HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-10/19/2016 John M.Bredemeyer III,President ��®F S®U,�® Town Hall Annex
Michael J.Domino,Vice-President �® �® 54375 Route 25
P.O.Box 1179
Glenn Goldsmith Southold,New York 11971
A.Nicholas Krupski
® Telephone(631) 765-1892
Charles J.Sanders Fax(631) 7656641
COU�&�Y,�
k.
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED
le8 1-2-:69 Pn_1
Minutes DEC _1 9 2016
Wednesday, October 19, 201
S thold TClary
5:30 PM
,Present Were: John Bredemeyer, President ti
Michael Domino, Vice-President
Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Charles Sanders, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist
Damon Hagan, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 5:30 PM
WORK SESSIONS: Monday, November 14, 2016 at 4:30 PM at Downs Farm, and on
Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of September 21, 2016.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER:Good evening and welcome to the regular
monthly meeting of the Trustees for October 19th. For those of
you who do not yet have a meeting agenda, they are on the two
lecterns up front.
There are a number of items that have been postponed,
typically because we are awaiting additional information from
the applicants or they are in process because a violation has
been issued and it has to clear through the courts. So I'll
just run through these quickly. But you can refer to your
agenda.
On page eight, item 1, under public hearings, item 1 under
_Amendments, 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
i
Board of Trustees 2 October 19, 2016
retaining wall from face of bluff; the originally proposed
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;
revegetated void areas with American beach grass and rosa
rugosa. Located: 20275 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM#
1000-51-4-8, has been postponed.
Item two on page eight, Docko, Inc. on behalf of BRIM
FISHERS ISLAND TRUST, c/o JOHN BRIM requests a Wetland Permit
and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a 4'wide by+/-181
linear foot long fixed wood pile and timber pier; a 3.5'x20'
ramp; an 8'x20' floating dock with four(4) restraint piles;
install four(4)tie-off piles; relocate boulders within the
vicinity of the proposed float and berthing areas under the new
pier; and on top of existing concrete foundation pier located in
beach area construct a proposed +/-18'x28' wood platform.
Located: 3206 Brooks Point Road, Fishers Island. SCTM#
1000-4-3-3, has been postponed.
And items 16, 17, 18 and 19 on page 12 are postponed. They
are listed as follows:
Number 16, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on,behalf of JOSEPH
SBARRA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 20'x40'
in-ground swimming pool; install a 1,525sq.ft. on-grade patio ,
all landward of existing retaining wall with a 4'wide planter.
Located: 3200 Cox Neck Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-113-8-5
Number 17, 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
Board of Trustees 3 October 19, 2016
,030sq.ft. pervious driveway; add approximately 630 cubic yards
of clean fill onto property; and clear vegetation within a
9,557sq.ft. area on the property. Located: 305 Narrow River
Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-3-11
Number 18, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of DOUGLAS A.
GEROWSKI, MICHELLE GEROWSKI & DOUGLAS J. GEROWSKI request a
Wetland Permit to install a 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
And number 19, 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
At this time, I'll make a motion for the Board to hold field
inspections on Wednesday, November 9th at 8:00 AM.
Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion that we hold the next
Trustee meeting November 16th at 5:30 PM, in the main meeting
room of the Town Hall.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I move we hold work sessions on November
15th, at 4:30 PM on Downs Farms and immediately preceding the
regular monthly meeting of November 16th at 5:00 PM, in the main
meeting hall. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of
from September 21 st, 2016 meeting. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So moved
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for September 2016. A check for
$9,394.29 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the
General Fund.
Board of Trustees 4 October 19, 2016
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the
following applications more fully described,in Section VIII Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, October 19, 2016, are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
SEQRA:
Mattituck Park District- SCTM# 1000-99-2-19.1
Brewer Yacht Yard at Greenport SCTM# 1000-34-5-7
Gayle B. Wallace- SCTM# 1000-136-1-3 (Dominant) & SCTM#'s 1000-136-1-1 &
1000-136-1-5 (Servient)
Rachel Cashwell -SCTM# 1000-71-2-3
Maria Reinecki - SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.7
Susan T.H. Kwit Revocable Trust, c/o Susan Kwit, Trustee - SCTM# 1000-117-5-12.1
Bernadette Hogan - SCTM# 1000-86-2-4
Lance Carlton - SCTM# 1000-106-1-24
David & Colleen Bofill: SCTM# 1000-1 18-1-1.4
Rueben & Margery David - SCTM# 1000-78-2-29
David Schab &Ariel Kaminer- SCTM# 1000-90-1-9
West Lake Association - SCTM# 1000-90-1-1 1
Joseph Sbarra - SCTM# 1000-1 13-8-5
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move these as a group, excepting that the Mattituck
Park District proposal which is actually an unlisted action and will be pulled from the
group. I'll enter that upon the section for unlisted actions. So I'll move the group
excepting Mattituck Park District. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Resolved that the Board of Trustees of the
Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications
more fully described in Section VIII Public Hearings Section of
the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, October 19, 2016, are
classified as Unlisted Actions/Negative Decision pursuant to
SEQRA Rules and Regulations. A Long Environmental Assessment
Form and a field inspection have been completed by the Trustees
for the following applications and it is hereby determined that
they will not have a significant effect on the environment:
I would move these as a group:
Samuel Singer- SCTM# 1000-75-6-6.1
Daniel & Gina Devito - SCTM# 1000-81-3-26.1
And the Mattituck Park District, SCTM# 1000-99-2-19.1
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
Board of Trustees 5 October 19, 2016
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: These actually, the negative declaration
follows on the two. The Park District doesn't have concluded
environmental reviews. So actually the Singer and Devito
environmental declarations follow. Those are unlisted actions.
Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO NEW
YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT NYCCR PART 617:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The first environmental declaration of significance pursuant
to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act is in the matter of the
application of DKR Shores on behalf of SAMUEL SINGER requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 4'x1 56' 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
The negative declaration of environmental significance reads:
WHEREAS, the Southold Trustees are familiar with this project having visited the site on
multiple occasions and having considered plans for this proposed dock and revisions
made at the request of the Board.
WHEREAS, a revised project plan dated July 23, 2016 was submitted to the Southold
Trustees on July 29, 2016 addressing all of the Southold Board of Trustees concerns as
noted below:
Navigation: The proposed dock meets standards and does not extend beyond
1/3 across the water body. Depths for the floating dock portion are within Town Trustee,
NYSDEC and USACE guidelines and there is no recognized Federal/New York
State/Town channel contiguous to this site.
Scope: The proposed dock, in order to meet prevailing navigation standards for
depth in this location in this un-dredged portion of the creek, where a dredge ban is in
effect, shall extend approximately 136' water-ward of MHW for a creek nearly 500'wide
in this location. Eleven other docks measured on "Google Earth" existing in this
North-East branch of Richmond Creek appear to vary in length from approximately 50' to
170' offshore of MHW to meet similar standard depths.
Toxicity: To protect the headwaters of Richmond Creek where poor water
exchange and circulation are considered a possibility, the dock shall be constructed
entirely of non-toxic materials.
Scope in relation to the riparian rights of shellfishers: The plan revision provides
for a piling separation of 12' per dock section, much less than the usual separation of 8'.
The 3 pile system supporting each dock section is designed so as to nearly create a
monopole that will provide for easier access for those boating and seeking shellfish and
crustacea in season. The offshore waters in this location may offer limited mobility to
users on foot due to silt and muds but would also be improved by the aforementioned
spacing. The non-toxic wood pilings will actually increase net surface area available for
the attachment of beneficial marine organisms while minimizing permanent bottom loss
from pile coverage compared with a standard construction dock of similar length. There
is insufficient loss of shell fishing access to justify extinguishing the riparian right to wharf
out of the upland owner. The non-toxic attributes of this site potentially make it a prime
Board of Trustees 6 October 19, 2016
location for cooperative shellfish aquaculture.
Scope in relation to small human powered water craft: The Creek seaward to its
mouth is slightly over one mile long and is sufficiently protected from high winds under
ordinary conditions that it is ideal for small human powered water craft. A vessel
traversing the East side of this creek from its mouth to and entirely around the proposed
dock(and not returning)will be inconvenienced out of way approximately 5.2% of the
entire trip. This is not considered significant. Any operator of a small water craft powered
by hand should consider energy and food/water reserves to effectively deal with any
emergency. Not unlike a motor or sail powered vessel a minimum reserve of 50%
supplies/effort is minimal.
Environmental Upkeep: The dock design projects no pile replacement for 30
years or the need for bubbler system in the winter(used to protect against frost heave).
The presence of such a system in the headwaters of a creek may upset the
thermodynamic balance in winter and kill fish, shellfish and their larvae.
Therefore, on account of the forgoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees Approve
and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant-to SEQRA
for the aforementioned project. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The second environmental determination is
matter of Costello Marine Contracting corp. on behalf of DANIEL
& GINA DEVITO request a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x40'
landward fixed ramp to a 4'x1 50'fixed dock with a step down to
a 4'x30'fixed lower platform at offshore end; install four(4) 10" diameter
mooring pilings; and install water and electric to the dock.
Located: 750 Paradise Point Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-3-26.1
With respect to the proposed SEQRA negative declaration:
WHEREAS, the Southold Trustees are familiar with this project
having visited the site on October 11, 2016 and having
considered plans for this proposed dock at their October 17,
2016 work session.
WHEREAS, in reviewing the project plans dated August 25, 2016,
it has been determined by the Board of Trustees that all
potentially significant environmental concerns have been
addressed as noted herein:
Navigation: The proposed dock meets standards and does not
extend beyond 1/3 across the water body. Depths for the dock
terminus are within Town Trustee, NYSDEC and USACE guidelines
and there is no recognized Federal/New York State/Town
navigation channel in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
structure.
Scope: The proposed dock is shorter than docks on
neighboring properties.
Toxicity: To protect the waters of Peconic Bay the dock's
decking shall be constructed entirely of non-toxic materials.
Scope in relation to the riparian rights of shellfishers:
The plan provides for a standard piling design that will permit
access beneath the decking for small vessels at low tide and
those seeking shellfish and crustacea on foot in season.
Board of Trustees 7 October 19, 2016
Accordingly, it does not materially diminish riparian access to
harvest beneficial marine organisms.
Scope in relation to the rights of small human powered
water craft to navigate the waters adjacent to the proposed
dock: Shelter Island Sound/Southold Bay is slightly over one
mile wide in this location. A human powered vessel traveling
from Cedar Beach Point to Paradise Point and back(or across to
Shelter Island and back) and compelled to navigate around the
several docks in the vicinity would not be inconvenienced more
than 10-20% off its course. At low tide a kayak might be able to
paddle beneath most docks in the area. As the fetch from the
South and Southeast in the vicinity of the proposed dock is
considerable, and can result in 2-3,foot wavelets in season, a
prudent kayaker mindful of the needs to only sail in waters
within their personal capability would not find navigating
around the proposed dock dangerous or a hardship. Any operator
of a small water craft powered by hand should know the waters
they intend to navigate and have sufficient energy and
food/water reserves to effectively deal with any emergency.
Environmental Upkeep: The dock design projects a usual
lifespan of 30 years with limited pile replacement so as to
minimize disturbance of the bottom.
Therefore, on account of the forgoing, the Southold Town
Board of Trustees Approve and Authorize the preparation of a
Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to SEQRA for the
aforementioned project.
That's my resolution.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Can someone make a comment on these or
no?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, the public hearing section is still open
with respect to these matters, so you'll have an opportunity to
discuss any comments you have with respect to a project during
the public hearing section.
(UNIDENTIFIED'VOICE): That's later?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Okay, sorry. Thank you.
V. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In order to keep the meeting moving along,
we do have eleven full pages of agenda items, for items that are
administrative in nature for which the Board has inspected and
are minor in nature and are not subject to public hearing, and
whereupon the applications are consistent with our policies, we
will move some applications as a group. Accordingly, under Item V for
Resolutions for Administrative Permits, I would move
that we approve items one, through three and item five.
And item three, sorry, is subject to amendment.
Board of Trustees 8 October 19, 2016
Okay, so I'll stand corrected. I'll reform the resolution. I
move to approve as group items one and two and five. They are
listed as follows:
Number one, Rick Campos, R.A. on behalf of ROBERT
DEI-SIGNORE requests an Administrative Permit to construct a
22'6"x41 ' deck with two sets of steps to grade attached to
dwelling. Located: 955 Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-5-16
Number two, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of
PETER& SUSAN HONIG request an Administrative Permit to
construct a new 9'2"x17'6" two-story landward addition to
existing dwelling; construct a 10'2"x6'4" covered side entry
porch; install a new walkway between dwelling and garage; and
install gutters to leaders to drywells, and in accordance with
Chapter 236 of the Town Code-Stormwater Management. Located: 745
Watersedge Way, Southold. SCTM# 1000-88-5-62.
And number five, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf
of ALVIN SCHEIN requests an Administrative Permit to remove the
existing deck and construct a new±1,095sq.fi. deck with ±15sq.ft. deck
steps to grade attached to seaward side of dwelling; and add a ±49sq.ft.
hot tub on the new deck.
Located: 2145 Little Peconic Bay Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-1-15
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made and seconded. All in
favor?
(ALL AYES).
Patricia Moore, do you need me?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No. It's just administrative. I think there
was a stipulation discussed in the work session and I don't
believe (Perusing). Nick, why don't you take that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number three, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf
of VINCENT ILLUZZI requests an Administrative Permit for the
as-built replacement of existing first floor 20'10"x22'6"wood
deck with 4'wide steps to grade in-place. Located: 1615
Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-137-4-35
We are going to strike the four-foot wide steps and replace
it, and amend it with wood deck with steps to grade in-place.
MS. MOORE: Oh, with steps to grade in-place. Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They are not four-foot wide, upon inspection.
So there is no sense having it. It's not an issue with us, it's just--
MS. MOORE: Fine, so whatever the steps are, they stay. That's
fine, thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. So I'll make a motion to approve this
application as amended.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 9 October 19, 2016
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number four,
En-Consultants on behalf of 18975 SOUNDVIEW AVENUE, LLC requests
an Administrative Permit for the existing timber bluff stairway
consisting of a 9'x10'top landing, 3'x1 5' steps, 3'x5'
landing, 3'x14' steps, 3'x5' landing, 3'x8' steps, 3'x5'
landing, and 3'x4' steps; an existing 18'x36' in-ground swimming
pool; an existing pool patio with approximate overall dimensions
of 42'x52' after the proposed removal of the most seaward 8'x42'
section of patio, which shall be equipped with a "Spee-D
Channel" drain connected to a proposed 8'x6' drywell; removal of
an existing wire pool fence and installation of pool enclosure
fencing around the finished patio; relocation of an existing
plastic fence to a 10' setback from the top of bluff; removal of
all remnants of existing walls, deck, and gravel in an area
adjacent to the top of bluff to be restored with native
vegetation; and the establishment of a 10'wide non-turf buffer
adjacent to the top of bluff. Located: 18975 Soundview Avenue,
Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-16 -
This application has been deemed to be inconsistent by the
LWRP coordinator. In order to bring it into consistency, I have
to move a separate resolution on it.
Whereas the Board is familiar with this application, and
defects, initial defects in the construction of the pool, it's
historically been there and has been known to the Trustees; and
whereas the applicant has agreed to cut back the pool deck to
minimize bluff or brown-loading of the bluff, in this vicinity;
and whereas the stairs conform with the current standards of the
Trustees, I believe that this addresses specifically the
concerns of the LWRP coordinator with respect to the safety and
closeness of the swimming pool in this location bringing the
application into compliance with the LWRP.
Accordingly, I would move to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number six, Joan
Chambers on behalf of MGH ENTERPRISES, INC., c/o ROBERT HAAS
requests an Administrative Permit to remove the existing shed;
relocate the existing portable walk-in cooler; remove 532sq.ft.
of wood decking; install helical piles and grade beams to support a new
16'x16' two-story accessory building and new 10'x4' utility shed.
Located: 40200 Route 25, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-9-8.1
This application was.submitted without plans for the
handling of runoff from the small accessory building that is
proposed and from refrigeration equipment to be located in it,
which is a walk-in box and ice machine.
I would move to approve this application with the
stipulation that plans to meet the Town Drainage Code under
Chapter 236 be submitted before the permit is released.
Board of Trustees 10 October 19, 2016
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number seven, VERONICA
M. LUGRIS & MARIJO C. ADIMEY request an Administrative Permit to
install 4' high fencing around the perimeter of the property.
Located: 21515 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-135-1-5
This I believe is the modified permit description. The
applicant having resubmitted a plan for a small scale fence
around their property to allow for keeping their dogs on site;
the applicant is also agreeing to a six-foot non-turf buffer.
We'll modify, I guess the wording is should include
non-turf buffer. I'll move to approve this application as submitted
for four-foot high fence entirely within the property of the owner and
no closer than six feet to the top of the bluff and to provide for a
six-foot non-turf buffer and a gate at the driveway entry.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Moving right along, number eight, BARBARA REHREN requests
an Administrative Permit for the clearing performed within a 50'
wide Non-Disturbance buffer area; and to further clear invasive
poison ivy and vegetation within the buffer and re-vegetate area
with native plantings. Located: 155 Breakwater Road, Mattituck.
SCTM# 1000-113-3-4
This application is a culmination of investigation after a
Wetland Code violation. And for which the applicant has agreed
to stipulations to bring it into compliance. And accordingly, I would
move that the request for administrative amendment for Barbara Rehren
be approved with the condition that a new ten-foot wide non-turf wetland
buffer be installed, that there be no incursion into the non- disturbance
area that is immediately waterward, seaward of that, all in accordance with
the plan as last revised on June 28, 2016, on the license survey of
Nathan Taft Corwin. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As I indicated earlier, certain
administrative actions where the board is looking at minor
actions that are not subject to public hearing for which the
applicant has provided all the information and we need to make a
determination, we try to group them for the sake of simplicity
and accordingly under Item VI on your agenda, applications for
extensions and transfers and administrative amendments I would
Board of Trustees 11 October 19, 2016
move to approve items one, two, three, four, five and six, the entirety
under that item number six. They are listed as follows:
Number one, KRISTOPHER J. PILLES requests a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#3898 from Frank Curran to Kristopher J. Pilles,
as issued on April 5, 1991. Located: 560 Fishermans
Beach Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 111-1-16
Number two, KRISTOPHER J. PILLES requests a Transfer of Wetland
Permit#4666 from Frank& Sandra Curran to Kristopher J. Pilles, as
issued on November 25, 1996, and Amended on May 26, 2004.
Located: 560 Fishermans Beach Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-1-16
Number three, ANDREW T. FOHRKOLB requests a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#1767 from Russell & Helen D. Tuthill to Andrew
T. Fohrkolb, as issued on November 7, 1983. Located: 5780
New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-10-7
Number four, Shawn M. Barron, M.S. on behalf of CAMERON
DOWE requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#8773 to replace existing 6'x20' floating dock with an 8'x20'
floating "Flupsy" aquaculture dock unit situated in an "I"
shaped configuration. Located: 975 Cedar Point Drive west,
Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-1-5
Number five, En-Consultants on behalf of JOAN R. CHISHOLM
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8207 for
the construction of approximately 58 linear feet of vinyl
bulkhead; a +/-54' vinyl return in lieu of proposed 100 linear
feet of Hesco Barriers; backfill/re-nourish area landward of new
bulkheading with approximately 215 cubic yards of clean sand
fill to be trucked in from an approved upland source; plant the
15'wide non-turf buffer with Cape American beach grass 18"
o.c.; construct a shore-parallel 4'x6' landing and 4'x6' steps
to beach off bulkhead in lieu of proposed shore-perpendicular
platform with stairs to beach; replace as needed +/-16'x20'
on-grade masonry patio; eliminate the proposed replacement of
existing retaining wall; and to correct the dimensions of the
existing wood deck to be replaced from 13'x23' to a wood deck
attached to dwelling. Located: 200 MacDonald Crossing, Laurel.
SCTM# 1000-145-4-16
And number six, JACOB &JILL KUBETZ requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8717 to construct
the two basement access landscape retaining walls out of natural
boulders in lieu of man-made blocks; and to install a set of
stone steps leading through the west wall. Located: 1600 North
Oakwood Drive, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-127-6-10
That my motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. RESOLUTIONS - OTHER:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In the Resolutions-Other category, so we all can take time
off from our respective jobs and maybe enjoy the waters around us, I would move to set
Board of Trustees 12 October 19, 2016
the 2016-17 scallop season.
1 . Set 2016/2017 Scallop Season:
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees open the following dates to
scallop harvesting and pursuant to Chapter 219 (Shellfish) of the Code of the Town of
Southold: From Monday, November 7, 2016 from sunrise to sunset through Friday,
March 31, 2017 inclusive, in all Town waters, as per Town Code.
Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to go off our regular
meeting agenda and open to public hearings.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The first item, L.K. Mclean Associates on
behalf of MATTITUCK PARK DISTRICT requests a Wetland Permit and
a Coastal Erosion Permit to install a 25'wide by 40' long steel
shade shelter supported by six(6)foundation columns over a
proposed 4" (25'x40') concrete slab; and to install an
approximately 12'x24' timber deck fastened onto the existing
concrete slab that is attached to the existing lifeguard
building. Located: 5155 Breakwater Road, Breakwater Beach,
Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-99-2-19.1
1 discussed with the engineer/project manager this job this
morning the needs for continuing environmental review at the request
of the Board. I'm encouraging that the new facilities be
located within the pre-existing intensified area, and the project
manager Mr. Dwyer is going to bring our request back to the park
commissioners, hopefully for modified plans or an articulation
from them as to the needs for the current placement that we are
looking at.
Accordingly, I move to table this application until we
receive a return from the park commissioner or Mr. Dwyer.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application is under Wetland
Permits, 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
Board of Trustees 13 October 19, 2016
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
Is there anyone here wish to speak on behalf of this
application?
MS. RIGDON: Good evening. Agena Rigdon of DKR Shores here to
represent Samuel Singer, the property owner. Thank you, for the
extensive review under the LWRP SEQRA Act, and thank you for the
consideration for the dock.
MS. PIERSON: My name is Nancy Pierson, I'm a neighbor. My
property adjoins his property. I have a question about why, it
seems to me there is a discrepancy between Mark Terry's LWRP
analysis of the extent of the dock across the creek. I think he
said it exceeded one-third, and you said it does not? I'm just
curious how that--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The initial determination, for point of
information, was made based on a prior plan submission, and the
one-third across the creek, of course, we don't nearly ever
allow any structure to go more than one-third of the way across
the creek. But there are some instances, let's say, with a very
narrow channel, where it may only have sufficient room for an
individual, small, hand-powered vessel or small motor boat, we'll
sometimes will approach it. But in those cases the vessel tied
to a dock can't go more than a third of the way across.
It has been the United States Army Corps of Engineers who
is arguably the primary enforcer of the rights of free
navigation in the country. That is their rule of thumb. On
Trustee underwater lands, the Trustees can bring other
information to bear with respect to discretionary decisions that
we make, including the depth of water within the vicinity of the
docks so we are not unnecessarily disturbing the bottom from
turbulence from boaters, or to take into account standing
shellfish beds or shellfishing status of a waterbody.
In this case, the initial inconsistency by the LWRP
coordinator was drawn on a larger structure before it was
modified at the request of the Trustees.
MS. PIERSON: Okay. And one other question I have. I see no
itemization as to lighting in regard to this dock. Is lighting,
will there be lighting be on the dock?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: if It has not been applied for, they can't
have it. Unless there was a separate application for it-- I think I
see a head shaking out there. We can have DKR Shores and the
owner articulate that. I'm not sure if the Trustees think this
is an appropriate location for lighting.
MS. RIGDON: The dock was redesigned to actually be less than 25%
of the waterway, which is required by the Corps of Engineers,
and there will be no lighting.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak
with respect to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comment, any Board questions or concerns?
Board of Trustees 14 October 19, 2016
(Negative response).
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: I'll make a motion to approve this
application as submitted.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number two, Costello Marine Contracting Corp.
on behalf of DANIEL & GINA DEVITO request a Wetland Permit to
construct a 4'x40' landward fixed ramp to a 4'x150'fixed dock
with a step down to a 4'x30'fixed lower platform at offshore
end; install four(4) 10" diameter mooring pilings; and install
water and electric to the dock. Located: 750 Paradise Point
Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-3-26.1 -
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello on behalf of the applicant to answer
any questions that might be at hand.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Give us one second here. I managed to get
quite a collection of files. Please bear with me. (Perusing).
The project is listed as inconsistent under the LWRP
coordinator's report. The lengthy SEQRA review by this Board
and the negative determination negative declaration of
environmental significance addresses essentially potential
conflicts of the riparian rights of people along the foreshore
and access of shellfishers and small boaters, and I believe
appropriately addresses all the issues that are before us.
So accordingly, when we have additional discussion on this,
I intend to include the fact that the Board's environmental
review has considered a goodly number of,these issues.
Does the Board have any questions with respect to this
dock? It was shorter than both neighboring docks and also
narrower. I don't think we viewed it as --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why on the one side as opposed to the other of
the property?
MR. COSTELLO: It was just a visual thing. The boat will
actually be on the north side of the dock, so they just wanted
to kind of get it out of direct line of the sight of the house.
But the piece of property is 250 feet wide.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. Because the stairs are at one end and
the dock is at the other, so. I think we'll be back here in a year for steps.
MR. COSTELLO: It was just the way they wanted it. Esthetics.
And the way the property is situated, it's plenty of room.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any other questions of the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish-to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Board of Trustees 15 October 19, 2016
Hearing no other comments with respect to this application, I
make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application as submitted, noting that the Board of Trustees in
concluding a more thorough environmental review and issuing a
negative declaration under SEQRA, have addressed the issues and
concerns of the LWRP coordinator and therefore bring this
project into consistency with the LWRP. Motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number three under wetland permits, Latham Sand
& Gravel, Inc. on behalf of BREWER YACHT YARD AT GREENPORT,
INC., requests a Wetland Permit go remove dilapidated floating
docks and replace with HDPE floatation boxes with no change to
existing configuration; replacement to consist of one (1)
6'x149' main walkway; one (1) 4'x52' tee at seaward end of
walkway; six(6) 3'x1 8'finger piers; and four(4) 3'x20'
finger piers with new floats to be attached to existing piles.
Located: 300 Robinson Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-34-5-7
The LWRP has found this to be exempt.
And the CAC has resolved to support this application.
Is there anybody here on behalf of the applicant?
Crickets. I guess not. The one thing I didn't mention is on
October 14th, 2016, I inspected this property and found no
issues with the replacement in-kind.
So therefore I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I make a motion to approve this application
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application of GAYLE B. WALLACE
requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing 3'x35'
catwalk using Thru-Flow decking and raised 18" above grade; a
3'x19'8" aluminum ramp; and a 6'x20'floating dock situated in
an "I" configuration with two piles to secure the float.
Located: 150 Briarwood Lane (Dominant); 425 & 350 Briarwood
Lane, at End of 20'Wide Right-of-Way, Cutchogue (Servient).
SCTM# 1000-136-1-3 (Dominant); 1000-136-1-1 & 1000-136-1-5
(Servient)
Before I open the hearing I just want to indicate that the
LWRP coordinator indicated some deficiencies on the proposed
plans for which the applicant will have to address, and either
Board of Trustees 16 October 19, 2016
by copy of the LWRP coordinator report and/or a letter from our
office covering that, those issues will have to be addressed.
Also, today, in the Office of Town Trustees, we received
materials for which the Board has not yet had an opportunity to
review, and there was also a letter from an attorney submitted
for which I don't know the Board previously had a chance, and
this evening approaching the dais, attorney Dan Ross approached
indicating that parties here may be trying to hammer out an
agreement ahead of the hearing.
Accordingly, if the persons wishing to speak to this
hearing would identify themselves either by raising their hand
and they agree to go try to settle this matter themselves and
have the Board table it, would you just kindly acknowledge that
everybody is here who is here interested in this matter, would
do so and identify their relationship to the persons of
interest, the dominant or servient owners. Just so I know
whether we can table this or not.
MR. WALLACE: Good evening. For the applicant, William Wallace,
229 7th Street, Garden City, New York. Mr. Ross is here. We
have met, Mr. Ross and I, with his clients and we are in the
process of trying to work out, his clients are owners at the end
of the right-of-way, so we are trying to work out the issues
that we have with them. So we would ask that it be tabled. I
think jointly ask tonight's hearing be tabled to at least next
month's meeting, which I understand now is on the 16th of
November, with the hopes that we can resolve those differences.
Although I do look forward to receiving your correspondence
regarding the deficiencies.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You can pick up the LWRP coordinator's
report any time you want. But it's very simply a matter of
establishing a beginning and an end in relation to the plot line
and the assumed mean high water mark. But if you need
additional guidance from the LWRP coordinator's report we'll be
glad to distribute that to both of you.
MR. WALLACE: In addition, I have proof of service which has not
been filed yet. I don't know if I can file it tonight or if
I'll file it tomorrow, if that's okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You mean the mailing.
MR. WALLACE: Proof of mailing and proof of posting.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The clerk will take that.
MR. ROSS: Dan Ross, Westphalia, Mattituck Mr. and Mrs. Cusumano
and Mr. and Mrs. Carcich. And, yes, we join in the application to
adjourn this matter. Keep it open.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No one else here to speak to this matter?
(Negative response).
Okay, Trustees, quick input before we table?
(Negative response).
Thank you, very much. It's nice to see people trying to work
together. I move to table this application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 17 October 19, 2016
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application is 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
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, with respect to the Dana and
Michael Savino application, I have been advised by our counsel
Damon Hagen that a counter proposal that was articulated through
the Town Attorney's office to the attorneys for the Savino's
is that fair to say? Understood. There is still some ongoing
discussions between the attorneys for the proposals. With that
in mind I'll open this hearing for input at this time.
Is there anyone who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Not on behalf of.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: On behalf of or against this application.
Speaking about this application.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Dave Bergen, Cutchogue. I've read
what was posted for the public hearing tonight and just wanted
to place on the record some comments during this public hearing.
As the Trustees are aware, there was a decision on this
matter made by Judge Tarrantino back in February of 2015. And in
his decision he noted that the survey dated November 6th, 1986,
shows that the property was actually 18-foot seaward of where
the applicants' perceived their property to be. So when I saw
what is proposed here tonight, it is talking about in the
application a cutting down the bulkhead in place and then
constructing a new bulkhead five-foot seaward of the current
bulkhead, as I understand it. That would be placing, this new
construction would be placing a bulkhead on Trustee property,
not on the applicants' property as per what I understood the
court's ruling to be. And so the other part of this application
was including the opportunity for a low sill bulkhead. And
actually in this area of Mattituck Creek, there is not a need
for a low sill bulkhead because understandably if that property
was then regained, that 18-foot of property, that is going to
naturally develop into wetlands. So there is not a need for
Board of Trustees 18 October 19, 2016
that extra structure or the disturbance of the construction of
that structure to those wetlands.
Also in the application it's requesting a flow-through deck
between the proposed new bulkhead and what would remain of the
old bulkhead. Again, deck over land belonging to the Trustees,
not to the applicant.
So I wanted to make those comments on the record tonight
and hope that the Trustees and counsel for the Trustees in
working with the Savino's will take that into consideration.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Understood. Thank you, very much, for your
input. We can't comment with respect to pending matters, but
the items you have outlined, the Board is cognizant of, and we
appreciate the iteration, because it is important. Thank you,
very much.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It would obviously set a new precedent if the
Trustees approved a property owner to build bulkheads on what is
Trustee land and not on their land. So that's what I'm hoping
that the Trustees will avoid.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well articulated by Trustee emeritus Dave
Bergen. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to
this matter before we table the matter for additional
communications between the Town Attorney and the attorney for
the Savino's? Any Board member?
(Negative response).
Thank you, very much. Accordingly, on advice of counsel I make
a motion to table this matter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number six, En-Consultants on behalf of MARIA
REINECKI requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately
162 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in-place of and 18" higher
than existing timber bulkhead; construct approximately 20 linear
feet of submerged "low-sill" vinyl bulkhead in place of existing
timber bulkhead at mouth of existing boat ramp; construct+/-32'
northerly/westerly vinyl return in place of existing timber
return; construct+/-12' southerly/easterly vinyl return;
backfill new bulkhead with approximately 100 cubic yards of
clean sand/loam to be trucked in from an approved upland source;
construct a 4'x6' platform in place of existing 6'x6.5' platform
attached to bulkhead; and replace existing 3'x13' ramp with a
3'x16' ramp to existing 6'x80'floating dock. Located: 670
Wiggins Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.7
The LWRP found this to be consistent. Just noting a silt
boom to be installed during construction.
The CAC resolved to support this application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on October 11th,
noting that to limit the height to between six and 12 inches,
Board of Trustees 19 October 19, 2016
not the 18, to give the neighbor room to match installation of a
non-turf buffer. And possibly vegetate the ramp.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Good evening, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants
on behalf of the applicant Maria Reinecki. This is a pretty
straightforward application in terms of an in-place bulkhead
replacement.. We had proposed to go up 18 inches, they were just
trying to raise the grade in the back as much as possible. If
the Board prefer we cut that back to 12 inch max, we don't
really have any problem with that. I think that would still
accomplish what they are looking to accomplish.
Oh, you said the buffer, I don't know what you were
thinking, but certainly a ten-foot non-turf buffer typical width
behind the bulkhead would certainly be acceptable. What was the
other comment, something to do with vegetating the ramp? I'm
not sure what you would be looking for there. They, I think they
do use that as an access for their boat. So I'm not sure that
vegetating it would hold.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It looked like, while we were there, it looked
like they were using it as a kayak slide, mostly. Everything
else just looks like bare sand, right.
MR. HERRMANN: I'm just saying --the soil was pretty compact,
that I remember when I was there. Um, you can try it but I
think anything they plant there will just get trampled.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: There is a considerable amount of vegetation to
the right. If you are looking at the water, there is
considerable vegetation landward, to the right. I think that's
what Nick is speaking about. We have pictures but it will take
us a minute to get them up. And there is a big pole, it's right
in the middle, encased in cement. I don't think that pole is
removable.
MR. HERRMANN: They can remove it if they can.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I don't think they are using it to go back and
forth with their boat. It's a solid piece.
MR. HERRMANN: I have a couple of photos with the ramp. I'm
trying to figure out where you are thinking in terms of
vegetating. High water goes right up to here.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Elizabeth, can you pop up the pictures on this
one?
MS. CANTRELL: We actually don't have any for this.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I have my book. This shows you, your angle is
different than mine. See that?
MR. HERRMANN: Up toward the top.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Yes, it just likes like this whole area, that's
what Nick is talking about. They are not utilizing that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you are going to keep the low sill there,
you'll have water coming over that. And if you were to plant
the right side of that, we are not saying vegetate the whole
thing, they are using it for kayaks, that's fine.
MR. HERRMANN: Down below that? To get some kind of Alterna
Board of Trustees 20 October 19, 2016
flora down there. We can try it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are not trying to make you plant a forest.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The creek, both sides of the creek
significant Alterna flora in that general area.
MR. HERRMANN: We can give it a shot. I can't promise it will
hold but they can certainly try it. For that area, it's not a
significant cost. We can certainly try it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Could you remove the concrete?
MR. HERRMANN: I had talked briefly with Dan Higgins about it. He
said if he can move it, he'll move it. It seems, again, I
didn't take a lot of notice of it, but it seemed like it was
just kind of sitting in there. I don't think it was penetrated
down into the ground at all.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application? Any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion is made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition to limit the height to no higher than 12
inches; to install a ten-foot non-turf buffer; and to vegetate
the one half, if possible.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number seven, En-Consultants on behalf of
SUSAN T.H. KWIT REVOCABLE TRUST, c/o SUSAN KWIT, TRUSTEE
requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 98 linear
feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of and 18" higher than +/-99
linear feet of existing timber bulkhead; construct+/-30' vinyl
return (within property limits) in place of existing +/-26'
timber return; backfill new bulkhead with approximately 50 cubic
yards of clean sand/loam to be trucked in from an approved
upland source; and replace existing 4'x5' platform attached to
bulkhead with 4'x6' platform leading to existing 3'x12' ramp and
floating dock. Located: 1000 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk.
SCTM# 1000-117-5-12.1
The LWRP program coordinator found this to be consistent
and asked that a silt boom be used during construction.
The CAC resolved to support this with the condition of a
ten-foot non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead.
The Trustees visited this site on the 11th, all were
present, and we found this to be straightforward but lacked
within the description the non-turf buffer.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
Board of Trustees 21 October 19, 2016
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicant. This is a straightforward application. This is a
second application of two for the Kwit Trust. You saw the other
one on the opposite side of the canal last month. I actually
have a proposed ten-foot non-turf buffer shown on the
cross-section but I omitted it on the front sheet. So I can
amend the plan to show that on the front as well.
And I just wanted to make a note, I had this issue with
another application, I actually just forgot to mention it during
the Reinecki hearing. I was using a different template for my
notes and I have an indication that all of the structural
timbers here would be untreated. But for the record, vinyl,
of course is untreated, but the structural timbers, the wales
and piles would be treated lumber. So when I give you the
revised plan to show the buffer, I'll correct that typo in the
notes and actually the same thing for the Reinecki application.
We didn't mention it but I assume I'll owe you a revised plan on
that one also. So I just wanted to mention that for the record.
But the ten-foot buffer is fine. I had it in there on the
profile sheet but I forgot to put it on the front. Mr. Kwit is
here and that's acceptable to him. Otherwise I don't have
anything else to present on this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone else here that wishes to speak with
regard to this application?
(Negative response).
Are there any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
I'll 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
with the amendment of a non-turf buffer and updated plans.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number eight, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
BERNADETTE HOGAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct 60
linear feet of rip-rap using 150-400 pound stone. Located: 3005
Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-4
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The CAC resolved not to support the application to harden
the shoreline. Recommends the shoreline be regraded and
vegetated with native plantings, and five-foot to ten-foot
non-turf buffer installed landward of the bank.
The Trustees did a field inspection on October 11th, and
the notes read, this is a possible site for regrading and
revegetate before attempting hardening of the shoreline, and
Board of Trustees 22 October 19, 2016
that the applicant might consider coordinating with a living
shoreline project that is now moving forward.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant.
The proposed project, this was a secondary project to the
pier that we recently did about one or two years ago. And in
the time since the pier was constructed, there was evidence of
additional erosion in that area.
One of the ideas that I have just initially on the comments
that were provided was possibly coir logs and some plantings,
that could possibly stabilize and be more friendly to the
environment. If that's approvable to the Board.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the Board was thinking along those
lines. The Cornell Cooperative Extension were in the process of
finalizing a grant with them for living shorelines. I don't
know if we are at the stage they'll do an offsite demonstration
but they are basing it on preliminary research that has been
done, I think at the University of Maryland. And what they use
is they grow a matrix, either in this case, the town has donated
coir logs but we are also looking to use innovative materials
such as corn stalks or possibly phragmites, and they are bound,
and then they will seed Spartina Alterniflora as well as seed
the matrix with, in this case bank mussels, and that way you have
the benefit of rooting from the Spartina and the byssal threads
of the mussels. So you want to call it, it's like living
shoreline but instead of just simply trying to rely on planting.
You know, would certainly be, I think the whole Board and the
CAC is looking at this site for something in the non-hard-
structural as a first course, and quite honestly depending on
where Cornell is at, I think we have no problem advancing this
as a site, if they were looking for a nice offsite demonstration
project. The waters are typically calm, yes, it's a little more
fetched than others, but you'd want to have a site to demonstrate
it's working, particularly with the recent history of problems. How
does the rest of the Board feel?
MR. PATANJO: Are there any grant opportunities for the
homeowner?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would possibly be, it's a demonstration,
it might be underwritten by the grant as part of the research
proposal.
MR. PATANJO: How do we go about doing that?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The grant is probably the first year or two
will be at the Suffolk County Marine Environmental Learning
Center at Cedar Beach. So I don't know what point that the
incubator gets out, in other words, when we hatch the chicks and
send them out of the incubator, but you can check with Chris
Pickerel and Matt Sclafani are the lead scientists. We can
provide the information on that. But in the interim, something
in the order of coir logs and some revegetation and Spartina
would seem to be fitting.
MR. PATANJO: Revised plans with coir logs and Spartina would be
Board of Trustees 23 October 19, 2016
acceptable?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think that addresses the CAC concerns as
well.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Could you address the ten-foot non-turf buffer?
MR. PATANJO: In the work area?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: No, landward of what would now be the edge of
the property.
MR. PATANJO: Inherently, there is a big non-turf buffer by way
of the vegetation that is beyond the high tide line. In that
area.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm not talking about that point. Landward of
the catwalk that you show. If you want to approach the bench,
I'll show you.
This is the high water. In here. This way.
MR. PATANJO: Even in the area we are not doing any work?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes.
MR. PATANJO: You want a ten-foot non-turf buffer along the whole
shoreline, the whole entire property?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Correct
MR. PATANJO: That's doable, I assume.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. If you have any problems getting in touch
with anyone from Cornell to ask about this, you can get in touch
with me through the office and I can help set it up.
MR. PATANJO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no other comments, I make a motion to
close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application with
the understanding that we will be regrading and vegetation
rather than the rip rap as proposed, and the addition of a
ten-foot non-turf buffer, and the use of coir logs and a set of
revised plans.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. I'll second that. All
in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would just like to take a five-minute
recess.
(After a five-minute recess, these proceedings continue as
follows).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are back on the record.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number nine, under Wetland Permits, Jeffrey
Patanjo on behalf of LANCE CARLTON requests a Wetland Permit to
construct 3'x135' timber bluff stairs to beach with associated
deck at top of bluff, six(6) 3'x5' platforms, and one (1) 5'x8'
Board of Trustees 24 October 19, 2016
middle platform with two benches at each end. Located: 2230
Central Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-1-24
On October 17th, all Trustees were present at the field
inspection. The notes basically say straightforward with no
issues.
The LWRP has found this to be consistent. They make three
notations: A vegetated non-turf buffer is established landward,
at top of bluff to further Policy Six. Existing vegetation
should be included in the buffer. Minimize construction impacts
to existing vegetation in the bluff face. Identify access and
construction methods that minimize impacts.
The CAC has resolved to support this application.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak for or
against?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. All work
on this project will be done by hand from the top of the bluff.
We have no problem with the non-turf buffer at the top. Other
than that, if you have any questions, I would be happy to answer
them.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Any thoughts from the Board? Anybody else?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve the application
with added ten-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a second
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number ten, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
RACHEL CASHWELL requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the
existing two-story dwelling with associated deck and abandon
existing sanitary system; construct a two-story dwelling
(4,60sq.ft. total floor area)with a 165sq.ft. front porch, a
912sq.ft. attached seaward deck; install a new sanitary system
landward of dwelling; install gutters to leaders to drywells on
the dwelling to contain roof runoff, install storm drains for
the driveway, and all in accordance to Chapter 236 of the Town
Code-Stormwater Management; install a in-ground swimming pool on
the seaward side of dwelling; and install silt fencing with
staked hay bales around the construction site prior to and
during construction. Located: 515 Harbor Lights Drive, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-71-2-3
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The LWRP found this to be consistent
provided, verify the installation of pool dewatering well,
require a vegetated non-turf buffer, and encourage the
installation of an alternative sanitary treatment system.
The CAC resolved to support this application, however the
Board of Trustees 25 October 19, 2016
pool was not staked at the time.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on October 11th,
it was not staked when we went out on October 11 th. Trustee
Domino returned to the site on October 18th, found it to be
staked, found that the house was going to be moved closer to the
road, and that the pool was in the general location of the
existing deck.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. The pool
drywell can be installed. And I thought it was added on the
plans but maybe not. But that's not a problem. We'll
absolutely add one of those.
As far as the non-turf buffer, that is acceptable as well.
And again, the house is being moved closer to the road, as well
as the pool. And it's all in flood zone "X".
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wishes to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Any comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, make motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this
application with the condition there is a drywell for the pool
and a ten-foot non-turf buffer be installed.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. PATANJO: That will be noted on the permit or do I need
revised plans?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Simple addition of drywells, we can do on
the existing plans. You'll just have to get drainage approval
from the Town, the process has to go to Building, and it has to
go to Engineering anyway. So I don't think it's an issue. The
drywell may actually be NJ, depending how far it is.
MR. PATANJO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number eleven, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on
behalf of DAVID & COLLEEN BOFILL requests a Wetland Permit to
reconstruct existing ±70.0' long wood bulkhead with new C-Loc
9900 Series vinyl sheathing bulkhead in-place and secured by
three (3)tiers of 6"x6" timber walers along the seaward face,
two (2)tiers of 6"x6" timber clamps along the landward face, 8"
diameter timber pilings installed 6' o/c, all tied in by two (2)
helical screws per piling, and all hardware to be hot-dipped
galvanized; existing decking landward of bulkhead to be removed
prior to bulkhead replacement and to be reconstructed
in-place/in-kind using non-treated lumber; perform reclamation
Board of Trustees 26 October 19, 2016
of underwater lands directly adjacent to and seaward of the
bulkhead within a 10'x18' area along the southerly section that
has accumulated there due to seepage in order to meet an
underwater elevation of-4.0' during ALW; the resultant
reclaimed fill will be returned as backfill where needed along
the landward side of the reconstructed bulkhead. Located: 5785
Vanston Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-1-1.4
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. To
further Policy Six, require the installation of a silt boom
during construction operations.
The CAC resolved to support this project.
The Trustees visited this site multiple times, most
recently, I, Trustee Krupski, visited the site on the 14th and
as seen prior noted it was a very straightforward application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. MOORE: Yes, Patricia Moore on behalf of David and Colleen
Bofill. This, as you recall, is going to be a bulkhead
replacement with the neighbor's property, the O'Neill property.
O'Neill was approved last month and Bofill this month so it can
be done concurrently as one project. So that's all. If you
have any questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: With regard to the use of a silt boom?
MS. MOORE: We can provide for that. I don't know if the O'Neill
property has that as well. Um, typically the DEC does ask for
it, so it is standardized. We can, if you put it in as a
condition of the permit, we can provide it, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak
to this application?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry,just missed the last piece, talking
about the silt boom?
MS. MOORE: Yes, if you make it a condition of the permit, I'm
sure the contractor will abide.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's important in this location, I think we
discussed it in the field with the neighbors, that we lay out
the depths and try to recapture material, the silt boom is
inherently important.
MS. MOORE: Okay. Bruce Anderson is doing the DEC permit, so I'll
let him know.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anyone else wish to speak regarding this
application?
(Negative response).
Are there any comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
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
with the amendment to the description of a silt boom used during
construction.
S
Board of Trustees 27 October 19, 2016
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 12, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of
REUBEN & MARGERY DAVID requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing 2,154sq.ft. dwelling; construct a 4'x20.2'first
floor addition; existing 42'x12.3' deck to be reconstructed and
proposed to be extended 26.5'x8' south side & 12.3' north side
along the rear of the existing house with new 4' wide stairs to
grade; construct a 42.6'x10.5' screened-in porch below deck;
construct a 4'x6' outdoor shower; install a new drywell; remove
8'x16' shed in side yard, and for the existing 4.3'x8.2' "doll
house" shed to remain. Located: 1130 Glenn Road, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-78-2-29
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The CAC resolved to support the application with the
condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer.
The Trustees did a most recent field inspection on October
11th and noted that the application was straightforward. There
is some comment to clarify from the dais about trees at this
location.
Is anyone here to speak to this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore on behalf of Reuben and Margery
David.
I'm not sure--what's the question?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I guess the first question would be a non-turf
buffer, it's not shown on the plans. Would your client be --the
CAC is suggesting 15-foot non-turf buffer. Generally, the Board
asks for ten-foot.
MS. MOORE: I mean this is a very small property. I think ten-foot
is more appropriate. We do have a buffer of the reeds, so
there is, we would be cutting back the grass, which is not a
problem, either cutting back the grass or planting, but it is a
very small piece of property as far as backyard goes. The house
is close to the water. So if the Board would accept a ten-foot
non-turf, I think that is certainly more appropriate.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Could other members of the Board help me out,
identify what was the issue with the trees?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Do we have pictures?
MS. MOORE: I see the trees, we have trees that, I don't believe
are going to be--
TRUSTEE SANDERS: It's up right here.
MS. MOORE: Okay, there is, that is one by the water, that's far
enough away.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess it was a concern we didn't want to
unnecessarily lose some large trees that are there.
MS. MOORE: I didn't think they had any proposed trees coming
down, because when it was staked, it was really in the same
footprint as the patio. So it was very small.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay.
Board of Trustees 28 October 19, 2016
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I guess the Board was impressed with the trees
and would like to see them remain.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions for comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted with the addition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next two hearings are interrelated in
that number 13 is for a proposed dewatering and spoil site, and
number 14 is for the actual work involved in the dredging of the
entrance to West Lake for the request for ten-year maintenance.
If there is no objection, I maybe would like to open both
hearings at the same time.
How many people are here to speak on West Lake?
MS. MOORE: How about are here from West Lake.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: How many people are here from West Lake?
(Indicating).
How many people not from West Lake wish to speak to this
application?
(Indicating).
Never mind, I withdraw my notion of opening both at the
same time. We may want to take them out of order. We'll take
number 14 first, deal with dredging first and the spoil area
second, as a matter of logical progression. So we'll open number
14, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of WEST LAKE ASSOCIATION,
INC. requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten (10)Year Maintenance
Permit to maintenance dredge the entrance channel and a portion
of the adjoining West Lake to a depth of-3' mean low water;
approximately 95 cubic yards of dredge spoil to be removed, and
temporarily diked and placed within the upland portion of the
property located at 250 Midway Road for de-watering prior to
removal of the material to an approved upland source. Located:
West Lake Channel, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-1-11
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak with respect to
this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes, Patricia Moore, on behalf of the West Lake
community. And I do have here with me many of the homeowners
that surround West Lake and are the ones who rely on this
dredging to be able to have riparian rights and access to the
basin.
If you recall, the last time that the dredging was done it
Board of Trustees 29 October 19, 2016
was significantly more material, um, the Board had recommended,
because it was somewhat contentious with the property owner Mr.
Moy, who is at the front there of the property, on the east
side, the Board granted a two-year with extensions, the work was
done, but we do need to have maintenance dredging conducted so
the basin can remain open.
The amount of material in this instance is a lot less, it's
only 92 cubic yards, and this is a relatively straightforward
dredging application with respect to the maintenance of the
channel.
I'll answer whatever questions we have. We have, I know
Mr. Moy's attorney is here, so I'll defer to whatever comments
he has. I know you have the application, we also, West Lake,
has conducted a study of the health of the basin and that is
also part of your file.
They are very concerned about obviously maintenance of the
ecology of the basin and also to maintain the navigation there.
So I'll wait and respond to any issues.
MR. SOLOMON: It's very unusual I get introduced by the
applicant. My name is Michael Solomon, I'm representing Dai Moy
who owns the house which is adjacent to the channel, and 106
Mulberry Corp., and the Estate of Sim Moy, which owns the vacant
parcel which is directly adjacent to the channel.
This application has become a problem in many respects, but
the first thing I have to bring to the attention of the Board,
and it has not been brought up in the past, but the relationship
unfortunately between my clients and the association has never
been a good one. There is a lot of history, which I won't bore
the Board with at this point in time. But I do want you to know
that on October 6th we received a letter, or it was mailed on
October 6th, from Mrs. Moore's office directly to my clients,
basically requesting my clients should forget the past, move on
to the future. And I looked at it as an olive branch being
extended, which I believe it was supposed to be. My reactions,
I didn't get that letter to probably a week later, it was first
mailed, my client received it, was to request Mrs. Moore an
adjournment of this hearing today to see if we could work things
out before I would have to make this more contentious to the
degree this has to be contentious. I just want you to know
despite the olive branch, the request to Ms. Moore was turned
down, so I'm forced to be here today and present my position.
The most serious position that we have is if you look at
the map, you'll see the green lines, where they technically run right
across the canal, which is supposedly this road, West Lake
Drive. And that is on the tax map. The road at one time when
it was developed in 19--when this development was created back
in 1926, and I have smaller copies I can show, but effectively,
the road that passes over West Lake was on the original plan, to
be a road to go across. If my client was here to testify today
he would tell you when that when they bought the property in
1960, you literally could walk across this canal at low tide.
Board of Trustees 30 October 19, 2016
And that is the history. But now the problem with the road, or
West Lake, West Lake Drive, we have done a thorough search, and
I can hand this up to the Board now. West Lake can't establish
the fact that they own that road. There is no deed of record to
that road. So anything granting, requesting a grant of access
across the road to do any dredging would not be permitted
without the consent of the owner of the property. They are not
the owner of the property. I have not seen a deed. We searched
the record. It appears -- and I'll hand this up, I have more
copies --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this point with respect to processing the
application we won't be able to consider that and probably we
are going to have to hold this matter off, because we have a
limitation, all paperwork has to be submitted a week before, you
can understand the Board --
MR. SOLOMON: That's fine. As I said, it becomes more
contentious. And I advised Ms. Moore of this when I called,
said this is one of the issues we need to address. Because if
you are looking to come across property, my client's position is
they controlled that whole parcel from the bay front right to
the back, since 1964. As a matter of fact, there is a, whoever
visited the parcel, there's actually a floating dock and dock on
the West Lake side of the property, all permitted by my client.
The Trustees gave my client a permit for that more years ago
than I can even remember. The Trustees gave my client a permit
for the bulkheading for the entire run of the property more
years ago than I can remember. So the indicia here, all the
indicia is that property belongs to my client. And other than
being confronted with a deed which establishes that they own it,
I would object to their going across the property to do any
dredging. And that's the first issue. If they want to go, let
them go on the other side of the canal to do the dredging until
such time as they establish ownership. Because without
ownership, I don't see how you can give them a permit to permit
them to go across property--
MS. MOORE: Yes, but--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hold on, we are not doing this.
MS. MOORE: I want to address one issue at a time because this is
a non-issue.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Let Mr. Solomon finish, and I have some
questions.
MR. SOLOMON: That's issue number one. Issue number two is this
channel has become a major problem because it's continually
filling with sand and continually requiring maintenance. And
continually by doing this type of dredging is affecting the
structural integrity of my client's bulkhead. And this was
addressed when I was here back in 2012 or 2013. My client
continues to come and make repairs, but they keep coming out and
now wanting to get a maintenance renewal.
I believe the integrity of the seawall would only be affected by
this constant requirement for dredging, and I'm suggesting that
Board of Trustees 31 October 19, 2016
the sand that is clogging this channel has nothing to do with my
client's bulkheading, it has to do with the movement of water
through storms and everything through the channel. And I don't
believe that, at a minimum, they should be granted any ten-year
permit to do anything. I mean this has to be something that has
to be revisited by this Board on some regular basis. Because
the odds, with this continual dredging, if it will be maintenance
and they are out there dredging every year, it's only a matter
of time before my client's bulkheading is going to be
detrimentally affected, and they should not have to bear the
consequence of an estimated hundred-thousand dollar repair
because West Lake now wants to dredge. Because that would be
roughly the cost of replacing that bulkhead if the bulkhead goes
down.
I did say, for whatever it's worth, it almost appears that
was never made to be navigable. Because we are constantly back
here, back here and back here again about trying to keep the channel
open. Historically, as I said, my client actually would drag
their boats out. And people are putting bigger and bigger boats
in the back, expecting more water depth in order to bring out
the boats with their engines. And I don't believe that was ever
intended when that was established in 1929 when the developer
filed for the original subdivision here.
And I believe that's basically the issues I wanted to
address to the Board.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Before you leave, Mr. Solomon, a question
for you. Do you purport any ownership at all -- you are talking
the whole road here. Are you reporting the Moy's own this
section of the road?
MR. SOLOMON: I'm purporting there is no deed, that I'm aware of,
unless Pat going to pull something out right now. Because we did
a full search. And I'm not saying there can't be a document the
title company missed. We'll take a look. And because it is
contentious -- if I can approach. This whole parcel from here
to here. In here. There is no deed recorded. The only, its
what I handed up. The only ownership that potentially can be
claimed by this would be originally, the Cedar Beach, which came in
the 1920s.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is this a single and separate, this
particular lot, single and separate lot to the mean high water
mark?
MR. SOLOMON: The answer to this dock, this was permitted by the
Trustees back in, 30 years ago, for my client to put a dock back
there. And it appears as a floating dock.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Moy's or their predecessor?
MR. SOLOMON: No, it was to the Moy's. But this shows now, this
shows now, as owned by the Town of Southold.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You are saying which simply by virtue of--
these map lines are not considered accurate for purpose of
title.
MR. SOLOMON: But they designate this, the Town of Southold right
Board of Trustees 32 October 19, 2016
now. I guess accretion or whatever, but this was permitted by
my client years ago.
MS. MOORE: If we could --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I appreciate your information. Now let's
continue.
MS. MOORE: So now let's get to the facts and the truth.
MR. SOLOMON: This is not the Trump debate.
MS. MOORE: First, ownership of the road. I guess Mr. Sim Moy
has passed away
MR. SOLOMON: That's the wife.
MS. MOORE: All right, Mr. Moy. There was an application by Mr.
Moy to build a house on that corner property. That went through
a lengthy Zoning Board hearing. During the lengthy Zoning Board
hearing, the Zoning Board and Mr. Moy was put right on the
record and was asked do you acknowledge that the road is owned
by West Lake, that you do not own the road. On the record, it r
was stated he does not own the road, that West Lake is in fact
the owner of the road. And in his variances from the Zoning
Board of Appeals, all the variances were being taken from the
edge of the road. So on record, through a quasi-judicial
hearing, which is a Zoning Board hearing, there a transcript that
clearly states there is no issue with respect to the ownership
of the road.
I can also tell you that as a matter of fact, on behalf of
Cedar Beach, and West Lake, I have a deed from Toedter, the deed
is not recorded because one deed included the roads from
Toedter, who was the original developer, there was a deed
prepared, but that deed included all the roads of Cedar Beach
and West Lake. Because of the fact that it's all appearing on
one deed, it has not been recorded. But there is a deed from
the original developers giving West Lake and Cedar Beach the
ownership of the road, at least as to their interest and that
was the only interest that was available at the time, because
everybody had since died. That was done probably ten years ago,
15 years ago.
So the issue of a road is just one of those things that
keep being brought up, and it is absolutely irrelevant. This
road is West Lake Road, it appears on the original map as a road
that the original developers had intended to maintain and
possibly dedicate them to the Town because they are 50 foot
roads, but they never were dedicated, and so they remained as
private roads. So that issue is absolutely resolved, absolutely
irrelevant, Mr. Moy does not own the road.
As to the second issue of the filling in and the structural
integrity, Mr. Moy has had wetland permits for the replacement
of now a 60-year old bulkhead. For the past 20 years he has
chosen not to replace the bulkhead. It has been a source of
frustration by the community because we have pleaded with Mr.
Moy, please replace your bulkhead. In fact, you know, because
there were complaints I guess registered since there is a permit
for the bulkhead, he has repaired and maintained, in quotes,
Board of Trustees 33 October 19, 2016
because it's quite questionable, that bulkhead. He had an
excavator out there about two weeks ago, we have photographs.
But again, I had everybody that called me on it, stand down,
because the, legally, it was a permitted bulkhead and therefore
he's allowed to repair it or maintain it. And the fact that he
filled giant-sized holes that were adjacent to the bulkhead,
about two or three days before this Board inspected, was a
matter of quite interesting the timing, but nonetheless, he
keeps maintaining, repairing, the way he wishes to do it, which
is putting sand on the landward side, and we don't know what
he's.doing on the inside of his bulkhead. We think it should be
replaced but it's not our responsibility to replace it, and all
we can do is carefully dredge the basin, and quite frankly it
would be much more beneficial to us if he would replace the
bulkhead, because then the dredging could be further out, could
be wider. But because he's chosen to maintain the bulkhead the
way it is, we have to maintain an angle that leaves behind a
dredging area, an area that is at best, what, five feet? It is
the minimal amount of dredging that is possible given the
condition Mr. Moy chooses to leave his property to leave the
bulkhead.
On the other side, the Greenfield property, that Mrs.
Greenfield did replace her bulkhead several years ago, which was
good, but when she replaced it, the Board and DEC allowed her to
replace the bulkhead in front of, within 18-inches, of the
existing bulkhead. That left the basin narrower. It has also
created problems for the community because as that basin got
narrower, fewer and fewer contractors are available to be able
to dredge. It has limited the access to contractors. We have
to possibly, and I know the Board has been talking to me about
possibly having to have two separate contractors, one that comes
from the water, because they can't get the boats in through
there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are getting a little far afield.
MS. MOORE: I'm giving you a background as far as the history.
So bottom line is West Lake owns the road, Moy does not own the
road, end of that discussion.
MR. SOLOMON: Just briefly on that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: One second. I think we have had a document
submitted tonight that we have not had a chance to look at, and
there is probably a documentation with respect to which you
speak as far as former testimony before the Zoning Board of
Appeals and other documents purporting ownership. So it's
probably appropriate for the Board to table the matter, take
additional comment you think is pertinent for the Board to hear,
but table the matter to allow for submission of additional
documentation. In other words specifically bringing to the
Board's attention, the ZBA transcript and any deeds that are
pertinent to this.
MS. MOORE: That's fine.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is a marine study that is in the file.
Board of Trustees 34 October 19, 2016
The Chairman of this Board responded to a marine complaint there
as an investigative with the Suffolk County Department of
Health, and at the time this was closed up when I responded in
my capacity with the Marine Section of the Health Department,
the body of water was anoxic. We know that the land use
practices that we all engaged in at this time probably put more
nutrients in the body of water. It was so anoxic at the time I
responded that the eels and crabs were climbing out of this body
of water, succumbing to an absolutely lack of oxygen, which was
measured with a dissolved oxygen meter.
So with respect to keeping bodies of water open, in other
instances, and this I'm speaking with respect to what this Board
sees the Department of Environmental Conservation and the
Trustees, will allow dredging in some instances to absolutely
protect the environmental health and integrity of a body of
water. So it's not only amplified by a previous governmental
response, but there is also an ongoing marine study that
bolsters that. I just want to put you wise to the fact we are
going to go through a big discussion of he said/she said and a
whole bunch of documents, but do you really want this to be
closed off and die? I don't see how this is going to serve the
interest of the Moy's, who apparently have a dock there. It's
something to think about.
MR. SOLOMON: Historically, what I said, when the Moy's bought
the property, they just carried the boat across. That's what
they have done. But I just want to address the two issues that
Mrs. Moore brought up about this ownership. And counsel for the
Board can very easily answer this one. Even if my client did,
and I don't believe he did, make a statement in front of the
Board of Zoning Appeals that somebody else owns the property,
that's not an indicia of ownership. It has nothing to do with
ownership. It's not legally binding, it's nothing. You just
heard Ms. Moore acknowledge there is a deed floating around.
So as this application is here today, she can't tell you there
is a recorded deed to the property. Which quite honestly makes
this a premature application. Because they don't even own the
parcel that they are claiming that they want to cross to do it.
On their theory. My client is still claiming that he has
ownership of this particular section, and quite possibly before
we even come back there will be a supreme court case brought to
determine who in fact does own this. Because I don't know what
her chain of deeds are, because Cedar Beach doesn't own this.
So I don't think, if she thinks she is getting it from Cedar
Beach. They showed the original developer is still Queens
Operator Corp., the original developer, is still the record
owner. But I don't want to bore you with that anymore. I just
want you to be aware of the fact there is actually an admission
the deed is not recorded. Okay? So the deed is not recorded.
MS. MOORE: There is absolutely no legal requirement, as you
know, to record a deed. So as a matter of record there is no
obligation to record a deed. We have a deed, and we will
Board of Trustees 35 October 19, 2016
provide it. It is not a relevant issue so therefore we don't
like to walk around with deeds and send it to the Board, but if
the Board wishes to have a copy of the deed, we will share it
with them, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would say any indicia of ownership,
including deeds, title insurance or whatever, should be
submitted.
MS. MOORE: I think if Mr. Moy claims to have ownership, please
provide us proof of that. To our knowledge, no one in this
association owns the road. And nobody has claimed ownership of
the road other than Mr. Moy.
MR. SOLOMON: It's a very simple issue,just produce a deed if
you have one. And I asked you ten days ago, give me a deed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Speak to us, please.
MR. SOLOMON: I just ask this public hearing section be kept
open, because I'm going to want the ability to respond if we are
now going to come in with legal documents that very well may
require some legal argument on behalf of the Moy's.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board has so much new material in the
file to deal with so many additional things that the Board will
certainly want to keep this matter open. And also to put
everyone on notice that, for this matter, this matter has to
have materials in at least seven days in advance of the next
work session of the Trustees, or explicitly, seven days before
the next meeting. So it has to be--otherwise we are not going
to be able to bring this to some level of discernment. In
fairness to the Board, we have to see these materials ahead of
time. We are meeting the next on November 16th. Really I want
it well in advance of the work session on the 14th.
MR. SOLOMON: That's fine
MS. MOORE: That's fine. We'll get this to you.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Just a quick question. Sometimes we get so
confused with all legalities that go back and forth. I'll cut
to the chase. What would make your client happy?
MR. SOLOMON: No matter what happens here, we need to determine,
my client believes he has all indicia of ownership. Because he
has been there since 1964. And basically used it since 1964.
Including the boat dock we pointed out in the back. So we
really need to quiet this issue. So if there is a deed, its
very simple for me to look at the papers and potentially sit
down.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So theoretically, if your point is made and
true, in a simple manner what would make your client happy?
MR. SOLOMON: I feel' I'm in a debate trying not to answer your
question. But I don't believe it's proper for me at this point
to answer the question until the information is provided.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay.
MR. SOLOMON: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, thank you, for
your time.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else, briefly, to speak to
this? And please try to keep your comments succinct.
Board of Trustees 36 October 19, 2016
Understanding that we have a lot of materials coming in, the
Board will be reviewing it. Thank you.
MS. GREENFIELD: My name is Barbara Greenfield and I'm the part
owner, our family, of the property on the other side of the
canal, and I just want to be on record as saying that as owner
of that property, we have concerns with the increased flow and
the affect it will have on our bulkhead, and we want to be
indemnified if there is damage done, and we believe that ten
years is too long a period to go, and that it be regularly
looked at every three years, at least, to see if there is damage
that is being caused by this increased flow. And that's it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Anyone else, briefly?
MR. DEFEIS: Douglas DeFeis, I live in Southold, West Lake. If
could speak to three things. My father-in-law built a house in
West Lake in 1969. It was bulkheaded. Pre-Wetlands Act. And
he had a 27-foot boat. And I have photographic evidence of it
not being needed to be dragged or anything. The bulkhead that
was installed when Mr. Moy purchased the house in the 60s, that
is permitted. Part of the conditions of his permit is to
maintain it. And part of the conditions to maintain his other
permits was to maintain that work was done. It's never been
done. That bulkhead is 60-years old. We are talking about
giant weep holes that you can put swimming pools in. So what
believe what they really want is us, the association, to pay for
their new bulkhead. Number one.
The dock that was put in, was put in after the Wetlands Act
in '73, '74. That dock was put in in the 80s, and it was done
without a permit. So there are a lot of issues here. You know,
every time we have done an action in 25 years, we have been
forthright and come to the Board with every little motion we
ever had to make. When I personally had to build my bulkhead,
the Board arbitrarily said you have to build your bulkhead back
four feet. Not like Ms. Greenfield who was allowed to put a
bulkhead in front of the other bulkhead. So the thinking at
that time, I guess was, if you keep putting bulkheads in front
of bulkhead, you know, you would be across to the south shore.
So it seems quite arbitrary. I mean, I have been a victim of
some of the, you know, arbitrary nature of this process.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Make it quick,just focus on this issue.
MR. DEFEIS: In general, the three things I can speak to are that
dock was put in in the 80s, it was not permitted. Number one.
Number two, I have photographic evidence of boats never having
to be dragged at any tide. So, and the third thing is we always
had that road, we maintained that road. They benefited from
that road. We spend $4,000 a year making sure that road is
passable so he can even get to that property. And we have
gotten nothing from them but grief. For decades. And when he's
asked today what do you want, what does he come up with? I'm
not ready to speak at this point because I don't know.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Our goal is always to try to keep things as
logical and remove the emotion as we can. It's not easy and it's
Board of Trustees 37 October 19, 2016
understandable you have issues.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
MR. KAMINER: I'm Henry Kaminer and my wife and I own 130
Midway, which is on West Lake. We own the property. 130
Midway. I have owned this property since approximately 2002, 1
think. I'm not sure when I bought it. And I have been through
this kind of turmoil quite a few times, unfortunately. ,And
heard when I first arrived that, in the past, there was some
horrible arguments between the Mr. Moy or the Moy family and
some of the people living around the lake. I don't know any
details but it was a long time ago, all those people are dead
or moved away. So I don't want to be tarred with the idea of
hostilities. There is no hostility between us and the Moy
family. We say hello to each other if we pass each other.
Somehow there has always been some concern about dredging,
and the Greenfield family worries that their bulkhead will be
hurt. Their bulkhead has never been damaged by dredges. They
never had a lawsuit against the dredger or the association. Mr.
Moy's bulkhead has never been damaged by the dredgers. If it
had been, they would have sued or they would have complained.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we are not dealing very much with
the specifics. We are getting off the tracks of the specifics
here, and understand we'll be getting more information in.
MR. KAMINER: The specifics are the details of the road, I don't
think have that much to do with whether we should be allowed to
dredge. And we should be talking about the fact that the
channel used to be six feet deep and now somehow over the years
the Town has said it can only be dredged to three feet. It was
originally safe to be six feet deep. And somehow in the last
ten years or so it was changed to three feet. And now they are
saying even that is dangerous. It does not endanger the
bulkheads. The bulkheads endanger the channel when they are
full of holes and sand drifts through into the channel. And
then we have to just, we havg to scoop it out somehow. That's
enough.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Okay, I would like to wrap this
up. Please, okay, very quickly.
MR. SCHAB: I'm David Schab, I'm the Vice-President of the West
Lake housing association. And I'm here to support our
application. I'm also concerned that our application will be
put off for a month because we have less of a window to dredge.
We came and we have been trying to reach out to Mr. Moy and we
want a cooperative relationship, we know there were problems in
the past. We are desperate to put all that behind. We want to
cooperate with you and I know Mr. Moy wants to build, we would
like to potentially support that application if he can work with
us. We don't want to have to put up a big fight like we did
last time. We can all benefit from, really from working
together. I really, really think so. And everybody would save
a lot of money and aggravation. That said, I should point out
the frequency of the dredging has increased over the years in
Board of Trustees 38 October 19, 2016
part because of Mr. Moy's activities. May I approach the
Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You may.
MR. SCHAB: Until a week ago, there were enormous holes along
here that were piping sand through. That's number one. Number
two, if you can see on the side, these two bulkheads, despite
the objections that the Greenfield's have put up, they have
maintained their bulkhead nicely, and as well as their groin.
The Moy's, on the other hand have, were repeatedly given permits
by the Town Trustees to repair or replace inkind and inplace
their groin here. These two groins used to be of equal length
and equal height. And over the years, what you guys gave them
permits to repair inkind and inplace, instead what happened was
they cut the length of this in half, they cut the height of it
down about half, and they angled it out. It used to be parallel
to this. And they also moved it over about 18 inches. So
essentially we are no longer protected from the east. And
everybody we had come look at the hydrology of this area had
said that in fact because of the shape of the hog's neck and the
way it protrudes into the bay and the way the nor'easters come
in here, that this is a disastrous situation here. And it has
contributed to the filling up of the inlet. And on top of that,
um, well that also this groin that Mr. Moy added in hereto
protect his unpermitted dock has also prevented, has also
interfered with dredging and it has prevented the flow of water
out of here and caused sand to build up around it.
So far from our being troublemakers in this inlet, it is
actually Mr. Moy's, behaviors of the Moy family here have
actually contributed. We would love to put this all behind. We
know he was not looking to fill in the inlet. We are sure he
was doing whatever his marine contractors were advising him to
do. We want to work with them and make everybody happy. Thank
you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. With that said, I would like to
close this matter for further discussion and table the matter to
allow for submission of the documents we requested, and any
other information with respect to photographic evidence with
regard to the historic use of the channel. The Trustees have to
look at the permit history of some of the associated structures.
Unless anyone really wants to stand on their right to have one
last comment, I'm going to move to table this matter.
(No response).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, for coming this evening.
MS. MOORE: Are we going to talk about the dredge spoil? Just
very quickly?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think 13 will be one that is intimately
involved with this, so. But we'll open it up.
MS. MOORE: Only because you'll want to know about this. Just a
Board of Trustees 39 October 19, 2016
courtesy, I want to make sure.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, at this point we'll open up item 13
for the hearing.
Patricia C. Moore, Esq. On behalf of DAVID SCHAB &ARIEL
KAMINER request a Wetland Permit to utilize the property as a
de-watering site for dredge spoil taken from West Lake.
Located: 250 Midway Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-1-9
MS. MOORE: Thank you. This is the dewatering site on Mr. Schab,
who just spoke, he's very generously offered his property over
the years as a dewatering site. The amount of material in this
instance is so small, it is 92 cubic yards at maximum, and if we
end up with two different contractors then the material will be
even less, because the contractors have their own locations.
What we were asking the Board, and again, I think that the
proof of the road ownership may be relevant in this matter, what
we had proposed and we submitted to the Board a drawing of
placing a minimum amount, well the dredge spoil for dewatering
at the end of the road end. In accordance with proper storm
water standards, really, it's really placing hay bales, I
delivered it or we E-mailed it, do you have it in your file?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's in the West Lake file.
MS. MOORE: Okay, I just want to make sure. We have the hay
bales all around the perimeter of the property lines, we also
have a secondary hey bail with silt fence for the containment
area, and we are hoping that can be then dewatered, which we
don't think, depending on the contractor, he says it can be a
couple of hours or it could be a day.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That submission of course came in after the
deadline as well, so it's the Board will have to look at that.
MS. MOORE: I just want to make sure you have it for this
meeting.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we'll have to review that for
sufficiency with the project plan. But let me, for point of
clarification, so if the ownership of the road, which would be
by the association, then the plans we still have to review for
possible dewatering the spoil would also be on the property of
West Lake so we are not going to need a separate permit, we
don't won't need separate permission.
MS. MOORE: Correct. And our goal is because the Highway
Department would then take the material, the dried out material
for beach renourishment of other properties. Vinnie Orlando,
the Highway Superintendent, welcomed that material, so --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And conceivably, Mr. Moy in friendly
discussions amongst the neighbors could use material while he
might contemplate the needs for the next repair. The Trustees
did respond to a complaint and did recognize the repair was an
ordinary repair he had done. We tried to be realistic on this,
and there is also, we also responded to some concerns that there
is a phragmites, permit for removing phragmites on the Schab
property there is an area that was disturbed that probably needs
to be dialed back a little bit. We'll have a separate
Board of Trustees 40 October 19, 2016
communication with Mr. Schab with respect to that. Since we are
all in the same party, in the same soup here, I just wanted to
put that out there.
MS. MOORE: Okay, that's ultimately that is where I think, yes,
in the letter that we sent out that went from West Lake, it was
not from me, it was West Lake letter, went to Mr. Moy and his,
we did it combined with my required certified mailing so that he
would get the letter simultaneously. We thought he might look
at it questionably if we sent it first and then sent the
certified letter. We-didn't know how it might be taken, so we
sent them both at the same time. We did say that material that
would be available should he want to replace his bulkhead at
this time, we would certainly cooperate with him and give him
access to the material. So we thought it would be a cooperative
venture, that he could save himself a lot of money as well as
the permitting process that would be entailed, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. I don't think we'll be in a
position to move on this. It should be also tabled. Because
also the questions concerning the term of any permit and
activity surrounding, obviously they are interlinked in the use
of the spoil area. Anyone else wish to add additional
discussion on this spoil site?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion we table item 13 also to
consider at that further in the context of the entire project.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Last item, number 15, Patricia C. Moore,
Esq. on behalf of MICHAEL JOEL COLODNER&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 poof 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
This application, the Trustees performed a field inspection
last week, and we measured off the 50 foot non-discover bans
zone, and it is nearly identical to a survey that came back for,
this is from our archives, right Liz?
MS. CANTRELL: Yes. ,
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Archives brought up the land survey have in
a copy of the permit issued by the Trustees on June 4th, 1997.
And in reviewing the land survey that was associated with that,
it is in keeping with the shoreline and wetland perimeter has
not changed that much, and that particular survey shows a limit
of construction with hay bales that scales out exactly to the
Board of Trustees 41 October 19, 2016
one inch equals 50 feet as representing what we found on the
field inspection last Tuesday.
So as a point of opening this hearing, I just wanted to
bring that fact to the Board. And our field notes indicate that
we measured 53 feet to the wetlands from the southwest corner of
the patio, and it was just slightly over 55 feet to the
northwest corner of the proposed patio. We did notice there was
a slight incursion into the 50 foot zone in the lawn area. In
other words, the existing lawn area, the difference between
those two measurements, 53 and 55 feet, in other words we are
talking four to six feet of incursion into the 50 foot
non-disturbance zone where the lawn was put in.
So I just want to open up the hearing with respect to the
fact pattern that it measures out that your application as
proposed does honor the prior Trustee permit and the field
measurements we found.
MS. MOORE: Good. Thank you for clarifying. I was not sure where_
we were going.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So what we are talking about, within about
five feet, in other words, within about five feet of the pool
deck, the area should then be reverted back in to allow the
trees to grow so the full 50 foot is being honored.
MS. MOORE: Well, here is the practical problem with that. I
don't see my client having any issue, because her plan is
landscaping, is to return that area to a landscaped area. But
trees create shade that are really difficult for a pool. So to
plant more trees, they were actually looking to possibly trim
some of the trees because of the shade that it creates.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would say we are not asking to plant. We
were just saying let it naturalize.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Non-disturbance, not like a planting
thing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And I don't think the Board will want to see
any tree trimming in a non-disturbance area. I think if the
applicant takes a very hard look at where they are at and where
they want to go with the swimming pool, there are going to be,
they are going to be up against a decision whether they want a
lot of leaves and a lot of acorns in their pool, even with a
pool cover. They might be better, the Board, we have to deal
with what is in front of us. But they might well consider
moving the pool to the side of the house where there are
non-native trees as well as some native, but it's not close to
the wetland, where they could amply prune the vegetation, get
sun in to keep their pool warm and keep the detritus and the
leaves and the acorns out.
MS. MOORE: We were trying to create a pool that would conform to
zoning. The problem is when you are dealing with a pool and a
side yard, you have to go to Zoning Board to get permission to
encroach into a side yard. So that was the reason it was placed
where it was. Its actually put--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would still be within a hundred feet, it
Board of Trustees 42 October 19, 2016
would require comment from the Board of Trustees, the Board can
take the comments, in other words, the Zoning Board of Appeals
it would defer to us or if there was an issue, because we have
already made a suggestion to relocate the pool for environmental
reasons. I'm sure the Zoning Board would want to hear that. .
MS. MOORE: I don't think the Zoning Board would object to a pool
in the side yard. I have done lots of variances for pools
because they are technically in the side yard. It's just the
whole additional expense and process. But I'll pass that on.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would not want to pace bad on your client,
but literally several houses away we went to a site that mirrors
this almost identically, and after granting permission for a
pool, we were back with the bay consstable. As I'm saying,
don't mean to project, but the site-specific conditions are the
same. It's going to be a very cold pool exposure with a lot of
shading and so if somebody calls the contractor in without
permission and the particular site in question not only went in
town court, they have to plant a lot of new trees.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I just want to point something out to the
President the Board. This line is a non-disturbance line,
notice that, it goes over 25 feet.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's not accurate.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is totally different.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right, the non- disturbance line on the John
Ehlers survey which we received --
MS. MOORE: Oh, what we did is because the non-disturbance, it
was not a covenanted or anything, it appeared on the survey. And
John Ehlers was not very happy with us because I was forcing him
to go back to somebody else's survey to try to map the Young &
Young survey's line. So he actually took the Young & Young
survey and then plotted the non-disturbance, the 50 foot
measurement that created, that he put that non-disturbance
buffer line, which is what came from the Young &Young survey.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, we are not going to judge one
survey with the next. What we have is the hard facts of the
Trustees flagging this and we actually stuck our flags in the 50
foot line.
MS. MOORE: I understand. What I'm saying when the survey, this
non-disturbance was before the house was built. It was with the
Young & Young survey. It was mapped on that survey. In the
past what, 15, 20 years, you have it change to the shoreline,
and the 50 foot distance now is being, you are imposing it 50
feet from the new wetland line, when in fact the Young &Young
line is what we asked John Ehlers to show. That's why his
notation is non-disturbance shown here on scale from survey from
Young &Young, last dated April 2, 1997. So we were trying to
figure out, it could have gone either way, we didn't know what
we were going to find when John Ehlers mapped the Young &Young
survey. He mapped it and he gave it us to us, and we were, oh,
good, we are not in violation. That was my concern. We could
have easily seen that non-disturbance fall, I don't know, right
Board of Trustees 43 October 19, 2016
behind the house. We didn't know what we were going to find.
That line is the non-disturbance line, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because we don't have a file restrictive
covenant locked in and I'm at a loss to see why the Young &
Young survey matches so closely to what we found in the field.
I'm not here to grade the work. So we are going to have to,
think the Board has to go with the measurements we took, which
reflect what we see as a 50-foot non-disturbance now, and that
in considering a pool application, here, I think we are going to
have to look at formalizing the line based on how we flagged it,
and if the people you represent are interested in a pool, then
we'll have to have, we'll have to formalize the non-disturbance
buffer at the 50 feet as conditions exist now.
MS. MOORE: That's what I'm asking, it's a 50-foot
non-disturbance is just such a, it's such -- non-disturbance is
a real penalty to any property. I don't have an issue with a
50-foot buffer or a 50-foot landscape, but the non-disturbance is --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 50-foot non-disturbance buffer, which was a
grant to allow a house being built by the prior Board of
Trustees, I don't know how the rest of the Board feels, a 50-foot
non-disturbance buffer, we already questioned the siting of
this pool. I would be totally against anything less relaxed.
The shoreline in this area, this is a low energy creek. The
shoreline looks stable. It probably has not changed since 1997.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: It's a matter of going back in the day, you can
have a house, 50-feet non-disturbance, now all of a sudden, well,
we want a pool and want to modify a couple of things. You
cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
MS. MOORE: I understand what you are saying. I do. It's just
from the site conditions, I could see that what made sense here
was that the bank is essentially not touched. It was the bank
on the creek is clearly non-disturbance.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What we have been asking, so there is a
clear discernment for new owners between non-disturbance areas,
is we ask for a low profile fence or retaining wall as a
delimiter, so not only on the survey for the finished project
but also in the filed restrictive covenant in the deed they have
matching lines so the future owners clearly understand the
limits. In this case, the recently flagged line that we made
would be a great location to have, whether it's a low-profile
split-rail fence, some permitted curbing, like railroad ties or
landscape ties, and a file consistent with it, that way they
understand what is a non-disturbance zone and what is their
pool.
MS. MOORE: I'm not-- you are not being unreasonable in creating
a delineation between activity and non-activity, I understand
that. What I'm suggesting is given the topography of this
property is you have clearly non-disturbance area, which is that
whole grade, and in fact there is a fence there that looks like
it was put there, because there is a gate to go to the dock. If
you go back to the Young & Young survey, that is about where,
Board of Trustees 44 October 19, 2016
just around where the fence is now. So my thought was to create
the non-disturbance but maybe create a landscape buffer so you
can have landscaping non-turf but not, to me non-disturbance is
so onerous. I mean this owner,or prior owners planted Christmas
trees, like those big evergreens in that area, and I think one
of the comments Mr. Domino made was those trees are not even
indigenous, they are not the right plant.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We'll have to take a more detailed look at
the survey.
MS. MOORE: Do you want to go out to the field? Would that be
helpful?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the Trustees have been there. We
have the Trustees 50-foot flags that are in the ground from our
measurement, and we are going to, I think I'll advise that we
table this and scale it out on the surveys and take it up at
worksession and then we'll advise --
MS. MOORE: I'm not trying to create problems, believe me, I'm
not opposing your--
TRUSTEE SANDERS: What difference is it if we go back into the
field and --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, we are having a discussion here.
What benefit is it to go back into the field? We already
measured 50 feet and they have a 50-foot non-disturbance buffer.
MS. MOORE: Well, because the 50-foot non-disturbance, that's
what I'm saying, is we had it professionally surveyed to
identify the non-disturbance based on the Young &Young survey.
We are comparing apples and oranges. We are comparing the apples
of the survey from Young &Young from 1997 versus what we have
there today, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What about this. Before we go back in the
field, let's have maybe the area Trustee who is Glenn Goldsmith
do a quick stop by to verify the flags are in the same spot,
have John Ehlers put them maybe on the survey so relationally
we'll have, we'll know and then also give John the opportunity
to look at the Young &Young survey again from our old permit
file so that--
MS. MOORE: That's the one I used. I actually gave him the old
permit. That was the only one I had. I had the old one
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So if there was a misinterpretation of the
line, in other words it was some need for him to perform either
a correction or as facts are developing to give him the
opportunity to put the flags on it, then we'll all take another
look at it.
MS. MOORE: Can I ask you, you said the survey John Ehlers used
was dated April 2, 1997. Is that the same date that you have?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: January 6th, 1997.
MS. MOORE: January. Okay, this is later. April 2nd, 1997.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It has both. April 2nd and January 6th.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: He did the revision. Instead of going down,
its going on up. So April 2nd being the latest.
MS. MOORE: April 2nd being the latest. That's the one he used.
Board of Trustees 45 October 19, 2016
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I just believe the issue is we are not going
to allow any tree trimming in the non-disturbance.
MS. MOORE: I don't have a problem with that. It's where we call
the non-disturbance is the issue. If you call the
non-disturbance measured as we see it, the 50 feet from the
original '97, that is not a problem, because that's never been
touched. What you guys are expanding it by about 25 feet and
that's where I'm saying could we talk about it. Because I don't
want to create an additional --we don't want 75 feet of
non-disturbance here.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: That's understandable and reasonable.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's theoretical. We'll take a look.
MS. MOORE: It's up to you what you want to do. On behalf of the
client I know they have been very consciousness about leaving
everything. That is not an issue. And you may be absolutely
right, we get this approval and I sit down with them and say do
you really want the pool here, should we look to see where we
can move it to ape more cleared area.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I urge you to talk to your clients, consider
Trustee Bredemeyer's suggestion about relocating the pool,
because you almost have an east/west orientation for the pool,
which means when the sun sets, the large trees that are on that
property and the neighbor's property will severely shade this
pool. And they'll be coming back.
MS. MOORE: They won't be happy, I know, you're right. I'll talk
to them. I think that's why they were hoping they might be able
to do some tree trimming. But if you are telling me, no, then
have to talk to them and say, well --and that's the question,
which trees can we trim, which ones can't we. And the
non-disturbance, that's really the key to this whole thing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, thank you. I'll make a motion to
table this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
RECEIVED '
P),�, John M. Bredemeyer III, President
EC 1 9 ?Q. Board of Trustees
$out old Towu�n Clerk