HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-09/21/2016 John M.Bredemeyer III,President ��®F S Town Hall Annex
01
Michael J.Domino,Vice-President �® IO 54375 Route 25
79
Glenn Goldsmith P.O.Box 11
Southold,New York
11971
A.Nicholas Krupski
® ® Telephone(631) 765-1892
Charles J.Sanders ® a Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RECEIVED
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD J
OCT 2 0 2016 Q �a
Minutes
"ooaae?,exa
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
5:30 PM
Present Were: John Bredemeyer, President r
Michael Domino, Vice-President
'Charles Sanders, Trustee
Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee
1 _ A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist
Damon Hagan, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Tuesday,=October41)� 016 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 5:30 PM
WORK SESSIONS: Monday, October 17, 2016 at 4:30 PM at Downs Farm,
and on Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of August 17, 2016.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good evening, and welcome to the Wednesday, -
September 21st, 2016, regular monthly meeting of the Trustees.
Before I get into the active meeting agenda I would just like to
bring your attention to the fact that there are a number of
postponements in tonight's agenda, largely because we had
insufficient information to move forward on applications or the
applicants had withdrawn them for one reason or the other.
The postponements can be found on page four, item number
two, Michael Kimack on behalf of SOUNDFRONT HOLDINGS, LLC
request an Amendment to Wetland Permit#8047 and Coastal Erosion
Permit#8047C for the existing collapsed steel bulkhead behind
concrete seawall and existing damaged concrete seawall to
remain; remove the collapsed bluff stairs and steel sheet piling
retaining wall from face of bluff; the originally proposed'
f
Board of Trustees 2 September 21, 2016
bulkhead with 10' and 20' returns, proposed 47' vinyl retaining
wall with 9' and 10' returns, and proposed timber terracing
walls on face of bluff were not constructed; for the as-built
stabilizing of the concrete bulkhead by placing approximately
1,000 tons of large stones in between the steel bulkhead and
concrete bulkhead and top off with 4-6+ stones; as-built gabion
return wall along the westerly adjoining property line; cut
collapsed steel bulkhead down below finish grade; as-built six
tiered retaining wall system, completely integrated, to
stabilize slope and protect westerly property line; redesigned
bluff stairs to attach to retaining walls; bluff stairs were
constructed 4'wide and 45.2' long in lieu of 50'with a
23sq.ft. top landing and a 24.5sq.ft. bottom landing; replaced
collapsed brick patio with as-built 176sq.ft. natural irregular
shaped bluestone patio between dwelling and top retaining wall;
as-built 73sq.ft. lower tier bluestone patio; as-built wire
fencing along top retaining wall; added fill to terraced areas;
a ±450sq.ft. sandy beach area landward of stone bulkhead;
re-vegetated void areas with American beach grass and rosa
rugosa. Located: 20275 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM#
1000-51-4-8, has been postponed.
On page eight, number 14, Land Use Ecological Services,
Inc. on behalf of DANA& MICHAEL SAVINO request a Wetland Permit
for the existing +/-104 linear foot long bulkhead to be removed
and replaced or cut down in-place to become a low-sill bulkhead;
install +/-96 linear feet of new vinyl bulkhead 5' landward of
proposed low-sill bulkhead; remove +/-60 cubic yards of fill
between the two bulkheads to create +/-475sq.ft. of tidal
wetland area and vegetate with Spartina alterniflora; the 5'
wide deck area between the proposed low-sill bulkhead and
proposed vinyl bulkhead to be converted to open-grate decking
with the existing seaward bulkhead pilings to be utilized to
support the seaward edge of proposed open-grate decking area
with the low-sill bulkhead under it. Located: 1945 Bayview
Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-6-37, has been postponed.
And on page nine, 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 1,741 sq.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, has been postponed.
Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of MICHAEL JOEL COLODNER
Board of Trustees 3 September 21, 2016
& SARA WINSOR COLODNER requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing two-story dwelling with attached garage, existing
storage building and outdoor shower along rear of dwelling;
demolish existing stone patio and construct a 25'x30' upper
patio with outdoor grill and counter top; construct a lower
1,244sq.ft. patio around proposed 16'x36' in-ground swimming
pool; install a pool drywell; install an 8'x8' hot tub; install
pool enclosure fencing, and the installation of hay bales and/or
silt fencing to be installed prior to and during construction.
Located: 130 Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck.
SCTM#1000-115-17-17.8, has been postponed.
And Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of DOUGLAS A.
GEROWSKI, MICHELLE GEROWSKI & DOUGLAS J. GEROWSKI request a
Wetland Permit to install a 16'x32' swimming pool with patio
approximately 48"above grade for a combined 1,766sq.ft. total
footprint. Located: 2570 Clearview Avenue, Southold. SCTM#
1000-70-10-29.2. So those have all been postponed.
At this time I'll make a motion to hold the next field
inspection for Tuesday, October 11th, at 8:00 AM.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to hold the next Trustee
meeting Wednesday, October 19th, 2016, at 5:30 PM, in the main
meeting hall here, and with work sessions Monday, October 17th,
2016, at 4:30 PM at Downs Farms, and again on Wednesday night
before the regular meeting on October 19th, at 5:00 PM in the
main meeting hall. That is my motion. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Move to approve the Minutes of August 17th,
2016. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for August 2016. A check for
$7,250.24 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
Board of Trustees 4 September 21, 2016
following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, September 21, 2016, are classified as Type II
Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review
under SEQRA:
For The Love of Family LLC, c/o Anthony Lomangino SCTM# 1000-104-3-16.1
Victor& Mary Zupa SCTM# 1000-81-1-13.1
David Schwartz SCTM# 1000-90-4-5.1
Peter& Diana O'Neill SCTM# 1000-118-1-1.3
Frank & Mindy Martorana SCTM# 1000-115-17-10.1
Samuel Singer SCTM# 1000-75-6-6.1
The Susan T.H. Kwit Revocable Trust, c/o Susan Kwit, Trustee SCTM#000-117-5-48.1
Constantine & Pamela Stamidis SCTM# 1000-52-5-13
Douglas A. Gerowski, Michelle Gerowski & Douglas J. Gerowski SCTM#
1000-70-10-29.2
Michael Joel Colodner& Sara Winsor Colodner SCTM# 1000-15-17-17.8
Neil McGoldrick SCTM# 1000-116-4-16.4
Gloria A. Schollard Inter Vivos Credit Shelter Trust SCTM# 1000-123-10-3
Soundfront Holdings, LLC SCTM# 1000-51-4-8
Salvatore Pennisi SCTM# 1000-70-5-40
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under Item III, the State Environmental Quality Reviews I'll
move to vote these through as a block, excepting item, Samuel Singer, Suffolk County
Tax Map 1000-75-6-6.1, since this is more properly called an unlisted action under the
State Environment Quality Review Act, and we have not concluded our environmental
quality review of this matter.
Accordingly, with that one item pulled from the agenda, I would move that we
would approve as a block and resolve that all the items so listed under Item III, under the
State Environmental Quality Review Act, that these actions more fully described in
Section VII of the public hearings are classified as Type II actions pursuant to SEQRA
and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. That is my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In order to effectively run the meeting, we
have a number of administrative actions for which the Board has
received requests for minor actions or to transfer permits or to
modify permits, and the Board usually will vote these as a group
where we've performed an inspection as a group of the item
requested. And these items are not subject to a public hearing.
Accordingly, under Item IV, on the agenda, Resolutions and
Administrative Permits, I would move that we approve items two
through five as a group. They are listed as follows:
Number two, Chris Mauceri on behalf of RUSSELL BATES
requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 5'x16'
(80sq.ft.) Storage shed. Located: 15 East Mill Road, Mattituck.
SCTM# 1000-106-4-2
Number three, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of
FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP., c/o FISHERS ISLAND CLUB
Board of Trustees 5 September 21, 2016
requests an Administrative Permit to demolish a portion of the
existing clubhouse, construct additions to the remaining portion
of the club house, and make renovations to the remaining portion
of the club house; install a new sanitary system; re-grade and
install a new parking area. Located: 20449 East Main Road,
Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-4-6-9
Number four, Michael Kimack on behalf of GIOIA TURITTO &
NABIL EL-SHERIF 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 along the entire seaside area of Lot 61.1, and
along the south-westerly side of the dock on Lot 62.1. Located:
1800 Park Way and 40 Beachwood Lane, Southold. SCTM#
1000-70-10-61.1 &62.1
And number five, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of
THOMAS FRENZ requests an Administrative Permit to install an
approximately 875sq.ft. pervious outdoor patio with a fire pit
on-grade. Located: 1260 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#
1000-104-9-4.2
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item one, Trustee Sanders will deal with some
concerns that the Trustees had.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Item one, En-Consultants on behalf of DECLAN &
LAURA MEAGHER request an Administrative Permit to remove and
replace in-place approximately 100 linear feet of timber
bulkhead and ±12',timber return with vinyl bulkhead and return;
and backfill with approximately 25 cubic yards of clean sand
fill to be trucked in from an approved upland source. Located:
750 Blue Marlin Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-57-1-29
This particular application, we, on 9/13/16, went out and
inspected it. All Trustees were present. And the primary notes
state that we were looking for a 15-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So we had done the field inspection and felt
that a 15-foot non-turf buffer was appropriate.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: So basically we want to approve it matching
what we were talking about.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think anyone has an objection with
that. I think that was the findings from the field inspection.
So that would be a modification. We felt that the neighbor has
15 feet, so.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: It has 15. The neighbor you said has 15. But
this is actually proposed for ten.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: At the neighbor or this particular property?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: At this particular property. Are you okay with
ten feet?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm okay with ten.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'm fine with ten.
Board of Trustees 6 September 21, 2016
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would rather try to match neighbors where
we can. Mike, what do you feel about that? Its open for
discussion. This particular job, the neighbors have a 15-foot
buffer. We are trying to match it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you feel strongly about it, I won't argue that point.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Why don't you move it at 15.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: So I move we accept this application with a
modification for a 15-foot non-turf buffer, thereby matching the
neighbor.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE.
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With respect to Item V on the agenda,
similarly, we have requests for permit extensions and transfers
of permits. To expedite the meeting, these items were all
reviewed at work session or on field inspection. I would move
that we approve items one through four, item six and item eight.
They are listed as follows:
Number one, WILLIAM GIACONE &CINCY NANCE requests the Last
One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#8331, as issued on
November 13, 2013. Located: 1130 Little Peconic Bay Road,
Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-14-17
Number two, HIRSCH &CO., LLC, c/o VINCENT SEDDIO requests
a Transfer of Wetland Permit#8664 from Richard Trownsell, David
Trownsell & Karen Feuerman to Hirsch & Co., LLC, c/o Vincent
Seddio, as issued on August 19, 2015. Located: 980 Oak Avenue,
Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-1-6
Number three, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of
DAVID AIR requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#7015 from
Donald ladanza to David Air, as issued on December 10, 2008.
Located: 855 Sound View Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-3-11.1
Number four, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of
DAVID AIR requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#4815 and
Coastal Erosion Management Permit#15-3-11.1 from Donald &
Harriet ladanza to David Air, as issued on October 30, 1997.
Located: 855 Sound View Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-3-11.1
Number six, ROBERT SERLING requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit#8748 to demolish and remove the
remains of the fire damaged dwelling and foundation; and to
install and maintain security fencing around the fire damaged
area. Located: 3575 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-10
And number eight, Katie Sepenoski on behalf of C&L REALTY,
INC. requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#8662 to construct decking in lieu of the concrete ramp and
walkway; and that the±5' deck will not be constructed.
Located: 61600 Route 25, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-6-3.4
Board of Trustees 7 September 21, 2016
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item seven is ROBERT J. MUSCO requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8501 to construct a
wood deck in lieu of the masonry patio. Located: 497 Ripple
Water Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-76-1-15.3
Gentleman, if you recall, this was a job where the
applicant had previously had a violation and now wished to
convert to wood patio in lieu of masonry, which we thought was
beneficial, and wanted to have a minor cantilevering which I
think we felt on field inspection was not particularly
problematic. But the applicant, we had heard that the applicant
was reluctant to put the fence in, which was a delimiter, to
protect the wetland that had been previously violated.
So I think the general sense for our discussions at the
Work session were we would want to keep the fence, we want to
reemphasize the requirement for planting the trees that were
previously in the permit that had not gone in yet, and we wanted
the planting restoration to take place between the fence and the
tree line, leaving the understory and the area beneath the
trees, which is naturally vegetated, in a natural state.
So I think that covered all the items, and I'll move it as
a resolution. Any questions?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The only thing that we were going to talk about
was the fence could be at a lower level.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good point. All right. Accordingly, based on
our discussions, I think everyone is on the same page with this.
I would move to approve this request of Robert J. Musco for
administrative amendment with stipulations. The first stipulation
is that the fence heretofore on the Trustee permit must be
constructed, but it may be a low profile so that it would fit
under the proposed cantilevered wooden deck.
That there be no, second stipulation, that there be no new
re-vegetation or alteration of the vegetation waterward of the
treeline in the understory of the vegetation which is naturally
sprouting.
Number three, that the restoration planting is to consist
of two-and-a-half to three-inch oak trees, three trees, that are
to be planted, at a minimum, that are to be planted in the area
that is between the fence and the line of trees where there is
to be no further planting seaward of that. That's two-and-a-half
inch to three-inch caliper trees. So that's understood. That's
my motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. RESOLUTIONS WATERFOWL/DUCK BLIND PERMITS:
Board of Trustees 8 September 21, 2016
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next item we have is Item VI is an
application for a duck blind permit in Broadwaters Cove in a
place where one previously had existed without any problems or
complaints.
This is the application of BRANDON LAKE requests a
Waterfowl/Duck Blind Permit to place a Waterfowl/Duck Blind in
Broadwaters Cove using both private and public access. Located:
Broadwaters Cove, Cutchogue.
move to approve the application as submitted based on our
inspection and history of harvesting waterfowl at this location.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time make a motion to go off our
regular meeting agenda on to our public hearings under the
Wetlands code. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of JOSEPH GENTILE
requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#8317 for the as-built location of the
bulkhead alignment and length to be a total of 96 linear feet with a 20 linear foot
return; a 3'x12' aluminum ramp to be installed in lieu of a 32"x14' ramp; and for the
as-built 12 linear foot long low-sill bulkhead/groin extending seaward off of the
bulkhead. Located: 530 Schooner Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-71-2-8.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency arises
from the fact that the structure built does not comply with the Wetland Permit 8317 that
was issued.
The CAC resolved to support this application.
The most recent Trustee inspection was done on September 2nd, where myself
and President of the Board of Trustees John Bredemeyer met with the contractor and
the expediter Jeff Patanjo, to discuss cutting the groin/low sill bulkhead to an appropriate
height. And we used a waler on the existing 96' bulkhead as a reference point to
determine the elevation above mean low water that we desire, in order to make the
structure an actual low sill bulkhead.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. If you
have any questions, I would be happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions from the Board?
(No response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no comments, I'll make a motion to close
this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion is made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
Board of Trustees 9 September 21, 2016
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application with
the condition that, noting that by lowering this groin/low sill
bulkhead to 18 inches above mean low water it would bring the
application into compliance. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second. Just a discussion on
the second. It will also bring it into compliance with the
prior Trustee permit and also bring it into consistency with the
LWRP, for purposes of the LWRP. If you have no objection.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: No objection.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made, seconded and amended.
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next item under Wetland & Coastal
Erosion Permits, number one, Docko, Inc. on behalf of HARRINGTON
FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, c/o DAVID HARRINGTON requests a
Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to reconstruct
remains of dock structure with a 5 foot wide by+/-138 linear
foot long fixed wood pile and timber pier with open grate
decking including four batter braced tie-off piles and ladders
waterward of the apparent high water line; relocate 4'wide
stairs to beach to be off of new 5'x4' fixed landing; and
reconstruct an existing 3.5'wide by 34' linear foot long wood
access ramp landward of the apparent high water line. Located:
Private Road on Clay Point Road, Fishers Island.
SCTM# 1000-2-1-12.2
This application had previously had a public hearing and
was considered with respect to the Wetland permit for which it
met the requirements, but the proposed structure was determined
to be inconsistent with the requirements of the Coastal Erosion
Hazard Area Act because it exceeded the 200-square feet
requirement for open constructed structures in the open erosion
hazard area.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
(Negative response).
The project expediter Docko, Inc., Keith Neilson, had
approached the Board last month during the public hearings. At
that time it was uncertain with respect to how to conclude this
matter, and it was deemed that it was appropriate that the Board
would have to deny this because it not meeting the Coastal
Erosion requirements for exceeding the 200-square feet. It will
have to go on appeal to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Review
Board, which is the Town Board.
Are there any additional questions or concerns from the
Board?
Board of Trustees 10 September 21, 2016
(Negative response).
Accordingly, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to deny without prejudice the
application of Docko on behalf of Harrington Family Limited
Partnership, care of David Harrington, noting the Board had no
objection to the construction with respect to the environmental
review under Town Wetland permit, but the Board is precluded from
approving the structure by virtue of the code limitation of
200-square feet in the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act. And the
application --otherwise the Board had no objection to, as to
receive consideration,by the Town Board as the Coastal Erosion
Hazard Area Board of Review. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number one, under Wetland Permits, Jeffrey
Patanjo on behalf of FOR THE LOVE OF FAMILY LLC, c/o ANTHONY
LOMANGINO requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten (10)Year
Maintenance Permit to dredge 250 cubic yards of course sand from
existing inlet; dredged material to be spread on a beach to a
maximum depth of 12"; all work to be above the mean high water
line and avoiding disruption of existing vegetated wetlands in
the area; the maintenance permit would include five (5)
additional dredging events consisting of 50 cubic yards of sand
for each event. Located: 9205 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM#
1000-104-3-16.1
On 9/13/16 we went back and we took a look at this project.
I'll open it up for Board discussion. Any thoughts on it?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A couple of questions on this project. In
the language you talked about to include five additional
dredging events. What was the temporal timeframe? What are you
talking about, five additional events over the entirety of the
ten-year maintenance?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. Do you
need to open it up, or--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: He did open it up.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I opened it up for discussion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Oh, he opened it up to discussion. So that's
a question for you. The hearing is open.
MR. PATANJO: Okay. As far as what I'm looking to do on this
application is the initial dredge. And some background
information on this, as you know, we had a situation that some
material was dredged. We went through a DEC order, consent
order, we actually, they piled up material on the beach. We
actually had the approval from the Trustees as well as DEC to
Board of Trustees 11 September 21, 2016
spread the sand around. Subsequently, it filled back in. This
has been a problem for Mr. Lomangino ever since that channel was
dredged. I believe the Town dredged that by way of a county
permit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: County Department of Public Works, correct.
MR. PATANJO: Correct. I provided some historical photographs on
sheet number two of my plan submission showing that the channel
fills in over time.
What we are looking to do is dredge the initial 250 cubic
yards, spread it on the beach where we showed it on the plans,
beyond the high tide line, to a depth of one foot. Which I
believe, as I understand, the county spread their sand when they
dredged this, right in front of his property, as well. Not right
where I show it but more to the north. The additional dredge,
what do I have, four or five additional 50 yard --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Five.
MR. PATANJO: Five additional 50 yards, that's over the timeframe
as it fills in. It will probably be every year or every other
year or so. It will be an additional dredge event. Just so we
don't have to go through this whole process again. It's a small
cubic yardage,just place it on the beach.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the Board, some of the thinking of
the Board members during field inspection is we understand there
is a problem there, and that deposition of the sandy spoil for
beach nourishment to help either the public beach or in front of
Lomangino's and maybe not having too much stockpiled very close
to the entrance, because its simply sweeping back around. So
it's a question of maintaining that entrance at depth, and not
necessarily specifying amounts, or if it was year-to-year, you
might need 50 yards every year. So we thought actually the
request you are making of us for the 50 yards over the term of
the permit, might be unrealistic with respect to the needs of
the project. By the same token, I don't know, I didn't see a
cross-sectional diagram.
MR. PATANJO: No, actually the DEC responded with comments. They
wanted to see three different things: One, is a cross-section
view of the channel we are looking to dredge. One is a
cross-sectional view of the beach area where we would like to
place the dredged material. The other is ownership of the
properties where the dredged material is going.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is that still pending?
MR. PATANJO: Yes, I just received those copies.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: These are the questions that we had, and we
didn't want to overlay the DEC. But we were actually thinking
that your request was not sufficiently user friendly to meet
both channel protection for the county channel or the
Lomangino's to provide beach nourishment.
So, I don't know what the Board thinks or where you are at
with the DEC process, maybe we should not be bounces back and
forth between agencies. I think we have some time before the
next spring dredging, and presuming that the agencies would
Board of Trustees 12 September 21, 2016
think along similar lines.
MR. PATANJO: Right. What I would like to do is get their
comments, I would like to hear your comments from the whole
Board before I respond to them so we don't have to keep going
back and forth. So you if you have any other additional
comments other than typical cross-sections for the inlet,
typical cross-sections for the beach area and land ownership,
that is --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One thing we discussed possibly was moving the
sand further down the beach to the park district. You are
helping the park district and you are getting it away from the
channel. So hopefully you would have to dredge less. Is that
something we can consider there?
MR. PATANJO: The park district would be in front of the beach
past that-- you can't see it on here, you have to move to the
south a little.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right, it would be further down from there.
MR. PATANJO: Who owns that land and do we need permission from
them? And if I do need permission from them, I'm thinking about
the DEC, they are going to say do you have a letter of
permission from the town and/or the park district to place the
dredge spoils on their property.
So if the Town Trustees can work with me to get an approval
from the park district, that would be excellent. And I could
absolutely place it there.
The material that you saw, I did sampling, Universal
Testing did my samples, the gradation analysis. The material is
beautiful, course sand. It's perfect. It's beautiful beach
material. so that would be beautiful for the beach to put there.
However, I would need some help if you can get me in touch with
the park district.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Our office could approach, the area Trustee
Nick Krupski --and he wants to go swimming there next year-- so
I'm sure we can approach the park district. It makes sense to
try to keep the material further up the beach. Unless the DEC
as the park district would grant permission, it would seem to be
to everyone's benefit.
MR. PATANJO: Looking at the DEC, I didn't see anything telling
me it was a no go. They look like it's an approvable project as
long as I give them this couple of pieces of information.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: On our end, instead of five, it would basically
be ten. You are saying you would like to do it basically once a
year, or have the opportunity to do it once a year.
MR. PATANJO: As needed. As needed. You know, as you saw in the
historical photographs it was not really required several years.
This just happened after, this big dredging event happened due
to the new increased flow through there, which pulls all --
TRUSTEE SANDERS: But if the language is such that it gives you
that opportunity, you don't have to do it every. But if it's
us, you know, it would continue to be an issue every year, you
have the opportunity to do that.
Board of Trustees 13 September 21, 2016
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Basically once we have the meets and bounds
of the dredging and the depth, that is something that we can
hopefully inspect or the constable can inspect and that way we
would not want to be more restrictive of it, otherwise we would
have to require you to call the office and we would be counting
five times over that time period.
Our counsel Damon Hagan has advised also, a simple letter
from the park district indicating that would like the material
to be on their beach above the mean high water mark.
MR. PATANJO: That would suffice my need for the DEC, absolutely.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would also complete our file with respect
to that concern.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay, I make a motion to table this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number two, SALVATORE PENNISI requests a
Wetland Permit for the as-built in-place replacement of
dilapidated 6.8'x14' seaward section of the existing 6.8'x38'
fixed dock using 4"x4" piles; and to add plantings and place
either mulch or stone along the berm between the grass land and
bulkhead. Located: 1425 Pine Neck Road, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-70-5-40
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistencies are because a Wetland permit was not issued for
replacement of the dock structure.
The CAC resolved to support this application.
The Trustees performed a field inspection on September
13th, noting that any future rebuilds should be limited to
four-foot width and the non-turf buffer is to be maintained.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on this application?
(Negative response).
Any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, it's pretty straightforward.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition that any future rebuilds are to be limited to
four-foot width, and by issuing this permit it satisfies the
LWRP inconsistencies.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number three, VICTOR & MARY ZUPA request a
Wetland Permit to install a 16'x32' in-ground swimming pool; a
10'x32' brick deck against landward side of pool; install a 32'
Board of Trustees 14 September 21, 2016
long by approximately 3' high retaining wall along the seaward
side of the pool; and install pool enclosure fencing, pool
equipment area and drywell for pool backwash. Located: 4565
Paradise Point Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-1-13.1
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
And the CAC also resolved to support this application.
The Trustees went out on September 13th and found this to
be a very straightforward application, noting we like where the
drywell and backwash are for the pool.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. ZUPA: Good evening. I'm Vic Zupa. I'm one of
the applicants. My wife Mary is here as well. I think it's
pretty well explained on the survey and the application we
submitted, so I'm here to answer any questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any questions, comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we thought it was pretty
straightforward, based off the survey and visit as well.
MR. ZUPA: Thank you.
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
written.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, Victor Prusinowski on behalf of
DAVID SCHWARTZ requests a Wetland Permit to extend the existing
second-story deck seaward an additional 8'wide by 28' long;
install a 45sq.ft. generator pad; install a 14'x24' in-ground
swimming pool with 4' high pool enclosure fencing; install
516.5sq.ft of pool patio to be approximately 6" above grade;
replace existing 166.8sq.ft. patio under deck with new material
to match pool patio; and install a pool equipment area.
Located: 1015 Lakeside Drive North, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-90-4-5.1
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The CAC voted unanimously to approve this application, with
the condition that best management practices be in place to
contain storm water runoff and pool backwash.
The Trustees did a field inspection on September 13th and noted
that this is a straightforward application and that the proposed
construction would have minimal impact on the environment.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. PRUSINOWSKI: Yes. I'm Vic Prusinowski, 533 Elton Street,
Riverhead, consultant for the project. I'm here to answer any of
your questions.
Board of Trustees 15 September 21, 2016
1 did a review of the file and the property is in full
compliance with the previous permits, so there is no violations
pending. It's a straightforward application. So I'm here to
answer any of your questions, if you could find it within your
hearts to approve it tonight. Which I see you are doing, so
that's why I just threw that in there. I have to get on the
record, so.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would note that the plans show drainage--
MR. PRUSINOWSKI: Whatever the condition that you want to put
on that, that's fine. I'll make sure, we have to go through the other
permits we have to get, so I'll definitely take that into account and
make that part of whatever we have to do as a condition.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We request all leaders and gutters to drywells.
MR. PRUSINOWSKI: You got it. And I probably have to amend the
plan to show that, the plan we are giving to the Building
Department, I'm assuming, right?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any other comments?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion
to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application with
the stipulation we receive new plans showing leaders and gutters
to drywells.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing number five, DKR Shores, Inc.
on behalf of SAMUEL SINGER requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 4'x156' dock elevated to 30", using Thru-Flow
decking and supported by 4"x4" posts in vegetated areas; install
a 3'x20' seasonal ramp; install a 6'x20' seasonal floating dock in an "I"
configuration; dock to consist of untreated materials, and in water areas
under dock to be supported with monopole/ice breaker pilings.
Located: 44030 Route 25, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-75-6-6.1
Before we get into the hearing proper, I just want to
indicate, because some confusion may have surrounded the fact
that I pulled this from the Type 11 declarations in the beginning of
the meeting, that this job accidently was listed there. We
actually have not concluded an environmental review under the State
Environmental Quality Review Act for this project. We are
pending trying to get some new language worked up for our
environmental reviews on major docks in new wetland areas in the
Board of Trustees 16 September 21, 2016
town, and unfortunately former Assistant Town attorney Steve
Kiely left the employ of the Town before we got that into process.
So that we will, we acknowledge that at the request of the
Trustees, Mr. Singer did split out the dock application so that
it could get its individual review and allow him to continue
with his home construction.
We'll be in a position to open this hearing tonight and
take testimony, take it under consideration, and then use that
in developing the appropriate environmental review under the
State Environmental Quality Review Act, which we would entertain
at a subsequent meeting. So I just wanted to clarify that
before we got into I hearing process this evening.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MS. RIGDON: Agena Rigdon, DKR Shores, here to represent Samuel
Singer, the homeowner, who is also here, as well as the
contractor Ian Crowley, to answer any questions the Board has.
Just a quick question, Jay. Did the Board determine it was
a Type II action or not?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, that's what the confusion is. It was
pulled from the Type II list tonight because it's properly a new
dock, which has been considered inconsistent with the Town's
Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, in an area that simply
doesn't have a dock, based on its scope. Docks in general
should be unlisted actions. The state may treat them otherwise,
but a dock going in on-Trustee land where there is not a history
of docks, it compels a heightened review, and either a positive
or negative declaration under SEQRA. We never concluded that. I
simply, in running the application through our initial office
review, it was determined to be an unlisted action. That's why
it didn't come in as a Type 11. 1 hope that answers your question
MS. RIGDON: Do we have a timeframe for this review?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I suspect that the Board already received
concerns about the dock at the last public hearing that dealt
with the house. We are aware of the comments relating to the
inconsistency from the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program
coordinator, and based on the hearing tonight I would hope we
have sufficient information. Certainly-- I can't tell you that
the Board, how it might act on the matter, but the Board will
look at the body of information we collect in the public hearing
and use that in consideration of concluding the environmental
review before we would go on to an approval or denial of the project
MS. RIGDON: Okay, may we.continue?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sure, go ahead.
MS. RIGDON: If the Board will recall, back in March, we actually
presented before the Board a number of times, the Board
graciously let us separate the application from the house to the
dock. We did resubmit a new application for the dock, for the
proposed docking facility. We have redesigned the dock with the
Board's recommendations in its entirety. The dock proposed was
moved south, so it traverses a smaller area of intertidal
Board of Trustees 17 September 21, 2016
vegetation. The materials, as the Board had requested, are all
now hardwood, tropical lumber, i.e. not treated material
whatsoever. The decking is of course through-flow, which is
standard nowadays, and environmentally friendly made of a
polymer plastic. The Board also requested that we reduce the
height of the pilings, I should say the posts, within the
vegetated areas, which we have done, to 4x4s. Also untreated.
The Board also requested at that time that we produce drawings
for a monopile design for in-water as well as with the
breakwater requested by the Board. We have done that as well.
And I think that pretty much covers it. It meets all navigational
issues, it's less than a third the width of the waterway. It was
designed as per the Board's request. The application is pending
before the DEC and is to be issued any day now. They have no
problems with the dock. So the only problem now is whether or
not it's a Type II action or not.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Some may view that as a problem. It's really
just a matter of the Board doing its work. It's really not a
problem. It's what we do. Thank you.
I would like to add, to correct my statement on the record,
it does appear that it is a monopole construction using three
piles. It's not a three-pile bent. Right? It would appear the
diagram you are running to --
MR. CROWLEY: Ian Crowley, on behalf of Sam Singer. The diagram I
drew had 4x4s in the wetlands and I think it was three piles.
But what we did is we spread the centers way out to 12 feet.
Which we could do with the Greenheart 6x6. And we changed it all
to Greenheart, which we would not have done, because its not to
code. And it's a small consideration on paper but its a huge
consideration financially. And he was willing to do that. And I
know this is kind of in the early stages, and I missed the first
part of this. So I don't know how this all started, what
transpired before. But we looked into the monopiles and the
monopiles where the 4x4s would be are actually going to take up
more wetland than 2x4s. I talked to Mark, I'm working with Mark
on a project right now and I wanted to use eight inch, which
would have fit the bill and got you down square footage wise,
but he wanted to use ten inch. So ten inch is about 75, 1 think,
square inches, or whatever it is. And two 4x4s is 32.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So which clearly makes sense in the
vegetated intertidal wetland to go with the 4x4s.
MR. CROWLEY: I think so. I think so. I like the monopile idea.
I would like to see it, I would like to do it. The problem with
that is installation. You need to get a machine onto the wetlands.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And it's not likely to frost heave. With
the Greenheart, you are proposing eight to nine inch, butt end
in, do you think--
MR. CROWLEY: As drawn, it's not going to frost heave. It's not
going to frost heave. As drawn is 35 years easy.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So it's a question for a very sensitive
creek such as this may not be the kind of area where we want a
Board of Trustees 18 September 21, 2016
bubbler system for retracting --
MR. CROWLEY: No.
MS. RIGDON: We are not going to need a bubbler system because
the float and the ramp are actually coming out and they'll be
stored on a seasonal basis upland. So there is not a need for a
bubbler system for at least the float and the ramp portion. But
it's designed so it doesn't need a bubbler for the actual fixed
portion as well.
MR. CROWLEY: And I had designed it so the poles don't come above
deck height. So you'll see 30 inches above, no poles sticking
up, a nice clean line above high water, you know, as a
concession as well. There is really no need for fender piles on
the dock because you'll never put a boat there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, any other questions?
(No response).
Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak to this matter?
MR. SKABEIKIS: Good evening, I'm Dan Skabeikis, a resident of
Southold. I'm here to read some comments, if that's okay, from
this is handed to me from Dr. Nancy Pierson, who is the resident
of the adjoining property. And it's about three paragraphs, so
it won't be very long. I'll go ahead, okay?
There is no precedent for an enormous dock of this length
into this shallow upper reaches of Richmond Creek. We are not
sure of the exact situation elsewhere, but it seems that other
shallow upland creek areas do not have much if any of this
construction. If you allow this to be built, you have then
created an ever-worsening precedent for longer and more
inappropriately placed docks. The Board knows as well as we
that these estuarial creeks silt in as their natural life cycle,
and the next thing someone in this setting will start demanding
public money for dredging. Coming to Southold and buying land
on a shallow creek front does not automatically entitle one to
have the people and Town of Southold provide them with deep
water boating.
The Planning Board has a professional environmentalist, not
a hired permit procurer, who has done a thorough and
professional evaluation of this proposal as the Local Wetland
Revitalization Plan coordinator. As he states, this action is
located within New York State Department of Significant Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Area, the New York State Critical Environmental
Area and the Peconic Estuary Critical Natural Resource Area. His
findings are that this proposal is inconsistent with all the
environmental guidelines, including causing quote, barriers to
fish migration which would have a major impact on fisheries in
Richmond Creek. Unquote. He also states that quote it appears
that the applicant is designing a dock to a large vessel or
vessels rather than proposing the minimum structure necessary,
and that the applicant has not demonstrated that the dock would
not impair navigation of small watercraft or other vessels. Unquote.
Numerous kayakers use this creek constantly and probably
have no idea what is going on here when what looks like a marina
Board of Trustees 19 September 21, 2016
suddenly appears in this relatively pristine creek. He
concludes that-- unquote-- He concludes that this placement of
such a quote dock structure in public trust lands and waters
results in a net loss of public use of such land and water. And
then in his report he underlines the fact, this following, it
says due to the high ecological value of Richmond Creek, a
seasonal mooring is a better option in this instance. Unquote.
All of these regulations were crafted by the state and
federal bodies with incredible effort, time and wide input, but
you are the only body that can enforce them for those they were
designed to benefit: The public of Southold Town and the
wildlife of our waters.
As we are faced almost daily with ever new examples of the
constant and seemingly inexorable degradation of our waters from
repeated fish kills in the Peconic brown tides, poisonous rust and
red tides, failures of scallop, lobster and other fisheries, we as
individuals try to do what we can, but the real power to make a
difference here lies with you as the legal guardians of these waters.
People want to come here for summer homes because it does
not yet look like Howard Beach, but if we continue on like this,
that is what we'll have.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Thank you. I think the one thing that was
brought up is there is not going to be a boat there. The intent
is not to have a boat.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, it's not to have a large boat.
MS. RIGDON: Jay, I have a question. Has the LWRP report come out
on this particular application?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, it had. It was part of the prior
application.
MS. RIGDON: It was part of the prior application?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, the LWRP review, it was part--
MS. RIGDON: But this is a separate application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The original --okay. Mark Terry, who is
the LWRP coordinator, wrote, has a memo over his initial
determination. The original recommendation stands, the Board
can require a redesign to make the action consistent. I will no
longer-- I will not review the action again. So in other words
the original determination is in fact the one that the gentleman
just read sections of, for which the Board did go over at the
initial public hearing when you agreed to separate out the dock,
and was the reason why the Board had made specific requests of
you in reformulating the dock structure to address the
environmental concerns.
So basically what we have is we have an initial LWRP, we
have the applicant trying to meet the concerns of the Trustees,
to address the concerns in the LWRP; a Board of Trustees which
has to conclude the environmental review to fulfill our requirement
under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and put a permit
under consideration that will seek to address the inconsistencies, if the
Board can, leading to either an approval or denial. That's where we are at.
Board of Trustees 20 September 21, 2016
MS. RIGDON: Okay. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to
this application?
MR. SINGER: Sam Singer, I'm the owner of the property. I want to
thank the Board for approving the house and so forth. I thought that,
you know, I have been very patient in terms of, in trying to design a
house and develop this property just for my personal use that preserves
the property the best way I can. I put the house farthest away from the water
as possible, on the highest ground, agreed to a 75-foot setback when I was
only required to have a 50-foot setback. You know, I plan to keep the field all
natural and open and undeveloped so my neighbors across the
street have a nice view of everything. And my house is setback
from the water so they won't even see that.
am an avid boater. I won't use it as a marina. As stated.
I basically want, I have a Hobie Cat sailboat, which is also a
kayak as well. It's a sail kayak. It's been in the garage for
two summers now because I don't want to bring it across the
wetlands and destroy the wetland or dig a path in the woods. I
have been patient, not developing the property. It's pristine,
it's untouched. Before I touch anything, I want to get the
Board's approval. And rather than drag this Hobie Cat, it's not
a power boat, its not, you know, I want to be able to put it
across on wheels, on this catwalk, drag it, have a floating
dock, so at three-foot low tide I don't have to launch the thing
and pull it up. I love to boat, I'm not going to dredge, I'm not
going to do any other things. I'm going to leave the creek as
is. I'm only asking for a structure with a fixed dock that we
now shortened quite a bit. It's quite a bit that goes over much
less wetlands. And we have oriented the floating dock. So that
will come out. Its 20 feet, but it's oriented long, longitudinally,
so that comes out, and is only in for the summer months. And it
will allow me to enjoy the creek as a boater. And I don't have any
plans to put, you know, a marina, as stated, there, or anything else.
I think there is a dock, two new docks right across the creek from me
that have been recently put in. I don't understand, one side of the creek
is under one rule and the other side of the creek is under another?
And Dr. Pierson has her own dock there, with a fixed dock, and the
float is on the wetland. So, you know, there is a dock on that side of the
creek. Dr. Pierson owns it. I don't understand why I don't have
a right to have a dock right next to her.
MR. CROWLEY: I just wanted to add something. With the seasonal
float, I would take that right out of the creek in the fall.
That would not be tied up next to the dock.
MR. SINGER: It would be away from the wetlands.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. Thank you. Any additional comments or
concerns?
(Negative response).
I have one letter to read into the record that was
submitted to the file.
Please accept this message for inclusion in tonight's
Minutes of the Southold Trustees meeting on the review of the
Board of Trustees 21 September 21, 2016
proposed plan of Samuel Singer for a new house, garage, driveway
and pool complex be built on the eastern shore of the north fork
of Richmond Creek.
We are the owners of Bayside Farm as well as the end of Indian
Neck, the former Lappe Farm and Onabay Vineyards, almost 200
acres in total. Though we do not abut the parcel under review,
we are interested in preserving the beauty and uniqueness of the
area that encompasses the eastern shore of Richmond Creek. Over
the past 20 years we have seen the continued degradation of the
creek, acres of marshland eelgrass have disappeared. The
eastern headwaters of the creek have served as a critical
nursery for aquatic life including turtles. The eastern shore of
Richmond Creek is the last of the undeveloped shoreline for this
estuary. It is very unfortunate that the town did not pursue
protecting this important watershed parcel.
While we understand Mr. Singer's desire to make full use of
his purchased property, the plans for development on the parcel
are over-scale and will overwhelm the fragile wetlands and
uplands along the creek.
This is such an important site that a thorough
environmental evaluation and your scrupulous oversight is
warranted. Our old woods down shore along the creek bank and the
wooded area on the proposed building site are important wildlife
areas, and one of the few wooded areas left for miles. A bald
eagle was sighted during a couple of weeks in the fall. The back
fields of Bayside Farm and adjoining open space have been used
for the prestigious Audubon Christmas Bird Count for decades.
And very impressive species counts this area as one of the
jewels are Southold. Our family and Nancy Conradi have done
our best to be good stewards of it. Please keep us apprised of
the development of this proposal. Thank you, for your kind attention,
Bradley and Francesca Anderson of 3950 South Harbor Road.
Okay, we'll try to close up comments on this application. I
think we are nearing getting sufficient information.
MS. RIGDON: I don't want to take up anyone else's time. But
please be reminded that the application was submitted well in
advance of any changes to the Local Waterfront Revitalization
laws within the Board, and any changes coming up should not be
applicable to this dock.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
MR. SINGER: Just, I have a stressful job, I would love to enjoy
this property. You know, it's been a year-and-a-half process and
I hope,just wish, that you could do your best to expedite it as
best as possible. This project is not out of scale, it's, for
the size of the property, I think it's a reasonably-sized house,
and I've tried to keep it, you know, environmentally as
consistent with the creek as possible. So I would appreciate any
support you can give us.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I can actually respond to that. There is no way
to make everybody happy when it comes to home ownership and the
use of an actual dock. Through the entire process you have been
Board of Trustees 22 September 21, 2016
extremely flexible. So I just want to make sure that was read
into the record
MS. RIGDON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any other comments?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to table this hearing pending the
conclusion of the environmental review and an up or down vote at
the next monthly meeting. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number six, DKR Shores,
Inc. on behalf of WILLIAM &JILL HANSEN requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a 4'x33'fixed catwalk with steps elevated
4-'/2 above grade using open-grate decking; and install an elevated
4'x6' lower platform with ladder to access watercraft.
Located: 1455 Ole Jule Lane & 1570 Ole Jule Lane 10'Wide Right
of Way, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-5-1 (Dominant) & 1000-122-4-3
(Servient)
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MS. RIGDON: Hi. Agena Rigdon, DKR Shores, here to represent Mr.
Hansen, and Mr. Hansen the homeowner is presently here.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. The Board has been on this job several
times. I know we had noted there was some cutting of the
phragmites and Spartina in developing maybe access for the
surveying and staking that the Board had felt should probably be
discussed for inclusion by reference in a permit. We thought the
cutting was maybe a little more than we would like to have seen
for a surveying job.
MS. RIGDON: I have no problem doing that. They were trying to
mark the right-of-way and the DEC requires we cut to the water
for inspection purposes as well. Christian doesn't like to get
ticks on his legs.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you have a DEC permit for this?
MS. RIGDON: I do. I have a DEC permit that was issued without
question, without any changes, and I also have the Department of
State concurrence, for the Board's copy. I'm a couple of days
away from actually getting the Department of Army as well, Corps
of Engineers. I was furnished with an LWRP report as well as a
CAC report on the project. Under Chapter 275-11(c)(2)(d), a
couple of questions were addressed regarding navigational
issues, regarding possible shortening of the dock, possible
mooring, with the waterway questions. I think we answered most
of them.
The dock as designed is its most environmentally friendly
way of designing it, which doesn't scale even bordering Mark
Davis' new dock to the south that was recently permitted, about
a year ago. The width of the waterway requirement has been
sufficed. It's less than a third. There is no public access or
Board of Trustees 23 September 21, 2016
recreational facilities in the area for Mr. Hansen to launch his
-- and just to give you a little bit of background. He doesn't
have a 23-foot boat. He has a small dinghy with a motor that is
215 pounds. He has a kayak and he has -- he has pictures of it
he'll bring up.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm sorry, what was the last one?
MS. RIGDON: He has a paddleboard, a kayak and an inflatable
Zodiac that is 215 pounds with the gas in it. We can't use a mooring
there at all. The waterway is just obviously too narrow. We can't
shorten it anymore, and there really are no other alternatives, because
the only other alternative would be him dragging these crafts through
the actual wetland, which obviously would cause more disturbance
than necessary.
The dock was designed so it doesn't require a float. It has
a lower platform for Mr. Hansen to get in and out of his craft
safely. It has through-flow for decking, it is elevated
four-and-a-half feet above intertidal marsh, which is required
by the Corps of Engineers now. It doesn't extend past the length
of the adjacent dock to the north or the south. And also it was
copied with a CAC report. They offered to not support the
application, only because of the right-of-way issue. And as per
Southold Town Code Chapter 275-11(c)(2)(a)(8)we have sufficed
those requirements in getting adjacent authorization from the
property owners to the north and the south, by notarized
affidavit okaying the dock.
And we did have one letter in opposition from not an adjacent
neighbor, who Mr. Hansen met with onsite. And then the Board
should have another letter that is not dated from a Roberta
Callas in their file actually okaying the dock, and her
questions have been satisfied. So I think we covered all bases.
Does the Board have any other questions?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, I'll read into the record, I have three
communications here. Maybe the one of Roberta Callas where she
overwrites in favor of the proposal, I'll just read that one.
Before I do that, I just want to say, it's not the point to get
involved with dueling with respect to provisions of code because
we don't have the benefit of our attorney here to lead that
discussion. But there is a requirement, there is a setoff
requirement for 15 feet off side property lines, which the
Trustees at least like to give a very hard look at, regardless
of notification of neighbors. 275 also has setback off an
extension of the side property lines to try to at least protect
the navigation and access of adjacent boat owners, so the
construction of a new dock does not diminish the rights of free
navigation and accessing foreshore by the neighbors. That's a
point for further discussion amongst the Board members and part
of our discretionary decision here on this matter.
That said, let me go ahead and read the letters. One here
from Roberta Callas is the first one. It's an undated letter.
Dear Trustees, as a follow-up to my letter of June 13th
regarding the reference property owners request for installing a
Board of Trustees 24 September 21, 2016
dock platform on a right-of-way on the Seaman property, please
be advised that earlier today Mr. Hansen came to me and walked
me over to the right-of-way. He showed me exactly where it is
and how it was to be landscaped, that I could not see the
cleared path as well as showing me that it is blocked by a gate.
Thus answering my questions about its access and that it does
not need to be cleared thereby affecting runoff. He stated that
it is for his personal use to dock a dinghy and therefore waste
will not be an issue. He further stated there would be no
amenities on the dock, no transient use, no charter or
commercial use, thus eliminating the street parking concern. I'm
still not certain as to whether or not I'll be at--this is the June
22nd hearing, it was postponed -- However based on my expectations
you'll make sure all wetlands regulations are adhered to, and
based on his present answers, I feel my questions and concerns
have satisfactorily been answered.
Now, is Roberta M. Callas an adjacent owner either left or right or--
MS. RIGDON: To the north or south, no she is not. She was
notified, I think she is within 300 feet or across the creek.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay.
MR. HANSEN: If you zoom out on the map, Old Jule Lane, she is
behind us.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Actuality, sorry, there is two other letters
of hers, June 13th and June 18th. So that caps two prior
communications with her. The total of three that I have in the file.
Before we take any additional comments, are there any other
questions from the Trustees while you are --
MS. RIGDON: No. Mr. Hansen would like to speak, though, if
that's okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Initial inspection was done on June 15th,
2016, while we were awaiting additional legal interpretation of
the dominant and servient, the requirements of the right-of-way,
and to make sure they were not a group of owners with rights in
the right-of-way to drill down into who or what would be
potentially putting a vessel there and using the dock.
MS. RIGDON: Correct.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, is there anyone else who wishes to
speak to this application?
MR. HANSEN: My name is William Hansen, I'm the owner of 1455 Old
Jule Lane. And the purpose of the dock is to put my dinghy
There, because my big boat is down at Strong's Marina. I just
felt it would be better to have a dock in there rather than
trampling over the wetlands constantly. My kids will be using it
with a paddleboard and a kayak. It will be very light use.
have a picture of my dinghy I was going to use.'If you have any
questions.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The problem for us is how do we approve
something that seems to violate a section of the code. I'm
referring to the survey that you submitted on April 5th, and it
appears if you extend your, the property line of Mr. Davis
seaward, it would run through, pretty much through the middle of
Board of Trustees 25 September 21, 2016
the dock. Your dock. To me, if it were turned a few degrees to
the north it would still function and you would avoid that problem.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Given the fact we don't have the 15-foot
side yard set off on this case, years ago, the Board tried an
incentive policy where we greatly reduced our dock fees for
docks that were narrower. I think in all the years I was on the
Board in the last century we only had one or two applicants take
us up on it, but a four-foot wide catwalk also makes tying and
use of vessels encroaching on the extension of the neighboring
property lines. So in combining with what Trustee Domino says
as far as orienting a dock that conforms exactly with the run of
the right-of-way and reducing its width, may be more appropriate
for this site. It looks like the neighboring, the navigation
issue and issues with respect to other boaters and the neighbors
accessing their docks, if the foreshore does not appear to be an
issue because their docks are located relatively distant from
the right-of-way, and this apparently is in an established --
the right-of-way has existed for some time. I just wanted to
bring that up. It appears this application wants a bit of
tweaking, recognizing the circumstances that the Board finds
itself in and we really should not, it's one thing for the Board
to consider and under its discretionary authority granting a
waiver for side yard setback, but we can't have a structure that
goes across an extension of the property lines. That's not good
marine practice.
MS. RIGDON: I have no problem re-aligning the dock so it doesn't
extend past the property line. And then as far as the Town code,
that particular section that I cited was specifically for
right-of-ways.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Oh, it's a Town Code right-of-way section.
MS. RIGDON: It's a Town Code section on the right-of-way itself.
But if the Board would do so, approve with written submission, I
can get you new copies of plans realigning the dock so it fits
within the right-of-way.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a possibility. We have to see if there
are additional concerns for the public hearing. There may be
other individuals here need to speak to the application.
MS. RIGDON: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is anyone else here to speak to this
application?
MR. STEIN: John Stein, CAC. Just to follow-up with Trustee
Domino's theory, not having inspected these two, but I just
walked it briefly. Just for edification,just for the record, how
close was the elevation of the catwalks abutting or on or near the
ten-foot right-of-way for this construction in the application?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You are talking how close the neighboring
ones are?
MR. STEIN: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, you can see them in the aerial.
MR. STEIN: The ten-foot right-of-way to whatever the structure
is that is being built.
Board of Trustees 26 September 21, 2016
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, it's a ten-foot right-of-way with a
four-foot dock, which only leaves three feet either side. So
that-- is my math right?Yes. If it were exactly centered. But
there was a question about a pool filter.
MR. STEIN: But not having Damon here, there is a no actual
physical structure going on the right-of-way. I'm just thinking
of the property rights of the other homeowners.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, this is an exclusive right-of-way for an
upland owner who is the dominant owner and the servient owner
for which he has a right-of-way over the property. And the Town
Attorney's office compelled a thorough research on the matter so
that we know these are the only, this is the only rights on a
dock are associated with the upland owner--the owner is
immediately across the street. So it's just those two.
MR. STEIN: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, any further questions?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to approve this application
with the stipulation that we get new plans that would show the
catwalk no wider than three feet in dimension, with through-flow
decking throughout, and that the associated platform in the
plans in no way goes over the property lines, so that there
will be a three-foot wide catwalk associated platform is wholly
within the bounds of the right-of-way. And that since, once the
catwalk is constructed, there is no real need to trim vegetation
other than maybe trim it on the top of the through-flow so it's
not a slip or trip hazard. I don't think we have to entertain a
ten-year maintenance since it was purported it was cleared for
the sole purpose of staking and inspection.
So that would be it. My approval is with the stipulation, of a
new set of plans, three-foot wide platform and not going beyond
the meets and bounds of the extension of the property lines.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. RIGDON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number seven, En-Consultants on behalf of GLORIA
A. SCOLLARD INTER VIVOS CREDIT SHELTER TRUST requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a 16'x32' swimming pool surrounded on three
sides by a 4' to 8'wide (448sq.ft.)on-grade masonry patio; and install
pool enclosure fencing, a pool equipment area, and a pool drywell.
Located: 905 Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-10-3
On September 13th, the Trustees went and examined this
property. And the notes basically say a straightforward good
elevation for the pool.
Board of Trustees 27 September 21, 2016
The LWRP has found this consistent.
And the CAC has resolved to support.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of
the applicant?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. This is a property, many of the Board members are
probably familiar with over the years. It's a pretty straightforward
proposal. We'll are situating the pool on what is the highest point
of the property and really what is the only maintained lawn area on
the whole property. We meet the required wetland setbacks under 275.
We will have a pool drywell. We will not be interfering with the groundwater
table. And interestingly, we were actually able to secure a letter of
non jurisdiction from the DEC because the pool is located landward
of what was the pre-development ten-foot contour elevation.
Years and years ago the DEC and the Trustees had actually
originally approved the development of this property with a
house and pool, but the pool was never built.
So if the Board has any other questions, I'm certainly
happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Would anybody else like to speak on behalf of
the applicant?
(Negative response).
Are all right, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve the application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number eight, En-Consultants on behalf of THE
SUSAN T.H. KWIT REVOCABLE TRUST, c/o SUSAN KWIT, TRUSTEE
requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 139 linear
feet of vinyl bulkhead in-place of and 12" higher than existing
timber bulkhead; construct±8' of vinyl bulkhead to close off an
existing 8'x14' boat slip and ramp to be filled/removed;
construct±8' northerly return; backfill bulkhead and boat slip
with approximately 50 cubic yards of clean sand/loam to be
trucked in from an approved upland source; remove existing
3'x21'fixed dock; construct a 4'x6' platform and 3'x14' ramp to
existing 6'x80'floating dock; relocate two existing light poles
and install a third light pole in compliance with the standards
set forth by Section 172-5 of the Town Code; and to remove
existing utility poles and overhead wires and install buried electric.
Located: 906 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-5-48.1
The LWRP found this application to be consistent.
The CAC resolved to support this application.
The Trustees did a field inspection on September 13th,
noting that it was a pretty straightforward bulkhead replacement,
and the need for a ten-foot wide non-turf buffer.
Board of Trustees 28 September 21, 2016
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant. The applicant is also here, if the Board has any
questions of him.
We do have a proposed ten-foot non-turf buffer shown
adjacent to the bulkhead on the plan. And it is otherwise pretty
straightforward as described. And understanding this is in the
LWRP report, there is a condition of the turbidity control being
required, so that certainly is acceptable if the Board wishes to
require the use of a silt curtain. Otherwise I don't have
anything to add, unless the Board has any questions.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
on this application?
(Negative response).
Any comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application,
noting a ten-foot wide non-turf buffer and the use of a silt boom.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number nine, En-Consultants on behalf of
CONSTANTINE & PAMELA STAMIDIS request a Wetland Permit to
construct a two-story, single-family dwelling with attached
garage and 10'x25'first and second-story decks with 3.5'wide
steps, a 4'x5.6' platform and steps, and a 4'x6' outdoor shower;
install a drainage system of drywells; install a sanitary system
and asphalt driveway more than 100'from landward edge of
wetlands; establish and perpetually maintain a 10'wide,
500sq.ft. non-turf buffer adjacent to and along the top of the
naturally vegetated embankment; and to construct a 4'x±27'
embankment stairway with a 4'x6' platform. Located: 1325
Bayview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-5-13
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent, provided
that the following is required to further policy six: Preserve
existing vegetation adjacent to the tidal wetland and include
vegetated non-turf buffer.
And the CAC resolved to support this application.
The Trustees went out on September 13th,just had a couple
of comments about the grade matching the neighbors. And as far
as how far to cut the grade on the seaward side.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant.
Board of Trustees 29 September 21, 2016
This is an application to construct a new single-family
residence with a deck on the water side. The dwelling and deck
will be set actually just really behind the existing house line
of the two adjacent properties. There is just enough room on the
property to situate the house as it's been designed with a
sanitary system on the road side of it.
We have an application pending with the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services and also the State DEC from whom
we have requested a permit for the small shoreline stairway and
a tidal wetlands letter of non jurisdiction for the construction
of the house based on it being located landward of the ten-foot
elevation contour referenced in 1929 datum.
Just one little piece of housekeeping, I assume the Board
is aware of it, but we had submitted subsequent to the initial
application a revised site plan that shifted the proposed
shoreline stairway just nine feet to the north. When the
surveyor went out to stake the structures for your inspection,
we figured out that had we set the stairway where it was
originally proposed they would have had to remove a tree from
the embankment, which we would not want to do for erosion
control purposes. So it was shifted nine feet to the north
where it was staked. We then provided you with a site plan which
shows the stairway in that location. So where you saw the stairway
staked during your field inspection is where it's proposed.
Any other questions about the design?You mentioned
something about grade?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The proposed property has to be graded, we are
assuming, for the house. There was a concern that the grade is
matching the elevation of the neighbors.
MR. HERRMANN: In terms of any raising of the grade where the
house is proposed, yes, there is actually not, if you go back to
where our--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The grade where the vegetation starts by the
bluff was significantly higher.
MR. HERRMANN: It's higher. And that will be left undisturbed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board was thinking with respect to good
neighborliness whether or not there would be any benefit to
having that match the grade to the north. But we were thinking
we would not object to some matching of grade there if it was
desirable, and the material that would be captured, we would not
want to touch the existing vegetated bluff or get too close to it.
MR. HERRMANN: Right. What is interesting about it is the way
that property, I mean, that probably was filled up at some
point. So where that hump, for lack of a better technical term,
is basically about where this 1929 datum ten-foot contour sits.
It's about the nine-foot contour and '88 datum. So we actually
have the project limiting fence set on the landward side of
that. To leave that undisturbed. And also we did not, we were
thinking, from your perspective, actually, the way it sets,
prevents some of the sheet flow runoff heading down toward the
bluff, which is so nicely vegetated right now I would be
Board of Trustees 30 September 21, 2016
reluctant to suggest messing with that grade, fearing that would
result in an erosion problem that currently doesn't exist. So
that was our thought.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So the applicant can always return to this
Board when they are in the house to talk about either retaining
structure or changing grade to match the neighbors or whatever
would seem, it just would seem sort of the logical thing. It
would obviously have to be worked out.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, but my sense is to leave well enough alone
until the property is developed and resettled, then if something
were to come up, we would have to come back. But it seemed to me
to leave it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It does look good.
MR. HERRMANN: I mean, that bank is in great shape.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, it is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other questions, comments from
the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else here who wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve this application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES). .
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number ten, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of
PETER & DIANA VNEILL request a Wetland Permit to replace
existing timber bulkhead in-place with a ±105 foot long
vinyl-sheathed bulkhead consisting of a ±59' section, a ±25'
section, an ±11' section, and a ±10' return; temporarily remove
existing decking along bulkhead and reconstruct
in-place/in-kind; and within an area measuring 10'x59' along the
59' northerly section of bulkheading, perform reclamation of
underwater lands directly adjacent to and seaward of the
bulkhead to meet an underwater elevation of-4.0' during Average
Low Water with the resultant reclaimed lands to be used as
backfill where needed along the landward side of the
reconstructed bulkhead. Located: 5875 Vanston Road, Cutchogue.
SCTM# 1000-118-1-1.3
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The CAC resolved to support the application. Recommending
removal of old bulkhead debris.
The Trustees did a field inspection on September 13th, and
in the notes we have a straightforward application, a simple
replacement.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
Board of Trustees 31 September 21, 2016
MS. MOORE: Yes, good evening, Patricia Moore on behalf of the
O'Neill's. Mrs. O'Neill is with me. Mr. Ian Crowley will do the
work, and Suffolk County Environmental is doing the DEC, and
gave me this lovely description. So it was a huge team effort.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's the entirety of the audience.
MS. MOORE: This is for an existing, it's everybody in the
audience. No one left. And we are obviously all in favor of the
application. Its straightforward, it's a replacement of the
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And of course you are going to remove the
debris.
MS. MOORE: But of course. You can tell Mr. Crowley, remove the
debris
MR. CROWLEY: What debris? Oh, the old bulkhead, I don't know--
haven't been there in two years, what debris are we talking about?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Neither was the CAC, for the neighboring
job, too, but that's a different story.
MS. MOORE: Okay, I don't want to prolong the evening, so.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No,just probably a silt boom for this job.
And the neighboring job is coming up next, presumably they'll go
right in a row. So this will be an area where silt protection
will be beneficial.
MS. MOORE: Correct.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right, hearing no further questions or
comments, 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
as submitted, with the addition of the silt barrier to protect
the environment.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application number eleven, Patricia C.
Moore, Esq. on behalf of DAVID BOFILL requests a Wetland Permit
for the existing 9.1'x11.4' landward shed with wood ramp;
existing ±4'x23'wood steps on south side of property and 4'x10'
wood steps on north side of property, both seaward of top of
bank; existing 4'x4' landing with 4'x24' steps to 4'x10'wood
walk to irregularly shaped 12'x42'wood deck to a step; the
existing 10'x15'wood deck to be relocated/reconstructed to a
minimum setback of 3' away from side yard property line;
existing 8.7'x11.8' seaward shed on deck to be relocated to a
minimum setback of T away from side yard property line;
existing 13' long wood tie wall; along seaward side of toe of
bank the remains of 22' of wood bulkhead; and existing 48' of
functional wood bulkhead. Located: 5785 Vanston Road,
Board of Trustees 32 September 21, 2016
Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-1-1.4
This project has been determined to be inconsistent under
the LWRP because of not having prior permits, Trustee permit.
The construction of which the Board believes predates permitting
in its entirety.
The report of the Principal Building Inspector Mike Verity
indicates that any consideration of the approval essentially
should, would indicate the use, the language in his report, that
we maintain setbacks for structures as per Southold Town Code so
that the walk or the shed can be appropriately located as the
site is being reconstructed and being brought up to code.
The CAC had approved to support the project in an
inspection they did in 2015, which I think was the time we went
out maybe on a pre-submission we visited the site previously.
And their concerns dealt also with runoff, so maybe the shed we
could include the requirement for a French drain or drywell for
the shed, if it has to be moved. It could probably, it's a very
small shed, so a minimalist drywell could be popped in just on
the corner of that.
The CAC also noted some vegetated clearing we never noted
on the site. As a matter of fact, it's longstandingly well
vegetated and wooded was noted leading down to the proposed
rehabilitation and rebuild. So I think I covered the CAC, LWRP,
the field inspection of the Trustees and the request of the
principal building inspector.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MS. MOORE: Yes, Patricia Moore on behalf of David Bofill. That's
fine. With respect to the language, we said a minimum of three
feet because we are hoping that we can get the variance. But
it's to whatever the code would require, which means if the
Zoning Board grants the variance at whatever distance, that
would then considered to be pursuant to the code, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, any questions or concerns?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Since you are in control of the audience,
you can't make them speak?
MS. MOORE: No, we are actually, on this one, we'll be back next
month because that will be the coordination of the bulkhead. We
had to get through this phase, then the bulkhead, it's already
been filed, so Mr. Crowley can begin, assuming when all the
other permits are in place, get started. So.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, we are permitting this in and then the
new construction will come next month.
MS. MOORE: Right. Since everything predated the Trustees'
jurisdiction, we had to get everything --well, two years ago we
wanted to get everything under permit, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Any other comments?
(Negative response).
Board of Trustees 33 September 21, 2016
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to approve this application with the
stipulation that the shed or walks or other appurtenances be
setback, maintain setbacks for those appurtenances as per
Southold Town Code and that--
MS. MOORE: If I could clarify one thing. Because the platform
that holds the shed is the only one that is applicable. The
other, the wood that is behind the bulkhead actually connects
the two properties together. So I don't want to have the record
reflect that the walkways are considered the platform that runs
directly behind the bulkhead. I just want to make sure with your
language.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, all I have here is to maintain
property setback as per Town Code. So if we leave our record
with respect to that.
MS. MOORE: That's fine.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So I would move that we approve this
application with the stipulation that the setback for the shed
be as per the Southold Town Code. And that the structure, if and
when moved, to comply with the requirements of the Town Code and
the determination of the principal building inspector or the
Zoning Board of Appeals, that an appropriately sized drywell or
French drain be installed for that building. And I guess that
would go to any refurbishing --the boat house --
MS. MOORE: That's not being touched.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, that's not part of this application.
Okay, that's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number 12, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf of FRANK& MINDY MARTORANA request a Wetland Permit to
construct a 34'x29' two-story addition with a 6'x10' second
story connected to the existing dwelling (1,046sq.ft. Footprint);
and to remove the existing 8'x12' shed.
Located: 3450 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-17-10.1
Okay, on September 13, 2016, the Trustees examined this
property. The notes reflect(perusing)--all right. So the
LWRP coordinator has found this consistent.
And the CAC has resolved to support this application.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of
the applicant?
MR. ANDERSON: Good evening. Bruce Anderson, Suffolk
Environmental Consulting, for the applicant Frank and Mindy
Martorana. I have an overview of, it shows you how it lines up
with the other houses along this creek. And, if you will --
Board of Trustees 34 September 21, 2016
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is this already in our--
MR. ANDERSON: I don't think so. I like to give these out. It's
easy to understand.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If it's not needed for the determination,
it's publishing new material, we'll have to take it under
advisement.
MR. ANDERSON: When I first saw this property, its an example of
probably the thickest buffer I have ever, ever seen. Its a
solid stand of switch grass that would intercept anything that
comes off the property. And you don't normally see success like
that, to that extent. So I'm personally very comfortable with
the application. We would of course comply with the Town storm
water regulations.
The connection of the garage structure to the main
structure is by second floors. So you should take note of that.
And the septic system is sized for the design flow for this
property, so there is no need to upgrade that. That has a permit
from the Health Department. We are still awaiting a permit from
the DEC.
I'm here to answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Any thoughts, Mike?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I have some concerns about the extent of the
property that is being used. Can you address, intensification of
use, has a potential to impact the quality of the creek. So I
guess what I'm getting at, is this going to be used for the
family?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. That would be the master bedroom above the
garage. It's a very small house, if you notice, and I can tell
you this, as far as intensification, one of the rules that we,
at least I always counsel the client is that they not overbuild
the property. And, as you know, the limitation on building the
property is 20% of the upland area. So what this town does is
it will subtract any wetlands, any banks, any beaches, any
waterways from the lot area. So this is designed to comply with
all the zoning restrictions contained in your zoning law. So my
conclusion is, based on that, we are not overbuilding the
property.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So, I'm repeating myself, I guess. This
structure is going to be used for the family?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Instead of a mother-daughter situation.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And not as a rental.
MR. ANDERSON: No.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you, so much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I've got a question. Because you bring the
application to the other departments. When Mike Verity looks at
this, does he look at the addition of bedrooms and then kick it
to the County Health Department? I'm just curious.
MR. ANDERSON: No, because the septic is already rated for the
number of bedrooms.
Board of Trustees 35 September 21, 2016
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, it was rated for the full number
of bedrooms that are going to appear?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm trying to remember, did you carry the
original application, was it the old house was refurbished?
MR. ANDERSON: I don't know. I didn't handle the application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a gorgeous house.
MR. ANDERSON: I think Frank Martorana handled it himself, was
my recollection.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I remember being to the site previously when
we granted the original approval, I remember the place was just
plowed up with all kinds of debris. I think it was an old house
there. I'm trying to remember if they saved a piece of it or
not. That's neither here nor there. Thank you.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve this application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 13, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
on behalf of NEIL McGOLDRICK requests a Wetland Permit for an
addition to the existing 22.4'x22.4' garage for a proposed
±770.6sq.ft. 3-car garage; reconstruct existing ±84' long groin
to have a width of±20"with a protective mesh overlay over the
top most surfaces; replace the sheathing; replace existing
pilings with 10' long and 8" diameter pilings; replace existing
walers with new 6"W' and 8' in length walers; and for a Ten
(10)Year Maintenance Dredge Permit to dredge various underwater
areas within the marina to a navigable depth of±6.0' at low
tide; approximately±5,000 cubic yards of dredge spoil to be
transferred to on-shore trucks and deposited as beach
nourishment to the shoreline; soil deposit will be protected
with hay bales and silt fencing to impede run-off into the Great
Peconic Bay.
Located: 1671 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-116-4-16.4
Just as a note, we have a note from Suffolk Environmental
where they would like to strike the portion about the three-car
garage. So with the application we would like to strike "for an
addition to the existing 22.4'x22.4'garage for a proposed
±770.6sq.ft. 3-car garage."
The LWRP found this to be consistent. They want to know the
exact location and limits of dredged spoil placement, the dates
of dredging operations to be clarified and turbidity controls
are required.
The CAC resolved to support this application.
The Trustees performed a field inspection on September
13th, we noted as well we'd like to find out where they intend to
Board of Trustees 36 September 21, 2016
place the dredged materials, and noted that the dredging would be
beneficial to the creek. And that the groin replacement was
pretty straightforward.
Is anyone here who wishes to comment on this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson for the applicant Neil McGoldrick,
here to answer your questions. First, with regard to the garage, the
reason why the garage is stricken from the application is
because it requires a zoning variance due to its proximity to an
adjacent bulkhead. So it's been the practice of the Town for
the Trustees not to entertain those applications until the ZBA
acts first.
As for the placement of the spoil, we indicated it would go
on the beach. And I think what is being asked is can we
specifically locate it on the plan. We are certainly happy to do
that. As for the dredging, the area has been previously dredged.
I told Neil that I'm very concerned with the DEC. It was so
silted in last year that the basin was essentially unusable
during low tied, which is a shame because a considerable amount
of effort on the part of this Town, including the Trustees, and
Suffolk County DPW, have expended a lot of time and effort to
open up Halls Creek, not just for navigation reasons but for
ecological reasons. And this is consistent with those efforts.
So I'm hopeful that with your blessing and more expeditious
processing on the part of the DEC this can be done during the
usual dredging windows.
Last year those windows went from September 15th to April
15th. They do vary year-to-year and from creek-to-creek. So I
don't have an exact number for that. You guys may know that more
than I do. But certainly we are hopeful that we can get this
work done within that dredging window so that the
water-dependent facilities here can actually be used. They were
not usable last year in low tide situations.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sounds straightforward. I guess it would
be good to have the upland area designated, if the DEC will
require it,just send us all the same set of plans that the DEC requires.
MR. ANDERSON: Be happy to do it. We are waiting for their
response. We had a terrible time with them on dredging, not
necessarily as a result but just the amount of time, like we
were, we are in a rush to actually still get this creek in
Orient dredged so we don't, because we have an oyster operation
there, and we finally got our letter explaining what they
wanted, which was some testing of sand. And it took almost 14
months to get that letter. So I'm hoping that--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would like to talk to you about that, not
in this context, but later on. When you brought the dredging
issue up, I was thinking of that project.
MR. ANDERSON: And I think it's useful to send them your, to let
them know that local Trustees that have extensive knowledge of
the local waters have reviewed this and approved it. I think
its helpful.
Board of Trustees 37 September 21, 2016
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This project going sooner rather than later
is beneficial because this is one of the creeks actually where
one fecund weakfish running up there in the spring could
populate the entirety of the Peconic Estuary for years to come.
If all the connections are right. Those creeks there are known
to be inhabited by, no, seriously, in the spring run is where
the weakfish end up. I heard anecdotal stories black back gulls
actually picking the weakfish off as they are making the run.
I'm sure ospreys do to. But--our other resident biologist
Mike, likes that term, fecund, refers to the propensity for
having lots of babies.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Bruce, you look at this Google photograph here,
it's a 2016, so it's current. You can see the groins are at
capacity. And putting this sand back on the beach is just, it's
just coming back all the time. Is there any possibility of
working something out with perhaps a park district, so that what
is public material might be used by the public?
MR. ANDERSON: Where is the park district from here, though? I'm
not sure, you know, if you look at the aerial, what appears is
that the drift moves from west to east. The problem, as
understand it, we've always had with this creek is maintaining
its opening to the bay. And we are going to come back at least
once for discussion on how to open that up. I didn't want to get
into that in this application because to extend a jetty these
days or even build another one is an uphill climb from a
regulatory standpoint. But for those who have studied this for
longer than I have, by the way, there is some consensus that we
should do something more permanent at the mouth of that creek to
keep it open. But I didn't really want to get into that. So
that might marry with what your concern is, maybe at a later
date. Right now it's pretty easy to put it up on the upper
reaches of the beach where there is plenty of room. And 5,000
cubic yards, I doubt we'll do 5,000 cubic yards at once. We'll
probably limit it to the boat basin and that sort of near shore
area. Just because of a cost problem. And indeed when you look
at your soundings you'll see that's where the most shallow water
is. It somewhat deepens as it meets up to the channel that the
Trustees helped to establish. That the Trustees actually
established it, I would say, is probably a fairer statement.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I was not trying to change this particular
application. I was thinking forward. And also not recommending
that you extend the groins further out. It's just simply that
you could see the drift is from the west to the east.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If you recall, the Board, I think this is
the house we looked at that swimming pool. We were looking, the
property lines were not married but there was a significant
amount of cutting in the upland portion of the beach with a
couple of foot drop right, we were overlooking that property. So
the other thing would be the groins are already pre-filled and
there is also room to place fill where the beach is eroded
further to the westerly, a letter from adjacent landowners, in
Board of Trustees 38 September 21, 2016
other words if it's a matter of putting, moving fill, to help,
because that also was washing out on McGoldrick's property on
the left side.
MR. ANDERSON: That was the Martin property. And as I understand
it, what happened was when the Trustees did their dredging
entertained their dredging application, and I was told by it was
actually Dave Bergen said it was a unique situation because it
was being opened up for more of an ecological reason than a
navigational reason. At least that's what he told me. And in
connection with that, the spoil that was generated from that was
pumped out in front of the Martin residence and not the
McGoldrick residence. You should know that.
Here, we don't have a hydraulic dredge, so I'm a little
concerned if there is a cost issue. But I would certainly be
happy to look into it or even place it near the common boundary.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So this will all be by bucket.
MR. ANDERSON: I think so, because what you guys, you worked on
this with the county and the county has the dredge. They have
the real equipment you need to do a good job. And we don't have
that advantage here.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Also the question of running out of space to
put it. The Town graciously accepts material and --
MR. ANDERSON: Like I said, Neil is very interested in the mouth
of it. And he's trying to consult-- but that's not part of this
application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because this is in the public, I would think
the Trustees could waive the fees provided the sand material
stays on public beach. Because keeping these creeks open as
opposed to dredging in historically dredged area where it's
specifically for the benefit of the adjacent upland owner, this
definitely has a public benefit component to it.
MR. ANDERSON: What I'm trying to figure out, otherwise, where
would you put the spoil?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Proper disposal and use of the town at other
beaches, if they ran out of room. Maybe it's appropriate to wait
and see what the DEC brings back on the permit on that aspect.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, we'll amend it. I mean, I would like to have
a permit so at least I can show them at least let's not do what we did
to the poor fellow in Orient. Because that's not right. In my opinion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, we granted the permit in the instance
of the Orient case.
MR. ANDERSON: You did. It took almost a year for that individual
just to come out and look at it. And that individual, I was not
there, the owner was there, so that meeting could not have
lasted more than two minutes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't even know if the new members were on
the Board. The Orient Creek that backs into John Holzapfel's, or
was John Holzapfel's.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, that's the one.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Board of Trustees 39 September 21, 2016
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES). RECEIVED
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this hearing with .leS
the condition that you get a letter or updated plans to show , Q 2 20W
where the dredged spoil is to be deposited and to also require a
silt boom during dredging.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second? Southold Town Clerk
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. I greatly appreciate it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time I would like to make a motion
to adjourn the meeting.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
John M. Bredemeyer III, President
Board of Trustees