. They are listed as follows:
Number nine, DKR Shores, Inc., on behalf of SAMUEL SINGER
requests a Wetland Permit to install a pervious gravel driveway;
construct a ±43.7'x83' two-story dwelling with attached 1,175
sq.ft. Seaward stone patio; install sanitary system landward of
dwelling; install a 22'x62' in-ground swimming pool with
surrounding 1,836 sq.ft. stone patio; install pool enclosure
fencing; construct a 4'x197'fixed elevated catwalk using
thru-flow decking; a 3.5'x20' ramp; and a 6'x20'floating dock
installed in an "L"shape secured by two (2) piles. Located:
44030 Route 25, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-75-6-6.1
Number ten, North Fork Pool Care on behalf of KATHY& RICH
O'TOOLE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 20'x40'
in-ground gunite swimming pool; a ±1,584sq.ft. pool patio; pool
enclosure fencing; pool equipment area; and install a drywell to
contain pool backwash. Located: 700 Great Peconic Bay
Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-145-2-6
And number eleven, Creative Environmental Design on behalf
of LAZARUS ALEXANDROU requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
16'x32' gunite swimming pool with cartridge system and a pool
drywell; install a 575sq.ft. permeable pool patio; install an
18" high by 65' long retaining wall against the seaward side of
Board of Trustees 3 February 17, 2016
patio located 29'11"from top of bluff; and install pool
enclosure fencing. Located: 2700 Sound Drive, Greenport.
SCTM# 1000-33-1-11.
Those are the postponements.
The Board is trying to institute some new policies so we
provide more openness and opportunity for members of the public
to comment on our files. So we are adhering strictly to a policy
where we close the files to seven days before the meeting. And
we limit materials coming over the dais to notices that are
proof of mailings that are required for the public hearings so
that we are aware that a public hearing can go forward at the
time that it's announced. So we are trying to adhere strictly to
those policies so we'll allow more opportunities for proper
dialogue with residents concerning applications before the Board.
We, in order to try to have an orderly meeting and have it
move a little faster, there are a number of items that are
administrative in nature for which there is not a public
hearing, and in all cases these matters have been reviewed by
the entire Board after a field inspection. And to facilitate
moving these applications, we will often group them where there
is no stipulations or no need to change the application as it is
submitted. And those are items that appear in the resolution
under Administrative Permits and Applications for Extensions and
Transfers. So when we get to that section of the meeting we may
move some of those as a group.
At this time I'll take a motion to schedule the next field
inspection. Anybody want to move that?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll move that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Actually, would you just read that for the -
record. ,
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The next field inspection will be for
Wednesday, March 16th, 2016, at 8:00 AM.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And we meet in the Trustee office in the
annex for anyone who would like to participate in the
worksession that precedes the field inspections.
Is there a second to that motion?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Does someone want to move the next Trustee
meeting?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll do it. Next Trustee meeting will be
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2016, at 5:30 PM.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And that is here in the main meeting room.
And go ahead with --
TRUSTEE SANDERS: And the worksession will be Wednesday, March
21st, 2016, at 4:30 PM, at Downs Farm. And on Wednesday, March
23rd, 2016, at 5:00 PM, at the main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made and second. All in
favor?
i
Board of Trustees 4 February 17, 2016
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Having read the Minutes of the January 20th,
2016, meeting, I would move to approve the January 20th Minutes.
Is there a second? -
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for January 2016. A check for
$14,579.74 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 VI Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, February 17, 2016, are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
SEQRA:
Willem Kooyker&Judith Ann Corrente SCTM# 1000-3-1-5
Estate of Harriet E. Gamper SCTM# 1000-70-4-13
Robert Serling SCTM# 1000-86-2-10
Sayward Mazur SCTM# 1000-110-7-7
355 Lake Drive LLC SCTM# 1000-80-3-15
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the
following applications more fully described in Section VI Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, February 17, 2016, are classified as Unlisted
Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review
under SEQRA:
Carrie Tintle SCTM# 1000-115-11-8
Neil & Lori Kearns SCTM# 1000-51-1-8
John & Kori Estrada SCTM# 1000-123-4-7
Samuel Singer SCTM# 1000-75-6-6.1
Firm Foundations Partners LLC SCTM# 1000-113-6-23
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move those as a group. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
Board of Trustees 5 February 17, 2016
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As mentioned earlier, for the sake of
efficiency, we'll group several of the administrative type
actions. Item number IV, Resolution for Administrative
Permits, I would -- (Perusing). We can't move the first two.
Okay, we'll have to open these up individually, these
Applications for Resolutions Administrative Permits. I stand
corrected. We have to deal with the Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program with respect to the first two items to
develop a consistency under the LWRP.
In the matter of the first application for Administrative
Permit, Jerry Cibulski on behalf of ESTATE OF DANIEL V.
JENNINGS, do TOM DUNLEAVY, EXECUTOR requests an Administrative
Permit for the existing 19.5'x33.5' slate patio attached to
existing dwelling; add 6 cubic yards of fill along the edge of
the patio in order to create an on-grade patio; and vegetate
area with pachysandra ground cover. Located: 3340 Oaklawn
Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-5-54.1
The LWRP program coordinator indicated that the existing
deck was not constructed with a Board of Trustees permit. The
Trustees acknowledged that by virtue of the application
submitted that they are submitting to a Wetland Permit process.
And it is recommended that a native drought tolerant plant be
used in landscaping. The pachysandra species that were indicated
on the application are native to Eastern Asia and Southeastern
North America. Those were the comments relative to the LWRP.
Accordingly, to meet the requirements of the LWRP, I would
move to approve this application thereby bringing it into
consistency by the granting of a permit with the recommendation
that drought tolerant plants of the Northeastern United States
be considered, that would be suitable for this location. That's
my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And, number two, RICHARD SUTER requests an
Administrative Permit for the as-built replacement of existing 14'x23'
irregularly shaped deck with a 14'x23' deck on existing footings.
Located: 545 Beachwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-116-4-22
This project was deemed inconsistent because of not meeting
certain requirements of the Zoning Board and it was not
constructed according to the Trustees Chapter 275 permit. Since
the application has been brought into compliance with the Town
Zoning Code, and since the deck is now applying for a Trustee
permit to bring it into compliance, and the size is approved, I
would say that this project will be consistent with the approval
of the Administrative Permit, and I would so move it for
approval. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 6 February 17, 2016
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next item, number three, 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
This project is probably one of the, first of a few in
Southold, using a provision in the Town's code for whole
occupations specifically dealing with shellfish culture. The
Trustee office and the Trustees have conferred with the Town
Code officials and with the Town Attorney. We have a special --
we received special training in the Town Code. And accordingly
I have tried to synthesize the comments of the Board and the
Trustees in our deliberations at the worksession concerning
this. Not only to protect, help protect the request that
relates to a vital local industry, but also since it's sort of a
one of, or a first of a kind, that we also recognize that
shellfish operations do have impacts for their neighbors.
Accordingly, and based on that discussion we have had, I
would move to approve this application with some stipulations.
And the stipulations are drawn directly out of the Town codes.
So for the benefit of the applicant, for the permit, they
could also refer to certain sections of the Town Code for
guidance. And that would be, the first stipulation, that the
required screening of equipment should be greater than or equal
to ten feet off of all property lines; that the screening should
also be greater than or equal to ten feet landward of an
existing non-turf buffer, which is some pebbly material that is
designed to protect the wetland from overflow over the bulkhead;
and that if it is a fence that is used for the enclosure, it
should be located in the side or rear yard and not exceed the
Town Code limitation of six-and-a-half feet; that the project
will be limited to no more than three FLUPSYS units with no
future expansion, and that the FLUPSYS be attached solely to the
bulkhead with no nets, lines or tackles suspended from the
seaward side that would inhibit the harvest of wild shellfish in
the canal, since the seaward side of the structure is at the
public interface, the public bottom; that provisions for wash-down
of equipment be limited to within the enclosure, within the
screen enclosure, and that would include some sort of a pad and
drywell to handle wash-down of equipment; and the stipulation
before the permit is released from the Trustee office, that a
marine survey be submitted depicting the distance from the
seaward most FLUPSYS to the closest point on the opposing shore,
to confirm that the FLUPSYS in no way goes more than one-third
of the distance across the creek from mean low water to mean low
water, thereby providing for proper navigation through that
portion of the canal. And there would be no future expansion at
this time without a discussion with the Trustees and the
probability of meeting a public hearing for expansion, because
Board of Trustees 7 February 17, 2016
we would have to discuss a leasehold with the Trustees because
the property owner owns underwater land but the FLUPSYS, more
'than three FLUPSYS would have it over public lands. So'we would
have to have further discussion with the public on that. That is
my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In furtherance of simplicity and less of a
mouthful, the items under Applications for Extensions, Transfers
or Administrative amendments, I believe, if my notes serve me
correctly, at worksession we found they are all in keeping with
the field inspections. I would move to approve under Item V,
would move to approve items one, two, three, four, five, six,
seven, eight and nine as a group. They are listed as follows:
One, Patricia McIntyre on behalf of the NEW SUFFOLK
WATERFRONT FUND requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit
#8378, as issued on March 19, 2014. Located: 650 First Street,
New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-8-18.
Two, JANE P. COSTELLO requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#6767 from Sarlott, Inc. To Jane P. Costello, as issued on November 14, 2007.
Located: 750 Holbrook Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-113-6-9
Three, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND YACHT
CLUB requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#8042, as issued on February
20, 2013, and Coastal Erosion Permit#8042C, as issued on February 20, 2013; and for
an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8042 and Coastal Erosion Permit
#8042C to modify the proposed sanitary system by installing a sealed/water tight pump
chamber with a fence enclosure located adjacent to the Yacht Club building,
approximately 210' landward of West Harbor; and to revise the conventional leaching
pool system to a "Vertical Flow Vegetative Gravel Filter" system installed landward of
Trustees jurisdiction. Located: Central Avenue, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-1-9 &
1000-9-2-13.1
Four, LUCIEN BOHBOT requests the Last One-Year Extension to Wetland
Permit#8113, as issued on March 20, 2013; and for an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit#8113 to greatly reduce the originally proposed house alterations by
constructing a 200sq.ft. addition with foundation onto the north side of the existing
dwelling; install bilco doors with associated stairs; install gutters to leaders to drywells to
contain roof runoff; repair the flooring on the existing deck; and subsequently maintain
the non-disturbance buffer from the 8' contour line seaward. Located: 480 North
Oakwood Road, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-127-8-8.5
Five, Jerry Cibulski on behalf of ESTATE OF DANIEL V. JENNINGS, do TOM
DUNLEAVY, EXECUTOR requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#
4972 for the access stairs leading from the 4'x6' upper platform to be 4'x20' in lieu of
4'x15'. Located: 3340 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-5-54.1
Six, Michael Kimack on behalf of THOMAS & NANCY ESHELMAN request an
Board of Trustees 8 February 17, 2016
Administrative Amendment to modify the size of the floating dock to be 8'wide at ramp
end by 6' wide by 18' in length with a 2'x2' at 45 degree corner brace "L" shaped floating
dock using composite lumber on the decking. Located: 695 Howard Avenue, Mattituck.
SCTM# 1000-113-9-3
Seven, EUGENE L. DANERI requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit#8184 for the as-built 24'x28' carport attached to the landward side of the
dwelling. Located: 200 Terry Path, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-6-14
Eight, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of PHILIP & CHRISTINE MASCIA requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8430 for the floating dock to be installed
in an "L" configuration in lieu of a "T" configuration. Located: 910 Oak Avenue,
Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-1-5
Nine, En-Consultants on behalf of BENJAMIN-& SIOBHAN MORDEN request an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8695 to reduce the length of the 4' wide
fixed catwalk from 50' to 40'. Located: 801 Maple Lane, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-64-1-30.2.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number VI, under public hearings --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Wait, at this time we have to open up --
excuse me. Next under Amendments, we'll have to open a public
hearing on the amendment of Docko, Inc.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, Docko, Inc., on behalf of WILLEM
KOOYKER &JUDITH ANN CORRENTE request an Amendment to Wetland
Permit#7375 and 7375C to add a 4'x6' cantilevered platform onto
existing fixed pier; and add a 3'x20' hinged ramp leading to existing floating
dock. Located: East End Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-3-1-5
The Trustees did extensive field work on this application.
I believe, in August of 2014, Trustees Sanders, Domino,
Bredemeyer and King looked at this property. The most recent, we
had an in-house discussion on the 16th. The LWRP coordinator
found this to be consistent. The CAC resolved not to make a
recommendation as they have not made a physical inspection.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. NIELSON: Yes. Good evening, my name is Keith Nielson, I'm
with Docko, Inc., and I prepared the application documents that
you are reviewing tonight. If I could go over them very briefly.
The ramp landing that is in question is right here, it's on the
east side of the pier,just past the dog leg, and you can see
the ramp is extending from the ramp landing down to the float.
And the float was previously approved in this position. We are
not changing any of that. The change in the size of the landing
was strictly to accommodate a recommendation by the New York
State DEC in their review.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you, very much. Any questions or comments
from the Board?
(Negative,response).
Board of Trustees 9 February 17, 2016
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Does anyone else wish to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as submitted, noting that it is deemed consistent by the LWRP
coordinator.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. NIELSON: On behalf of my applicants, thank you.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application is En-Consultants on
behalf of NEIL & LORI KEARNS request a Wetland Permit and a
Coastal Erosion Permit to remove and replace existing wooden
portion of bluff stairway below intact portion of historically
existing concrete stairway(to remain)with a new 3' wide by
±31' long (top to bottom)elevated timber bluff stairway
consisting of a 4'x4' platform, 3'x19' steps, 4'x8' platform,
5'x6' landing, and 3'x12' steps to beach; remove existing
concrete debris from beach; construct along eroding toe of bluff
approximately 99 linear feet of stone revetment, including ±12'
easterly return, consisting of approximately 3 to 5 ton stone
placed over 50 to 100 pound core stone and filter cloth; and
restore bluff face by constructing terrace retaining walls and
placing approximately 284 cubic yards of sand re-nourishment
(including approximately 234 cubic yards of on-site material
excavated from toe of bluff for revetment installation and
approximately 50 cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from
an approved upland source); and to be vegetated with native
plantings. Located: 18075 Soundview Avenue, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-51-1-8
This project has been determined to be consistent with the
LWRP with the caveat or question to verify how the construction
area will be accessed.
The CAC does not support the application, based on the
following: The Trustees have established a pattern of approvals
for this area. And the CAC cannot support this application
because of the vehement disapproval of the consultant and
engineering plans of hardening the bluff from bottom to top.
Three applications for shoreline stabilization have been
approved in this area within the last five years and are being
used as precedent by the consultant to cause a continuous
hardening and interruption of littoral sand flow, and like a
Board of Trustees 10 February 17, 2016
domino effect, the neighbors will suffer from continuous erosion
problems as a result of these projects.
That is the primary discussion here from the CAC. We do try
to take their advice in these matters. Noting also that I have
been on the Board for the last five years, and we have taken
these applications quite seriously in this particular area.
There is a letter to the file, that was submitted to the
file, and I'll read it for the record. This letter is addressed
to the Board of Trustees from 15 Lawrence Place in Rockville
Centre, New York.
Dear Trustees, approximately two weeks ago I received a
notice from the Board informing me of a hearing scheduled for
February 17th, 2016. The purpose of said hearing is to consider
whether or not to issue a permit for a significant work project
on my neighbor's Sound front cliff on Soundview Avenue. The
proposed work has the potential to adversely impact my property
and I request that you postpone the hearing in order to give my
family more time to review and assess the proposed work plan.
• This includes needing time to consult with experts about the
proposed work, how the proposed work may impact our property and
what if any adjustments might be appropriate to mitigate or
minimize the potential for damage and harm to the environment
and our cliff. The package of information I received is very
lengthy and includes complicated drawings and plans that can not
be reasonably reviewed and analyzed prior to the scheduled
meeting. Moreover, my family is in the process of requesting
more information from our neighbors and from En-Consultants, the
company who has developed the plan. Among the important
questions that need to be answered is what engineering analysis
has been done on how the proposed rock revetment will impact
erosion on our adjacent cliff to the east located at 18195 Sound
Avenue.
At present time, the cliff on our side of the property line
.s is well vegetated and in very good condition. The work plan
Y proposes to construct a rock wall, including a plus or minus 12
foot easterly return that turns inward directly towards our
cliff and beach stairs. This rock wall return section will most
certainly direct wave action and water directly into our cliff
and stairs, which are currently in very stable condition.
To date we have contacted but not received a return call
from En-Consultants to discuss our concerns. The less than three
weeks' notice that has been given is not enough for us to get answers
to several very important questions we have. We believe it may
be necessary to consult with our own environmental engineers,
which will also take time. We are asking for a postponement of
the hearing to enable us to better inform ourselves, talk to our
neighbor's engineers, and so that we can better inform the Board
about impact, legally and reasonableness of the proposed work.
We understand our neighbor's desire to address erosion on
their property, and we don't believe they intentionally seek to
cause damage to our property. However the current plans and
Board of Trustees 11 February 17, 2016
analyses don't appear to consider all the necessary issues and
- without further analysis and discussion may lead to damage and
dispute in the future that can be avoided if we have more time now.
We are optimistic that with additional time we may be able
to work with our neighbors and En-Consultants to obtain
satisfactory answers or to make adjustments to the work plans
such that our concerns will be addressed and we'll be able to
support issuing a permit for the work.
At this point however, based on the information now
available, we must oppose the plan and permit and ask that the
hearing be postponed for at least 45 days, or as long as it
takes to ensure the proposal is both reasonable, legal and
appropriate.
And it goes on to provide contact information. That is a
letter that we have in the file.
The Board of Trustees performed a field inspection and
detailed that we definitely need to know how access, the access
will be attained and the construction method that will be
necessary. We also are concerned about the lateral support of
lands, which would be for both neighbors to the east and the
west.
We did note on field inspection that you see there is a
large outcropping of what is the remnants of phragmites,
communist roots, the phragmites roots, and we noted the proposed
. revetment is to the landward of that. So there were questions
concerning the construction details that would leave that
headland exposed and out in front of the revetment on the Sound
front.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: And the alignment of the stakes, too.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And there was a question concerning the
alignment of the survey stakes. There was some question whether
we were discerning whether that they fully met what we were
observing on the plan, and whether or not that they were already
located somewhat seaward of the toe of the bluff. The bluff
possibly having changed since the initiation of the application
because of several very severe winter northeastern storms and
subsequent•northwesterlies that followed. I believe that covers •
-- if there are any additional --
MR. STEIN: If you can just read the portion of the CAC report,
for record.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I've just received a request from John Stein
who is the representative of the Conservation Advisory Council
that I perform a reiteration of the section of the report. I'm not sure --
MR. STEIN: If you find it, deem it necessary, regarding the
excavation of the bluff toe.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. He has requested I read a section of
the report which I believe is an interpretation of the code,
which I'm not entirely sure the CAC is empowered to do. I would
leave that maybe with the attorney.
The CAC comments that the Chapter 111 of Coastal Erosion
Hazard areas prohibits mining or excavation from bottom to tops
Board of Trustees 12 February 17, 2016
of bluffs or for major projects. The application lacks details
regarding 234 cubic yards of sand being extricated from the
lower bluff face to support the top of the bluff. They wanted to
see a more comprehensive erosion plan should be required due to
the sensitivity of the area, and not by piecemeal approach.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, John.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You're very welcome. I believe I covered the
inspectional issues. Did I leave anything out?
(Negative response).
It was pretty detailed. Is there anybody here who wishes to
speak to the application?
MR. HERRMANN: Good evening. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants. I'm
the inimitable consultant referenced in the'CAC's report. I
assure you this is not my personal design to harden these
properties. The owners obviously come to us, not because they
are looking to spend several hundreds of thousands of dollars
in fortifying their properties, but because they are themselves
suffering severe erosion from these various storm events.
What I'm going to do in response to both the CAC
comments and to the letter submitted by the neighbor, is I'm
going to read into the record, and this is part of the
application in case it goes too quickly. I can give you a
written copy of it, where we address what are the current code
requirements that the Trustees govern under right now, which is
Chapter 111, Chapter 275 and Chapter 268, and how this
application, as did those other applications, meet all of the
current code requirements that the Trustees govern under
currently.
In further response to the letter submitted by the
neighbor, I would just like to tell the Board for the record,
the gentleman called while I was away, ironically at a week-long
coastal management conference in Charleston, South Carolina,
where presenters from Maine to Florida were presenting on
various methods and ideas to deal with basically adaptiveness
and resiliency in sea level rise, climate change and increased
flooding and erosion.
So I had asked Jeff Butler, who has also designed the other
revetment applications that the Board has approved in the past
few years, to give that gentleman a call back. He did call him
back twice, and Jeff received no return call. So an effort, we
did not speak to him, but an effort was made in my absence, to
reach him. So just so the Board knows, we were not ignoring his
concerns and the very valid questions he has.
With respect to 275, 111 and 268, specifically the LWRP,
some background here, as the Board knows, Jay, we were standing
on that same spot during the Gallagher application not very long
ago, and as you know, this project, for the benefit of the new
Board members, is intended to tie into that revetment thatwas
recently approved by the Board of Trustees.
The subject property is located along a stretch of Long
Island Sound shoreline that runs parallel with Soundview Avenue,
Board of Trustees 13 February 17, 2016
that has been severely impacted by increasing bluff erosion
during the many nor'easter and other-significant storm events in
the past decade, especially including the Christmas 2010
blizzard and Superstorm Sandy in October, 2012.
In response to this accelerated shoreline erosion, owners
of privately-owned properties located throughout this
geological cell have been forced to seek approvals for the
construction of shoreline stabilization structures including
those approved by the Board of Trustees for rock revetments
fronting 17665 Soundview Avenue, which is located four
properties to the west, in November, 2011, which were Wetlands
and Coastal Erosion Management Permit 7692 and 7692C; and for
17555 Soundview Avenue, which is located five properties to the
e
west, which as the Board I'm sure is acutely aware, you
revisited recently in the Fall of 2015, that's the Nicholaus
property, for which most recently Wetland and Coastal Erosion
Management Permit 8682 and 8682C were issued again just in
September, a few months ago.
I did notice Mark Terry's comment in his LWRP memorandum
where he determines the project to be consistent with the LWRP
but noted the Board should verify how,the construction area will
be accessed. And I'm sure for the Board members that lived
through that with us, we all know exactly why Mark has included
that in the report after the unanticipated means of access that
occurred on the Nicholas property.
Also located less than a mile to the east of the subject
property, as the Board knows, is the revetment that was
installed by the Town of Southold itself in 2011 to prevent the
collapse of Soundview Avenue.
The Board also approved a rock revetment for the
immediately adjoining property to the west, 17975 Soundview
Avenue, last summer, in June, 2015, for Kevin Gallagher, which
is the adjacent site where we also at that time after much
objection,from the CAC met at the site, discussed that
outcropping of groundwater and some of the other conditions that
faced this project as well. For the record those were Wetlands
and Coastal Erosion Management permit numbers 8620 and 8620C.
Here, similar ongoing bottom-up erosion of subject bluff is
evidenced by a landward transgressing bluff toe, a steepening
bluff face, the loss of naturally occurring vegetation from the
toe of the bluff up to the approximate midpoint of the bluff
face, and the collapse of the lowest portion of the historically
existing cement bluff stairway.
I don't know if you got a chance to look at it but I
included in my application some excerpts from the estate that
was developed in the early 1900's. And there is discussed in
this book Ever Eastward --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Which you have with you. Which I had an
opportunity. I don't know if the other Board members necessarily--
MR. HERRMANN: In the upper left-hand corner of the left side
page you can see a photo of the originally existing stairway
Board of Trustees 14 February 17, 2016
from 1916, which looks an awful lot like the photos that we
submitted with the application for the portion of the stairway
that is intact.
I think it is also interesting to note that the small
picture adjacent to that in that book, it shows that the bluff,
which originally was completely denuded at the time that that
estate was developed in the early part of the last century, that
they did a lot of plantings on that bluff that eventually ended
up very nicely vegetating that bluff face to the point you could
no longer see the stairway. And much of the upper half of the
bluff is still in that same condition.
As the Board could probably see from the site, the lower
half of that stairway, over a period of time, had fallen away and
some of that concrete debris is now on the beach. That lower section
at some point in time, I don't know when, was replaced with a
timber stairway, which is also really now in need of
replacement. So the replacement of that stairway is the other
part of that application.
With respect to the ongoing erosion, the applicant is
proposing to remediate the ongoing erosional loss with an
erosion control project designed in accordance with the
generally accepted eroding bluff stabilization practices
recommended by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service,
which is to simultaneously stabilize the toe and eroding portion
of the face of the bluff by implementing a combination of
structural or hard toe stabilization and both structural and
soft sand re-nourishment and re-vegetation of the bluff face.
Specifically, a stone revetment is proposed to stabilize the toe
of the bluff, which will occur first. Then the washed out
portion of the lower bluff can be stabilized with terraced
retaining walls and re-nourished with sand and planted with
native vegetation, including beach grass for the most immediate
grand cover, and woody plants such as northern bayberry and beach
rose, to maintain long-term vegetative stabilization.
The project also includes the removal of concrete debris
that is now on the beach from the collapsed portion of the
concrete stairway and the removal and replacement of the wood
stairway previously constructed and placed on the collapsed
lower section of concrete stairway. The stable upper portion of
the bluff and intact portion of the historically existing
concrete stairway which was constructed during the development
of the Alfred H. Cosden Estate in 1916 will remain undisturbed.
So again, there is no activity occurring in the upper half
of this bluff. And to verify the means of access, it will be by
barge. So there will be no such event that occurred on
Nicholas, even if Jeff and I have to be hired to monitor the
implementation of the project, if it is to approved by the
Board.
Pursuant to principals set forth by Section
275-11(b)(1)(b), the proposed revetment is proposed in an area
suffering from extreme erosion, as described above. Consistent
Board of Trustees 15 February 17, 2016
with Section 275-11(b)(1)(b), Sections 111-10 and 111-15, and
Policy Four of the LWRP, the revetment will be installed with a
sloped face and angled returns and will be placed along the
existing bluff toe to avoid encroachment on the beach surface
seaward of the existing bluff, and to avoid causing measurable
increase in erosion of the site or adjacent properties or result
in any other adverse impacts on adjoining properties and natural
coastal processes and resources.
I'll add that contrary to the question posed by the
neighbor in the letter, the idea of the angled return is
obviously not the cause of bluff destabilization. The purpose of the
angled return is to avoid the kind of wave reflection and active
erosion that is caused by right angle returns, which is what
used to exist on vertically faced bulkheads. So you get wave
reflection in front of the wall that would cause the scouring
and seaward side of the bulkhead, and then they would put in
these right angle returns up along the property lines, and during
severe storms you would get wave refraction, what you call the
sort of eddies that form around the return and cause scouring.
And the neighbor-- so the purpose of the angled return and the
slope faced structure, and using rock instead of a bulkhead, is
the best means possible to avoid all of those sort of
traditional active erosional adverse impacts associated with
shoreline stabilization.
As we discussed at length in the Gallagher application,
that is not a perfect solution but it's the solution that
remains to us now and remains consistently supported by every
section of code as it is currently written.
The revetment is actually designed to tie into the recently
approved revetment to the west, and there already exists at the
easterly end of the property and westerly end of the adjoining
property to the east, that is the one owned by the letter
writer, a significant cluster of natural fieldstone. So you
probably saw at the site at the portion of this property that
ties into the applicant on the letter writer's property there is
piled up fieldstone down there now. Now, I don't know, it
doesn't look like it's completely naturally occurring. The
fieldstone probably originated there, but has probably been
shuffled around at that corner by one or both owners or their
predecessors at some point during time.
Almost done. Further, pursuant to Sections 111-10 and
111-15, the purpose of the proposed structure and integrated erosion
control remediation plan as described is designed specifically
to stem the continued denuding and loss of the bluff, which is
the property's natural protective feature. And the design has
been engineered in accordance with generally accepted
engineering principals and likely to control long-term bluff
erosion at the site through long-term maintenance and its
intended ability to withstand inundation, wave impacts,
weathering and other effects of storm conditions for a minimum
of 30 years.
Board of Trustees 16 February 17, 2016
The project is further consistent with policy four in
particular of the LWRP because the structure is being proposed
only where, one: non-structural vegetated means alone will not be
sufficient at stemming the advance and ongoing bottom up bluff
erosion at this site.
Two: the natural protective feature here, the bluff, cannot'
be effectively enhanced without first stabilizing its toe as
evidence by the recent pattern of severe erosion throughout this
the geologic cell.
Three: A hard structure is the only design consideration
that can practicably and effectively provide such toe stabilization.
Four: The proposed structure has been limited to the
minimal scale necessary to effectively stem the erosional trend
and is based on sound engineering processes.
Five: Vegetated restoration and enhancement is and will
remain part of the long-term remediation plan design here.
And six: There will be no significant direct or indirect
cost incurred by the public as a result of the project.
Ultimately, the goal of the project is to stabilize,
restore and enhance the natural protective feature of the
property, which is the bluff, for the purpose of minimizing loss
of structure and natural resources from erosion. Which is
consistent, again, with the relevant permit standards set forth
in Chapter 275, the Town's Wetlands law; Chapter 111, the Town's
Coastal Erosion Management Law; and Chapter 268, the Town's ,
locally adopted LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
MR. HERRMANN: Jeff Butler is also here to answer any technical
questions I anticipate the Board may have about this specific
design and stakes. I did send to Liz, I E-mailed to Liz a sketch
from Nathan Corwin that laid out exactly where he put the
stakes, what the stakes were and what they were supposed to
represent.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are in possession of that map with, and
the points on there.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Looking at this, I think it answered the
question we had before. It makes sense now.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Where are you in the permit process with
the Department of Environmental Conservation on this?
MR. HERRMANN: We filed but we've not gotten a response. We don't
have a permit from them yet. They had sent us a letter asking if
we had a written letter from Kevin Gallagher confirming the
tie-in between the two structures. Unfortunately Kevin is
currently in London and it's been a little bit hard getting in
touch with him: He has spoken with Neil Kearns since the
inception of Neil's proposal to go through with this. So it's
• Jeffs and my understanding that these two neighbors do plan to
move ahead with this project together. If for some reason that
changes due to circumstances beyond the Kearns' control, then
this, the design for the Kearns' project would, we'd really have
no choice but to modify the design so that the angled return
Board of Trustees 17 February 17, 2016
stops right at the property line as opposed to continuing over.
It really would not be the ideal solution because you would
sort of get two returns going in and instead of having a
continuous face, you would have a little bit of an indentation
there. So our hope and intent is to get Kevin's--well, we
think we have his cooperation, but to get him to indicate his
cooperation in writing. So that would be something we would
have to provide to you also.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: That was one of my questions. Because you go
almost eight feet onto his property to make that tie in.
MR. HERRMANN: And Charlie--welcome back by the way.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Thank you.
MR. HERRMANN: The reason for that is because when the Gallagher
application was designed, it was designed without, for
structures on the adjoining property. So the way Jeff designed
it was to have an angled return on both sides. Obviously if they
go ahead together, that would not make any sense at that point.
It would make more sense to run a continuous stone through. But
the way Kevin's approval was granted, was for that return. So
either(a), we have to show the eight foot, you know, up to
eight-foot connection or(b), Kevin would have to modify his
permit to eliminate his return. So one or both of the permits
would have to be modified if they in fact go ahead together.
But unfortunately we are --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a question relating to that notion of
the support of lateral lands and the tie-in with neighbors.
Because it goes to the heart of the written request in the
letter we received from the neighbor to the east. Having
experienced this piece of shoreline and visited it through at
least three nor-easters to see the massive siltation that
occurred when things don't go maybe according to communications
that we have. But there was a case where we had a tie-in issue
and lateral support and where we ended up with two slightly
differing opinions from well-regarded engineers in town, and
tried to work those things through. And the issue here with the
neighbors raising issues of the lateral support of land,
although well articulated and probably in keeping with most of
the standard engineering practice, with respect to your tie-in
with Gallagher, an inscription of why they are angled, in some
cases we are hearing slightly, from other engineers, we heard
slightly different thoughts, and so it's one of those issues
where it was articulated in, I think a neighborly manner in that
letter. And I think it's just been, people need to get out of
town after what some of these storms have done. So we understand
you have been on vacation, they may be on vacation, to
accommodate not only best management practice but engineering
thought. It seems like the main issues here is that lateral
support land issue.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. And like I said, the questions that are
being raised by the neighbor, you know, they are not
gratuitously obstructive. They are genuine concerns, they are
Board of Trustees 18 February 17, 2016
intelligent concerns. They are intelligently articulated
concerns. I can let Jeff speak more to this. Where we had the
biggest issue is during the, I guess it was the re-visitation of
the Nicholas project. And if you recall, obviously, maybe what
you are alluding to when Joe Fischetti was here. And what we
had in that situation was we had elevation contours up the face
of the bluff that did not jibe with the angle of the property
line. Here you have fairly shore perpendicular elevations on the
westerly end of this property, tying --well, both properties
really-- but tying into that neighbor's property. So there
should not be that concern that Joe Fischetti had voiced in the
Nicholas project. And if you remember, the project had to be
designed to accommodate that, where the assertion was where this
sort of the angle of that fault line through the contours was,
you know, the argument was that was not taken into good enough
consideration.
So here, not surprisingly, it was one of the first things
Jeff and I discussed when we came here because we had already
spoken to Neil and we knew of his plans with Kevin Gallagher.
But that was sort of before the entire Nicholas situation
erupted. So once that happened, Jeff and I kind of got back and
said we kind of have to make sure we don't have that kind of
issue here. So as I said, I don't know if the Board, given the
letter, is going to be inclined to continue this hearing next
month, and if so, maybe we save Jeffs comments until then, or
he can respond to them now.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I have a couple of questions. The question to
us is, when I look now I understand now that it's a little more
articulated. This is behind the existing rock here. So how--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We don't know. Okay, Trustee Sanders has
just asked me some questions about the west side and whether we
would know how much stability from the existing material is
there. And of course we don't know the status, if that's fair to say.
Another question I have, maybe since engineer Butler is
gone up to the dais, a question I had, too, is there is a large
section of concrete stairs that had collapsed and was below.
Now, is this plan to break that up, incorporate that, if
permissible, through ours and DEC permit, or is that one section
going to stay? In other words, concrete, you referenced
concrete on the beach. But I'm wondering about that one
specific, it looked like about a four-feet by 12-foot-- it was --
MR. HERRMANN: The section on the face.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: On the face.
MR. BUTLER: Yes, the plan for that was to be removed. Not to be
recycled on site to be part of the wall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because we have a mixed history of use with
some of materials with permitting agencies. So sometimes the
DEC is reluctant to grant permits. But I think we probably want
to see that removed.
MR. HERRMANN: It would have to be removed. I didn't call that
out in the application in the same way I did with the material
Board of Trustees 19 February 17, 2016
on the beach because in terms of asking Jeff to cover that on
the plan, what was on the beach, I was trying to stress that the
naturally existing fieldstone, whatever its configuration, would
be left alone. Which is what the DEC always requires. They
don't want material to be moved around or incorporated into the
project. But the concrete material they typically in a
situation like that if it can be removed, will want it to be
removed. The removal of the bluff face we can certainly note
that on the application, if you want it, but that would just be
part of the proposed bluff restoration. Because you would not
be able to get the new stairway in properly with those huge --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe for the sake of being concise and
clarity, I think the Board, based on concerns of the lateral
supports, we may want to provide the opportunity for engineers
or neighbors to talk to each other. So I'll just give you that
sort of an open hint how you might want to reference the
discussion now because it may take place again next month.
MR. BUTLER: Okay. Briefly, we have seen a lot of success with
these types of returns, that we now have a pretty good history
of. And not only the angle of return but also the energy
absorption of the wall itself and not being a reflective barrier
has really mitigated any eddying occurring that Rob was speaking
about to neighboring properties.
So it's a combination of both the angle and the fact that
these revetments actually absorb the hydraulic energy from the
storm events and not reflect it back onto neighboring
properties. So, I just wanted to speak about that.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: It would give them another chance to contact
the homeowner, too.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are there any other questions that the Board
members have?
(No response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Domino is just doing a reiteration to -
avoid the tie-in issues that are developing with Gallagher. And
again it's a matter of time and trying to coordinate projects to
include the neighbor-- Elaine Felders is the name of the neighbor.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, it was Mr. Felders who left the message.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think that covers some of the discussion.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. FELDERS: Tim Felders. My mother is Elaine Felders. My
brother left the message. If I may speak. The letter says what
we are concerned about. We are asking for a postponement so we can
study this. Possibly get our own engineers, speak with you,
understand what we are doing. I'm a horticulturist, not an
engineer, so it's all very Greek to me.
And it's interesting what you are saying with the way the
abutment would work. I don't know, but I want to find out
because we have to protect our property, we have to protect
where we are. And we know it's a very serious issue, the erosion
along that section of beach. So that is our request.
MS. FELDERS: (Inaudible).
Board of Trustees 20 February 17, 2016
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We don't have this dialogue on the record.
Just so you know, if it's something you want to get on the
record, you have to go to the lectern.
MR. FELDERS: My brother is in Alabama at this time, he'll be
contacting me, so, nothing else at this time.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes
to speak to this application?
(Negative Response).
Any additional questions?
(Negative response).
Accordingly, I think this is a good start on a very
difficult project, and obviously there has been a learning curve
here for the Board, and based on some of the past histories
there, and I would say Trustee Domino and myself, have walked
this beach now probably about ten times since last spring when
we were with the Gallagher application. It was in our ever
present awake state, and even as I live in Orient and when the
northeast.wind came, it was more than once I went to visit the
then-neighboring property, because of the difficulties. It was
a real difficult hall for all of us.
Accordingly, I would make a motion to table this
application to allow the neighbors to communicate with each
other, and ideally report back before next month's field surveys
to the office, so if there was a need to have an onsite field
inspection with engineers, and it have additional field
discussion on any particular aspects, that we would be able to
afford another field inspection on that.
MR. HERRMANN: Are the inspections on the 16th?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are on for-- Liz says yes.
Okay, is there a second on the motion?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second on the motion. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Next, number one under wetland permits,
En-Consultants on behalf of the ESTATE OF HARRIET E. GAMPER
requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 184 linear
feet of vinyl bulkhead in-place of existing timber bulkhead and
backfill with approximately 25 cubic yards of clean sand fill to
be trucked in from an approved upland source; remove existing
5'x22.5'wood ramp and install a 3'x26' aluminum ramp to
existing 10'x30'fixed concrete dock with wood decking; and
construct a new±16' section of vinyl bulkhead within 14" of
existing concrete wall/boathouse foundation wall.
Located: 2895 Wells Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-13
Okay, the LWRP has found this application inconsistent. The
proposed actions have been reviewed by Chapter 268, Waterfront
Board of Trustees 21 February 17, 2016
Consistency Review of the Town of Southold Town Code and the
LWRP policy standards.
The issue that they raised is under 6.3, Protect and
Restore Tidal and Freshwater Wetlands. Under Alpha, comply with
statutory and regulatory requirements of the Southold Town Board
of Trustee laws and regulations for all Andros Patent and other
land under the jurisdiction. Comply with the Trustee regulations
and recommendations as set forth in Trustee permit conditions.
So this is where they hit the point. The existing concrete dock
was not constructed pursuant to a Board of Trustees wetland
permit. A permit was issued for a dock structure in 1957 under
the name Meoller M-E-O-L-L-E-R, for a dock 20 feet in length.
The existing dock does not comply with a permit configuration.
So that covers the LWRP's current issues. And I'll go to
the CAC findings. The CAC resolved to support the application.
There is a letter in the file I need to read as well.
Now, are we going to have the entire letter read or--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Why don't you read the entire letter.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay. This letter is from Raymond and Joyce
Vastola.
We are owners of the adjacent property to the bulkhead
proposed as 2895 Wells Avenue, Southold. Unfortunately we will
be traveling outside the country during the week of February 15th,
and as a result will not be able to attend the public hearing on
the project in person. So instead we are writing to the Board on
this matter. While in no way expert in the technical merits of
this proposal, in general we are okay with the upgrade plan.
However we want to be sure the new construction will not
adversely affect our property or improvements.
Therefore, we request for the work that the Board review the
application from this perspective, and as to any work the Board
may provide permit for, that this work be subject to the
Gamper's Estate or theirsuccessors, agreeing to be financially
and otherwise responsible for damage to undermining of our
property or existing bulkhead as a result of the construction or
placement of that work. We make this request given that the plan
includes a new 16-foot bulkhead section adjacent to our
bulkhead. Our bulkhead is currently in very sound condition. We
spoke with Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, and Angelo Stepnoski
of Greenport Dock to better understand the work and the need for
assurance of remediation action if required.
Please include this E-mail in the record of the hearing.
On February 10th, 2016, the Board of the Trustees actually
went to this property. All were present. And I'm going to let
John read his handwriting, as I am not a doctor.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess the Board is also concerned with
a pre-existing boathouse that does not appear to have plumbing or
electric in it, that it would be retained as a use for strictly
for boat storage at this time. So any permit consideration would
not get out of bounds with respect to the building and zoning
code of the town. And I don't recall the status of the C of 0 on
Board of Trustees 22 February 17, 2016
the boathouse. Maybe the clerk does. I don't think there is a C
of 0, right?
MS. CANTRELL: No.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. So I think that was an important issue.
There was an old Trustee permit in the file that indicated
that the bump out there in the bulkhead was, mean high water was
approximately about halfway out at that time, and not only does
it appear that there is a solid fill was put on Trustee land but .
also that the concrete wharf, if you will, for lack of a better term, the
area under the deck and the seaward portion of the dock is
totally covering up Trustee land and is diminishing
productivity. So based on the field survey we think this is an
opportunity to probably maybe save some construction cost for
the applicant and reducing the need for so much bulkhead, but it
would be something with a crane and barge there and the work
going on, it's time to get the concrete off Town Trustee land,
and go to an open-constructed dock structure --with
open-grating over the wetland and get rid of the concrete.
We are thinking there will be so much disturbance to soils
and equipment will be there that this is the time to clean this
up and, you know, projecting forward.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: It looks like the dock is not constructed on
top of the concrete. It looks like it's constructed around it.
If I'm not mistaken.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right, the pilings are out, you know, out
beyond the old pier, which I don't know if it sank in or broke
off. But it seems like a lot of concrete.
MR. HERRMANN: Are you ready for me?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Those were the concerns on field inspection.
What did the CAC say?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: (Indicating). We covered that already. You're on.
Does anyone wish to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants. There's a
couple of issues, Jay, you are raising, and I was anticipating
and following some of it. I'm not sure I'm following the rest of
it. We thought we had dated ourselves pretty well on this.
The Gamper's estate purchased this property in January of 1977.
And we have from them a survey dated August 31st, 1976, that
shows the 10x30 filled dock that is there now. It is a filled
dock. It doesn't even remotely resemble something the Board
would approve, but it has been there since at least 1976.
Without a permit. There was a permit apparently issued in 1957.
We did get, I think the spelling was wrong on the LWRP report.
It was H-E-R-M-A-N A. M-O-E-L-L-E-R. And I did look at that
plan, and the bulkhead configuration was identical to what is
there. So there has been no increase in the extent of that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Understood. I was not suggesting -- no, what
I was suggesting is that the mean high water at that time was
about midway out of the bump out, so there was an area there
that is over, you know, below-- above Town-owned wetland. We
don't know whether they have title insurance for that or whether
Board of Trustees 23 February 17, 2016
it was originally titled just to mean high water mark. So those
are some of the concerns that we have.
MR. HERRMANN: That, I don't know. I can tell you the bulkhead
has been in that, the section that extends out 25 feet, is
exactly what was depicted when the property was purchased, and
has apparently been that way since at least April 23rd, 1957.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That was the prior owner. That was not
the --
MR. HERRMANN: It was Moeller.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right.
MR. HERRMANN: So I can say unequivocally I know the owners won't
engage in a conversation to eliminate the land that they have
owned for 30 or 40 years.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I think he's not talking about the bump out,
he's talking about the concrete underneath the deck.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, I'm talking about the bump out at that
point. I would say that without knowing the title and how the
property runs with the title insurance, that would be the land
that they have, the public land they have enjoyed the use of.
And I think that's a slightly different perspective. In other
words there might have been permits granted, but we don't allow
solid fill on docks and we don't allow filling of wetlands at
this time. So the notion would be that several owners have
enjoyed the use of Town Trustees land, if it can't be shown that
there was title insurance or clear title to that. I'm just--
I'm not trying to be argumentative.
MR. HERRMANN: I understand. What I'm saying, Jay, is the permit
that was granted in 1957 by the Town is for the configuration
that is there.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We understand that.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay. So a separate issue from the dock, what I'm
saying is everything you are seeing is legally there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: But it is an issue that we regularly grant
permits for construction on Trustee land now, and they did at
that time, but that does not convey the notion of ownership of
that underwater land. In other words --
MR. HERRMANN: But it's not underwater land.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Excuse me, it doesn't convey ownership of
land. It is land, it may be upland of the Town Trustees at this
point.
MR. HERRMANN: I'm going to leave that issue alone for a second
and go back to the dock. The issue with the dock is, from, again
what I understand, is there is a filled concrete dock that is
there. It was obviously decked over at some point. And I was
just mentioning for the record that that is the condition that
they purchased the property in. Understanding that now they are
asking for a modification, in effect, in terms of the gangway
going out.
What I would ask of the Board is if we could withdraw from
the application the proposal for the new gangway, if the Board
could treat the, in effect issue its approval for the bulkhead,
Board of Trustees 24 February 17, 2016
the proposed bulkhead work and replacement work, without the
gangway, with the understanding we would then have to come back
and either amend the permit or file for a separate permit to
physically remove the filled dock. You know, this is similar to
other applications we have had where there is an older dock that
didn't conform, didn't serve the proper needs or whatever. But
it will take some time to do that. It will take an additional
probably hydrographic survey work, design for the dock, I assume
the Board would want to see a 6x20 floater in place of what is a
10x30 filled pier in effect.
I don't know whether we would need some short portion of
open-grate fixed walk to get there and then a ramp and a float,
whatever we have to do, we would come up with a design for the
dock to replace that. But there is no way I can simply throw
that into the application now.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Can I ask a question that maybe relates to
that. That is logical with respect to past precedence and how
the Board has dealt with things, and typically a pre-existing
nonconforming structure, the Board typically tries to work with
applicants to bring them into compliance. In your capacity of
applying for permits on behalf of this trust or estate, rather,
are there trustees or individuals in there that you might able
be able to discuss also with dialing back the portion of the
bulkhead that is out into the water, so it would still bump out,
but its interface would be approximately half of what is -- if
it's 25 feet, I think, it would be like 12, 12-and-a-half feet.
So it would be at the high water mark which in the picture in
the aerial overview seems to be pretty much consistent with the,
you know, in other words, with the tie line between the high
water mark along that beach, you know, roughly be the seaward
most extension at this time. That would free up an area of
littoral, good littoral growth, and I don't think it would in any
way diminish, it doesn't seem it would diminish, it's a large
piece of property, but it puts it into productivity. Obviously
we'll be looking into non-turf. I'm-sure the Board in the past
has even agreed to decking is non-turf, so that, as far as the
utility of a space such as that, it could be investigated with
the owners. It would also reduce slightly the amount of footage
of bulkhead. It's just a thought.
MR. HERRMANN: Again, I can relay that idea. I would be shocked
if it got any attraction. The high water line now goes up to the
surrounding bulkhead area. So to cut that back to the high water
line basically in line with the rest of the bulkheading, you
would be eliminating probably about a 700-square foot piece of
property, as I said that was originally permitted by the town.
It has remained in functional condition ever since, and in my
experience it would be highly unusual for the Board to make that
kind of request, for somebody to eliminate a piece of their land.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't want to speak on behalf of the
precedence or the Board, that's part of our discretionary
authority to try to protect our underwater lands. And actually
Board of Trustees 25 February 17, 2016
we have several cases where we have found structures that are
out to the creek a bit further than neighboring structures and
we do try to work with the applicant to bring it more into
conformity.
I would say since you offered a request that really we
can't modify the plan with pulling the dock off now, we
requested that we look into this further and you said you would
be in a position to at least ask. And that would give us also
the opportunity as a Board to look into some of the land
ownership issues, acknowledging that there was a permit there.
think, and that maybe for your part on behalf of the estate and
for our part maybe if there is title insurance covering that
portion, you know, we could see that, and then see maybe they
will be responsive.
MR. HERRMANN: All I can do is relay it, Jay, I'm not-- it's
probably something the estate would want to talk to its attorney
about. It's not really something I could represent.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Understood.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is there anybody else who would like to speak
on behalf of this particular applicant?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Any thoughts from the Board, anybody else?
(Negative response).
I make a motion to table this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: What are we tabling it for?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We didn't enumerate specifically, but it was
for all those things that were precedent, to understand all
those things that led up to it. So if you go back to the owners,
we would like to research the land and title insurance.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And obviously the question about if the
owner is prepared to make some discussion concerning the solid
concrete underneath the outer portion of the dock as well.
MR. HERRMANN: Oh, yes. Like I said, with those two issues, that
part is fully understood. The other part has gone over my head.
Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number two, Frederick Weber on behalf of
RAYMOND RAIMONDI requests a Wetland Permit to demolish
existing one-story dwelling and construct new two-story single-family
dwelling (3,468sq.ft. First floor footprint), with a 186sq.ft.
front porch, and a 254sq.ft. rear porch; first floor to be
raised to meet flood zone conformance; install new sanitary
system; existing 22'x48' garage and 14'x24' shed to remain;
reconfigure driveway; and add approximately 200 cubic yards of
clean fill. Located: 1150 Mason Drive, Cutchogue.
SCTM# 1000-104-7-6
Board of Trustees 26 February 17, 2016
This application was tabled before to consider moving it
back. We have plans received on January 26th reflecting that.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency arises from the fact that portions of the new
structure are proposed to be built within the FEMA AE El
six-foot flood zone, where depth of the parcel allows structures
should be located outside of these hazard areas to mitigate or
avoid, minimize loss. In the event that the action is approved,
the following is recommended. That would be, require a vegetated
non-turf buffer landward of the wood bulkhead, existing
beneficial plants would be preserve the area supplemented with
native drought resistant species. No fertilization recommended.
The CAC resolved to support this application, noting that
they recommend best management practices for the driveway to
allow for proper drainage.
The Trustees did, most recently, did an in-house discussion
on February 16th, noting again that the house had been moved
back.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. WEBER: Yes, Fred Weber, the architect for this project.
Again, the project is located at 1150 Mason Drive, it's on the
south side of the road. It's an R40 zoning, it's a conforming
lot. It has a continuous bulkhead that goes along the shoreline
with some sand and wetlands actually located beyond. There is an
existing one-story house there now which is setback 75-feet from
the property line and approximately 71 feet from the bulkhead.
We had initially thought to renovate the house in place, but as
a number of issues arose, one being the flood zone, we wanted to
raise the house. It had been flooded in Sandy. We wanted to
enlarge the house for the family with four children, and there
is also a fair number of shortcomings in the existing
construction that we wanted to deal with.
So based on that we had originally submitted a plan which
showed a 75-foot setback from the bulkhead, which had been in
zoning up until recently.
The new proposal shows the house back at an 85-foot setback
from the bulkhead. That was plans dated January 22nd, 2016. And
we also shifted the house five feet to the west to provide a
better backup space for the garage structure that is there.
In reading the code, the Board does reserve the right to
waive or alter setbacks for the site-specific conditions, so
wanted to talk about a few of those. The first is that we have
an existing three-car garage that will remain in place. The
greater the setback for the house, the more it overlaps the
garage, increasing its nonconformity and increasing zoning
variance required. It also gets more of an awkward backing up
space from the garage.
The second is that we reviewed houses in the area,
specifically, and again, the code states that they should be,
new houses should be situated so that they project no closer
to the wetland boundary than the mean seaward projection of
Board of Trustees 27 February 17, 2016
the homes in the general vicinity and on either side of the
subject lot.
I did get surveys from quite a few of the surrounding
homeowners, specifically the two adjacent. The property to the
east, the bulkhead is approximately 58 feet from the deck on the
house. And the house itself is located 67 feet, again, which is
less than the 85 feet that we are proposing. Now, the house to
the west, I could not find a survey for that, so I actually
measured the bulkhead to the house, and that is 146 feet, which
is actually significantly more than the code requires. And I'm
not sure why the house is located there. It is lower and more in
the flood plain than our house. Maybe they wanted a shorter
driveway or are unconcerned with the views. The owner is rarely
there, and it almost seems abandoned, the house. So it seems a
little unfair that we should be penalized for their arbitrary
location, which is significantly beyond what it needed to be.
The other houses in the area, I assume you have the list,
the surveys, whatever.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
MR. WEBER: Starting, you know, on a property significantly to
the east, we have 20 feet, 69, 50, 60, 47. Then the adjacent
neighbor to the east, 58. Our proposal is 85. Then to the
west, again, 146, 212, 57 and 102'6".
A third concern of ours is the existing trees on the
property, as we move the house back there are two trees just to
the north of the driveway, in the house location 85 feet from
the wetlands. We would be about 12 to 13 feet from those two
trees. I think any closer they would obviously have to be
removed.
And the last factor I guess is the fact the property is
fully bulkheaded and we have some wetland spaces actually beyond
that. And so it really establishes a hard line. It's not a
fuzzy line where you have wetlands that can come and go a little
bit. So I would be glad to entertain questions on this.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you, very much for your presentation. Have
you considered the non-turf buffer? I don't see it on the plan.
That would mitigate the LWRP coordinator's concerns.
MR. WEBER: Yes, we would consider that. I think at one point
think there was some sort of ten-foot setback that was --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ten, historically, particularly what is
involved with a new bulkhead construction. And obviously
encouragement that the turf stay there as a non-fertilized turf,
additionally, in front of it. But specifically non-turf is
typically ten feet that we go with.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Right now, the aerial depicts it's all grass.
So the homeowners have to understand that would be something
that would be modified.
MR. WEBER: Right. Yes, we would agree to that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This was a return on a field inspection of
the Trustees. It did accommodate the requirement for the code
Board of Trustees 28 February 17, 2016
intent for not having house lines creeping closer to wetlands,
similar to honoring pier lines in creeks with docks. So the
re-submission, thank you, it does address our code requirements
and it provides a site specific reason to grant the waiver
against the strict 100 feet provision for the setback.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted with the addition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer, which
will address the inconsistency as noted by the LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made and second. All in
favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next item, number three, Costello Marine
Contracting Corp., on behalf of BRUCE AND ALLAN GOLDSMITH
request a Wetland Permit to remove 75' of existing bulkhead and
32' long return; construct 75' of new bulkhead and 32' west
return in-place, in-kind using vinyl sheathing; and to
subsequently maintain the 10'wide non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of the bulkhead. Located: 2550 Hobart Road,
Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-3-8
On the advice of counsel and the Trustees' experience on
field inspection for this job, that there is no imminent risk of
collapse or risk to personal safety on the subject property, I
would move to table this application until next month.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have to take a roll call vote, and have
Mr. Goldsmith recuse himself.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll recuse myself from this.
(Trustee Goldsmith exits the meeting hall).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, roll call vote for the purpose of
that. Motion is made and second. Roll call vote. Trustee Domino?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Sanders?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And Trustee Krupski?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Aye. ,
(Trustee Goldsmith returns to the dais).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number four, Chuck Thomas on behalf of ROBERT
SERLING requests a Wetland permit to add a two-story addition
onto the existing 886sq.ft. one-story dwelling by removing the
existing 323sq.ft. deck; construct a 708sq.ft. first floor
Board of Trustees 29 February 17, 2016
footprint area; a 240sq.ft. Attached garage; a 282sq.ft. Seaward
porch including screened porch; second story addition to include
a 236sq.ft. balcony; and the existing waterside 16.6'x12'
on-grade masonry patio to remain. Located: 3575 Wells Road,
Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-10
The LWRP has found this consistent. So that's a good thing.
And the CAC has resolved to support the application. I'll go to
the field notes. Okay, on February 10th, 2016, all of us were
present for the field inspection. And again I'll go back to the
notes, because I didn't write it. Mike, do you mind reading the
notes for the field inspection? You're another doctor.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Sure. The notes say check to see if the shed has
a C of O. And it appears to have electric, septic, et cetera.
The shed measures also 7'9" by 14', which is greater than --
it's 108.5 square feet, which is greater than that allowed by
code.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: It popped up as a question for us because if
one looks at the picture, it looks perfect for a bathroom, where
if there is any water to it, if there is a bathroom in there,
because we couldn't go inside, where is that water going? Is it
hooked up to a cesspool or something like that?That's a
question that arose during that time when we did the field
inspection.
Is there anybody here who would like to speak on behalf of
this applicant?
MR. THOMAS: Chuck Thomas, architect for the project. I have
proof of posting.
The shed has a CO. Prior to us coming here, we started back,
in October, prior to the new zoning change, so I had to go to
the Zoning Board of Appeals for the setback to the bulkhead, and
at and time we did and complete CO search, and Mike Verity
basically wrote the disapproval for the setback for the addition
to the existing bulkhead. The existing shed as you see it, was
under a previous CO. It does not have water to it, as to the
second part of your question.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Are you sure it doesn't have water? Because
there was an actual pipe we observed going right into the facility.
MR. THOMAS: He said there is no water to it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is water leaving it on the northerly
side. I initiated discussion with the principal building
inspector, Mr. Verity, I was not able to confirm what you are
saying. At this time, do you have anything from Zoning? If the
Zoning Board of Appeals was dealing with an approval for the
proposed house construction, you are saying this was wrapped
into that, we can get a written --
MR. THOMAS: This was wrapped into it for a house addition that
was done in the '80s, I believe. The CO, everything was, there
was a CO for the property, the shed was included in that. The
Zoning check was done in November by Mike Verity, which sent me
to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and their only objection on this
property was the setback to the bulkhead for the addition. The
Board of Trustees 30 February 17, 2016
shed he did not have a problem with.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think as far as the questions remain on
the part of the Board, we don't, and there has been some change
in Town Code with respect to setbacks to bulkheads, the concern
here is the shed use is initially conforming and we, I think it's
a matter that we have not been able to fully confirm with the
Building Department. It's something we probably, because of our
concerns, it's incumbent on us, we would have to follow up with
that.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The key is if there is a bathroom --
MR. THOMAS: There is not a bathroom.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Or even if water is hooked up, water has to go
somewhere. So we are worried about it washing right into the
bay. It's a big issue. And since we can't confirm that, it's a
suggestion to table until we can determine this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For further research, until we fully discern
what this C of 0 -- possibly if you work with your owner, maybe
it's a matter he got a C of 0 and water was added after the
initial approvals. The Board can consider proper plumbing from
a licensed plumber hooking up to an existing sanitary, something
away from the water's edge.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Any thoughts, is there anybody else who would
like to speak on behalf of this application?
(Negative response).
Any more thoughts from the Board?
(Negative response).
MR. THOMAS: Could we, is it possible to address the other part
of the application if there is any other issues, that way we
know, we don't have to possibly come back again? Can we just
look at this as I don't want to say a separate issue, I know
it's all encompassing, but look at the addition, perhaps?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think we can necessarily-- I'm not
sure we can segment it, issue out and go with an approval --
MR. THOMAS: I'm not asking for approval,just a discussion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Oh, discussion, sure.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Do you have any more things you would like to
add with regard to the application?
MR. THOMAS: Not really. The verbal description basically wraps
up the project. It's a fairly simple addition to the existing
house. The house is well maintained, and he's looking for more
living space. And we came out to the south, we stepped it back,
and added just a small porch to basically maintain the existing
setbacks. We have 51 feet to the existing patio and we did 51'6"
to the proposed deck. So we were trying to keep the setbacks.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: So the existing patio is being eliminated.
MR. THOMAS: The existing deck is being eliminated. On there
is an indication of the existing deck.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Just a clarification. It does say existing
patio, that's getting removed, and there is the proposed deck.
MR. THOMAS: The existing patio remains, the existing patio on
the survey, remains.
Board of Trustees 31 February 17, 2016
TRUSTEE SANDERS: If you want to look at this. It's just
terminology, everything matters.
MR. THOMAS: This is grade level patio that's, that remains. This
is proposed. This is wood frame at floor level, which is two
feet above grade.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay. Any thoughts from you guys? Any thoughts
from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As far as the house addition and the deck, I
don't think anyone has an issue with that.
MR. THOMAS: I just--
TRUSTEE SANDERS: It's very valid. Good point.
MR. THOMAS: If there is something I could address.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think it's something we are working --
MR. THOMAS: I'm fairly confident, because we went through the
entire CO search for the property. And Mike Verity would not
have issued the, sent me to Zoning Board of Appeals and then
have them say we can't give you this because there is an
existing shed on the property.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Let me just add a point of clarification on
that. In friendly terms, please. The survey indicates it's less
than 100 square feet. So structures less than 100 square feet
typically don't require a building permit or C of 0 under the
current Town Code regulations. But it measures up more than 100
square feet. So an initial plan review by the principal
building administrator, it may not have come up as being liable
because maybe it was an old survey that had not been updated. So
that the fact pattern for the principal building administrator
may not be what the Board had on field inspection.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The only other issue that popped in my head
again, was the statement was made there is no water, but visual
indication from me looked, unless I didn't look clearly enough,
it looks like there is an actual spicket right inside building, so.
MR. THOMAS: We'll take care of that part of it then. Thank you,
very much.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: You're welcome. Motion to table this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number five on the list, Robert Brown
Architects on behalf of SAYWARD MAZUR requests a Wetland Permit
to construct a 378sq.ft. one-story addition and a 943sq.ft.
two-story addition that includes an attached garage onto the
existing 1,481sq.ft. two-story dwelling with a 737sq.ft.
waterside porch and a 197sq.ft. front porch; and to expand
existing front porch an additional 270sq.ft. Located: 555 West
Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-110-7-7
The LWRP found this to be consistent after reviewing the
Chapter 268. The CAC also resolved to support the application of
Sayward Mazur to construct a one-story dwelling.
Board of Trustees 32 February 17, 2016
On February 10th, the Trustees went out on field inspection
and originally observed not staked, however Trustee Krupski
returned on the 16th to review the stakes and found them to be
appropriate. All were present initially and on the second
inspection it was just Trustee Krupski. It was also observed
that the description is to be amended to include no front porch,
and also observed while we were there the original time, we
would require gutters to leaders and drywells.
Is there anyone that wishes to speak regarding this
Application?
MR. BROWN: Robert Brown, architect for the project. And my
apologies for not having it staked out in a timely fashion. That
was my fault.
This is an addition starting on the, roughly the middle of
the west side of the existing house, proceeding northerly
landward. It is primarily an addition for a first floor master
bedroom suite and garage, with a bonus room over the garage,
basically.
I'm really here to answer any questions that you might have.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Gutters and leaders to drywells, is that
indicated, is that something that--
MR. BROWN: Actually the plan calls for French drains surrounding
the addition, to run to drywells.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For those of you that are not familiar with,
a French drain is a construction technique where soils are
excavated to the level of good drainage sand and then
backfilled, typically, with course material, with or without a
fabric lain in between. And lain with diverse materials, and
they are, functionally, in many cases, are more suitable for
many sites because they can architecturally allow for not having
unsightly gutter and leaders. In many cases they are capable of
drawing off vast quantities of water, even compared to
conventional gutters and leaders to drywells.
MR. BROWN: Our plan also calls for perforated pipe in the trench
to run water to a drywell.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: We must have missed that. Our apologies
on that one.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just a comment, if everyone,was as reliable
on staking projects, I think-- I have been a Trustees on the
Board for the better part of 25 years. No need to apologize.
Given the weather, it's hard to get stakes in the ground.
MR. BROWN: That's right, it was the snowstorm that did it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak
regarding this application? -
(Negative response).
Any other comment from the Board?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Just said one thing about removal of the porch?
What is that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, I'll get that in there. Originally there was going
to be something on the seaward side. And that is going to be amended to --
right. That's it. I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
Board of Trustees 33 February 17, 2016
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, motion has been made. Is there a
second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second on the motion to close.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the amendment of no porch on the seaward side.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. BROWN: Thank you, very much.
MR. GOLDSMITH: Item six, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of 355 LAKE
DRIVE LLC requests a Wetland Permit to install a 32"x12' aluminum
ramp off bulkhead to a 6'x20'floating dock secured by two (2) 10"
diameter piles. Located: 355 Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-80-3-15
The LWRP deems this consistent. The CAC resolved to support
this application. The Trustees did a field inspection on
February 10th. The only thing we noted was it might have to
move closer to the property line.due to an adjacent dock.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. I
maintain the spacing of it as ten foot off of the projected
property line, which is standard procedures for and in
alignment. So it's not perpendicular to the dock itself. And I
can, we could put it wherever you want it. I did have a call
from the neighbor this afternoon regarding it. The neighbor to
the east. I think-- I'm pretty sure it was the neighbor to the
east, asking if we could move it further away from the property
line, but I felt that was going to cause some boat
maneuverability problems to the neighbor to the west. So
think where it is, is in a good spot.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
to this application?
MR. FORCHELLI: Good evening, my name is Jeff Forchelli, and I am
the neighbor to the east.
Last Tuesday, which was the 11th, we got a, excuse me, the
9th, I got a notice from the Post Office that there was a
certified mail which was picked up on the 11th about this
hearing tonight. I tried to retain the lawyer who represented me
previously on this -- I am an attorney myself—on a matter here.
And she was going to be my attorney, and then she had a conflict
which she learned of this afternoon. So I'm here. We can either
make this easy or hard, basically.
I think the dock is too close to my property line. It's ten
feet off the extension of my property line. And I think I would
like to have it moved the other way another five feet. If we
could resolve that, fine, I would like to revolve it. If not,
would ask this be adjourned so I could properly prepare to
represent myself on this matter.
Board of Trustees 34 February 17, 2016
TRUSTEE SANDERS: You are the property owner to the east?
MR. FORCHELLI: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
MR. PATANJO: Can I add a comment?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sure.
MR. PATANJO: The property to the east, looking at the separation
distance between the ramp and the existing float at Mr.
Forchelli's property, there seems to be a huge separation
between the docks. So.I don't know if there is any concern of
boats crashing into each other unless he has a 38-foot wide
boat.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Can I ask you to come up and look at this real
quick? You have seen this, correct?
MR. FORCHELLI: Yes. It's ten foot here, which means if a boat
is eight-foot wide and they have fenders out, and they have
• rolls and slopes and the wind blows, it will keep blowing over
and it won't be contained within their riparian rights. I would
like to see this moved over five feet.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I know there is prevailing public law
concerning extension of property lines and placement of docks,
which may require some further review. Because it is a
constrained location and the applicant is in the process of
requesting a waiver from the strict provisions of the 15-feet
off the property line, and I'm not entirely sure, but there may
an accommodation, slight change of position that would still
accommodate the intent and be able to be waived. But I don't
think we can plan that from here.
MR. FORCHELLI: And let me just say.one other thing, I don't need
someone telling me that I have a boat 38-feet wide. I'm a land
use lawyer, I've been doing it for 45 years, I represented many,
many projects, major projects on Long Island. I built over 300
homes, in which I have been a developer. I don't need a smart
ass remark like that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With respect to, I'm sorry, from whom?
MR. FORCHELLI: Saying unless I have a 38-foot boat.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If it's someone from here or myself, I
apologize. Otherwise comments are directed to the Chair.
MR. FORCHELLI: It was from Mr. Patanjo.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Also, do you have just a single dock on your
property? Because I know it's an association.
MR. FORCHELLI: Yes, it's my dock.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. Two appear on the survey, but it's
unclear from the --
MR. FORCHELLI: I'm to the east. There is only one dock I see to
the east.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You are the sole owner--sorry, you are the
sole owner to the east.
MR. FORCHELLI: Yes.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Our goal is to make this --to protect wetlands --
Board of Trustees 35 February 17, 2016
MR. FORCHELLI: I came here and said I could make it very easy,
and I got a smart ass remark which I didn't appreciate.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Understood. Our goal is to also try and keep
things as civil as possible.
MR. FORCHELLI: And I came here not to object. I came here to be
nice about it.
MR. PATANJO: If we move this over five feet, what is the
neighbor to the west, how is he going to get in and out of his
slip?That's what I'm concerned about.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Another question, again, we are just talking
here. As I observed the survey for-- again, I'm not you in
terms of the ability to design these, if you were able to place
it five feet to the west and angle it, could it satisfy all
involved? Because the property is so weirdly designed, the
neighbors to the west, if you can move it five feet and then
angle it, then most likely no one will be injured by that and
you'll probably get five feet that you want and the neighbors
will get most likely what he wants. Do you see what I'm saying?
MR. PATANJO: Absolutely. What I can do is, I could swing the
location of where the ramp ties in with the bulkhead. Move
that, even more than five feet to the west. And leave the water
side location where it is. So as to allow the boat to get into
the dock that is to the west.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The concern still doesn't mitigate --that
doesn't mitigate --you are still at ten feet.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any alternative here I think we'll have to
re-advertise because we are not having the 15 feet for either
neighbor, and unless there can be an accommodation outside that
comes back to the Board that all members are in agreement with
every iteration, they have to come back with advertising to
allow neighbors to comment.
MR. FORCHELLI: If I might. If you moved it over three feet so
you have 13 foot side line, it still doesn't meet 15 foot, but
it's 13 feet, it gives a little more room and I think,just
looking at this, and I spent a lot of time on surveys, it seems
to me moving it three feet, looking at the dimension of ten
foot, I think that seems like it would work.
MR. PATANJO: If we move it three feet and angle it as well.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Let me back read. You are saying if they modify
it three feet to the west--
MR. FORCHELLI: Right.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Are you having issues with three feet to the
west?
MR. PATANJO: No.
MR. FORCHELLI: Then as far as I'm concerned we can be done.
MR. PATANJO: Should we angle it as well?
MR. FORCHELLI: I don't need an angle.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: To be clear, he's moving three feet, what angle
will it be at?
MR. PATANJO: I think I would like to angle it a little bit.
Which would get it even further away.
Board of Trustees 36 February 17, 2016
TRUSTEE SANDERS: My suggestion is, because I think now you guys
are in agreement, is to have this modified --table it, modify
it, then come back to us. And I think everybody is happy.
MR. PATANJO: Sure.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Before we do that, what we have often done with
you is pre-submission inspections. And this may have been a
property that might have been a good idea to do that. And
would also want to interject that if you are angling it, you
might want to parallel the property line to the west.
MR. PATANJO: Correct.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And that way you would avoid navigation issues.
You would satisfy at least a 15-foot setback, which would be
required by code, and we would avoid or help mitigate navigation
issues with the dock to the west, which I also want to point
out, I don't have a survey in front of me, but it looks as if
that dock is right on the property line.
MR. PATANJO: Correct. That's where it is.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So it might not even have a valid permit.
MR. FORCHELLI: When I looked at it, I thought if it was moved
over three feet it would probably not affect the neighbor's to the
west property.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: From what he's saying, it looks like, that the
modification three foot to the west with an angle will satisfy
your issue and most likely satisfy our 15 feet, as well as the
neighbor to the west, so.
MR. FORCHELLI: That's fine.
MR. PATANJO: And the reason is, the neighbor to the west,
think they dock their boat on the south side of that float. If
that's their property.
MR. FORCHELLI: They do. I believe they do.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: We are not approving anything at the moment,
but it's getting to the point of a meeting of the minds.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would suggest you scale it out. I'm not sure
three feet would do it, Mr. Patanjo.
MR. PATANJO: I'll make it work.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other comments?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: We should adjourn it; We have to back that up.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to table this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made to table. Is there a
second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll second it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, motion made to table and seconded. All
in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Let's make a motion to extend the hearing --
make a motion to rescind the closure of the hearing for
Board of Trustees 37 February 17, 2016
clarification of the record, that we didn't close the hearing, we
want to keep it open in case there needs to be comments.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Sorry, it's my first time. I make a motion to
rescind the motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I withdraw my second also.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. PATANJO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number seven, Michael Kimack on behalf of JOHN &
KORI ESTRADA requests a Wetland Permit to demolish southeast
section of existing one-story dwelling; renovate remaining
1,972sq.ft. of existing dwelling by installing new window,
doors, and roof; construct a 2,310sq.ft. two-story addition to
easterly side; existing 521 sq.ft. seaward side deck to remain;
construct a 605sq.ft. seaward deck with stairs to grade;
construct a 451sq.ft. in-ground swimming pool and hot tub; and
install pool enclosure fencing. Located: 2350 Deep Hole Drive,
Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-4-7
The Trustees did a field inspection on February 10th.
Refer you to the photograph Liz has just brought up. The Trustee
notes suggest a wetland restoration in a non-disturbance between
the pool and the wetland; the bridge over the wetlands; non-turf
buffer seaward of the wetlands to the creek. This was done on
February 10th, at 1:00 PM.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency stems from policy standards Four, Five and Six and
is for the following reasons: Number one: The depth to
groundwater is shallow in this area is not indicated on the
plans. Number two: Portions of the proposed two story addition,
deck and pool, are located within the FEMA flood zone AE
elevation six foot not meeting policy number four. And three,
the proposed pool deck is located 23 feet from the wetland area.
The CAC on February 10th, resolved to support this
application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. I'll
take you back to the time, I was present when you did your site
visit a week ago Wednesday. We did note on the site that there
was a ponding that was occurring in the low depression area,
that it was designated as a wetland area, and that particular
time we queried whether or not that in fact might have been the
occurrence of either fresh or saltwater. And we did not know. It
appeared since looking at it that it might have been a tidal --the
map at that particular time was mapped tidal wetland. The
survey. I went back to Nathan Corwin on that particular one
questioning him. I also queried John Estrada who is here tonight
as to whether his experience with that indicated whether that
particular area was in fact a flooding as a result of tidal or
Board of Trustees 38 February 17, 2016
flooding as a result of fresh water. And both Nathan and Mr.
Estrada basically pointed out to me that that particular area
only floods from surface water. It does not flood from tidal
water, unless it's being pushed by a heavy storm. As a matter of
fact he does have photos, he has a security camera that was set
up the day we were there basically and it had the high tide come
up and the high tide go down, the tidal water there not a
function of the tidal water. The primary tidal wetland follows
the property around and on the westerly side comes within 40
feet of the existing house, which is permitted for the most
part. I wanted to break this into two components here because
the tidal wetland, as you go down to the existing pool, the
proposed pool itself, is further away from the tidal wetland
than the existing approved. Because of the angulation of the way
the land is running at the present time. Albeit, the fact it
does go into the low area, for the most part over there, but
it's not an inground pool. I did not write it as such. That was
a mistake. It's an elevated pool basically, up to grade., So it
will be a re-enforced concrete that will bring it up that will be
poured into the ground and then raised up, basically. The first
floor elevation is 8.5 and I think this then steps down just
briefly a few inches or so. I think the deck itself is probably
eight feet and the pool is about that also, above the grade.
gave you two copies here because I wanted to point out the fact
that on this particular drawing also I'll bring your attention
to the original map by Corwin, by Nathan Corwin, had indicated a
50 foot setback from the primary tidal wetland area. That was a
mistake. Because DEC requires 75 feet. In order to -- 75 feet
to any structure or any deck, basically. And you can see,
basically, that the 75 feet on the revised plan that we
submitted encompasses pretty much half of the existing house,
and it touches just barely to the proposed pool and the proposed
deck.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: What's the date of the revised plan?
MR. KIMACK: I delivered five copies of the revised survey,
basically, the other day.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's right here in the file. (Handing).
MR. KIMACK: The two things that were changed on that, we
established a 75-foot wetland setback which is the DEC
requirement, subject to a variance if it was short of that. But
we did that primarily to show you that the way that everything
has been laid out to the east, for the most part stays away from
the primary tidal wetland. And what happens basically is you
have that one low depression, and you can see there it says 1.6
feet. I gave you the second sheet to indicate, on the second
sheet, because that shows the boring line over there, of how
deep it is, because where the septic system is going on the top,
the water level is six-and-a-half feet down. So the water on
the low depression point over there is roughly about a foot
below. Only to the point there may be circumstances by which
groundwater also ponds up. But that would be a function of an
Board of Trustees 39 February 17, 2016
awful lot of heavy rain. For the most part, primarily that area
gets flooded simply because it's a depression. It's a freshwater
wetland. It is a wetland. But it is not a tidal wetland.
Primary. And if we drew the 75-feet away from there with the
75-feet from the DEC it pretty much covers everything on the
property, everything we are doing or proposing to do at that
particular site.
From DEC's point of view we really cannot move the
proposed pool to the west because we will be further into the
encroachment of the 75-feet there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Have you made application to the DEC--
MR. KIMACK: We have. We have. We got a letter back about two weeks ago
simply requesting a variance at that point because of the 75-foot setback.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I know, I appreciate you called, it was last
Friday, to inform me of some of the issues. It just so happened
my wife had a doctor's appointment in Mattituck on Friday, and
I'm lucky in that my former employer, the Suffolk County Health
Department, where I worked in the marine section for 25 years,
had loaned me a salinometer. And I have to tell you that meters
don't lie. And although I can't attest to its calibration to
the hundredth percent of salinity, the new surveillance camera
would have a guy out there, kicking up some of the ice in the
middle of that saltwater wetland and I brought it back and it
tested out at about a quarter full seawater strength. Given the
fact we had two blizzards, it could have well been those high
tides --
MR. KIMACK: It could have been the melting of the salt of the
ice.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: (Continuing)the Board is sort of blind to
the full extent of what is actually the wetland and the wetland
vegetation because everything is covered with snow, but it
clearly is a fact the property is regularly inundated with salt
water, and the few wetland shrubs that show up in our photograph
appear to be high tide bush. So this is a property that,
because of the historic dredging in the creek and the amount of
what is probably dredge spoil in front, there is a lot of salt
water coming into that area there and to characterize it as a .
freshwater wetland, we might have to ask the DEC's freshwater
wetland people get involved or if the interagency, we get a
clarification of what kind of wetland we are considering here so
that we can get the full extent of it is known and we have an
agreement as to what is the appropriate setback. You know, it is
obviously real questions that the DEC or this Board might have
concerning functionality and whether it would be better, that is
why I think in the field we thought if the applicant was in a
position to put through flow deck over it and bridge it, it
would not create all those problems with how you landscape an
area that is regularly getting inundated, an area that wants to
grow vegetation and tends to, you know, hopefully eliminate
problems. But we have a lot of questions going on here. I have
a lot of questions.
Board of Trustees 40 February 17, 2016
MR. KIMACK: I think what you are looking at, the whole raised
escarpment area in the front, which we tend to agree might
have been the function of all the dredging, basically, that
raised it all up and created that little slope area behind it.
That whole area has been obviously mowed and tended to over
time. I don't think we are talking about that area. You were
looking at the so-called area that you believe was the tidal
area in the slope in the low area through there, which is all a
fairly resilient grass at the present time, which Nick pointed
out, for the most part.
My client does not really, he looks at that as basically he
wants to be able to maintain it. He doesn't necessarily want it
back to a wetland, which it has not been for-- I mean a wetland
in terms of the visual aspect of the kind of plants you are
going to put in there. In essence, it's been a grassland
situation now for probably a good 40 to 50 years, under that
circumstances. And to basically require him to go back and take
that and to turn it into some kind of a wetland, that had not
been there for that particular period of time, he doesn't want
to necessarily lose the advantage of having all that property
converted to a wetland.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The definition of wetland is an area that is,
has water--that doesn't have to have standing water all
year-round. Periodically. And has wetland species. So looking
at the first plan that was submitted by Nathan Corwin, January
13th, he notes the landward limit of the tidal wetland, as you
pointed out before, but on the revised survey, that you
submitted February 16th, it is still labeled, this area is a
depression that rainwater runoff gathers in and is not reached
merely by high tide. That's his opinion. But this is a fact.
There are wetland plant species located in this area. So by
that definition, this is a wetland. If you want to make it a
freshwater wetland, in contradiction to the technical findings,
then I'm going to insist that you go to the DEC and you'll be
involved with freshwater wetlands, which is 100-foot setback at
minimum, and you'll have probably greater problems. This is a
statement of fact.
Also, the vast experience of this Board in walking through
that area, I want to respectfully disagree, in my opinion that
is a tidal wetland.
MR. KIMACK: I-have the owner of the house who has lived there
two-and-a-half years. I would like him to come up and testify
to that point.
MR. ESTRADA: Hi, John Estrada, owner. I lived there for
two-and-a-half years and I have seen it, actually, the tide come
up that high once. That was actually in January with the storm
that we had. There was some flooding. So maybe the salt was
from that. But I mean you can see in this picture, it's
absolutely zero water, it's bone dry. And I think you can
actually change the time period and there is zero water, I can
attest to that. And I have pictures and time lapse. Actually the
,
Board of Trustees 41 February 17, 2016
day you were there, it was high tide. So it was not higher than
that. So.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The challenge again is that you don't have to
have water there every single day. It may be bone dry at
certain times but if it has water and it has indicated species,
you saw Baccharus there, which is high tide bush, that makes it
a wetland. And you have to deal with that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Periodic inundation and the fact there is
salinity in there, and probably under, the soils there, probably
below are probably hydric or wetland-type soils, I think an
issue for us is that if it's a very small, isolated, vegetated
wetland existing in a sea of zoysia, it's not very highly
productive, but we still might want to go there and figure out •
its meets and bounds. Maybe there is an alternative including
maybe some wetland creation elsewhere on the property that could
be enhancement. Because we know from our own history that areas
like this as you continue to maintain a lawn will typically
simply disappear. And there may be alternatives, simply, we
understanding impracticality for a new owner maybe to consider
bridging it, but the sea level is rising, those of us that have
been traversing the town and lives near the water, our clerk
lives near the water, I live near the water; there will be more
water in your property all the time. That's why we thought it
was maybe a helpful hint to go with the bridging and use your
landform as it exists. We understand you don't want to lose your
backyard, you don't to necessarily have a bridge over it. So
maybe the Board will want to, I don't know how the rest of the
members feel, but I feel more comfortable seeing the extent of
the wetland, going out when there is not snow on the ground and
then maybe discussing a wetland improvement project since there
are other wetlands on the property as far as an amendment to
possibly some of the other areas.
MR. KIMACK: I think what you are doing as alternative basically
is perhaps what we may be able to consider there, is to look at
. that raised area towards the tidal wetland, basically, as an
area that we may be able to improve with 1-A type plants in
that particular area that would be wetland type, and pick out a
particular area in there to be able to replant that and leave
that to be able to be revegetated as a wetland.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And also the neighbors may have issues
because the depression goes on to a neighboring property, too.
Have you discussed that with the neighbors as far as their
issues with recurrent flooding?
MR. KIMACK: I think the neighbors are here, if they would like
to --
TRUSTEE SANDERS: One other quick question. The lowland area --
are you suggesting you want to keep that lawn? Because if you
keep that lawn, that means irrigation and that means chemicals.
And that's one of the biggest issues is that will flush, and
flush right into the bay. The higher land is not as much of an
issue as low lands. Do you see where I'm going?
Board of Trustees 42 February 17, 2016
MR. KIMACK: I think the condition on that is, basically, I think
he would like to be able to mow and maintain that to be able to
walk across it, but I think the condition would be he would not
put any fertilizer on it. It's the type of grass in there that
doesn't require it anyway. I mean, you can't kill it with a
sledgehammer, for the most part.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Could you approach the dais and show me where
the soil test was done?
MR. KIMACK: There was two pages. Wait a minute. There is a
separate one here.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm asking where it was done.
MR. KIMACK: It was done up in here. (Indicating).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Up by the driveway.
MR. KIMACK: At seven foot elevation. Then hit water at six
foot.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is water at six-and-a-half feet.
MR. KIMACK: Down from the top. So basically if you look at the
Seven-foot elevation and you look at 1.9, basically that means
the water is about a foot below here.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Well, that's an inference.
MR. KIMACK: Well, it depends upon if it's an unconsolidated we
are dealing with, then it's an inference. But generally those are the
inferences the Health Department works with. When they do the
boring they assume that inference is located across the
property.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are not locating any sanitary there
either, right?
MR. KIMACK: No the sanitary is here. We have all the distance on
the sanitary. That's not an issue.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's where the test bore was done. What I'm
leading to --
MR. KIMACK: I think a consideration we would probably like
to consider is perhaps a prohibition on using any fertilization
on the grasses there that are existing at the present time
except for mowing it. But that stuff is pretty hardy. And then
perhaps take a like area that would have normally been that area
through there, I think the existing area is about 250 square feet. That
was designated by Nathan as the wetland, whether you want it to be
tidal or freshwater. And then that area that leads to that area there is
pick out another area of a certain square footage and perhaps pick an
area out on the top there and replant that and then leave that to grow
under natural conditions as a wetland. So in a sense you would be
putting back wetland plants in an area that now simply has
dredge material on it and has simply been cut.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If they are willing to speak to the
application, I would be interested to hear comments from the '
neighbors as far as their experience with flooding and their
position on it. Because we are dealing with, it seems like an
isolated wetland, but the functional values we are kind of
wondering where this is all going.
MR. KING: Hi, my name is Steve King, I'm the neighbor to the,
Board of Trustees 43 February 17, 2016
east. I'm all for the project, everything is fine. The only
concern I have at all is that whenever water does come, it gets
spread out, over years, there has been water comes up, whether
it's a hurricane, whether it's a bad storm, or nor'easter of
some type, and it usually goes yard to yard. Their yard to my
yard to the yard next door. And as long as nobody messes with
it, it's been okay. I been there 37 years. And the only
problem, maybe three times I had water. But it was not from
that coming around. It was so bad it came from the bay right up
to the house. So my only concern is sometimes when you mess with
something, that it gets worse. So as far as making him change a
vegetation back there, I personally don't see that. I have a
lawn that is probably the worst lawn in the neighborhood,
because I never fertilize it, I don't put any irrigation on it.
It's brown, but it's cut. That's the way it is, that's okay. And
their lawn is similar. They have the zoysia grass over there.
And I'm not so sure that you'll improve anything by making them
put a vegetation of some kind there and making it wetlands like
it is out further. Having said that--and I'm not an expert.
Having said that, my only concern is whatever change is made
doesn't increase the affects that all the other neighbors if
they go and mess and change it. But from what I saw, I didn't
see the change there because all the building and stuff was done
before. So for me --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think what we were, we were indicating if
there were to be an amendment to a wetland it would not be that
area so that the flow of water in and out would be unimpeded. So
we would not impact neighbors. So it would the matter of maybe
the creation of a wetland on the front or side of the mound, on
the seaward side, possibly, with some indicators, native
vegetation's, beach plums or additional Spartinas, something like
that.
MR. KING: You've seen it more than I have. Sometimes when they
change things it's okay. Then somebody changes something and
then it's not okay. And when they change it they did it with
all the intention of making it better. But as far as the
project, I'm fine with it. I'm here tonight,just that part
there, okay?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The challenge for me is if you want to claim
that this is a freshwater wetlands then I need to know, and not
making an inference, we need to know that data, the depth to
groundwater in that depression area, it's important to know
that.
MR. KIMACK: One foot. Generally, one foot.
' TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe we can consider tabling to visit the
site when there is not snow, maybe gather a little more
information, maybe a test hole with a pipe in it to monitor
levels when we would go out on field inspection.
MR. KIMACK: The groundwater basically, primarily, is a surface
water collection. Apparently Mr. King knows more about that
than most. It's mostly surface water contributes to that
Board of Trustees 44 February 17, 2016
collection of water in that area?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: You can't have a dialogue.
MR. KIMACK: I apologize.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The depth of groundwater is important. You can
not have standing water, freshwater, unless there is no
permeability. And the permeability would arise, impermeability
would arise from a clay layer, which would make it, or no depth
to groundwater. So we have some conditions there we need to
investigate.
MR. KIMACK: Also, the time we were there, I think the ground may
have been frozen. You really have to consider the fact that it
doesn't take much to freeze the ground. The permeability is a
function of that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That may be true, and it probably is true. But
then you are dealing with the fact it was brackish water as
determined by, so that would make it a tidal wetlands. So you
can't have it both ways.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Let's table to go back out--
MR. KIMACK: Let me leave this with the Board, basically, for the
most part. We are working with DEC, I'm working with their
representative in DEC. I suspect probably that they are going
to, if in fact they so noted, their concern was not that one. In
the letter they sent me primarily their concern was the fact it
was a 75 foot setback. They were not looking at that particular
wetland as an issue. However having said that they also
indicated to me that may send someone out there to take a look
at it to determine what is there. Basically, I'm not quite sure
whether they can or can't at this particular time. But one way
or the other, if they, the letter they sent me for the variance
simply dealt with the tidal wetland, they didn't look at that
one, even though it said "tidal" on the map, the letter I got
from Claire Warner did not basically address that small area.
They were not concerned about that. Having said that, you
obviously are. There is a concern here. One of the ways to
mitigate it, perhaps, would to have an offset wetland we may be
able to plant of a certain square footage, near or off the high
water mark, basically, along the tidal wetland boundary, along
that one area, putting in a 1-A type of plant in there. Spartina
may not grow because it may not be wetted in that particular
area. But certainly bayberries and blueberries would in that
particular area. And it would be a question of what we can come
in with in terms of compromise and how much square footage you
would feel comfortable with in terms of an offset. Which is
certainty acceptable in a lot of the jurisdictions I have worked
with. I primarily do a lot of work Vermont. And believe it or
not they have as many wetlands as you do. And as Mike pointed
out, you don't need water to have a wetland. I mean, I've got
Class A, Class 1's, 2's and 3's all the way through.
And if you walk through the woods you'll see wetland plants
and you are dry as a bone. So I'm quite familiar with that
aspect. So we can perhaps, when -- I don't want to wait too
Board of Trustees 45 February 17, 2016
long because Mr. Estrada would like to be able to build at some
point in the future. And I'm not quite sure when we would be
able to get there to determine, although I may be able to get
out there to determine where groundwater is in that one low
spot, that would be easy if I could get through the frost, I
could put a point down.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It may be advisable if the Department of
Environmental Conservation is going to send out an analyst or
someone to review, if you could contact the Trustees office and
we'll see if we can get a Trustee out to join them for the discussion.
MR. KIMACK: I'll call Claire and ask. See, the problem is there's two
different areas. She doesn't necessarily send that individual out.
It's simply the part of the same application. So she is not exactly
aware of when that individual may go out. They may have already
done it. She said it would happen in the near future. And I talked to
her last week. So I'm not sure quite sure if this time of year they
would be able to find anything anyway.
That is one aspect we have to deal with. What I will do is
I'll make, I'll give you a copy of their letter back to me
indicating their concern primarily from the tidal wetland but
not from that other one. For the most part. And it was
definitely, the map they had, it was definitely mapped tidal on
it. They had the first one with 50-foot setback to which she
pointed out to me it was 75, not 50. But she didn't indicate
that one. So I'll give you a copy of that, for what it's worth.
At that particular time. But their main concern was the setback
from the tidal wetland, not from that little remnant area we are
dealing with. Anyway, I'll try to get in the next three or four
weeks, when it gets a little better, to try to determine where
groundwater is. I've done that before, that's easy enough to do.
And what we may do is make a recommendation in terms of a square
footage offset of a 1-A class 1-A type of a plant in an area
near the tidal wetland, off to the side. That may offset the
area that would have normally been that area across the area you
wanted to put the bridge across. And leave the grass in place.
If that would be something you could work with. So I know it's a
lot of moving parts here but that's what happens when you have
DEC regulations and yours, they don't necessary align themselves
exactly right.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: In closing, I'll remind you that we always have
to address the inconsistencies that the LWRP coordinator has
pointed out to us.
Does,anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to table
this application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion is made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KIMACK: Thank you.
Board of Trustees 46 February 17, 2016
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You're welcome.
Next, number eight, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of FIRM FOUNDATIONS PARTNERS LLC request a Wetland Permit
to remove the existing timber walk and docking assembly and
construct a new dock assembly in approximately the same location
consisting of a proposed landward 4'x16'top platform leading to
a 4'wide by 52' long steps/rampway to a 4'x72'fixed catwalk,
all supported by 6"x6" posts/pilings; a 3'x15' hinged ramp; and
a 6'x20'floating dock secured by four(4) 8"x8" pilings; all
top decking located over vegetated tidal wetlands to be light
penetrable thru-flow type decking material. Located: 1060 Fox
Hollow Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-113-6-23
The application has been deemed inconsistent under the LWRP
because the existing dock was constructed without the benefit of
a Trustee Wetland Permit, and it is a very old dock. I don't
know the history, but it is in derelict and falling apart shape.
The CAC supported the application with the through flow
decking. And they are,questioning whether light penetrable
decking is an acceptable material for top decking. Yes, that's
a term of art used to describe through flow decking, it _
certainly is approvable and it is the kind of decking we like to
see on these docks. Is there anyone here wishes to speak on
behalf of this application?
MR. IVANS: Yes, Matt Ivans, Suffolk Environmental, for the
owner.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: You're very patient.
MR. IVANS: Bruce is out sick, so I'm here in his place. Yes,
this is a pretty good application. We are replacing the existing
dock which I think actually it did partially have a Trustee
permit for some of this structure. But it's just dilapidated.
You guys were out there. We'll put in, like you said, through
flow, we'll elevate it properly, we'll narrow it down to four
foot wide max on the catwalk. It will basically mimic what is
out there now. It doesn't seeming to be any encroachment issues
with the neighbors. It will actually be shorter, it will be less
square footage. We think it's a pretty good application. I'm
here to answer any and all questions.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It appears to be totally in conformity with
the current dock standards and practice.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Not a question, but a statement. As proposed it
seems me to be a model for the surrounding area.
MR. IVANS: Yes, I mean, that's the least common denominator for
the docks, everywhere, for all the agencies, it comes down
basically to a design like that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, any other further comment?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 47 February 17, 2016
MR. IVANS: Thank you, Board.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this
application as submitted.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to adjourn?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I make a motion to adjourn our meeting.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
i'
John M. Bredemeyer III, President
Board of Trustees