HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-04/20/2016 ®f ��� Town Hall Annex
John M.Bredemeyer III,President r� ®� ®�
Michael J.Domino,Vice-President �� ~ ®jit_ 54375 Route 25
P.O.Box 1179
Glenn Goldsmith
' Southold,New York 11971
A.Nicholas Krupski
p ,t+ •` �® r Telephone(631) 765-1892
Charles J.Sanders ®4c®i 0.° Fax(631) 765-6641
lse.
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RECEIVED
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
MAY 252015
Wednesday, April 20, 2016 Southold Town Clerk
5:30 PM
Present Were: John Bredemeyer, President
Michael Domino, Vice-President
Charles Sanders, Trustee
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee •
Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist
Stephen Kiely, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
= PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 5:30 PM
WORK SESSIONS: Monday, May 16, 2016 at 4:30 PM at Downs Farm, and on
Wed., May 18, 2016 at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of March 23, 2016.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good evening..Welcome to the Trustees
April, 2016, regular monthly meeting. To my left is Nick
Krupski. To my immediate left is Charles Sanders. I'm John
Bredemeyer, I chair the Board. This is Trustee Mike Domino to
my, right, Vice-President of the Board. To his right is our
Assistant Town attorney Steve Kiely, and to my far right is
Elizabeth Cantrell.
For the sake of information, that is not in the agendas,
which are available at the lecterns,just to let you know, the
information that is considered at the Board of Trustees meeting
has to be on file with the Trustees office a week before our
monthly meeting so that we can consider these matters at our
work session that precedes the meeting.
Also there are a number of items in your agenda that have
been postponed either at request of the applicant or because the
Board, upon field inspection or work session, has found that items may be
deficient, for which we need more information before we can make
Board of Trustees 2 April 20, 2016
a determination.
The items that are postponed are located on page six, items
three and number four; on page seven, item five; on page ten,
items 16 and 17; and going to page eleven, number 18 from the
preceding page, number 19 and number 20. They are listed as
follows:
Number three, Docko, Inc., on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DEV. CORP., do
FISHERS ISLAND MARINA, LLC requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit to dredge ±9,350 cubic yards sandy silt over±70,500sq.ft. With a one (1)foot
over-dredge allowance of±2,400 cubic yards by clamshell bucket for open water
disposal; construct±36 linear feet of 7'wide main pier extension and seven (7) ±30
linear foot by 4'wide fixed finger piers with associated support tie-off and fender piles;
install ±228 linear feet of 8'wide main float with eighteen (18)20 linear foot by 3' wide
finger floats; ±216 linear feet of 8' wide main floats with thirteen (13) 20 linear foot by 3'
wide finger floats, two (2) 20 linear foot by 4' finger floats, two (2) 13'x42' and one (1)
19'x42' dry-sail floats; all with associated ramps, restraint piles and tie-off/fender piles;
and reconstruct or replace existing 12'x20' dinghy float; add new±475sq.ft. Float for the
"Sea Stretcher" access; repair or rebuild an existing ±350sq.ft. Wood launch ramp and
dredge an access way to the sailing dock for dredge access±850 cubic years over
±11,000sq.ft., waterward of the apparent high water line; and install a small boat crane
landward of the apparent high water line. Located: Central Avenue, Fishers Island.
SCTM# 1000-10-1-9
Number four, Docko, Inc. on behalf of ISLAND HOLDING LLC, do DAVID
LONG requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a 4' wide
by±95 linear foot long post/pile supported fixed wood pier of which ±63 linear feet is
waterward of the apparent high tide line, with tie-off piles; railings on both sides;
associated ladders; and a 3'wide pile supported ships ladder at seaward end.
Located: 1982 Brooks Point Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-3-3-3.5
Number 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
Number 16, 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
Number 17, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of Z&S CONTRACTING
INC., c/o THOMAS SHILLO requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing
single-family dwelling and detached garage; construct new 2,764sq.ft. single-family
Board of Trustees 3 April 20, 2016
dwelling with attached garage and 602sq.ft. covered porch; abandon existing and install
a new associated sanitary system landward of dwelling; construct a 417sq.ft. open
terrace with stone on grade; construct a 204sq.ft. plunge pool with retaining wall on
seaward side; and install a rain garden. Located: The Gloaming, Fishers Island.
SCTM# 1000-10-10-2
Number 18, RICHARD GLUCKMAN requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten (10)
Year Maintenance Permit to remove non-native and invasive vegetation while preserving
native vegetation; to establish and subsequently maintain a 100'wide Non-Disturbance,
Non-Fertilization Buffer along the landward edge of the wetland vegetation along the
westerly side of the property; and to establish and subsequently maintain a 50' wide
non-turf naturally vegetated buffer landward of the southern property line along King
Street continuing in a northerly direction towards Orchard Street while decreasing to a
25' non-turf buffer. Located: 4760 Orchard Street, Orient. SCTM# 1000-27-3-7.2
Number 19, Thomas Wolpert, P.E. on behalf of MILDRED M. PASCUCCI
requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built 10' wide path through the existing vegetation
along the easterly side of the property to install a test well; construct a proposed
two-story, single family dwelling with the first floor area to include 518sq.ft. of living
space, a 1,445sq.ft. deck, a 336sq.ft. pool, a 70sq.ft. ramp, and 148sq.ft. of stairway;
second floor to include 1,741sq.ft. of living space, a 345sq.ft. deck, 112sq.ft. of
stairway, and a 625sq.ft. landing; install a sanitary system in an approximately 625sq.ft.
area; construct a 2.5' high by 88' long retaining wall; install a 1,030sq.ft. pervious
driveway; add approximately 630 cubic yards of clean fill onto property; and clear
vegetation within a 9,557sq.ft. area on the property. Located: 305 Narrow River Road,
Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-3-11
Number 20, 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 patio located 29'11"
from top of bluff; and install pool enclosure fencing. Located: 2700 Sound Drive,
Greenport. SCTM# 1000-33-1-11
Those have all been postponed.
For the next field inspection for Wednesday, May 11th, I make a motion that we have the
regular field inspection on May 11th at 8:00 AM. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And that we on hold the next regular Trustee
meeting Wednesday, May 18th, at 5:30 PM in the main meeting room.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And that the Board will hold work sessions on
Monday, May 16th, at 4:30 PM at Downs Farms, and on Wednesday,
May 18th, at 5:00 PM in the main meeting hall. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve the Board
Minutes of March 23rd, 2016. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second. Is there a vote?
Board of Trustees 4 April 20, 2016
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for March 2016. A check for$10,141.23 was
forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the
following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, April 20, 2016, are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
SEQRA:
Michael DiLeone SCTM# 1000-57-1-10
Kuhl Family Trust SCTM# 1000-70-12-38.1
The Boatyard at Founders Landing, Inc. SCTM# 1000-64-3-10 & 1000-64-3-11
David & Katrine Wolfgang 1000-64-1-12
Yolanda Kanes-Esposito 1000-51-4-7
Fishers Island Dev. Corp., do Fishers Island Marina, LLC SCTM# 1000-10-1-9
Maureen M. Mooney SCTM# 1000-37-4-16
Domeluca II, LLC SCTM# 1000-23-1-2.10
Robert & Noreen Fisher SCTM# 1000-111-5-3
Andrea Parks SCTM# 1000-111-9-5.1&5.2
For The Love of Family, LLC, do Anthony Lomangino SCTM# 1000-104-3-16.1
Jason Schmidt SCTM# 1000-53-5-12.6
Richard & Lisa Israel SCTM# 1000-35-6-27
Anthony Campo SCTM# 1000-111-1-24, 25 & 26
Cameron Dowe SCTM# 1000-90-1-5
George Katsamanis SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.40
Michael J. Confusione SCTM# 1000-107-7-9
Mildred M. Pascucci SCTM# 1000-26-3-11
Richard Gluckman SCTM# 1000-27-3-7.2
The items listed under Item III, I'll move them as a group as Type II actions.
Is there a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In order to expedite minor administrative
amendments or changes to pre-existing permits, or for
applications for extensions and transfers, we'll often lump
Board of Trustees 5 April 20, 2016
together applications for these minor actions that have received
field inspections and administrative review during the course of
work sessions. And so for the administrative permits, the Board
has reviewed all of them and they have been determined to be
consistent with the town's environmental policy under the LWRP.
All except for item number three, which we'll hold out and
discuss separately. I would move to approve under Item IV, for
resolutions, administrative permits, I would move to approve as
a group item one, item two, item four and item number five.
They are listed as follows:
Number one, JAMES F. HAAG, Jr. requests an Administrative Permit
to remove dead trees with stumps to remain to allow for new
growth; and for a Ten (10)Year Maintenance Permit to hand-cut
Common Reed (Phragmites australis)to 12" in height by hand, on
an as needed basis. Located: 4725 Orchard Street, Orient.
SCTM# 1000-27-2-2.6
Number two, En-Consultants on behalf of LISTA M. CANNON & KATHRYN
CAMPBELL request an Administrative Permit to install a 4' high, approximately 270'
long split rail fence along the northerly property line. Located: 475 Arshamomaque
Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-2-17
Number four, Peter Stoutenburgh on behalf of JANE ROSENBLUM requests an
Administrative Permit to repair the existing 14.4'x17.2' one-story storage shed. Located:
1280 Bayberry Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-2-10
And number five, Peter Stoutenburgh on behalf of JANE ROSENBLUM requests an
Administrative Permit for a Ten (10)Year Maintenance Permit to hand-cut Common
Reed (Phragmites australis)to not less than 12" in height by hand, on an as needed
• basis. Located: 1280 Bayberry Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-2-10
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item three, the application of KRISTEN
FROHNHOEFER requests an Administrative Permit for a Ten (10)
Year Maintenance Permit to remove dead, diseased, and overgrown
or invasive vegetation and trees; maintain lawn and current
planting beds; re-plant dead or destroyed trees, shrubs, and
flowers; and the'addition of new planting beds, plants, and
trees. Located: 1505 Yennecott Drive, Southold. SCTM#
1000-55-4-25.3
The application has been deemed to be inconsistent with the
Town's LWRP in that the site plan does not identify the location
of the regulated features of the wetlands and fails to identify
the setback to the wetlands.
The Board of Trustees conducted a field inspection of this
site and flagged the extensive wetland vegetation that was along
the stream corridor there so that the applicant is aware of the
protected species that should not be disturbed.
The other activities that were described and detailed
during field inspection indicated that they were going to be
minor and of a housekeeping nature, where the applicant was
removing invasives such as Rosa multiflora. So I would think to
Board of Trustees 6 April 20, 2016
address the inconsistency we would just, simply we could move
this application with the request that she submit a
supplementary plan just to show the location of the beds that
she had indicated she was going to clean up and remove the
invasives.
So I would move to approve this subject to a little plan
showing those areas she was going to remove the invasives.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And that thereby addresses the
inconsistency. '
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under applications for extensions and transfers,
administrative amendments, the Board reviewed all of these and has considered them at
our work session as well as on field inspection, and as a group we have no issues with
them, and they are all exempt from an LWRP determination.
Accordingly, under Item V, I would move to approve items one, two,
three and four. They are listed as follows:
Number one, En-Consultants on behalf of CUTCHOGUE 6213, LLC, c/o STEPHANIE
GUILPIN requests a One Year Extension to Wetland Permit#8410 and Coastal Erosion
Permit#8410C, as issued on April 23, 2014. Located: 6213 Oregon Road, Cutchogue.
SCTM# 1000-82-2-3.1
Number two, En-Consultants on behalf of CUTCHOGUE 6291, LLC, c/o STEPHANIE
GUILPIN requests a One Year Extension to Wetland Permit#8411 and Coastal Erosion
Permit#8411C, as issued on April 23, 2014. Located: 6291 Oregon Road, Cutchogue.
SCTM# 1000-82-2-3.2
Number three, Patricia E. McIntyre on behalf of NEW SUFFOLK WATERFRONT FUND
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8510 for the reconfiguration
of the handicapped ramp an additional 3,890sq.ft. for front door access; the addition of a
192sq.ft. concrete pad and stairs for access to walk-in box; reconfiguration of the
concrete walkway along eastern edge of parking lot to be a total of 560sq.ft.;
replacement of boulders and steel steps with 74sq.ft. wood steps and 86 linear feet of
wood walls; deletion of wood steps at northeast corner; and installation of 6' high security
fencing around accessory building. Located: 650 First Street, New Suffolk.
SCTM# 1000-117-8-18.1
Number four, DENIS & NANCY COLE request an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit#8679 to install 4' high pool enclosure fencing along the two retaining
walls, along the southerly side yard property line, and in towards the dwelling. Located:
655 Albacore Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-57-1-17
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. RESOLUTIONS - MOORING PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item VI reflects requests for mooring
permits. By and large they are all replacing existing
Board of Trustees 7 April 20, 2016
pre-existing moorings that prior permittees have given up for
the issuance so others can now enjoy access to our creeks.
The Board reviewed these applications at our work session.
Accordingly I would move under Item VI, mooring permits, I would
move to approve items one through nine inclusive. They are
listed as follows:
Number one, STEVEN SCHNEE requests a Mooring Permit in Town
Creek for a 30' motorboat, replacing Mooring #771. Access: Public.
Number two, JOSEPH MELLY requests a Mooring Permit in Little
Creek for a 22' outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring #991.
Access: Public.
Number three, BENJAMIN SUGLIA requests a Mooring Permit in East
Creek for a 14' outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring #800.
Access: Private.
Number four, GEORGE ANDREADIS requests a Mooring Permit in Gull Pond for a 24'
outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring #23. Access: Public.
Number five, SUMMER TURTURRO requests a Mooring Permit in Narrow River for an
18' sailboat, replacing Mooring #HB-10. Access: Public.
Number six, FRANCIS BEAURY requests an On-Shore/Off-Shore Stake & Pulley
System in Narrow River for a 14' outboard motorboat, replacing Stake#3. Access:
Public.
Number seven, RONALD APOSTLE requests an On-Shore/Off-Shore Stake & Pulley
System in Narrow River for a 12' outboard motorboat, replacing Stake#S12. Access:
Public.
Number eight, JOHN HOMANS requests an On-Shore/Off-Shore Stake & Pulley
System in Narrow River for a 14' outboard 'motorboat, replacing Stake#S1. Access:
Public.
Number nine, FRANK PASSANANTE requests a Mooring Permit in Narrow River for a
20' outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring #HB-30; and Cancel Wetland Permit#6151
for Mooring #13 in Gull Pond, Greenport. Access: Public
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time I'll make a motion to go off
the meeting agenda into our public hearings.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The first application, number one, is
MICHAEL DILEONE requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#4771
to replace easterly 60' section of existing bulkhead and return in-place.
Located: 940 Tarpon Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-57-1-10
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application?
(Negative response).
Okay, seeing no one has stood up to speak to this application for Michael DiLeone,
the action is considered exempt under the LWRP.
Board of Trustees 8 April 20, 2016
The CAC was unable to make inspection therefore there is no recommendation
from the CAC.
The Board of Trustees representative Charles Sanders conducted the inspection,
as an amendment, it's a straight-up application, has no problem, accordingly, hearing no
other comment, I'll make -- Charles, do you want to add anything to it?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Nope.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No comments, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this
application as submitted.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number two, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of KUHL
FAMILY TRUST requests an Amendment to Wetland,Permit#8644 to
add a 4'wide by 6' long cantilevered platform adjacent to the
bulkhead; and relocate existing aluminum ramp and floating dock
6' to the south off of seaward end of proposed platform.
Located: 1790 North Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-12-38.1
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency arises from the fact that the current dock
configuration imposes upon the navigable channel as referenced
in figure one of the LWRP report.
The CAC resolved not to support this application. I'll
read from the CAC report. It does not support the application
because the current structure is sited on public property and
has destroyed the natural marshland that is apparent in the
area. The CAC suggests an alternative way of protecting the
shoreline.
The Trustees, I did an inspection on April 12th, and noted
that the plans submitted March 24th, 2016, showed the
reconfiguration of the dock into a t-shape, and it would remove
it further from the channel.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. As far
as the proposed plan that we have here, the way it's installed
right now is in the "t" configuration, in the exact location as
per the permitted plans that were approved by the Trustees and
the DEC several months ago. If you recall, the original intent
for this project was just remove and replace the bulkhead, and
at that time it was determined there was an existing Trustees
permit for the ramp and float in the configuration that it's
been placed at right now. Through that time, looking at water
depths and where the ramp has been placed, and as you can see
from the photos I provided, and the water depths that I show on
the proposed plans, there is not a lot of water there. As you
know, DEC regulations, 30 inches of water required at low tide.
Board of Trustees 9 April 20, 2016
So we have to provide the chocks to keep it off the bottom. That
being said, there is no regulations for the boat itself. So we
can keep our float 30 inches above, however the boat is sitting
on bottom, which will cause damage. So what we are trying to do
is just extend it out another six feet, get us another six
inches of water, seven inches of water, eight inches of water,
which should be sufficient for Mr. Kuhl's boat. And in addition
to that is, I show the existing channel here on the plan, the
existing channel, and if you recall, the neighbor to the west,
yes, to the west, um, had an issue with navigating his boat past
the existing dock where it was. In the "i" configuration. The
channel as identified has excellent water depth. By moving this
proposed float out another six feet, we are still away from the
channel, we are still about five to six feet landward of where
the old "i" dock sat, thereby giving him sufficient room to get
by with his boat. So really the ultimate goal is to maintain
the channel, navigability, and also give the homeowner a couple
of extra inches of water for his boat.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would point out that I did visit this at low
tide and concur with your assessment.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would just add that it appears that the
LWRP has an artifact from an aerial, a Google Map or similar,
that has not been updated. Therefore we are dealing with that.
I was helping out with the Town shellfish Advisory Committee
this spring already, doing water sampling by kayak in the creek,
and I think the attribution that the CAC has as to damage here
is really a function of the hard winter, and the shoreline there
is extremely beaten down. And I had to take a sample right off
that location via kayak. It's pretty shallow. I didn't get to
the channel where I was going, but it was pretty obvious that
the entire shoreline, all the Spartina and everything is down
from just normal winter damage.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Questions more comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted, noting that the new configurations will keep the boat
away from the channel and thereby addresses the inconsistency.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. -
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number three, THE BOATYARD AT FOUNDERS LANDING,
INC., requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#8666 to extend
the overall length of the existing two (2) 3'x18'finger piers
Board of Trustees 10 April 20, 2016
and two (2) 3'x20'finger piers on the northwest side of the
property in that they will be re-constructed as four(4) 3'x30'
fixed finger piers with fixed ramps off of new raised bulkhead.
Located: 2700 Hobart Road & 1000 Terry Lane, Southold. SCTM#
1000-64-3-10 & 1000-64-3-11
The LWRP has found this consistent and the CAC did not
inspect, so no recommendation is forthcoming.
The Trustees conducted an in-house review on the 13th and
found everything in compliance.
Is there anybody on behalf of the Founders who would like
to speak?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello on behalf of the applicant,just
here to answer any questions there might be. It's a straightforward application.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is there anybody else here to speak on behalf
of the applicant?
(Negative response).
Any thoughts from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, there were no issues. It was basically
a straight-up replacement pretty much, and slight improvements.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to close this hearing. Do I
have a second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Motion to approve this application. It is
deemed consistent under the LWRP. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in.favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of DAVID
AND KATRINE WOLFGANG requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit
#7066 to re-orient existing 6'x20' floating dock and,two (2) 8"
diameter float pilings so that float is positioned perpendicular
to the shoreline rather than parallel; and install two (2) 8"
diameter tie-off pilings 20' to the west of floating dock.
Located: 302 Town Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-1-12
The LWRP found this consistent and the recommendation was
made on the basis there is no navigation issue at the waterbody,
and no issue with public access.
The CAC also resolved to support the application. That's
all they had there.
Trustee Domino went out to inspect this on April 12th and
the comment he had was he's unsure why there would be additional
tie-offs, and it might be close to the one-third rule.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant. Basically the owner has purchased this property
that was previously issued a Trustees permit for the dock and
the shore parallel configuration that you see it in today. He's
talking about or was talking both to Jack Costello and myself
Board of Trustees 11 April 20, 2016
about positioning a fishing boat with an eleven-foot beam on the
outside of the float and then putting tie-off pilings on the
outside of it. And we tried to work with him to come up with a
solution that would actually create less of an imposition on the
waterway than would either tying the boat up on the outside of
the shore parallel float, either by itself or with additional
piles, and obviously if he tied it up just off the existing
permitted dock, he would not need any further approval from the
Trustees to do that.
We are not really concerned about the one-third rule here.
It's about 210 feet across to the other side of the creek, which
was measured by the surveyor currently, and I think that was
within a foot or two consistent with what was shown on the
original permit a number of years ago. So you are really
talking about a 70 foot protrusion across, and we are proposing
44 feet. It's 33 feet now.
So basically the reorientation of the float which is going
to start about three feet farther landward than the existing
float. Then you have the same six feet the existing float
occupies with the balance of that 20 foot being the eleven foot
additional encroachment, ends up equaling or being even a
little bit less than the encroachment than if he just put the
boat on the outside. This way he would put the tie-off poles on
the side and you would have, as we have depicted it on the plan,
and I think this is what we were successful in convincing the
LWRP coordinator of, if you look at the plans you would now have
sort of the permanent docking station for this dock on the sides
of the float, the reoriented float. So you would have no variable
projection farther out into Town Creek as you do now. Depending
on whether somebody has an eight-foot beam or 14-foot beam or
whatever, this kind of establishes a permanent footprint for
where a boat that size can be docked. So we felt that it
satisfied the owner's concern and actually came up with a
potentially better satisfying the Trustees' concerns going
through this modification process than just sticking the boat
out on the other side of the float. So hopefully you see our
logic in it. And it should have been staked for Mike's
inspection, I hope.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, is there anyone else here to speak to
this application?
(Negative response). •
Are there any comments from the Board?
(No response).
That being said, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? _
Board of Trustees 12 April 20, 2016
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits,
number one, 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. That has been struck
from the plans. 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
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The CAC does not support the application based on the
following: The Trustees have established a pattern of approvals
for this area that the CAC cannot support because of the
hardening of the bluff and the bottom has deleterious
environmental impact. They reference Chapter 111, Coastal
Erosion Hazard Area prohibits mining or excavation for the top
of the bluff.
And Trustees have done field inspections on this site
several times, the most recently on March 16th. There were
several questions at the time about the concrete referenced to
the east. They needed a detailed discussion on access
construction methods, a lateral support, and protection of the
land to the west.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant. This is I think the third public hearing we have
had on this application, and if the Board will recall, we had
some pretty lengthy discussions at the first hearing about the
design and the potential impacts, and there were some concerns
that were brought to the floor by the adjacent property owners
Feldis, to the east. And subsequent to that time, as the Board
knows, the design engineer Jeff Butler has been back out to the
site, not only with the Board but also with Mrs. Feldis. He and
Neil Kearns, the applicant, have had continuing conversations
Board of Trustees 13 April 20, 2016
with Mrs. Feldis and both of her sons, and I think there is
correspondence from prior meetings in your record from the
Feldis family, and the concern basically focused, as Mike just
mentioned, on the issue of lateral support on the east, along
the east property line, where there is currently a, sort of an
armored area of both natural field stone and also some concrete
rubble from the historically existing 100-year old stairway, the
bottom of which had previously collapsed.
I think the Board had expressed, Jay had some comments, I
can't remember whether it was here or in the field, about having
some conversations with the DEC about whether they would let
that material remain and whether that could perhaps play a role
in coming up with an alternative design that would mitigate the
concerns of the Feldis' to the east. And in fact that did end up
happening, we met at the site with the DEC. They felt that the
material could remain, and ultimately the agreement that was
reached between Mr. Kearns, Mr. Butler and Mrs. Feldis and her
son was that what had been proposed to be an excavated revetment
across the entire subject property would actually end, in other
words the excavation would end where it meets, and you can see
in the upper left-hand corner of the your photo there, where it
meets the stairway and that existing armor material, so any
additional stone that would be placed at that location would be
placed supplementally on and behind that material, and through
that design change we eliminated any toe of bluff excavation
within -- I think I have, we submitted the revised plans, I just
have to see what the number is. I think it's about 23 feet.
Yes, I had submitted the revised plans along with a letter dated
April 18th, and that's where I note that it's about 23 feet.
So within about 23 feet of the easterly property line there
would be no excavated revetment at the toe of the bluff, and
that seemed to mollify the Feldis concerns about the lateral
support issue.
I received a copy of a letter directly from Mrs. Feldis and
Liz confirmed for me this was also submitted to the Board. It
was a letter from Mrs. Feldis to the Board stamped received by
Trustees on April 18th, where Elaine Feldis basically describes
in general terms what I'm describing, and it indicates that the
revised plans which we sent her a copy of and have now submitted
to you were in fact consistent with her conversations and
understanding out if the field.
So with that, we hope and believe that we have resolved
that issue of lateral support on the east side. And as noted in
the last, in the hearing last month, we had an issue on the west
side where we are proposing a tie in to the previously approved
Gallagher revetment, and we have since received a letter from
Kevin Gallagher also giving his specific consent for the two
structures to tie in, which would allow the Board to permit, I
think it's seven or eight feet of this stone structure that
actually crosses the property line, where those two structures
would then mesh.
Board of Trustees 14 April 20, 2016
And I --oh, I and I think we also, we had received and I
submitted to Liz, I think Liz, we submitted to you, Kevin
Gallagher's maintenance agreement for that revetment, too. So
that finished up the housekeeping on the west side.
That is all I have. If you have any questions, I'm happy
to answer them. Jeff is not here tonight but hopefully I can
answer any questions the Board might have.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to refer back to my opening reading
of the agenda where it is stated that you are going to remove
the concrete and reference the fact that the new plans showed
that that concrete is staying.
MR. HERRMANN: Correct.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Which if I just might paraphrase a letter from
Elaine Feldis: Mr. Kearns' revised plans also state that the
existing piece of the concrete running along the east side of
the current beach access stairs will remain in place, and these
pieces that are from historical Cosden Estate are so embedded in
the beach and bluff they also provide protection to the bluff,
and removing them would have a negative impact. She goes on to
say that: Please note that I continue to be concerned about
potential negative impact upon my property but I am withdrawing my
objection to the permit and I'm not waiving any rights. So, and
there is an also a letter from Mr. Gallagher stating he has no
objection to this.
MR. HERRMANN: And the new plan consistent with that, Mike, does
have some notations that shows the area of existing natural
field stone and concrete material to remain, which is now
modified from the originally submitted plan which showed the
concrete to be removed.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Correct.
Is there anyone else here to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Are you sure you don't want us to table this
again.
MR. HERRMANN: I'm positive. But I do thank you. I think the
Board did make a decision to allow us some time to work with the
neighbor and that proved to be productive, so, I think you made
a good decision.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments from the Board,
make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
presently submitted.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application is number two, Jeffrey
Board of Trustees 15 April 20, 2016
Patanjo on behalf of YOLANDA KANES-ESPOSITO requests a Wetland
Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove the existing storm
damaged timber bulkhead and replace it with a 65 linear foot
vinyl bulkhead in new alignment landward of existing; install 16
linear foot vinyl bulkhead returns on both east and west sides
of bulkhead; install a total of three (3) 6'tall vinyl
retaining wall terraces landward of proposed bulkhead to
stabilize bluff; install 750 cubic yards of clean sand fill to
re-nourish bluff and re-vegetate area with native plantings such
as Bayberry and beach grass; remove existing timber deck at top
of bluff and install 4'wide bluff stairs consisting of a 4'x4'
top platform, 4'x32' steps, 4'x4' upper landing, 4'x5' steps,
4'x4' middle landing, 4'x18' steps, 4'x8' lower landing with
4'x8' steps to beach. Located: 20205 Soundview Avenue,
Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-7
This application has been deemed to be consistent with the
LWRP, with a request from the LWRP coordinator that we discuss
the density of the native vegetation due to be planted and to
identify how the project will be accessed during construction.
The CAC, unaware that the deck was being removed according
to the application, apparently was concerned about the
pre-existing nonconforming deck overhanging the bluff. That is
addressed in the application. They were concerned about the
location of the existing well, which is not pertinent to this
application. They did make a recommendation that consideration
be given for retractable stairs or removable stairs at the
bottom of the accessing the beach directly.
The Trustees went out and completed a field inspection on
April 13th. The project plans seemed to address the severe
erosion on the site and in the area.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. I'm
okay with the suggestion of seasonal stairs and I recommend it
at this location anyway. And if you have any other questions, I
would be happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Given the exposure, any thoughts on plant
spacing, if you are going to go with American beach grass on the
lower tiers, standard.
MR. PATANJO: I would say 24 inches on center would be good.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's fine. That's keeping with good
practice and it will revegetate naturally. I don't think we have
to specify bayberry or other shrubs. That will fill in pretty good.
Before I get too far afield, are there any other questions?
It's straightforward. Anyone else here wish to speak to this
application?
(No response).
Okay, how are we going to access this during construction?
MR. PATANJO: By land. He'll have to make a pathway down through,
it's so far gone, he'll excavate down through the property.
He'll have to fill it in all anyway.
Board of Trustees 16 April 20, 2016
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is he planning to construct a road to the
beach? In other words, excavating through the bluff constitutes a
separate operation under our Coastal Erosion Hazard Act. We may
have to have some additional discussion.
I think the Board looked at the site and felt that
construction, the marine construction access by barge might be
more appropriate, with materials going over the top by crane or
bucket, or shooting over--fill over the top.
MR. PATANJO: That will be fine. I'll have them do it by barge.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board has particular experience with a
site that the Sound front for the construction was accessed with
a temporary road that existed for,the better part of five
months, and on every high tide and easterly wind, the Long
Island Sound filled with silt and sediment through failure to
recognize that you can only have so many hours of working time
on the Sound-fronting beach.
MR. PATANJO: Right. If you want to make it a requirement of the
permit, a condition, to access by barge only, that's fine.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think that's at least advisable. We might
expect this will be a recurrent theme on a number of our projects.
Any questions from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I concur with that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments with respect this
application?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this
application as submitted with the stipulation that seasonal
stairs be incorporated in the plan; that American beach grass be
planted 24 inches on center; and that access for the bulkhead
construction be from the water by crane and barge; and that
other materials be positioned over the top of the bluff; and
that there be no road construction or bluff cut as part of this
permit activity. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. PATANJO: Do you need revised plans?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe that's a de minimis change, that
24 inches on center is self-explanatory. And the stairs, we can
handle that.
MR. PATANJO: Thank you.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE SANDERS: We'll skip three, four and five. Now we'll go
on to Wetland Permits, number one, Costello Marine Contracting
Corp. on behalf of MAUREEN M. MOONEY requests a Wetland Permit
to remove 120' of existing bulkhead, and 51' of existing
Board of Trustees 17 April 20, 2016
concrete block retaining wall; construct 171' of new bulkhead
in-place; and install and subsequently maintain a 10'wide
non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Located: 575 Pine Place, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-37-4-16
The LWRP has found this consistent with the note to further
Policy Six and protect the water quality of Spring Pond and
adjacent waters require that the proposed ten-foot non-turf
buffer be vegetated with native plant species.
The CAC has resolved to support this.
And on 13 April, 2016, at 10:20 AM, all Board members were
present, and the only note that we have here is existing five
foot above grade request elevation data. That was requested.
Is there anybody here who like to speak behalf of the applicant?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello behalf of the applicant. We want to
maintain the existing grade of the bulkhead just due to
drainage. I don't think there is really an issue there. It's a
functioning, working height, that won't cause any other issues.
And as far as the buffer being vegetated, is that okay, rather
than stone? Because generally, a lot of times we use three
quarter natural stone as a buffer, and we have done it around
Spring Pond, and pretty much every bulkhead done recently has
had stone and rather than a vegetated buffer.
MS. MOONEY: My name is Maureen Mooney, and I'm the property
owner. The original plan after discussion with Costello was to
do the buffer around and then with pebbles or gravel there as
the buffer, and then my plan was just to put large planter
plants, you know, with some grass or whatever was relevant at
that point.
I think if we planted plants, first of all, um, I think
that would limit the access to, there is a little beach in front
of the pond, not that people use it that often, but it would,
the deer would find that offensive.
MR. COSTELLO: And it's contiguous with the area. Everything has
stone down there. Myself and other contractors. I don't think
there is any reason to dictate it should be vegetation.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Would anybody else like to speak on behalf of this
application?
(Negative response).
How about thoughts from the Board regarding the ten-foot buffer?
Fine with current plans?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: With that being said, 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 SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve this application,
it is deemed consistent under the LWRP. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 18 April 20, 2016
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, Costello Marine
Contracting Corp. on behalf of NH SAG, LLC, do MICHAEL
SCIARRINO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x40' ramp
to a 4'x100'fixed dock with a 4'x40'fixed "L" section at
offshore end; construct a 4'x5' platform with a 4'x16' ramp onto
a 4'x30' lower platform; install water and electric; and install
three 2-pile mooring dolphins. Located: 2100 Paradise Point
Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-3-19.7
This application has been deemed to be inconsistent by the
LWRP coordinator. The coordinator has submitted a six-page
lengthy discussion concerning his take on public policy
concerning the waters of the town. I would like to incorporate
it by reference in its entirety into the public record here.
We'll provide a copy for the Minutes.
Paraphrasing it, the LWRP coordinator is concerned about
any loss of, physical loss of vegetation, structure placement,
construction practices, chronic shading, wildlife, physical
loss, functional loss, loss or impairment of habitat,
destruction of habitats and migrating habits and migration
patterns for the structure and activity, introduction of harmful
contaminants. There is a lengthy discussion here concerning
preserving the interest in the use of lands and waters held in
public trust. Just touching on possible alternatives, it also
indicates the limits on grants and easements and permits for
structures can be controlled. The proposed structure would be
susceptible to storm or ice damage. Consider the exposure and
fetch of the waterbody. Disposable sanitary waste on board the
vessel has not been identified. Questions about the natural
resource management, public recreation, commerce, size,
character, and the effect of the transfer in relation to the -
neighboring uses. The potential for interference with navigation
or public uses of the waterway and riparian rights. The
effective transfer of interest of the natural resources
associated with the wetlands. The water dependent nature of the
use, adverse economic impact on the existing commercial
enterprises, consistency with public interest for the purpose of
navigation, commerce and fishing, bathing and access to
navigable waters and the need of owners of private property to
safeguard development. Ensure public access to public trust
lands and navigable waters. Provide access to and reasonable
recreation of navigational waters, public trust lands and lands
underwater. Provide free and unobstructed public use of all
navigable waters below the line of mean high water. Obstruction
of navigable waters underwater lands is limited. There is a
lengthy additional discussion concerning that.
Going further, the extended use of dependence on access to
navigable waters, use of private residence, we know that. The
range of tidal water fluctuation, the size and nature of the
waterbody, the nature of public use of adjacent waters,
traditional means of access used by the surrounding similar
Board of Trustees 19 April 20, 2016
uses, whether or not alternative means to gain access are
available. Piers, docking facilities and catwalks must not
result in an unnecessary interference with use of public trust
lands, alternatives to long piers or docks include the use of
,
dinghies to reach more boats and mooring in nearby marinas,
potential adverse effect of natural resources. Potential adverse
effects on the public safety. Alternatives to private docks,
structures in Peconic Bay include mooring of boats, safe areas
and docking vessels in nearby marinas. Pursuant to Chapter 268,
the Trustees shall consider the recommendation preparing its
written determination regarding the consistency of the proposed
action.
I'll just comment briefly on this, very briefly. The LWRP
coordinator, for such a lengthy treatise concerning docks, is
conclusory in some of his statements and references to impacts.
I think with this, such a lengthy document and the import that
it brings, the Trustees might better have a more lengthy
discussion on the impact of docks, and since docks can be
considered in an unlisted action under the State Environmental
Quality Review Act, to seek appropriate information and to flesh
out all these many issues, it might be advisable to set up a
separate work session to possibly discuss environmental issues
that might lead to a finding by the Board of environmental
significance and a more detailed review. Because I'll be honest,
quite frank with you, at the work session this last Monday, I
didn't realize the depth and the breadth of the LWRP
coordinator's comments. I would not want to -- I feel
uncomfortable overlaying the many, many severe concerns that he
has. I'm just getting out a little in front of this, but you can
understand that is an awful lot for a Board to chew off in one
evening work session when we had 50 items on the agenda.
The CAC supported the application with the following
recommendations: Installation of beach access stairs, removal
of non-functional groin. Lateral access should not be impeded
along the beach. The site plan is marked to show the slope as a
non-disturbance buffer, and the lights and dock comply with the
Dark Skies code.
The Board of Trustees did perform the field inspection, had
been out to the site two times, the second time this month, on
the 13th, to see that the project had been staked. The Board did
note that the proposed structure is in keeping with previous
existing neighboring dock which does have a permit.
There is also a letter into the file here. There is a
letter from James and Barbara Miller: To whom it may concern,
we the adjacent property owners have no objection to the work
proposed by Michael Sciarrino on his waterfront property. It's
signed, Jim Miller.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. Jack Costello on behalf of the applicant. I
also have a letter from the other neighbor, Jack Petrocelli who
is also completely in favor of it. I asked if he sent to you
Board of Trustees 20 April 20, 2016
guys but I have a copy I can produce now.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You can give that to Elizabeth.
MR. COSTELLO: It basically says something similar to what Mr.
Miller said. In this area this dock is very consistent with
neighboring docks and there was a concern there about docks
being damaged. We did McCarrey, it was Scott, now it's Mark
Miller, Jim's son and now Jim, where the heron is, there's three
docks in the area that has not been significant damage to any of
those docks. We went through the same, that whole list of things
when we did Jim Miller's dock.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You did in fact, so we might find a similar
file entry for the LWRP for that.
MR. COSTELLO: Pretty much. It was ten years ago, I know things
have changed a little bit, but we went through that same
rigmarole with Mr. Miller's dock back then. And it was found
that there is no significant marine plants in this area. We
produce that stuff but I'm sure you have it on file. I don't
know if you looked at the Miller application. I don't know,
Jay, if you were on the Board when Miller--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This Board, although we have a little bit of
institutional knowledge, that was before my time getting back on
the Board. It might be beneficial to look at that. I mean, some
of us are familiar with those open waters because I worked on
them for about 25 years, and that stretch doesn't have or is
capable of having the vegetation, that would be just one issue,
just based on our own information and our own observations
during field inspections. It might be beneficial to review the
prior findings that relate to a dock that is so close by that
does have a permit. And maybe we, the Board of Trustees should
review this, maybe a little further at a work session, and
distill down pertinent issues that might remain after a review
of the pertinent information.
MR. COSTELLO: Right. But all I'm pointing out is the statute is
right there in front of you. We have gone through this with a
neighboring dock. We made a dock that was consistent with the
area. I understand it's a different Board now, but I want to
point out, the statute is there. We have gone through this
before. It's directly next door. And we tried to be consistent
with something that would make Mr. Petrocelli happy and Mr.
Miller happy, plus the client.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That is definitely understood. I think the
Board finds it a difficult task to reconcile such a large
document from the LWRP coordinator that seems to be somewhat
contrary to long established policies and principles of this •
Board. But by the same token, we are required to issue a written
report of findings, which typically is part of the approval
process that we go through. And it's well now impossible to
properly consider such a voluminous document in returning simply
a verbal consistency. I would say if we go through these items
through a work session process where we can outline them and
compare them against similar documents, we might be in a better
Board of Trustees 21 April 20, 2016
position to honor the requisites of bringing this dock to
consistency, if in fact the Board sees major inconsistencies.
And another possibility is to answer some of these questions in
the lengthy comment for future reference through an impact
statement process that properly compares such suggestions that a
mooring in another part of the bay may be more environmentally
suitable than a dock in this place. Because we all know that
moorings out on the open bay, when you put the sufficient rope
chain on them, are chewing the bottom up and also are
destroying scallops and other beneficial marine organisms,
whereas a dock that is properly constructed or one that may even
include non-toxic materials, there are materials now as far as
tropical hardwoods or some of the artificial materials that go
in, would eliminate concerns concerning toxics. And I don't
think we have ever seen, you know, a very hard look at the
relative impacts for docks. I mean, so I hope you understand
that some of the feelings -- I don't, particularly as the
Chairman of this Board, I don't particularly want to let go of
such a substantial document like this coming from the LWRP
coordinator with just a summary, you know, we'll make it
consistent because XYZ.
MR. COSTELLO: Right. So that's the long way of saying we are not
going to act on this tonight.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, that's the very long way. Yes, I find
in relation to the lengthy LWRP document, I think I had to draw
it out a bit,just to--
MR. COSTELLO: Out of respect. I understand. When is the
work session, because --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We can put this on for our next Downs Farms
work session, we can develop a checklist I think ahead of that
and the Board maybe ahead of time could preview the previous
neighboring dock LWRP and how the Board may have considered
bringing it into compliance with the LWRP.
We are on for, our date we just voted on, Monday, May 16th,
at Downs Farms.
Any additional comments, Mr. Costello?
MR. COSTELLO: No.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else wish to speak on behalf of this
application?
(Negative response).
Questions? Board members?
MR. COSTELLO: So you'll just table it for now?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm going to move that presently, yes. I'll
make a motion to table this application at this time for
subsequent work session discussion. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, Costello Marine
Contracting Corp. on behalf of BRUCE AND ALLAN GOLDSMITH request
Board of Trustees 22 April 20, 2016
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
For the purposes of clarity of the record, Southold Town
Trustee member Glenn Goldsmith has recused himself from this
matter and he is not present here tonight. An employment
responsibility that changed on account of the flooding in
Houston had him having to leave town unexpectedly.
This particular, it's pertinent to disclose at this time,
that this particular item which is open for hearing, aspects of
it were part of the work session discussion and a work session
resolution by the Board on Monday the 18th. At that time the
Trustees issued a resolution formalizing and clarifying the
policy that every owner of a property must authorize the
submission of a wetlands permit application. And in accordance
with this policy the Trustees are not inclined to process
applications that don't have the support of each and every
owner, as the Trustees are not the proper arbiter of which
co-owners desire control. This is in fact the policy of other
Boards within this town and other communities, and in this town,
it's a policy of our Planning Board, this is a matter that has
just come to the fore.
Accordingly, based on the prerogatives of this Board and
this new policy which fairly represents all owners of property,
I make a motion to table this application.
But before moving that, is there anyone here who wishes to
speak to this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, on behalf of the applicant. Is
there any issues besides the ownership legality that the
Trustees have a problem with? Outside of the ownership?
Is there any problem with replacing the bulkhead?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No. For the sake of file review, I believe
we covered that on the initial public hearing. And the Board has
no problem with it. It's an exempt action under the LWRP. It's
just a straight-up bulkhead replacement. So as far as the
physical site and construction methods and plans, the Board does
not have a problem.
MR. COSTELLO: What legal documentation does the Board need to
move forward on this? What do you require to be resolved to move
forward on this application?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would be in fact what I just spoke to,
which would be the basis of the table. We have to have the
support of each owner in a form and manner that would be
sufficient for my clerk and the Board and our Town attorney
Steve Kiely. Basically just an acknowledgment of the person
acknowledging that they are, the support of every owner in
making the application is known to the Board through the
application process.
MR. COSTELLO: There is no consideration about percentages, stuff
Board of Trustees 23 April 20, 2016
' like that? It has to be a full 100% ownership agreement?
MR. KIELY: Well, tenants in common, is how this property is
being held. Each tenant has 100% undivided interest in the
property. So if there was a different agreement, if you have a
written agreement whereby one might say a tenant in possession
has the authority to make improvements, authority to do so, if you
have that document, that's a different story. But in a vacuum,
you would need the approval of each and every tenant in common
to submit an application for a wetland permit. -
MR. COSTELLO: Thank you. That's the answer I needed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else wish to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Seeing no other, I would make a motion to table this application
until the applicant can clarify the support of all the
individual owners. That's my motion. _
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second. •
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: En-Consultants on behalf of DOMELUCA II, LLC
requests a Wetland Permit to demolish and remove existing
dwelling, swimming pool, and deck; construct new 2,130sq.ft.
one-story, single-family dwelling with attached covered deck and
pavilion; a 20'x84' swimming pool; a 25'x36' deck; 4' high pool
enclosure fencing; a 53'x56' basketball court; replace existing
sanitary system with new; and install a drinking water well.
Located: 14895 Route 25, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-23-1-2.10
The LWRP found this to be consistent, and to protect the
water quality of Dam Pond would require a 50-foot wide native
vegetation non-turf buffer between the property and the wetland.
The CAC also supports this application with the condition
that the pool drainage system is depicted on the site plan.
The Trustees visited this site on the 13th and overall we
saw the application as being pretty straightforward.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of
the applicant. We had met during field inspections on this
property. It should be viewed by the Trustees I think as a very
good project. It basically removes a number of residential
structures on the property that are currently located less than
100 feet from wetlands and constructs, places the construction,
the new structure is not only more than 100 feet from wetlands
but at least 100 feet from top of bluff on the property.
And if the Board has any questions or concerns, certainly
I'm happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there anyone else here who
wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Comments from the Board? Regarding the swimming pool, maybe?
Board of Trustees 24 April 20, 2016
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The swimming pool, if we can't locate it on
the plans, is something to be added in. Swimming pool backwash
filter, is it a pre-existing --
MR. HERRMANN: There is a pool now being demolished and removed,
then there is a proposed swimming pool. I'm trying to remember,
I thought we had the surveyor show a proposed drywell for pool
backwash, but I'm having trouble finding it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I could have_ missed it. But I didn't see it.
MR. HERRMANN: I'm just looking at it for a second.
We would certainly stipulate, we would agree to a condition
to add a pool drywell. That's just an oversight. I'm sorry. That
we would have that located at least 100 feet from the wetlands,
if not 100 feet from the top of the bluff.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. And then the LWRP coordinator was also
looking for a 50-foot buffer from Dam Pond.
MR. HERRMANN: I saw that. I thought that was pretty excessive
for a developed lot, particularly given the landward relocation
that we are proposing here. Typically a 15-foot buffer along the
top of the bluff has been typical. It's a little bit of a
different kind of bluff but I think the applicant has a
landscape and some natural meadow plans they may want to come in
with, they may want to go wider than that in places, but maybe
we could stipulate a non-turf buffer along the top of bluff or
wetlands boundary where bluff fades way at least 15 feet, and if
they want to add more native vegetation beyond that, I'm sure
you would not object.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's, generally speaking, keeping with what
the Board does. There are a lot of invasives in there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, any other comments?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just a comment. A 15-foot non-turf buffer,
if possible, maybe 20 feet. The property on the bluff
overlooking Dam Pond is heavily vegetated with undesirable
invasive vegetation. It might be advisable to allow a portion of
that to have the invasives removed and replant with natives and
maybe broaden a non-disturbance zone of maybe ten or 15 feet on
the downward slopes and join that.
For the purposes of, in other words for the purpose of, I
would not want to see that whole area that is occupied by the
wild privet hedge, I would prefer to see some of that be
returned to native vegetation. I'm just thinking as far as the
site specific--
MR. HERRMANN: Jay, I think the plan that would be consistent
with what you are saying is the applicant would probably come
back with a re-veg plan to address those specifics, that would
include pulling those things out, establishing a permanent line.
I'm just asking --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So if we were to consider the 15-foot
non-tougher buffer for the purposes of completing permitting
here, the applicant is not then constrained by creating a
non-disturbance zone full of bad guys and then you can come back
in --
Board of Trustees 25 April 20, 2016
MR. HERRMANN: And they would come back to you with a more sort
of removal and re-veg plan.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That sounds reasonable.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
MR. HERRMANN: That's fine for us.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application as
amended with the a 15-foot non-turf buffer and drywell for the
swimming pool, and submitted through landscape plans.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If we get an amended plan to cover the
landscape.
MR. HERRMANN: We can submit an amended site plan in the meantime
that adds the drywell and the buffer.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number five, En-Consultants on behalf of ROBERT
& NOREEN FISHER requests a Wetland Permit to demolish and remove
existing one-story dwelling and construct a new±3,661sq.ft. •
two-story, single-family dwelling with attached garage,
±314sq.ft and ±427sq.ft. covered porches with 7'wide stairs to
grade, and ±343sq.ft. deck with 4'wide stairs to grade; remove
and replace existing 1,212sq.ft. swimming pool deck with a
1,105sq.ft. on-grade masonry patio located 5'further landward
from top of slope; remove existing septic system and install new
sanitary system landward of dwelling; install a drainage system
of gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff;
install a backwash drywell for the existing 935sq.ft. swimming
pool to be maintained; modify/extend existing pool enclosure
fencing; install masonry walkway on south side of dwelling;
relocate existing public water service line; and establish and
subsequently maintain a 10' wide, approximately 2,160sq.ft.
non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the top of slope.
Located: 2530 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-5-3
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The CAC did not make an inspection, therefore no
recommendation was made.
The Trustees --there is a letter in the file from the DEC,
a letter of non jurisdiction. •
The Trustees did a field inspection on April 13th, and all
were present, and note this is a straightforward application,
there are no issues were discovered.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann, of En-Consultants, on behalf of
the applicants accident. Robert and Noreen Fisher are also here.
This is another good project, we think. The tidal wetlands
Board of Trustees 26 April 20, 2016
letter of non jurisdiction has been issued by the DEC, and due
to a setback issue relating to the paper road to the south side,
we had to go through the Zoning Board of Appeals, and we have
their variance approval,just recently from March, which was
K6924. Basically there is only a very little bit of work that is
even going to occur within 100 feet of the tidal wetlands
associated with Cutchogue Harbor, and a partial landward
relocation of the house actually increases not only the wetland
setbacks but the quote unquote top of bluff setbacks associated
with the bay.
The existing deck around the swimming pool will be reduced
in area any replaced with non-grade masonry patio, it's about
107 square feet smaller and about five feet back farther from
the top of the bluff and wetlands. Minimal increase in lot
coverage and over 2000-square foot non-turf buffer would be
established within ten feet of the top of the bluff. And there
is going to be also sanitary system upgrade and relocation. All
the sanitary work will be well beyond the 100-foot bluff
setback.
If you have any other questions we are certainly happy to
address them, but I would agree with the characterization that
is this is a straightforward reconstruction project that brings
I think environmental improvements with respect to covered
setbacks, etc., with respect to the property.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Questions, comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number six, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ANDREA
PARKS requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built bluff stairs
consisting of a 4.7'x3.6' top platform, 15.6'x2.7' stairs, 3'x3'
upper platform, 1.7'x2.7' stairs, 4.4'x3.0' upper middle
platform, 2.8'x13.4' stairs, 4.0'x9.7' middle platform,
2.8'x15.4' stairs, 4.0'x18.9' lower platform with 3.0'x6.3'
stairs to beach parallel to bulkhead. Located: 3925 & 3995
Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-9-5.1&5.2
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. Comply with
Trustee regulations and recommendations as set forth in Trustee
permit conditions. The stairs are not constructed regulatory
permits and to stabilize the bluff requires the area void of
Board of Trustees 27 April 20, 2016
vegetation to be replanted with native vegetation.
The CAC supports the application with the condition the
stairs at the base are retractable or removable.
I actually inspected this, and just, this is an as-built
structure. The work is already completed. And the bluff is
certainly void of plantings.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. The
project originated during Hurricane Sandy. It was permitted
under, I do have the permit number for you, but I'm sure you
have it as well. So it is a permitted installation. However,
when the contractor went to put in the proposed replacement
stairs after Hurricane Sandy, the area that they were was so
steep and fallen apart that he decided let me put it over here
.because it's a better spot for it, there is more vegetation,
easier grade, it's easier to build and it will be more stable in
the long-term.
So we are here today to try to get this figured out. I have
no objection to making sure those stairs retractable or
seasonal. I could easily modify the stairs to do that. As far as
the wetlands vegetation plantings, if we wanted to add something
to this application, I would ask that we extend the permit
timeframe,just for financial reasons, that is not feasible for
the applicant right now., So that's one of the options that we
have.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Definitely one of the issues here is if that is
not stabilized we'll be back here in like a year or two with the
same exact application, except the pool might be in, you know.
MR. PATANJO: I hope we have a little more than a year for that.
Hopefully.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Hopefully.
MR. PATANJO: The stairs are well constructed. It's a good set
of stairs,just the location shifted from the south over to the north.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
to this application?
(Negative response).
Are there any comment from the Board about vegetation and
timeline? Does anyone have any feelings about that?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: What about making the stairs seasonal, does
that make the LWRP good to go?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Basically, if they can be bolted on and
unbolted, that would satisfy.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's not a problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve in application with
the modification that the platform at the bottom on the beach
can be removable and bolted on, thereby bringing it into
Board of Trustees 28 April 20, 2016
consistency, with the strong suggestion it be revegetated as
soon as possible.
MR. PATANJO: I'll make the recommendation. .
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number seven, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of FOR
THE LOVE OF FAMILY, LLC, do ANTHONY LOMANGINO requests a
Wetland Permit to spread approximately 250 cubic yards of clean
sand fill on existing beach adjacent to pile to a maximum depth
of 12"; all work to be above the mean high water line and
avoiding disruption of existing vegetated wetlands in area; and .
in accordance with NYSDEC Consent Order#15AF37. Located: 9205
Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-3-16.1
The LWRP found this to be consistent. The CAC resolved to
support the application with no conditions, reference the New
York State consent order.
The Trustees did a field inspection on April 13th,
approximately 2:15 in the afternoon, and all were present. And
in the notes, question the need for more detailed plans showing
where the spoil will ultimately reside. The target area was not
staked.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. My
proposed plans show an outline with some hatched area showing
where the proposed spoil is going to go. There is no staking,
just because I don't know exactly where the wetlands grasses are
there. There are some along the fringe that we wanted to avoid.
Again, this is, the whole purpose of this is to satisfy New York
State DEC and their consent order, for the client, to actually
spread the sand on the beach. That was part of the agreement we
had. So staking could be done if you wanted to, but otherwise
the whole intent is to avoid the above mean high tide line and
avoid and wetlands or any grass or any vegetation of any kind,
and spread along that whole area as indicated on the plan.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Speaking for myself I'm in full accord with
that. I'm sure the rest of the Board is, but I need to see it staked.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think staking is appropriate. Short of
having a Trustee onsite during the course of the operations, if
one was available, if our schedules permitted. But I think
that's pretty much a straight-up thing to quickly stake it, the
area Trustee or Trustee that's available could confirm the
staking as quickly as one or two days after it's staked. And now
that the weather is warming there is opportunities for any of
the emergent patens or other Spartina that should be easily
discerned by those staking and Trustees looking at it, so I
Board of Trustees 29 April 20, 2016
think that's a good idea
MR. PATANJO: Am I allowed to talk?
How is that going to happen? Do you want me to stake it
before we do the work or do we have to come back for another
meeting?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, well, Trustee Domino is carrying the
application. Typically we could stipulate and then make it a
condition that we would review it and allow the work to go forward.
MR. PATANJO: So stake it, give a call, it's staked, we are going
to do the work Monday, something like that, or a couple of days
notice? .
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
MR. PATANJO: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right, any other questions or comments?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the condition that the staking, that the Board will be
notified after the staking so that concurrence of the area
Trustee or Trustee concurrence, written approval in a field
report. Written approval of the Trustees.
MR. KIELY: Basically, until you get the written approval, you
can't do anything.
MR. PATANJO: Perfect.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's my motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, 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
The Board of Trustees first attempted to make an inspection
on this site on February 10th but it was impassible due to snow.
We conducted a field inspection on March 16th, we discussed
issues surrounding both the home construction and the proposed
dock at that time. In the intervening time a revised plan was
submitted to the Trustee office dated April 9th revision, which
proposes a 100 foot-- 100 feet from the tidal wetlands as the
zone of clearing, and it proposes a 75-foot non-turf buffer.
The follow-on to the application and the field inspection
Board of Trustees 30 April 20, 2016
that the Board performed this last Wednesday, April 13th, the
Board requested on the field that some consideration and further
discussion be given to, instead of having a 75-foot non-turf
buffer adjacent to the wetlands, that the site, because of its
environmental sensitivity, would be much better served with a
75-foot non-disturbance zone so that the entire perimeter of 75 .
feet contiguous to the town owned underwater lands and the
wetlands of Richmond Creek would be protected. And that we felt
it would be appropriate that any activities at all within that
75 feet would be protected then by having that as a
non-disturbance zone. And the fact that it's a stable hardwood
forest in that location and with no invasive vegetation that it
should remain stable going forward for quite a great time.
The Southold Town LWRP coordinator indicates that this
project is inconsistent with the Town's policies in that the
concerns concerning the dock, largely, that before considering
an approval for a dock, the Trustees should be considering
whether it will impair navigation or be located in the areas of
high vessel traffic that it maintains. That the dock has
proposed is a 223-foot dock and that it does not appear that the
one-third rule has been met. That a net loss in public use of
waterways is expected as a result of the construction of such
large structure in or around public waters. That the proposed
vessel dimensions and draft have not been identified. All
lumber is proposed to be treated with CCA in this ecologically
sensitive area and does not comply with Chapter 275 regulations,
which cites below. I won't go into them but, by reference, the
wetland code not only prohibits all CCA in many cases but in
more fragile or areas that have poor water exchange, the Board
can also provide additional requirements for non-toxic material,
whether they be tropical hardwoods from an approved source or
fiberglass or other artificial laminates that don't leach toxic
materials into the waterway. The area is shallow and increased
turbidity and or bottom scarring may occur depending on the type
andnature of vessel operations. The waterbody is a Department
of State Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat. It's also a
critical environmental area previously designated by the
Trustees. And it's a New York State critical environmental
area. Diamondback terrapin are native to the creek and they are
vulnerable to disturbance, as noted. The alteration and tidal
patterns could have major impact on fish and wildlife. Any
barriers to fish migration or physical or chemical impacts
should be discussed. That is based on New York State Department
of State concerns. The unrestricted use of motorized vessels
including personal watercraft in protected bays and harbors can
have a significant adverse effect on aquatic vegetation. Whether
the dock will in fact disrupt or damage existing stands of
beneficial submerged aquatic vegetation, such as eelgrass
(Zostera marina) or widgeon grass (Rupia maritima), and whether the
cumulative impacts of a residential dock will change the
waterway or the environment, and whether adequate facilities are
Board of Trustees 31 April 20, 2016
available for the boat owners or operators for fueling,
discharge of waste, rubbish, electrical service or water
service, which has not been --apparently the LWRP coordinator
believes has not been sufficiently addressed. And that in our
position as officers protecting the public trust lands of the
town, concern that, you know, that we carefully assess any
project of this scope in terms of what grants or easements or
permits we grant in relation to a structure which is 223 feet
long. Now, due to the high ecological value of Richmond Creek, a
seasonal mooring is a better option in this instance. I believe
that's an opinion of the LWRP coordinator, which I believe with
many of the other concerns might more appropriately be reviewed
in the context of an environmental impact statement. As I said
before, a non-toxic structure may have, depending on the use of
the boat at it, may have less impact to the bottom, at least to
my mind, than an anchor with chain rope chewing up the bottom.
I think I covered --the CAC is in support of the
application provided that it did not, the dock does not go more
than one-third of the way across the creek.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application?
MS. RIGDON: Good evening, Agena Rigdon, DKR Shores, here to
represent Sam Singer in the application.
Since we last met, this is a holdover from the last
meeting, if you recall, the Board generally didn't have a
problem with the house. The sanitary system, the pool and most
of the structures proposed are out of jurisdictional boundary
except for a small part of the clearing which we did show depict
to have trees flagged, which you met on site with Mr. Singer,
and observed that at the last site inspection. Also, a couple
of items which the Trustees asked to have proposed, the revised
plans were delivered dated the 9th, as you saw. We have since
modified those slightly and as per our conversation with you and
Mr. Singer onsite, we modified the verbiage for the 75 foot
buffer offered to the Board as a 75 foot wide naturally
vegetated non-disturbance buffer area, and I do have additional
copies of surveyor revised by Nathan Corwin dated April 14th for
the Board's review.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That is just in summary, the change of the
verbiage which we considered going from non-turf to
non-disturbance
MS. RIGDON: Correct.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ordinarily this would be materials we have
to give further consideration and check according to our policy
as far as new materials submitted lately. But it appears to be
what you are saying is in conformity with what we asked you to
consider.
MS. RIGDON: There were some other changes, if I can continue,
that were actually made on the 9th, the plans that were prepared
and delivered to you for April 9. These were forwarded
electronically, by the way, but these are the hard copies that
are scaled in front of you now.
Board of Trustees 32 April 20, 2016
We did change the CCA and treated lumber to all hardwoods.
We did explore your question regarding fiberglass poles. I spoke
with numerous contractors, not just Mr. Singer but, as you know,
I work for Chesterfield Associates, South Shore Docks, Docko, et
cetera, and basically, the gist was you wanted me to explore the
concept of monopole. Monopole, basically, to do a "t"formation
structure with one pole in the middle, would have to at least be
a ten-inch round pile. This,just installing a ten-inch and even
considering a monopole, would cause a thousand times more
disturbance than just two men with two feet jetting in a 6x6. So
we have no problem with entertaining not just a hardwood but a
fiberglass six-inch round. Mr. Singer is amenable to that.
That is fine. However the ten-inch monopole --and funny, Sam
was actually calculating the square inches of cover of a
ten-inch versus two six-inches and there
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): One is 78 inches square --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, you'll have to get up and address the
Board.
MS. RIGDON: The ten-inch calculated to 78 square inches.
MR. SINGER: Sam Singer. So the ten-inch wide is 78 inches square
whereas the two six-inch diameter piles are 56 inches square, so.
MS. RIGDON: Actually, stay up here. I would like you to address
what watercraft you have and then what the alternative would be
of dragging this thing through the intertidal area, which would
be a disaster.
MR. SINGER: So instead of the 4X4 hardwood, we would be willing
to put in the hardwood posts, but we also looked into the
fortress pilings that are six inches, and they fiberglass, they
are hollow and have a quarter inch wall. I talked with Seascape
Marine and he would be willing to use those type --two pilings
ten-feet apart, and that would have minimal impact on the bottom
and would satisfy the fiberglass, you know, if you wanted those
instead of hardwood, I would be happy to do that.
In terms of the reason for the dock, is I have a Hobie Sail
Cat that normally I would have to drag over the wetland grass.
It's four feet wide, it's a long -- I think I would disturb more
wetlands. And I'm an avid boater and sailor. So in dragging •
that craft out across the wetlands would be, in the sand, would
cause more damage than having a fixed structure with properly
designed, with monopole, flow-through decking, and would have
minimal disturbance.
I also have a small outboard that I would keep there as
well. And I have a mooring permit for that outboard. It's an
eight-- a 20 foot outboard and I think, again, I would cause
more damage with the mooring because that's what I would be
using going back and forth across and disturbing the sands and
the wetlands. So I think the dock is actually the least destructive.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So at this point you have the small vessel,
the Hobie Cat and a 20 foot--
MR. SINGER: Exactly. It's a Hobie Cat Sail, also a kayak. But
you can't put it in shallow water you have to have a 30-inch
Board of Trustees 33 April 20, 2016
depth just to get it going. If you use it frequently, it's hard
to use through that degree of wetland.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I stand corrected. The new plan shows ten
foot on center for the piles.
MS. RIGDON: Correct.
MR. SINGER: And if you want we'll use the monopole fiberglass. I
would be willing to have the extra cost of doing that, if you so desire.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Not to belabor the issues because I think
possibly some of these things, dock-specific issues still might .
be worthy of more detailed examination. One concern is that a
traditional dock, even with piles that are, you know, 2x2 as you
go out, or alternate, it tends to obstruct the bottom quite a
bit, and the reason why there was some discussion on
consideration on at least advancing that notion for further
discussion of the monopole, is that would allow shellfishers and
other riparian users to be able to more easily access sides
under a dock without the encumbrance of the piles. So that
there are obviously some trade-offs to any one of these issues.
I'm sure the Board appreciates your offer to go non-toxics, so
we are addressing --
MR. SINGER: And the concern with the bigger pile when I asked,
they would have to get a bigger barge in Richmond Creek which is
relatively shallow and would probably create more damage to get
a barge big enough to put in those piles.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There again, I'm not sure possible
additional dock issues, because you heard the Board, I don't
believe has got the concerns, many of the concerns concerning
the house have been addressed and the 75 foot non-disturbance
zone is the largest I have ever seen offered in an application
since I have been a Trustee. But the dock comes to other issues
too because the trade-offs there maybe need additional
discussion by the Board, which, obviously, you talk about bottom
coverage and one time jetting in, whereas the smaller pile may
be subject to ice lifting, whereas the ten-inch pile on some of
the fiberglass has a pretty good history of not lifting. And for
each square foot you might disturb during the install, the
lifespan of the fiberglass pile now is typically estimated to be
50 or more years. So obviously placement, you want to make sure
you are putting it in a secure area. But non-toxic pile then is
also providing the surface area of the entire pile as a location
for growing beneficial marine organisms that might be oysters or
other things, and we have all seen what happens in the creek
during ice out, you can take a dock of this length losing,
having all the piles listed on a couple of sequential difficult
winters, the power goes out on a bubbler, which even a bubbler
on a dock of this length, a bubbling system on a dock to
maintain at ice out, would be questionable environmentally
because of circulating so much water in a creek to keep a dock
from freezing would possibly change the thermodynamics in the
creek. So you have a bunch of cumulative impacts from a dock of
this size and scope that we might want to have a discussion at a
Board of Trustees 34 April 20, 2016
work session or the possibility that some of these things might .
have to be detailed through a more in-depth environmental review.
Because I just think, I'd hate to see a dock go in with
beautiful, smaller pile and then have it coming up repeatedly
and requiring the dock builder to come in and jet it in year
after year. That would probably defeat some of the purposes
here.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Perhaps the application can be divided into an
approval for the house and pool, and wait on the dock.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe that would be, if the applicant
was to request to move ahead with the house application, because
of the nature of the protections that are afforded, we could
justify segmenting it. Because the house construction in and of
itself is a Type II action under the State Environmental Quality
Review Act. So a clean house application does not portend, it
really has to deal with the nuts and bolts of how houses are
approved by all the administrative agencies, and there is not a
lengthy environmental review that would lead to an impact
statement. And,I think we have addressed most of the concerns
surrounding protecting the woodland. But it would be purely
your decision, and we would have to get back to you if you wish
to continue on with the dock and the house together, we'll have
to get back to you with a very detailed statement concerning all
the impacts and possibility, we have to give it a positive
environmental declaration and, you know, that would tie the
house and the dock together.
MS. RIGDON: That would be up to my client.
MR. SINGER: Would there be any additional fees or applications
with this?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Trustees, through our wetland code, can
charge back the cost of the environmental review surrounding an
environmental impact statement. It's also at your option,
anyone who is dealing with an environmentally sensitive area can
, offer up an environmental impact statement of their own, of
course subject to Board review, and then we can, to limit those
costs, we can send out aspects of it or discuss aspects of it
that would need further review. But there is a charge-back
provision within the wetland code for outside review of applications.
MS. RIGDON: I can complete a full environmental assessment, if
you would like me to do that, a long form.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If it's Mr. Singer's wish to split the house
out then we would want to have a clean house application, and
then you can do a long environmental assessment form. I would be
glad to sit down with the Trustees at the next work session and
give you a detailed list of environmental concerns. I think you
heard a lot of them with the LWRP coordinator, I spoke rather ,
briefly to concerns about the stability of the structure over
time, and concerns that it wouldn't lift up every year or two
and require additional damage. I think you addressed the vessel
question well as far as the size of vessels. I don't think the
Board has a problem with the size of vessels that you intend to
Board of Trustees 35 April 20, 2016
keep at your dock. Nobody has a problem with that.
MR. SINGER: So the concern is, I guess, ice damage and the need
for a bubbler system. I was not even thinking of using a
bubbler system.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The fact is probably, with a dock of that
length, the first year that you come down in the spring or you
are there year-round and you watch all, I don't know how many
piles are involved now with that length, and they are all up in
the air and you have to call a dock builder, and the next thing
you'll be wondering the cost effectiveness of not having a bubbler
system because you obviously not going to want to have the dock
builder come back year on year, which sometimes is an issue.
MS. RIGDON: We have constructed many docks in full range ice
situations on the south fork, and we use the 6x6 square,
non-treated posts, 20 feet long. Every dock that I have done has
not come up. However these fiberglass new piles, and I'm all for
inventing new items that are environmentally friendly, I'm not
so sure about those. They are supposed to be filled with
concrete. They are hollow. I do agree with you that is a
concern. I would revert back to the 6x6 hardwood that I know are
a sure thing, and offer you 4x4's over the vegetated area.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I think this is worthy. Are you
saying you might be willing to separate out the house from the
docking going forward as far as --
MS. RIGDON: If it doesn't incur my client any additional cost or
expense beside me filling out the long-form environmental
assessment, then we agree.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, we can't warrant there would not be
additional expenses involved with an application because the
Board would have to review the long environment assessment form
and provide an environmental declaration with respect to
significance. And then if the Board still had questions or
issues, in most cases we would try to work with you, for
unanswered questions, but if it's necessary to take a more
heightened review, there is the provision in the code. We can't
pre judge, I think the Board has a history of trying to work
with applicants trying to address environmental concerns without
going to extraordinary expenses beyond the scope of persons
doing the expediting bringing us the information.
MS. RIGDON: I understand. As long as it's without prejudice and
we can just follow through with the dock at later date with any
incurred costs as determined by the Board.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, we have other Trustees that may wish
to speak or other individuals that may wish to speak. Do you
have anything else with your presentation at this time?
MS. RIGDON: Not at this time. But I'll address any questions as
they come up.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Very good. Is there anyone else that wishes
to speak to this application?
(No response).
Hearing no further comments, seeing no further indication of
Board of Trustees 36 April 20, 2016
someone wishing to speak, at this time, with respect to this
application, I would like to close the hearing in this
matter with respect to the house construction.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A motion has been made to close with respect
to the house only, with the stipulation as expressed in the
plans for a 75-foot of non-disturbance naturally vegetated area
adjacent to the house. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In order to provide some orderliness going
forward, I think,just an aside before moving to approving a
resolution, that the Board is keeping open discussions on the dock
and we'll waive the filing of a separate application fee for the
dock, if there is no objection to that.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: That's fine.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time I would move to approve the
house construction as applied with that stipulation.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
MS. RIGDON: Thank you. One additional question, when is the
next work session meeting that is available?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have to have a vote. Motion is made and
second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next meeting is on?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: May 16th.
MS. RIGDON: What time usually is that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We meet around 4:30.
MS. RIGDON: Okay, thank you, so much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Before you leave, counsel just told me, I'm
trying to keep this on simple terms here. We'll waive the fee
on new, applying for basically a new application for the dock alone,
but keeping open any, some of the hearing discussion here is to
append to that, and that we'll have to get, probably get back to
you after you give us an application with the long environmental
assessment form. I'm just trying to make it clear. So we need a
long environmental assessment form and an application for which
we'll waive the fees.
MR. KIELY: You can waive the fees but they have to re-apply for
a new application for the dock.
MS. RIGDON: Okay, got it. Thank you.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The next one is page nine, and it is number
nine, Frank Uellendahl on behalf of JASON SCHMIDT requests a
' Wetland Permit to add a 21 sq.ft. addition onto the existing
706sq.ft. Cottage; raise the existing cottage up to FEMA flood
plain requirements; install new concrete footings under cottage;
reconstruct 3'x3' seaward landing with steps, and side entry
steps to grade. Located: 65490 Route 25, Breezy Shores Cottage
#8, Greenport. SCTM#1000-53-5-12.6
Board of Trustees 37 April 20, 2016
The LWRP has found this consistent.
And the CAC has resolved to support the application.
I actually inspected this on 14 of April, 2016, at 4:40 PM.
And the only concern that I came up with is to request gutters
and leaders to drywells. I didn't notice that on the plans
anywhere.
Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of the applicant?
MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes, good evening my name is Frank Uellendahl,
on behalf of the applicants. I do have a site plan that does
show the roof runoff, including the line of hay bales and silt fence.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Has that been submitted already?
MR. UELLENDAHL: Well, the original plan should show the roof
runoff, but I added the protection of the hay bales.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Do you have gutters and leaders coming off--
MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes, there are two drywells with gutters and
leaders. Actually says here, roof runoff. It should say this
on the original.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: (Perusing).
MR. UELLENDAHL: Everything will be connected on both sides.
have two drywells.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: There you go, I didn't see it. I must have
looked at the other one.
MR. UELLENDAHL: No problem. We are also protecting the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay, anybody else? Would you like to say
anything else?
MR. UELLENDAHL: This probably looks very similar or familiar to
you because there was a very similar project that you approved
last year right next door. We are actually a foot-and-a-half
higher, so we don't have to raise the cottage quite up that
much, only maybe a foot. But the owners of Breezy Shores
understand that they are only allowed to increase the footprint
by a maximum of 3%. And we received a variance for that.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay, great. Thank you. Anybody else like to
speak on behalf of the applicant?
(Negative response).
Any thoughts from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No. It's very straightforward.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I would like to make a motion to close the
hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I would like to make a motion to approve the
application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. UELLENDAHL: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: You're welcome.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number ten, Robert Brown Architect, PC on
behalf of RICHARD & LISA ISRAEL request a Wetland Permit for the
Board of Trustees 38 April 20, 2016
demolition of existing single family residence and carport;
construct new 2,793sq.ft. two-story dwelling with new
foundation, and 1,154sq.ft. above grade patio on seaward side;
abandon existing sanitary and install new sanitary system on
landward side of dwelling; and install gutters to leaders to
drywells to contain roof runoff. Located: 685 Osprey Nest Road,
Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-6-27
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The CAC resolved to support this application using best
management practices.
The Trustees went out on April 13th to inspect this and
found no major issues. It looked pretty straightforward overall.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
MS. SZCZOTKA: My name is Karen Szczotka, agent for Robert Brown
Architect PC, on behalf of Richard and Lisa Israel, if you have
any questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anyone on the Board have any questions?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here wishes to speak to
this application?
(No response).
Okay, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application as
written.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would like to make a motion to take five
minute recess.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
(ALL IN FAVOR).
(After a short recess, these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, we are ready to go back to the record,
public hearings.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number eleven, Mark Schwartz, Architect on
behalf of ANTHONY CAMPO requests a Wetland Permit to demolish
existing dwelling and construct new 1,650sq.ft. two-story
dwelling with a 1,572.8sq.ft. wrap-around deck; abandon existing
sanitary and install new sanitary system with retaining walls
varying in height from 2.5' to 4.2' above grade; abandon and
remove sanitary system to existing shed which will not to be
replaced; and install gutters to leaders to drywells on the
dwelling to contain roof runoff. Located: 1165 Haywaters Road,
Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-1-24, 25 &26
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The CAC resolved to support the application with the
condition of a line of staked hay bales and silt fencing
Board of Trustees 39 April 20, 2016
installed prior to demolition and construction activities.
The Trustees did a field inspection on April 13th and all
were in attendance. Notes include, one, maintain a
non-disturbance buffer seaward of the limit of clearing, as
denoted on the plans. Limit the shed to no water or sewage, in
other words it is not be habitable. And one other suggestion, if
possible, to remove a drywell on the plans so as to save a large
cedar tree which would have to be removed in order to put the
drywell in.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, Mark Schwartz, Architect, for the project.
You may have seen this before, some Board members may have seen
this before. We had flood approvals for it, we had the Zoning
Board approval,DEC, Department of Health. So this is a final
go around. There are no changes from the original application.
I'm not sure which drywell you are talking about that would
save a tree. I'm sure we could do it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: If you want to approach.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The stack of four had like an 80-year old
cedar. I don't know if you could --
MR. SCHWARTZ: I'm sure we can.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because it looked like it would fit in with
the future land use.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay, sure. Absolutely.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, the discussion was surrounded, we
looked at the plans where the proposed drywells were and the
applicant has agreed they can save, it's about a 70-year old
cedar tree that would fit in with the natural vegetation on the
site. If'it can be saved, it can be saved. Thank you.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application with
the condition that there be hay bales and a silt fence landward
of the line of the limit of clearing as denoted on the plans,
and to maintain a non-disturbance buffer seaward of the limit of
clearing line.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just a brief discussion. I think the current
standard, you wouldn't have to employ hay bales, I don't know
for a site like that whether it's easy or not, provided the silt
fence is constructed according to the current engineering
specifications that the town engineer has should be all right.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: One other condition, I forgot to put in my
Board of Trustees 40 April 20, 2016
motion,lo limit the shed to non-habitable condition.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, and to include in the motion that the
shed be not habitable, with no water or sewage.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the motion is made. Second, again?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, Shawn M. Barron, M.S.
on behalf of CAMERON DOWE requests a Wetland Permit to construct
a ±625sq.ft. Shed which will not have electricity or sanitary;
construct a 4'x15'fixed catwalk with six (6) 8" diameter piles;
a 32"x12' hinged ramp; and 6'x20'floating dock with two (2) 8"
diameter float piles. Located: 975 Cedar Point Drive West,
Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-1-5
The application has been deemed consistent by the LWRP.
The CAC did move to support it.
The,Trustees on field inspection met with a very nice
neighbor who unfortunately had been forced to have his dock a
bit closer to the property line here than he wished because of
another neighbor's structure and thought if possible we could
entertain a discussion in the public hearing concerning possibly
shifting the dock about ten feet to the north, northwest,
rather, to accommodate that neighbor who has been slightly
pushed over. So the docks are rather tight in the area.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. BARRON: Shawn Barron, for the applicant Mr. and Mrs. Dowe.
Good evening. I would love to be able move to dock over. I'm
afraid that would probably throw in the DEC's bad graces. I'm
kind of:hemmed in with the decks. They want 30 inches at low water.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. Oh, yes. It's very clear here, he has
barely two-and-a-half feet. If the current position goes to the
northeast, he's in trouble with the DEC. Understandable. All right,
the imposition, really, clearly the neighboring dock is over
toward the property of your client, on account of others. So I
think under the circumstances that, you state your case well.
don't think anybody here has an issue with that.
MR. BARRON: And the neighbor is here. And I think they are
neighborly and they'll work things out between themselves.
With respect to the shed, I thought I had amended the
application when I was actually submitting it. We do intend to
have electricity in the shed, but not water.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We could handle that from the dais, if we
get through the permitting stage. Is there anything else you have to add?
MR. BARRON: No, not if you don't have any other questions.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the Board felt it was fairly
straightforward. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to
this application?.
(No response).
Board of Trustees 41 April 20, 2016
Not hearing any further comments, do any Board members have any
questions or concerns?
(No response).
Okay, not hearing any, I would make a motion to close the
hearingl in this matter.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
III move to approve this application as submitted, noting for
the record that there will be electricity supplied to the shed
but no sanitary waste or plumbing. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number 13, 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 521sq.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 LWRP coordinator has found this inconsistent. And they
have three points to communicate. Number one, the depth to
groundwater is shallow in this area is not indicated on the
plans. Portions of the proposed two-story addition, deck and
pool are located within FEMA flood zone AE. Elevation six feet
not meeting policy number four. And the proposed pool deck is
located 23 feet from a wetland area.
' The CAC has resolved to support this application.
The Trustees have inspected this property several times.
The last time we came upon the property was 4/13/2016. All were
present, and the notes indicate wetland of local importance
flagged on the east side, discuss protection and suggest a low
profile split-rail fencing on the landward side of the 20-foot
non-disturbance area.
Is there anyone who wishes to be heard on this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack for the applicant. And the applicant
is here this evening. This is a continuation of a table. And we
have had several conversations. A little, going back a little
bit, basically, New York State DEC had made the determination
that that particular remnant wetland is not within their
jurisdiction. So they primarily are working off the primary
wetland. And we did discover that, from a prior permit they had
indicated the 20-foot buffer from the primary wetland. And they
basically took this away from their jurisdiction.
As an alternative to the split-rail fence, because I think
what you are trying to accomplish, and my client has a push back
Board of Trustees 42 April 20, 2016
to the split-rail, except if you are looking to try to
accomplish a physical demarcation somehow, in order to identify
the edge of that 20-foot buffer, or as you go forward, any time
that you are going to do a non-turf buffer, whether it's off a
bulkhead at ten feet or any of the projects you talked about
tonight,.I think the Board is looking to move forward with some
identifying demarcation, so that there is some way with which
the future owners are able to know where that line is and
basically uphold it, for the most part.
What we are recommending for this property, basically, is
that from the pictures that I have shown you right now, if I can
refer you to that site plan that has that 20-foot buffer on
there, is that from the eastern boundary line, a little past the
dock, there is a defined bank primarily, there is a row of tree
lines along that, which is fairly close to the 20-foot setback
from the high water mark, that we would like to be able to refer
to that as the demarcation line for that portion along the
20-foot;buffer, and for the remaining portion from that last
tree line up to toward the house, toward the existing portion of
the house, we would offer basically to put in the ground and
ground level, about every five foot, a Belgian block lining a
path, so that it becomes a physical demarcation but is not
anything that will stop or something that would be permitting
the Belgians won't rot out ten years from now. The fence will
be gone.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: On that section or the section on the other
side?
MR. KIMACK: If you look at picture, the other side, on that one,
no. This is the primary wetland on the other side, Charlie, for
the most part.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay.
MR. KIMACK: We feel that that would really give you what you
are looking for in terms of, because each property will be a
little bit different. But I thought if we put in a ground level
Belgian block, no concrete,just dry, into the ground, about
every five feet along that 20-foot boundary line, up to the tree
line and then use the natural trees as the demarcation zone,
that that would accomplish what the Board is trying to achieve.
As far as that side is concerned. Then I can see that that might
be something more acceptable as you move forward with other
clients because if you have a bulkhead where you are asking for
ten or 15 non-turf buffer, it's, I would imagine you would
probably have some serious conversation with people if you are
going to look for something like a split-rail fence for
demarcation.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The Belgian block is not a consistent row. It's
one little block, five feet, one little block, five feet.
MR. KIMACK: Yes. And it's easy enough to pick out, basically.
. The Belgian block, there is no concrete. It will be there
forever. It won't deteriorate or wear away or anything like that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We did start sort of a preliminary
Board of Trustees 43 April 20, 2016
discussion on this, one or two of us did. I don't know if I had
an opportunity to speak to all the members. Some thoughts were
maybe the Belgian block would be too easily disrupted or simply
plucked out of the ground. We were thinking a little more
' substantial, like a natural stone material or something, in
other words that might be esthetic that would be of a little
more substantial in nature. We, I know I discussed it with the
vice-president. We are concerned somebody just comes along and
says wow, I could use Belgian block to replace --
MR. KIMACK: Well, they are going to be in the ground about eight
to ten inches. I mean, that's the depth of Belgian blocks, they
are four inches thick, generally about 12 inches long, depending
on what size you get, and they are generally about eight to nine
inches deep. So they would be eight to nine inches in the
ground. Not something that will come up very easily at that
particular point.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It doesn't address one of the reasons why we
were in favor of the split-rail fence, which was to delineate
for landscapers or other people exactly which area was the limit
of cutting. And I don't see a Belgian block flush with surface doing that.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: If you look at it, if we were to do an about
face and look at that property you can see how it's all natural
vegetation and then all of a sudden that property begins and
it's all clear. So it's as if there is a natural wetlands and
all of a sudden it's gone. So the goal is to delineate it very
clearly so none of that gets cleared in the future and stays
this way.
MR. KIMACK: Are you saying that, moving forward, you'll require
a split-rail fence on every demarcation zone on all the non-turf
buffers?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: No.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm not married to the idea of a split-rail
fence. 'I'm just saying --
MR. KIMACK: Neither are we.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: What about a natural, perhaps natural plantings
higher up.
MR. KIMACK: About half of it we feel we have the natural tree
line, basically, and along that top of the bank, from the
pictures, you see you have that natural tree line that
delineates pretty close to the 20-foot line. So we don't, as
long as that is there, anything that is seaward of that tree
line or down the bank, is going to be the protected zone. So we
don't really, from that perspective, we don't need a split-rail
fence in that area at all. Now, from the last free back to the
house where it's open --
TRUSTEE SANDERS: That's where we are talking about.
MR. KIMACK: And there is not a bank per se, that's where we are
talking about to put the stones in. If you want me to put them
closer or something like that be to be more continuance.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: What about natural vegetation that would be at
waist level, or some sort of vegetation that would be a clear
Board of Trustees 44 April 20, 2016
sign that this is delineating the property.
MR. KIMACK: I'm not quite sure what can survive in that zone. In
a sense you'll kill the rosa rugosa, especially for the wetted
areas, for the low area, if you've go the water, you'll kill the
bayberries and the blueberries. I mean the only plant that can
service that, that is the one living in the remnant wetland is
the Baccharus.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That site is constantly hammered with
overflow.
MR. KIMACK: In essence what we have now is a natural low
vegetation only because of the kind of environment you have in
that place. I mean, if you want to, we'll set a continuous
Belgian block line across there. Just to avoid having to put
the split-rail up and having that in the way. It will be more
expensive, but I think my client would probably be amenable with
that than the split-rail. We can do continuous --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That is a pretty extensive event. We are
talking about installed as typical in Belgian block curbing
where you'll have a footing, so --
MR. KIMACK: No footing. Dry. Dry in.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess this is a matter for some
discernment and slight difference of notions here, obviously.
What about some erratic, small erratic boulders or whatever, dug
in, in other words so basically you have something that's not
prone to simply being altered, somebody going in and stealing
Belgian block when you are not there, that kind of thing?
MR. KIMACK: If you are thinking along the lines of like
something within the 50 pound range of a boulder, something like
that, an erratic one, that would be placed every ten feet or 20
feet along the way, something like that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right, something in the soils --
MR. KIMACK: Something that would look a little more natural
basically along the way. I mean in the sense if you set them 15
or 20 feet apart and they are irregularly shaped, they may not
look out of place, they would look more in, but they would give
you a distinct aboveground boundary. That would be acceptable to
my client and I think that would work.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That far apart doesn't accomplish what you are
trying to do, which is to delineate and preventing people from going --
MR. KIMACK: How far apart were you thinking?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: What do you think, five feet?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Five feet.
MR. KIMACK: And how high above the ground would the rock have to
come?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm more concerned with the weight. 50 pounds is
fine. How much --
MR. KIMACK: I mean, if you had a 50-pound rounded, for the most
part, bolted in the ground and stuck it up four or five inches
or so, something in that particular range. I mean, this would be
the compromise. It would be visible, it would,be there,
basically, and I don't know, if you have a 50 pound boulder and
Board of Trustees 45 April 20, 2016
you set every ten feet, guys, I mean five feet is a little
close, but ten feet, you have the boundary pretty well spelled
out. The boulder has to be at least 18 inches wide for a
50-pounder to begin with. So every ten feet you have an eight to
eight-and-a-half spread on it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm getting a sense from some of the Board
members here maybe five feet. It also might work well in the
future because the landward of that is a lawn area, it would
probably work as well for what they call Xeriscape, where they
put in plants that are salt tolerant, not strictly the Baccharus
but some of the other materials would lend itself to a future,
you would need a permit for it, going to a non-turf buffer stone
material would be --
MR. KIMACK: I think in this case, given the fact that whole area
is sandy and my client doesn't really do much with that whole
hill anyway. What you see there is pretty much what will remain
there. There won't be any vegetation --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think what we are really concerned about
is allowing the vegetation, it's something we don't have to
revisit. I think five feet is something --
MR. KIMACK: If we can use the trees as the natural barrier and
then go from the trees forward every five feet with roughly a 40
to 50 pounder, we can live with that, on that side.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are we clear that the boulders, 50-pound
boulders will be where we delineated --
MR. KIMACK: It will follow the 20-foot buffer line the DEC set
out, Mike.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The DEC has it on the map.
MR. KIMACK: Yes, I mean, and apparently it was on a prior permit
that they had, basically, they reinstated it once we applied.
It's on your new survey. We can have, basically, I can have,
Nathan Corwin laid the original line out. He can come out there
and just give us some stake lines. Because he delineated the
original tidal wetland line. That's not a problem.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Can we go back to the other picture now on the
other side?
MR. KIMACK: The remnant wetland, the leftover.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The first one that has the drain.
MR. KIMACK: We don't know-- it cannot possibly go any place,
it's below grade. It's below the high water mark. So if it ran
out, I can't believe it runs out, it would be back watering all
the time. And you can't put a drywell there because of the
in-ground water. So I have no idea.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It seems to me it would be non-functional in •
any case
MR. KIMACK: We can pull that and fill it. Leave the pipe in the
ground and not disturb it. You don't want to pull the pipe. I'm
not quite sure, Jay, how far that pipe is--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, I was talking about the structure
itself. Fill it with sand, I think--
MR. KIMACK: Now, what you have around that, you said the 20 foot
Board of Trustees 46 April 20, 2016
demarcation, the 20 foot buffer around that, we are 23 feet from
there to the pool, primarily, an obviously we need some of the
area to be disturbance during construction of the pool. I went
out there today basically and identified that primary is K31
fescue, which is the primary growth in that area, within that 20
foot. That's what is there. So what would propose basically is
put a silt fence around the immediate wetland, basically, do the
construction, have the disturbance then replant it with fescue.
Then leave status quo. It will be what it's going to be over the
years. There are two Baccharus plant bushes in there now and
there may be some other emergence or so, but that's pretty much
all that can grow there.
And,the other what you see there in front of it which is
not in the 20 foot, that white stuff, is Meyer Zoysia.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: How are we going delineate that wetland I
guess is the question.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Once everything, the construction is done, how
is that, via landscaping, how is that delineated?
MR. KIMACK: Well, there again, in the low area the only thing
that will grow there is fescue or they Meyer Zoysia. Primarily
through that low spot there, there is really not much that will
grow there. Once you get above that up to the bluff or so coming
around the corners, a little higher up, I guess if we are out of
it for the most part we could probably, I would think that my
client would probably, since it will be so close to the house,
have some beautification in that particular area. But if we are
out of the wetted area, then we could probably then put some
rosa rugosa or blueberry bayberry there as a plant, as long as
it won't be in the flood zone and can survive up on the top.
Because we can identify how high it's coming up. And then down
below,.I'm not quite sure, it probably floods going around that
corner up to the fence here.
I'm guessing here. I'm guessing this is probably flooding
through here. Up to probably this point here (indicating).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you have any objection to using the same
kind of boulders we are talking about in the other place? If
not, the next suggestion would be --
MR. KIMACK: A split-rail fence?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, no. I'm thinking in terms of the
plastic or-- iron would rust. The low profile edging material
that you typically would have. It will overflow with water
periodically. Maybe that's not good because it won't allow free
flow of water in and out. How about simply maybe on a smaller
scale of the stone materials you are doing elsewhere with some
stone material.
MR. KIMACK: You want something that comes a little bit above the
ground, basically. You don't want it flush off ground. So we are
looking at something that comes up about four inches? Is that a
reasonable height for you? Let the water come and go about
every five feet through there, for the most part?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
Board of Trustees 47 April 20, 2016
MR. KIMACK: Let my client address that.
MR. ESTRADA: John Estrada, the owner. The only I think issue I
would have with that,,is a stone that is four inches above the
ground;that is kind of in the middle of the lawn, I have
cousins that come and play and if they are running and hit it
and fall or if they fall, that will be an issue. That's the
problem I had with a low split-rail fence as well, if you trip
over a two --foot fence.
MR. KIMACK: Or you could trip over a 50-pund boulder.
MR. ESTRADA: I could put boulders a part of the way or I'm
amenable to something. Just right in the middle there where,
they set up volleyball nets and things like that.
MR. KIMACK: We can use plantings where it's out of the flooded
area, that's not a problem. We can define it with some nice
landscape plantings. On the high side is no problem there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Did you define with landscape planting
heavily mulched and planted so it would just actually--
MR. KIMACK: Yes, and,basically if you put fescue back in there,
fescue will take pretty well, and then wherever it's out of the
high water part, we'll put in the bayberry and the blueberry as
a planting plant, keeping it out of the high ground water.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The only thing that we have not addressed is a
portion,of the two-story addition and pool are located within
FEMA flood zones, elevation six feet not meeting policy#4. But
I think that's, Steve, I think that's out of our wheelhouse, the
FEMA issues. I don't see how that can be something subject to
us. We don't address FEMA, per se.
MR. KIELY: I know you don't address it, but you take it into
account.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It had come up in one prior application
where I recall that the Board, it was an acknowledgment of the
FEMA zone and we ended up moving a structure. But we are not
able to entirely move it out of the FEMA zone. But--
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The deck and the pool is what's in FEMA. It's
not the structure of the house.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So I don't know how to do that.
MR. KIMACK: It's not a safety issue for life and limb unless you
are in a pool during a storm.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: You never know.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess the FEMA issue is subject to
regulation under Building Department rules and regulations.
MR. KIELY: Building permit in connection with the pool.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: How does this fall even under the LWRP's
jurisdiction?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: LWRP has specific flood plains and
maintenance flood plains and movement of waters. We can
stipulate it as subject to the Building Department approval. If
they have to come back to us, they have to come back to us.
MR. KIMACK: If we go to the Building Department anyway they'll
take a look at it anyway, they tend to look at high ground
water, the flood lines and such like that. They are fairly
Board of Trustees 48 April 20, 2016
efficient. If in fact it's an issue, it will come up.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay. Anybody else wish to speak behalf of the
application?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I want to go to the record saying I'm not
completely sure that plantings will adequately protect that, and
I'm referencing the photograph, that wetlands.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you want to add one-year annual
inspection on top of the plantings just to make sure it's well
established?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That would help, yes.
MR. KIMACK: You won't have a problem with that. They'll show up
one year to make sure, basically, that particular wetland is status quo.
MR. ESTRADA: I don't have problem.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve the application
as modified accordingly, number one, that boulders 50-pounds
weight delineated every five feet on the section of DEC
non-disturbance.
MR. KIMACK: To be about four inches above ground.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: For that stone to be 50 pounds and
approximately four inches above ground. On the section of the
property where there is a drainage, the drainage will be removed
and filled in. Natural vegetation will delineate the boundaries
to the extent possible for that area, and shall be maintained in
perpetuity.
MR. KIELY: For the purposes of the record how do we know where
this boundary is? Is this memorialized in the survey?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: It's delineated by us. We flagged it.
MR. KIMACK: It's flagged, yes.
MR. KIELY: But is the flagged portion, is it on a survey
someplace? How do we know? Because in the future if we have to
enforce this, we have to know where the line.is.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That was the purpose of the boulders.
MR. KIELY: They could always move the boulders.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We can request an amended plan showing the
delineation of the pocket of wetland we flagged along with the •
placement of the boulders.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: So the only addition to what we said already is
that we'll amend the plans to reflect the location of all
wetlands that have been delineated by the Trustees and DEC so
that it's clear and concise where the boulders go and where the
natural vegetation goes for that section of the wetlands.
MR. KIELY: I would recommend it's approved subject to receipt of
this.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: To approve subject to receiving the modified
plans. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
Board of Trustees 49 April 20, 2016
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Are we good?
MR. KIMACK: Thank you. Yes. Thank you. As an aside, basically,
and it's not official, you already have half of it because the
20 foot is already on the new survey. And I just have to show
the boulders along there and I'll show the 20 feet from the
defined wetland right now and showing the length of planting
we'll do and we are all set.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Great.
MR. KIMACK: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 14, Michael Kimack on behalf of GEORGE
KATSAMANIS requests a Wetland Permit to remove vegetation and
four(4)trees of varying calipers in area from top of bank to
prosed bulkhead; remove existing wood walkway from end of
existing concrete walkway to proposed bulkhead location;
construct±138' long bulkhead with two (2) ±15' returns, for a
total of±168' at 10.2' elevation; add fill landward of new
bulkhead to grade with ±375 cubic yards of clean sand; install
and subsequently maintain a 10'wide non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of the bulkhead; construct a 3'6"wide by±10'
long bluestone walkway from end of concrete walkway to bulkhead;
construct ACQ wood staircase with composite railings from
bulkhead to remaining walkway. Located: 1025 Gull Pond Lane,
Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.40
The LWRP coordinator found that the proposed action does
not comply based off of new bulkheads in creeks and bays are
prohibited unless operation involves construction of a low sill
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The LWRP coordinator provided us a quoteout
of the wetlands code. There is a prohibition against new
bulkheads on any of the bays or tributaries such that the Board
is by past practice compelled to allow for stone work, stone
revetments or a structure sufficiently moved upland to
effectively be able to be called a retaining wall, so that the
placement of, based on the definition of, if the bulkhead's feet
are wet, if you will, if the structure has high tide lapping at
the bottom, it's bulkhead by definition and it is a prohibited
structure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Also, the CAC does not support this
application. The CAC does not support hardening of the shoreline
in this area and recommends stabilizing the bank by cutting back
the slope and planting native species. In addition, the CAC has
concerns with the size of the existing 6x65'floating dock.
The Trustees went out on the 13th of April. All were
present. Basically just echoing the concerns already mentioned.
Is there anybody here to speak to this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. I would
draw your attention to the site plan that we, that I submitted
as part of the application. This particular bulkhead really is
landward of the mean high water mark for the entire length, for
Board of Trustees 50 April 20, 2016
the most part, so it's prettymuch out of it for the most part.
We went as far seaward as we could without going into the mean
high water line. So I'm not quite sure how that-- and it's
fairly close, for the most part, to the bottom of the bank. If
you -- I draw your attention to the photographs that I supplied
you, basically, that you may have there; a 1984 shot showing a
much greater seaward movement of the bank before the erosion
occurred, and then the 2004 shot showing how much has actually
been lost.
In this area, basically, this particular canal is pretty
much 90% bulkheaded all the way around, and pretty much 100%
across the way, and pretty much bulkhead all the way. And we
have taken a series of photos on that. This is one of the few
pieces of property that has not been bulkheaded on this one
particular. To consider a stone revetment in this situation I
think would be not only out of character but basically it's
about an eight foot rise in this particular situation. What my
client is trying to achieve is simply to reclaim the top of the
bank as it had existed in 1984 by putting a bulkhead in that
place. And the bulkhead then pretty much on, which would be on
the northern side of that for the most part. On here if you are
looking, down there, on this one side, we didn't come any
further than the existing bank, if you can see the flag over
there, 'on the corner there, we are really up against the
existing top of the bank at that particular point, and we came
pretty much cross there with this bulkhead. So we didn't move
it any further seaward than the toe of the existing slope except
where;it might be cut out from the prior erosion. And it
certainly lines up with the high water mark.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The question I have is how do we go from
here, and it would seem maybe the bulkhead should not go--this
would be a position for a retaining wall, seaward, this area
here is basically all mean high water. It would seem that this
is really problematic because if you build to this corner to try
to recapture here, you are putting it on bay bottom. That is why
I think, although a filter fabric with smaller stone on it or
possibly in this area here you might consider core logs, in a
stack, filled behind with Baccharus or something, because this
will get wet, I'm not sure about American beach grass is
sufficient. You have Alterna flora growing here, this will, the
bulkhead here will wipe the Alterna flora and will destroy and
if we move it back to what would be a retaining wall, we'll
destroy this headland.
MR. KIMACK: All I can say if you look at the plan, basically, we
are not at the mean high water mark with the bulkhead. It's
landward of the mean high water mark.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think the vegetation line --that's
Alterna flora. That, at its upward limit that is average mean
high water will be landward of that by about the same distance
everywhere in every creek, every place you find it, means
average high water is here, and if you are talking a retaining
li
Board of Trustees 51 April 20, 2016
wall it has to be substantially up in this area here. The plants
don't lie. They have their special needs and they, the picture
is painted.
Maybe this is something for additional plan thought,
because we are up against a code prohibition that the Board has
been trying to honor. That's why I think in the field
inspection we were trying to see if we could dial it back a
little closer. Maybe you want to talk to the applicant
concerning our code enforcement.
MR. KIMACK: The applicant, the owner is here tonight, basically.
I asked him to come.
MR. KATSAMANIS: Good evening. If there is a question about the
dock, when I purchased the house two years ago, the dock was
deeded. I know you mentioned earlier about the dock link, so,
but what from what I was told it was actually longer`and then
when there was of a separation of the house in 1995, then the
neighbor across the street took out part of the actual dock.
But what is there is a deeded dock. I mean that's how I bought
it, as a deeded dock.
And regarding the bulkhead, I mean even in the two years
that I have been there, that brush right there, you could see
the dirt just kind of eroding. Those roots were not even exposed
two years ago. And I think that's the concern. However we can
stop that. Ideally it would be great to follow the neighbor's
line and just put everything back, and I think we would probably
propose putting as much vegetation as you would want. And that's
all we are trying to do is stop the eroding. And however you
feel is'best is how we'll do it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe we have an opportunity, Mr. Kimack,
wheracore logs, and because this is somewhat of a protected-
location, the core logs might be able to be used to stabilize, •
and you can bring in suitable sandy fill that would match the
sand graining size, and possibly with two or three -- I don't
want to design for you because you are the design
professional -- but a stack of two or three core logs with sand
backfill up through, and possibly transitions into the native
top soil, you can put high tide bush there, probably the core
logs would reestablish some Spartina there, it would provide a
tie in to the existing headland, and possibly stabilize it. And
it's non-structural, it would cost less, it could be done on a
trial basis to see if it works in this location. It would be
substantially less in cost, and it would have the Board being
able to meet our code requirement.
MR. KIMACK: Obviously the Board is, from what I'm listening, is
not in a position to consider what I have proposed in front of
them, and they would like me to come back or speak with my
client and come back with some alternatives. The goal here is to
preserve his property, which is being eroded and getting closer
and closer to his house. You can see where the top of the bank
is in terms of how much erosion has occurred on that one side.
We would have to take a look, it's much more prevalent on
Board of Trustees 52 April 20, 2016
the western side than it is on the eastern side of the dock
there. And I'll take a look at it and see.
But what you are basically saying is that we are trying to
stay with the prohibition against new bulkheads. Now is that
town-wide all the way through?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a town-wide prohibition, the exception
being in the Sound. In other words, its specific language is
the bay. So that's why we can entertain a bulkheads and
revetting structures on the Sound. And replacement of
pre-existing is not prohibited under the code.
MR. KIMACK: All right, so we have the two choices we are looking
at, the core logs or some kind of stone revetment, which you
would not be opposed to.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This also, I don't know if we are, with our
experience Hesco baskets also.
MR. KIMACK: Gabions?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Effectively, yes. That's a name product. A
gabion-type structure.
MR. KIMACK: That would be something you would look at?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, it's not a bulkhead and it allows for
infiltration of water and possibly marine growth. Gabions could
be designed to fit the coastline there for appropriate size fill
and sand would fill in around and they would re-vegetate.
MR. KIMACK: I have used gabions extensively so I'm familiar with
them. So your recommendation is in place of the bulkhead if we
are working with gabions, we would be working with gabions
landward of the high water mark and bringing it up, I can bring
it up to the ten-foot level and then level it across.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Essentially that's it, although a gabion is
imbedded and goes below grade and would start at or near the
high water mark is not bad because it would allow infiltration
of marine grasses. If you come in with, you are design
professional, I think we would consider anything reasonable
along those lines.
MR. KIMACK: I normally would work with the three foot six foot
basket, about two-ton apiece and then I would stack them three
high, basically, to come up to there. It's pretty close. A
little bit of slope down on that one. They would not move. If we
put them in the ground and bed them out, they would not move. In
pretty much in place of what we have now, and back them up on
both sides. That would work. In a sense replace the bulkhead
kind of in-kind with the gabion system.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Landward of mean high water, and --
MR. KIMACK: Landward of mean high water, which the bulkhead is
kind of landward of the mean high water mark. So somewhere in
that range. I might pull them a foot or two further in more to
make sure we are clear.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A revetting structure that you can customize
it and go on an angle and allow for vegetation and also allow to
stabilize your property above it as opposed to straight stack is
essentially, in other words we are not trying to make a bulkhead
Board of Trustees 53 April 20, 2016
by another name, we are trying to -- in other words the
environmental saving features of the gabion to control erosion
but to encourage beneficial marine organisms, and possibly your
Spartina growing up through. Because if it's done properly it
will capture some of the sand coming over from the upland as
well
MR. KIMACK: The other advantage to gabions is they will support
vegetation growth, over a period of time, they do begin to do
that as the soils fill in on the stones.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And they cost less than bulkheads and
retaining walls, not that anybody cares about money anymore.
MR. KIMACK: Okay. Well, let's not go there.
Can I ask then for a table?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Understand, we are not recommending it per
se --
MR. KIMACK: I know you are not recommending it. I just wanted to
get a little feedback to see if it was not something you were
adversely opposed to, so I wouldn't go there at all. But
apparently that's something I can explore along with some other
options, if it comes up.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, I'll make a motion to table this
application.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 15, Michael Kimack on behalf of MICHAEL
J. CONFUSIONE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x50'
treated wood fixed dock using thru-flow composite decking and 6"
diameter dock piles.installed 5' on-center; install a 3'x20'
metal hinged ramp; install a 6'x20' treated wood floating dock
using thru-flow composite decking with two (2) 8"-12" diameter
float piles; overall length of proposed dock, ramp and float to
be 90 feet; and to remove existing wood pilings within side yard
property line on existing dock structure. Located: 1605
Westview Drive,
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent, however,
requests that the Trustees review some impacts. The discussion
on, to have a discussion on the cumulative impacts of dock
density in Mattituck Creek and consider whether or not a
seasonal mooring might be a more suitable alternative.
The CAC resolved to support this application. Unanimously.
The Trustees did a field inspection on April 13th, and all
were present. The notes are, again, that you should get rid of
the structures that are there, that are presently there, that
are not blessed with a permit. Noted that the dock is in line
with the neighbors to the south, and suggests a non-turf buffer
between the bulkhead and the retaining wall.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. I think
you've pretty much done it succinctly, Mike. It's a dock that is
. Board of Trustees 54 April 20, 2016
replacing a nonconforming series of floating docks that are in
place off of a permit that was issued in 1970.
Basically there is, if you look along the property,line
there are five piers over there, four of which are on my
client's property. They would come out as part of this permit.
And then there would be the new structure, 50-foot fixed dock
with a 20-foot space and a 6x20 floating dock in its place. That
with this permit and constructed to the,permit-would be in
conformance and be legal. And it is not now. And we are, we
agree to the non-turf buffer. It's a natural spot between the
bulkhead and retaining wall anyway.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak to
this application?
MR. TOMAO: Yes. Joseph Tomao. I'm here for the neighboring
property owners, 1685, which I have been sharing that dock for
the last 40 years under a permit, okay. We were never notified
that the permit did not exist. But even more important, before
we go further, the property owners were not given notice of this
hearing. They gave notice to my mother-in-law who is the life
tenant, but since 2007 there have been five property owners,
deeded and been filed, the property owner next door knew about
that, in fact I even told the attorney about that. So I request
this be adjourned so proper notice can be given to deeded owners
to the next door neighbors because they are losing, I mean,
right now, if this application gets granted their dock they have
been using since 1970 will now be removed. I do have a copy of
•
the deed to show they are the property owners that were recorded
in Suffolk County in 2007.
MR. KIELY: Can you hand that up, please.
MR. TOMAO: Sure. -
MR. KIMACK: May I address that?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. Let the gentleman submit the paperwork
and get back to the lectern.
MR. KIELY: So who is Catherine?
MR.TOMAO: Catherine is a life tenant. She lives there now.
MR. KIELY: She pays the taxes?
MR. TOMAO: The tax bill may be sent to her. This is the first
time this is on, and we should have a chance to review it. We
only got notice of this less than two weeks ago.
MR. KIELY: We'll give the applicant's agent a chance to respond
but, you know, absolutely for due process purposes we should
allow them to have the opportunity to be heard on this matter.
Do you want to address that?
MR. KIMACK: Yes, I do. The requirement basically is, my
responsibility to my client, is to address each one of the tax
map numbers and send certified mailings to each'one with a map
and with the covering information. I received this, I responded
accordingly, I went to the assessor's office, that was the
address I,was given. I was contacted by the gentleman about two
weeks ago, so he certainly did receive it because it was to him,
basically, and he queried me about that. We did discuss it on -
Board of Trustees 55 April 20, 2016
the phone. So that is where my responsibility lies is to follow
the responsibility--
MR. KIELY: You may have met the actual letter of the law, but
the spirit of the law is to make sure that the adjoining owners
get an opportunity to be heard on it, and he's stating that they
have not been given requisite notice to get here in time to be
able to speak on this application. So do you have an objection
to being tabled today so they have an opportunity to be here for
a hearing?
MR. KIMACK: Well, the certified mailings went out with
sufficient time. It met, it did meet not only the spirit but it
met the sufficient time.
MR. KIELY: No, I'm not talking about the time. The time was
fine. But he provided a deed of the actual owners. And the
actual owners did not get notice via your mailing. So I don't
think you would want to leave this open to potential challenge
because they didn't--
MR. KIMACK: No, but I want to let you know that's what the
assessor's office gave me.
MR. KIELY: No, no one is saying -- I'm saying you met the letter
of the law, you met the requirements of Chapter 55, however it's
now coming to the Board's attention that there are owners that
have not received notice and would like to participate in this
hearing.
MR. TOMAO: And the property owner has actual knowledge that the
five children own the property. I don't know about this man
here, but the property owner definitely has actual knowledge.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So, Steve, how do we do this? Do we ask Mr.
Tomao to deliver all the addresses of these people?
MR. TOMAO: I have no problem with that.
MR. KIELY: No, what I'm saying is --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are talking about the letter and the
spirit. The spirit of the Trustees is to try to work these things out.
MR. TOMAO: I agree.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And hopefully, because historically the
Trustees have allowed certain very friendly accommodations
between owners of land so that everybody could get to the same
swimming hole. So hopefully, that is the spirit we try to work
on so maybe we can work on the spirit of the thing. Because we
certainly want to move in that direction and keep everybody with
a dock if we can.
MR. KIELY: So will you be able to effectuate notice to the
others?
MR. TOMAO: However you want me to do it. If you want to adjourn
it, I'll undertake to give the notice to my family. But they are
out of state, they actually don't know about it because I didn't
figure out what was going on with it.
MR. KIELY: The Board has to make a decision whether or not they
want to proceed or allow--won't even begin the substance until
all the parties have been given notice and had an opportunity to
come here and address it.
Board of Trustees 56 April 20, 2016
MR. TOMAO: Again, however you want me to handle it, I can send a
copy of that notice, or I can give it to Mr. Kimack and he,can
send it. Whatever you want.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is Theodora the same person --
MR. TOMAO: Theodora is the daughter. There are five daughters
Theodore is deceased. Catherine is alive.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Perhaps if you come up here.
MR. TOMAO: This is husband and wife. He's deceased. But
Catherine is alive.
MR. KIELY: Is that a copy for us?
MR. TOMAO: Yes, you can keep that copy.
MR. KIELY: He just put on the record, you'll notify
MR.,TOMAO: Absolutely. When is the adjourn date?
MR. KIMACK: I object.
MR. KIELY: Do you want to handle notification?
MR. KIMACK: Yes, I'll tell you why. From a legal point of view,
if it's being challenged, it will be challenged again. If you
allow him to go through that, if I have not done the certified
mailings, we'll be in the same position again. He can challenge
it one more time, if someone doesn't get it, if he doesn't give
them a call. This is what I suggest. That he basically give to '
you or give to Liz, the clerk, the names and addresses of each
one -
MR. KIELY: You are still relying on him, and if it's wrong, you
are still in the same spot.
MR. TOMAO: On the-record, I'm attorney, and I'll tell you right
now all these addresses are good, except for the first one,
Theodora Marangas, whose address has changed. The other
addresses are all in existence. If you want me to send you a
letter to that effect I'll send you I letter. But those
addresses are all valid addresses.
MR. KIMACK: If that's on the record, as far as that is concerned
and verification, then if he submits it to Liz, I will do the
certified mailings because I want a track record on this. I
don't want to have him come back next month and say, oh, by the
way, one of them didn't get it, I was not able to contact them,
put it off another month. That won't happen.
MR. KIELY: That's fine. He's as officer of the court.
MR. KIMACK: So am I.
MR. KIELY: I know. He is as well. It doesn't matter, whichever
way you want to do it.
MR. TOMAO: So I'm giving the addresses in writing to Liz and
I'll copy Mr. Kimack on it. This way you'll have it, you'll have
everything. Do you have an E-mail, I'll E-mail to both of you,
or fax it. Whatever you want.
MR. KIMACK: And if you could when you do the verifications to
Liz, if you can do an affirmation -- -
MR. TOMAO: I won't do an affirmation, I just stated it on the
record. You have the last known address. Come on.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Board of Trustees 57 April 20, 2016
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, gentlemen. Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
John.M. Bredemeyer Ill, President
Board of Trustees