HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-01/18/2017 rFV S®(/��
' Michael J.Domino,President Town Hall Annex®� _®l
John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President ® P.O. Route 25
P.O.Box 1179
Charles J.Sanders Southold,New York 11971
Glenn Goldsmith
�® �® Telephone(631) 765-1892
A.Nicholas KrupskiU Fax(631) 765-6641
9
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED
Minutes lj_�A
Wednesday, January 18, 2017 MA - 3 2011 0-1�n}
l.G
5:30 PM S thold Town'Cer IYA
Present Were: Michael J. Domino, President
John M. Bredemeyer III, Vice-President
Charles J. Sanders, Trustee
Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist
Bill Duffy, Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Tuesday, February 7, 2017, at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:-Wednesday February 15, 2017, at 5:30 PM
WORKSESSIONS: Monday, February 13, 2017, at 4:30 PM at Downs Farm, and on
Wednesday, February 15, 2017, at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting
Hall
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of December 14, 2016
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Welcome to our January 18th monthly meeting. I'm Michael
Domino, President of the Board of Trustees. My first meeting in that position. I would like
to announce the people on the dais.' Starting at the very end is Trustee Nicholas
Krupski, Trustee Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee Charles Sanders; Vice-President of the
Board, Trustee Bredemeyer; and to my right is the Town Attorney Bill Duffy,_and our
very able clerk typist, Elizabeth Cantrell.
Agendas are available at the lecterns and outside. At this time I would like•to
announce postponements so if you are here for a hearing that has been postponed, you
don't discover that after you suffer through an hour or so of our meeting.
Postponements, under Administrative, page five, number two, HAROLD J. BAER
requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#6170 to construct a 4'x40' seaward
extension onto existing 4'x65'fixed dock for a total of a 4'x105'fixed dock; and to
relocate existing steps to grade'to seaward end of new extension. Located: 1425
Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-116-7-6, has been postponed.
Under Wetlands and Coastal Erosion Permits, also page five, number two,
Docko, Inc. on behalf of BRIM FISHERS ISLAND TRUST, c/o JOHN BRIM requests a
J
r
Board of Trustees 2 January 18, 2017
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 on under Wetland Permits, beginning on page nine, number 15 through 20
have been postponed. They are listed as follows:
Number 15, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of FROST ROAD
ASSOCIATES, LP, c/o JOHN J. NICKLES requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten (10)
Year Maintenance Permit to dredge approximately 650 cubic yards of material within an
area of the channel entering Petty's Pond; dredging to be done to a depth of-4.5'±
MLLW (side slopes at 1:3); width of dredging to be 25.0% dredging to be performed by
typical clam-shell bucket; dredged material to be placed on beach located ±55'to the
southwest, above the HWM, via typical front-end loader. Located: 2015 Arshamomaque
Avenue & 1840 Frost Road, Channel leading into Petty's Pond, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-66-3-14& 15
Number 16, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of L. S. SANFORD
SOUTHOLD RESIDENCE TRUST, c/o LINDA S. SANFORD requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a landward 4'x40'fixed ramp onto a 4'x150'fixed catwalk with a'
4'x40'fixed "L" section at offshore end; along seaward side of fixed catwalk, construct a
4'x5' cantilevered platform with a 4'x16'fixed ramp down to a 4'x40'fixed lower platform;
provide water and electric services to offshore end of dock; and to install three (3)
two-piles mooring dolphins. Located: 780 Old Paradise Point Road (a/k/a 780 Private
Road #17), Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-3-27.1
Number 17, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of GERARD & BETHANNE RIEGER
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 130' long CCA timber retaining wall landward
of the mean high water line; add 35 cubic yards of clean sand fill landward of proposed
retaining wall; and install and perpetually maintain a 10'wide non-turf buffer along the
landward side of the proposed retaining wall. Located: 3693 Pine Neck Road, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-70-6-25
Number 18, 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)
Number 19, 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
pool enclosure fencing, and the installation of hay bales and/or silt fencing to be installed
prior to and during construction. Located: 130 Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck.
SCTM#1000-115-17-17.8
And number 20, 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
Board of Trustees 3 January 18, 2017
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.
1 would also like to announce at this time that files are generally closed seven
days prior to this meeting as per Chapter 275-8(c), and if any additional documents are
put across the dais, it may result in a tabling of the application.
At this time I would like to make a motion to have the next field inspection on
February 7, 2017, at 8:00 AM.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
' TRUSTEE DOMINO: The next Trustee meeting, I'll take a motion to hold it on
February 15th, 2017, at 5:30 PM.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to take a motion to hold the next work session
at Downs.Farms on February 13th, at 4:30, and on Wednesday, February 15th, 2017,
at five o'clock at the main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this time I'll entertain a motion to approve the Minutes
of December 14th, 2016.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for December 2016. A check for
$14,400.30 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the
General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
would like to mention at this time, when we get to the
Public Hearing section, we appreciate short, concise statements
relevant to the subject at hand.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the
following applications more fully described in Section VI Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, January 18, 2017, are classified as Type 11 Actions
Board of Trustees 4 January 18, 2017
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
SEQRA:
Hans Flick & Celeste Kime-Flick SCTM# 1000-90-2-21
L. S. Sanford Southold Residence Trust, c/o Linda S. Sanford SCTM# 1000-81-3-27.1
Frost Road Associates, LP, c/o John J. Nickles SCTM# 1000-66-3-14 & 15
Chris Austin SCTM# 1000-123-3-11.1
Jeff& Jaime Abrams SCTM# 1000-118-4-1
Robert Serling 1000-86-2-10
Susan A. Ghetti SCTM# 1000-87-4-8
Ryan & Christine Harper SCTM# 1000-122-4-8
A. L. & S. Boera Revocable Trust SCTM# 1000-122-4-9
Virginia A. Bontje SCTM# 1000-57-2-23
Vishnudat Seodat SCTM# 1000-99-3-4.2
Douglas & Michelle Gerowski SCTM# 1000-137-4-4
Gerard & Bethanne Rieger SCTM# 1000-70-6-25
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second to that resolution?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: In order to simplify our meetings, the Board of
Trustees groups together actions that are minor in nature or
straightforward. Accordingly, I'll make a motion to approve
items one, two, four, six, seven, eight, nine, ten and eleven as
a group. This is under-- I'm sorry, I jumped ahead of myself.
IV. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Item IV, Resolutions and Administrative
Permits, we need to do the files for Murphy& Reece, Soundfront
Holdings, and DeLorenzo.
Number one, Michael Kimack on behalf of WILLIAM MURPHY&
KIMBERLY REECE requests an Administrative Permit to replace the
existing decking, treads on three (3) sets of stairs, railing,
railing posts, and bench structure with new in-place on the
existing 23.7'x14.5' raised deck attached to dwelling. Located:
1652 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-1-4.1
No permit has been found on this, therefore I move to table
this at this time, and advise the applicant to come in for a
full Wetland Application. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second the motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, under Item IV,
Resolution and Administrative Permits, is Michael Kimack on
behalf of SOUNDFRONT HOLDINGS, LLC requests an Administrative
Permit for the as-built 100.8sq.ft. Front porch; and as-built
35sq.ft. Bilco door on the dwelling. Located: 20275 Soundview
Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-8
The field inspection led to a finding there are no gutters
or leaders to drywells for this house, and the front slate porch
Board of Trustees 5 January 18, 2017
which is failing, which is the subject of another application, is
failing due to water that appears to be going on it toward the
bluff. And otherwise we discussed this at work session and feel
it is appropriate to table this action so the plans can include
gutters, leaders and drywells according to the requirements of
the Town Drainage Code. My motion is to table.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number three, KAREN &ANTHONY DeLORENZO request
an Administrative Permit to remove existing second floor
cantilevered porch and first floor screened-in room on seaward
side; construct a 330sq.ft. (25'9"x10'7") covered screened-in
porch with a second floor open deck area above with drainage
improvements, and to be constructed no closer to the wetlands
than existing; construct a 171 sq.ft. (5'4"x31') pergola on
existing deck along the westerly side; square-off existing
first-floor deck at corners; and replace the decking, railing
and lattice screening on entire 860sq.ft. first floor deck
running along the westerly and northerly sides. Located: 470
Haywaters Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-5-21.1
We had a slight issue with the draining there. I make a
motion to approve this application, providing that they are
subject to the compliance with Chapter 236, the Drainage Code.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Item V, Applications for Extensions,
Transfers and Administrative Amendments. In order to simplify
the meeting, as I stated before, the Trustees group together
actions that are minor in nature. Accordingly, I'll make a
motion to approve items one, two, four, six, seven, eight, nine,
ten and eleven as a group. They are listed as follows:
Number one, Bill Isaacson on behalf of HAYWATERS ROAD, LLC requests a
One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#8576, as issued on March 18, 2015. Located:
75 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-1-2
Number two, Chris Edwards on behalf of J. GEDDES PARSONS requests a
One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#8552, as issued on January 21, 2015 and
Coastal Erosion Permit#8552C, as issued on January 21, 2015. Located: 515 Sterling
Street, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-9-3.1
Number four, CHARLES & BRENDA GRIMES request a Transfer of Wetland
Permit#8805 from E.G. Stein Family Trust, c/o David Edelstein & Libby Goldstein to
Charles and Brenda Grimes, as issued on May 18, 2016. Located: 4145 Wells Road,
Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-12.6
Number six, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of DOUGLAS A. GEROWSKI,
MICHELLE GEROWSKI & DOUGLAS J. GEROWSKI request a Transfer of Wetland
Permit#5241 from Robert A. And Cheryl Scheidet to Douglas A. Gerowski, Michelle
Board of Trustees 6 January 18, 2017
Gerowski & Douglas J. Gerowski, as issued on November 15, 2000. Located: 2570
Clearview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-10-29.2
Number seven, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of DOUGLAS A.
GEROWSKI, MICHELLE GEROWSKI & DOUGLAS J. GEROWSKI request a Transfer
of Wetland Permit#5962 from Robert& Cheryl Scheidet to Douglas A. Gerowski,
Michelle Gerowski & Douglas J. Gerowski, as issued on July 21, 2004, and Amended on
March 23, 2005. Located: 2570 Clearview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-10-29.2
Number eight, STEPHAN SEGOUIN requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#8676 from Joan Beletsis, c/o Stamy Beletsis to Stephan Segouin, as issued on
September 16, 2015, and Amended on January 20, 2016; and for an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit#8676 for the as-built 7'x6' upper platform with
cantilevered benches (3'x6platform with two 2'x6' benches); as-built 7'x4' middle
platform with cantilevered benches (3'x4' platform with two 2'x4' benches); and as-built
12'x4' lower platform with cantilevered benches (4'x8' platform with one 2'x4' bench, and
one "L" shaped 4'x6' by 2'wide bench). Located: 380 The Strand, East Marion.
SCTM# 1000-21-5-4
Number nine, CHRISTINE & PHILIP MASCIA request an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit#8728 for the as-built two sets of steps to grade for each
entry/exit from new screened-in porch; and the outdoor shower to be 6'x7' in lieu of 4'x4'.
Located: 910 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-1-5
Number ten, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of DONALD HYMANS
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#6648 to not construct the
proposed 10' long extension to the western bulkhead return.
Located: 1050 Blue Marling Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-57-1-32
And number eleven, Joan Chambers on behalf of EMMA HALL requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8724 and Coastal Erosion Permit
#8724C for the as-built 7'x6' landing at top of bluff located landward of existing 3'x6' top
landing; at the bottom 3'x6' platform, turn the 3'wide steps to run parallel, then turning
again to a 3'x10' set of stairs to bulkhead; a 3'wide set of stairs to beach off bulkhead;
and for an 8'x12' platform near bottom of bluff stairs. Located: 65 Soundview Avenue,
Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-99-3-2.
Is there a second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number three, CHARLES & BRENDA GRIMES request a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#5893 from David Edelstein & Libby
Goldstein to Charles and Brenda Grimes, as issued on April 21,
2004. Located: 4145 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-12.6
I make a motion to deny this without prejudice. There was a
permit issued for this dock in 2004 but the dock was not built.
So we cannot transfer a permit under those conditions. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number five, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf
of DOUGLAS A. GEROWSKI, MICHELLE GEROWSKI & DOUGLAS J. GEROWSKI
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#6952A from Robert
Scheidet to Douglas A. Gerowski, Michelle Gerowski & Douglas J.
Board of Trustees 7 January 18, 2017
Gerowski, as issued on August 20, 2008. Located: 2570 Clearview
Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-10-29.2
1 move that we approve this subject to a new survey that
matches the existing walkway.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. MOORE: I'm not sure I understand that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We'll give you clarification afterwards, if
you-want.
MS. MOORE: Okay. I don't understand.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this time I'll take a motion to go off our
regular meeting agenda and enter into our Public hearings.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Please keep your comments brief and relevant to
the application at hand.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number one is Michael Kimack on behalf of
SOUNDFRONT HOLDINGS, LLC request an Amendment to Wetland Permit
#8047 and Coastal Erosion Permit#8047C for the existing
collapsed steel bulkhead behind concrete seawall and existing
damaged concrete seawall to remain; remove the collapsed bluff
stairs and steel sheet piling retaining wall from face of bluff;
the originally proposed bulkhead with 10' and 20' returns,
proposed 47' vinyl retaining wall with 9' and 10' returns, and
proposed timber terracing walls on face of bluff were not
constructed; for the as-built stabilizing of the concrete
bulkhead by placing approximately 1,000 tons of large stones in
between the steel bulkhead and concrete bulkhead and top off
with 4-6+ stones; as-built gabion return wall along the westerly
adjoining property line; cut collapsed steel bulkhead down below
finish grade; as-built six-tiered retaining wall system,
completely integrated, to stabilize slope and protect westerly
property line; redesigned bluff stairs to attach to retaining
walls; bluff stairs were constructed 4'wide and 45.2' long in
lieu of 50' with a 23sq.ft. top landing and a 24.5sq.ft. bottom
landing; replaced collapsed brick patio with as-built 176sq.ft.
natural irregular shaped bluestone patio between dwelling and
top retaining wall; as-built 73sq.ft. lower tier bluestone
patio; as-built wire fencing along top retaining wall; added
fill to terraced areas; a ±450sq.ft. sandy beach area landward
of stone bulkhead; re-vegetated void areas with American beach
grass and rosa rugosa. Located: 20275 Soundview Avenue,
Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-8
Board of Trustees 8 January 18, 2017
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack on behalf of the application. I think
you covered pretty much everything in there, Jay. We have
submitted a considerable amount of material. You have requested
us to submit an engineer's report basically indicating the
correct construction of all the retaining walls, et cetera.
That should be in your file, by Jim Gerowski. You also have along
with that a number of revisions that go along with it. And also
you had requested with a patio on the top that we need to submit
a drywell plan, drainage plan for that in order to pick up any
water that might come off that patio before it goes over the
first deck of the retaining wall.
The drywell system that went along with that, there is also
a drywell system that was submitted with the permit that, with
no conversation on it, you had tabled, but we gave you, we
submitted a drawing of the house showing all the calculations,
and it's in, it was in the application in two parts. So I'm not
quite sure why that was tabled. I know that it's a different
application, but at the same time there is a drywell system
taking care of the patio and there was a proposed drywell system
that was part of the administrative amendment that was part of
the file. So I'm confused on that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It may have been the line drawings in the
application for the administrative permit didn't have it, so
that may be a matter we have to clarify.
MR. KIMACK: It was submitted. It was submitted, it shows the
roof drawing and all the calculations. It was submitted some
time ago. I'm disappointed we were not able to take that under
consideration. In any event, everything is in place; obviously,
the grass is grown. And I'm not quite sure if there are any
questions of me regarding what had been done or needs to be done.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Did the DEC ever get back to you with respect
to the application? I think you had a non jurisdiction letter initially.
MR. KIMACK: We had a non jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm curious if anyone from DEC contacted you
recently.
MR. KIMACK: No.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board discussed this both at field
inspection and at our work session. And because of the enormity
of this project and the substantial amount of work that took
place when there was a permit already in force, the Board feels
that we are going to, it's necessary to invoke a 'section of the
wetland code which, where we have the authority to compel an
outside review. And accordingly, the Board asked me to prepare
a Resolution for tabling today that will address the issues that
we are concerned with that I wish to enter into the consideration for the
Board at this time.
have a copy also -- it's fairly lengthy. I have an extra
copy here, we can send it to you electronically for the Minutes.
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Trustees table the Town
Board of Trustees 9 January 18, 2017
Wetland Law Permit("TWL", Chapter 275) and Coastal Erosion
Hazard Areas Permit("CEHA", Chapter 111) applications of
Michael Kimack on behalf of SOUNDFRONT HOLDINGS, LLC and require
the posting of an expert independent consultant fee in the
amount of$2,000 pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
275-7,D(1),(2) a,b,c, with final payment of the remaining fee(s)
due prior to final determinations in this matter.
The Board determines that the complexity of the unapproved
as-built construction, unilaterally undertaken in contravention
of the Town's Wetland Law and Coastal Erosion Hazardous Area
Permits provisions in effect during the structure's
construction, may materially violate the standards of the Town's
Wetland Law and Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Codes, the
discernment of which is beyond the expertise and knowledge of
the Board to fathom with the application materials submitted
thus far.
The Board is compelled to request this outside consultant
to ascertain whether this unauthorized as-built construction the
application seeks to bless ex post facto represents a reasonable
and compelling alternative to the prior approvals of this Board.
Including, but not limited to the following, are questions the
Board seeks to answers to:
1) A question exists concerning the stability of and reuse of
the massive concrete bulkhead, that under the Trustee permits
previously issued was to be removed; noting that it is canting
seaward and whether it represents a safety hazard for persons
passing and re-passing along the Long Island Sound(LIS)
foreshore.
2) Related to the aforementioned concern is that the potential
failure of this concrete wall may prevent persons from riparian
access and impact navigation for small vessels.
3) Concerns exist that this type of as-built construction is not
familiar to the Trustees, and does not seem to represent an
established best engineering practice or marine construction
standard and that without a compelling in-depth independent
engineering analysis of its stability, may result in
catastrophic failure...and if it were to be permitted and
allowed by the Trustees, create a future burden to New York
State and Southold Town taxpayers for removal to protect Long
Island Sound and its waters and foreshore.
4)There is a concern that the concrete bulkhead and timber
retaining walls may not be properly protecting the lateral
support of adjacent lands insofar as they may not meet the
standard 30-year construction standard.
5) Questions exist whether the proposed re-working of the
construction and drainage for the on-grade stone patio between
the house and the crest of the Long Island Sound bluff, that the
Board notes is already failing, is properly engineered to
maintain structural integrity to a 30-year standard while
protecting the bluff itself.
6) In addition to outside consultant review, the Trustees
Board of Trustees 10 January 18, 2017
reserve the right to submit the current and any additional
materials submitted in this matter to other governmental
agencies such as the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation and Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation
District for those agencies input and advice.
7)The Trustees may consider additional relevant concerns that
might arise from the outside independent expert consultant
review of this project that heretofore are not apparent to the
Board at this time and the outside consultant may request
additional studies to be paid for by the applicant to properly
evaluate the applications in this matter.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That was my motion for an outside
consultant. It was a unified motion for both.
MR. KIMACK: Is it open to discussion or is it closed?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, the matter has been tabled.
MR. KIMACK: Thank you.
WETLAND &COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application is in the matter of
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.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, seeing no one present at the podium to
discuss this matter, the Board of Trustees requested that the
Park District provide us a second iteration of a proposed
shelter that is to try to protect beachgoers from excess sun and
fatigue and provide a place for lifeguards to take a break. In
the second iteration, we requested that the structure be moved a
bit closer to the existing snack bar and shack.
The Board --we have been out there three or four different
times. There is not a particular wetland impact because the
proposed structure is not located on any wetland grasses and
it's not in the American beach grass. But there is the problem
that the structure is wholly within the Coastal Erosion Hazard
Area Beach Zone, so the Board will not be able to grant the
approval, although we are disposed there is no wetland impacts,
and we are disposed toward the project, we don't have authority
to permit construction on a beach in the Coastal Erosion Hazard
Area. Do any Board members want to add to the discussion?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The LWRP coordinator found this to be
inconsistent. The inconsistency rises from the fact that it
Board of Trustees 11 January 18, 2017
doesn't comply with Coastal Erosion requirement to minimize loss
of life, structure and natural resources.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, thank you. So it's an inconsistent
action. We don't have the authority to overrule and in fact that
we are not in a position to approve it because it's a prohibited
act in the beach zone. So we'll have to, in considering this,
it will have to be forwarded to the Town Board and the applicant
will have to make a request for appeal to the Town Board.
Any additional questions or concerns?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve the Wetland
Permit application in the matter of Mattituck Park District,
noting that the Board does not see any environmental issue with
respect to the siting, noting that the park district had worked
with the Board in trying to create a preferred location.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And I would make a motion to deny without
prejudice the application for a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area permit for
the Mattituck Park District shade shelter noting that any
construction in the beach zone under the Town Coastal Erosion
Hazard Area ordinance is prohibited.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded. All in
favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Next is Michael Kimack as well. He left. He may
be coming back. Or do you want to go forward?
MS. CANTRELL: I'll bring him back in.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE SANDERS: All right. Number one, under Wetland Permits, Michael Kimack
on behalf of GIOIA TURITTO & NABIL EL-SHERIF request a Wetland Permit to
re-install in-kind a Bio-Log system with fill and native plantings within two (2) separate
areas along the southern shoreline of subject property due to the storm damage of the
existing systems. Located: 40 Beachwood Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-10-62.1
The LWRP has found this to be consistent. Their notes say the Board to verify the
fill will not be placed in protective functioning wetlands, clarify the volume of the fill and
location.
The CAC has resolved to support to reinstall a bio-log system with fill and native
plantings.in two separate areas. So in essence they support.
Then on 10 January of 2017, 1 actually came to this property and investigated it
again. The float was removed but it was still close to the bank.
Is there anyone here on behalf of the applicant?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. It had
Board of Trustees 12 January 18, 2017
shown up on the wetland and then we moved it back out,
primarily. I had taken some pictures. When was this shot?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: That shot was done 2:00 PM on the 10th of
January.
MR. KIMACK: It was --then they moved it back out again, or they
secured it at a particular time. So I'm not quite sure,
Charlie. Since that picture basically, because apparently what
had happened is that top, when it ran in there with the ice, the
ramp had blocked up with that and it was going up and down. So
I think last week they went out again and took it and
reestablished it. But I can't say, not having visited the site,
exactly where it is right now. But I did note you wanted it off
the wetland.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: It definitely was, the location last time was
right on the wetlands, but it's definitely been moved since our
initial inspection when all of us were present.
MR. KIMACK: It was moved, and what happened, it was basically
anchored out with two anchors, and unfortunately with the ice
and movement, it was not strong enough, and pushed it back in
against itself. So I'm not quite sure. They went out again and
they were going to re-anchor it again. I'm not quite sure what
occurred.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Do we have other pictures, other wetland shots?
MS. CANTRELL: The aerial, Google Earth.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay, if you can pop that in.
MR. KIMACK: Also, if you want, we can table and I can go out and
take more pictures and bring them in. Whatever you think is
required.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The Board had a couple of questions with regard
to this application. The pictures that are located in the
file -- unfortunately, they are not popping up on the screen.
It looks like the storm --the vegetation has been coming back
pretty well since the storm. And we were wondering whether or
not it's really valid to have the logs put back in.
MR. KIMACK: Well, on one side it was wiped out completely. As
you look at the dock on the left-hand side you can see all of
the original stakes and the material behind it was removed. That
side was going to be clear, as being completely wiped out. The
other side I agree with you, is a little less clear.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: That filled in pretty nicely.
MR. KIMACK: That was not too bad. But this, with all the stakes
and all of the bales and all of the cord had been removed and
the material behind it had been taken away. And the pictures
show that fairly clearly.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess some of us-have a view that it's
repeatedly hammering the wetlands there and it's a self-imposed
problem that results from improper storage of a float. And the
picture on the 10th really just amplifies it. It's still banging
into that cove that it's formed probably over the last couple of
years. I don't know--
MR. KIMACK: The floating dock was not against that area that was
Board of Trustees 13 January 18, 2017
proposed to be replaced. That was on the other side. Looking at
that, that was on the right-hand side.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That was on the right-hand side?
MR. KIMACK: Yes.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Honestly, I think it would be wise to table
this. I would like to go back and look more clearly on the
left-hand side. I did not go that far to the left and look. I didn't.
MR. KIMACK: That area is along the property line to the left
there. The one cut-out in that area there. I didn't find any
stakes, whatever was there was completely wiped away.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Didn't we notice when we did the inspection
the Spartina was actually coming back?
MR. KIMACK: That one side on the left might have had more
Restoration, but the one on the right of the dock was pretty much
put back to the original state prior to the previous application
which had been done and the work done on his behalf.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I want to see it again, if you don't mind. I
would like to table it instead of just denying it.
MR. KIMACK: Four for four, why not.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: All right, I make a motion to table this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made to table and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number two, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting
Services on behalf of HANS FLICK & CELESTE KIME-FLICK request a
Wetland Permit to reconstruct the two (2) existing 60' long
timber groins in-place utilizing vinyl sheathing. Located: 1200
Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-2-21
The LWRP found this to be consistent, noting a net increase
in groins would not occur as a result of this application.
The CAC resolved to support this application with the
conditions the groins are reconstructed low profile.
The Trustees performed a field inspection on January 10th.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. JUST: Good evening, Happy New Year. Glenn Just, JMO
Consulting.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Have you received a DEC permits for this yet?
MR. JUST: Not as of yet. They have been applied for the same
date we sent in the one for the Trustees, but with the holidays
it's been backed up.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
on behalf of this application?
(Negative response).
Any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think some of the mild concern we have is the
DEC has been going through and removing some in areas and
putting some in others and adjusting heights. And I don't know
that we are personally capable of a decision like that.
MR. JUST: As far as the height?
Board of Trustees 14 January 18, 2017
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We, the height and the spacing between, it's
really, you know, I know DEC has engineers that look through
that. I don't know if anyone else had any thoughts on that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think that is sort of what the Board's
feelings were on field inspection, we didn't want to create a
back and forth between the agencies.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other comments?
MR. JUST: Not unless there are any questions from the Board.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to table this hearing
pending DEC approval on the groins.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number three, Richard Boyd, R.A. on behalf of
CHRISTINE HOWLEY requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing
two-story dwelling; construct new two-story, single family
5,577.20sq.ft. total footprint dwelling which includes a
680.4sq.ft. attached garage, a 107sq.ft. front roofed-over
porch, 1,299.9sq.ft. of seaward side first floor decks, and
1,123.3sq.ft. seaward side second-floor decks. Located: 320
Sailor's Needle Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-144-5-29.3
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. His
consistency is based on the fact that the Board verifies that a
12-foot non-turf buffer as a condition of Wetland Permit 6501 is
in place; require that buffer to be shown on the survey; to
verify that the sanitary system's purpose to be re-used is
functioning and adequate to process the sanitary flow of the new
dwelling; and to address the fact there are two docks on the
subject parcel.
The CAC did not make an inspection.
Okay, is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding
this application?
MR. BRESSLER: For the applicant, Eric J. Bressler, Wickham
Bressler& Geasa, Main Road, Mattituck, New York.
Good evening to the Board. I'm here in the stead of
Mr. Boyd. Mr. Boyd is suffering some medical issues that
preclude his attendance here tonight. I have been separately
retained by the client and I'm here to answer any questions. I
understand the Board has been out to see the property, as have
I. It is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The
setbacks are essentially the same. We don't see any
environmental issues with this particular property.
If anyone has any questions, although I'm not Mr. Boyd,
I'll do my best to answer them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just based off the LWRP coordinator, his
concern would be the sanitary system. Do you happen to know
anything about said sanitary system, age, or if it's still
functional, I guess?
MR. BRESSLER: Well, I certainly believe it to be still
functional. There are people, the client is still there. I don't
Board of Trustees 15 January 18, 2017
know exactly what I can say more than that. There are no plans
to replace it, and I'm not aware of any particular problems with
respect to the system. And I don't believe anything more than
what is there is going to be required by the Health Department.
If it is, we'll have to comply.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, then also from the coordinator, there are
two docks on the property.
MR. BRESSLER: There certainly appeared to be when I was down
there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Typically, it's a one dock per property as
per the code. So that's --
MR. BRESSLER: Well, I can't speak as to how they got there, but
looking at them it seems to me they were probably there for some
period of time. I have not had a chance to check out the permit
status. I don't know whether the Board has done that. I'm
presuming if it was done during the Board's time of
jurisdiction, the permits were granted. And I don't see any
real need to disturb the status quo there. But I did notice them
and I did notice the muffler was in there as well, when I was
down at the property. Maybe they are prolific boaters.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely. Sailors and fishers.
Are there any comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The second dock had become an issue during
field inspection, quite frankly, but typically, I know we
usually would investigate to check the permit status and if one
or the other--when there is more than one dock we usually check
permits and try to work with the applicant. If one is an
unpermitted structure, to use the provision of the Wetland
ordinance for Administrative Permit to remove it. At this point,
maybe it's not appropriate to table this if they are willing to
go forward on this and we can handle independent review of that
matter separately and bring it up --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And this is for the house, not the docks.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Correct. Because this is totally news to us.
We had inclement weather both times we went out and we were
taking measurements from the house to the wetlands, and the
docks were not an issue, quite honestly.
MR. BRESSLER: Well, that one doesn't jump out at you because you
can see from the picture, that's sort of off to the side, and
access is through the trees there to the left, and unless you
are looking sharp for it, you are not going to see it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I can speak to the issue of the sanitary
system here. I contacted the Suffolk County Department of
Health. I know a few people there--
MR. BRESSLER: Oh?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: (continuing) and they had made a determination
that based on the age and the existing Suffolk County Individual Onsite
Waste Water Permit that they were going to allow the existing
sanitary to remain, and they felt it was functional. So I think
that puts to rest the concerns of the LWRP coordinator.
MR. BRESSLER: So are we going to leave it that there is no
Board of Trustees 16 January 18, 2017
problem with the dwelling but you are going to investigate
further that second dock situation?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would entertain a motion to do that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In terms of keeping that separate from the
building.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we can go ahead and we'll just
do an in-house review and contact--
MR. BRESSLER: And if there is some issue with it, let us know
and we'll see if we can address it to the Board's satisfaction
or something.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could I possibly get you to put the buffer on
the survey, have your client--
MR. BRESSLER: Sure, I'll have Mr. Boyd show that. He's not so
debilitated that he can't--
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. Hopefully his hands are --
MR. BRESSLER: No, it's from the waist down. I think he'll be
able to do that. So that approval would be subject to showing
the buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 12-foot buffer, yes.
Does anyone else have any thoughts or comments on that?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: As I stated before, I would entertain a motion
to table so we can further investigate the second dock and
determine how we are going to move forward.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other thoughts?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: What are the consequence by approving the
application and not addressing --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It would be another chance for looking at the
dock.
MR. BRESSLER: Well, from our point of view are we are not going
to take the position by asking you to approve the dwelling that
we are then going to come back and take the position that you
have waived any right you have with respect to the second dock.
We are asking you to approve that and subject to the examination
of what the status of the second dock is, whatever it is, it is.
And we will deal with it. But we would like not to have those
things tied together. Whatever happens to the dock, we'll deal
with it, and I won't take the position that an approval bars you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is for a house application.
(Town Attorney and Board members off the record).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You are carrying the application --on
advice of counsel, we can move forward with this reserving our
rights with respect to permitting of docks. In other words we
can move forward and file a review and possible enforcement, if
there's docks there without permits, we can entertain closing the
hearing and moving ahead --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: With a motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And also, Trustee Krupski, we are going to
approve this as per plans.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have that. Thank you. Okay, is there anyone
else here that wishes to speak to this application?
Board of Trustees 17 January 18, 2017
(Negative response).
I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application,
reserving the right to review the two docks on the property;
also approving this as per the revised plans last dated December
20th, 2016, including the descriptive plans from December 28th,
2016, which show the slight modifications to the deck. And also
with a new survey depicting the 12-foot buffer surrounding the
property.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, Cole Environmental Services, Inc.
on behalf of GLORIA NIXON request a Wetland Permit to replace
existing timber bulkhead in-place consisting of a 57' long
bulkhead and a 6' return using vinyl sheathing; and to replace
existing "L" shaped fixed timber dock in-place consisting of a
3'x10'fixed dock off of bulkhead to a 4'x16'fixed dock.
Located: 5170 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-138-2-13
The Trustees did a field inspection on the 10th and
requested that they soften the return to the north.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency arises from the fact that the structure was built
without a permit.
The CAC resolved on November 9th to support the
application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. COLE: Dennis Cole, Cole Environmental Services, here
representing Gloria Nixon.
At the request of the Trustees, we modified the plans to
soften the return with the bio log and Spartina alterniflora
and patens plantings. Its a thriving marsh in that area and it
will grow very nicely.
I just want to point out that we just heard from the DEC.
The DEC wants us to put the bulkhead interior to the existing
and then cut off the old bulkhead once that's installed. And we
are perfectly fine with that. So I'll get you a new plan, with
that, with like a call-out stating that on.the plan, if you
prefer, or you can put it in the permit language. Whichever you
prefer.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That includes the return on the south.
MR. COLE: Yes, that's the south return, yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak to
this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions, comments from the Board?
Board of Trustees 18 January 18, 2017
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I make a motion to approve this application subject to the
submission of revised plans noting that the giving a permit will
address the inconsistency.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number five, Cole Environmental Services, Inc.
on behalf of CHRIS AUSTIN requests a Wetland Permit to extend
the existing fixed dock an additional 45' seaward for total dock
dimensions to consist of a proposed 4'x75'fixed dock; a 3'x14'
aluminum ramp; and a 6'x20'floating dock. Located: 915
Bungalow Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-3-11.1
The LWRP has found this to be inconsistent, and these are
the reasons for the inconsistency. They reference 6.3, protect
and restore tidal and fresh water wetlands. The applicant has
not demonstrated the following dock standards pursuant to
275-11. Construction and operation standards have been met.
Inaccurate dock like line cannot be determined because the ramp
and floats to the dock east of the subject parcel are not
in place. Even so, the proposed dock extends past the dock to
the west. The purpose of extending the 66-foot long dock
structure to water depth past 2.5 feet has not been identified.
The tidal period for the water depths are not identified. The
proposed vessel to be moored at the dock has not been
identified.
Those are the words from the LWRP.
The CAC has moved to support. The CAC supports the
application, however the dock was not staked and it could not be
determined whether the dock exceeded one third across the width
of the creek. The CAC recommends the use of best management
practices.
On the 10th of January, at 12:50, all Trustees were
present. The notes reflect a question on whether the proposed
dock exceeds one-third of the creek, possible "L" configuration
of the dock as an alternate. Proposed dock exceeds neighbor's dock.
Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of the
applicant?
MR. COLE: Yes. Dennis Cole for Cole Environmental Services,
representing Christopher Austin. Following the meeting with the
Trustees at the site, we modified our plan to show the existing
docks on either side and the distances that they are going out
to the water.
At this point, we had conversations with the homeowner,
he's amenable to not an "L" but a "T" configuration. There is
Board of Trustees 19 January 18, 2017
just not enough distance side yard to meet either ten or 15 feet
from the side yards to get an "L" configuration. So in this
situation the "T" configuration would work.
The only difference from what we had discussed in the field
was that he informed me that during up and down tidal ranges
that the aluminum catwalk that he has, on wheels, as the tide
goes down, the wheels go forward, as tide comes up, they go
back. So at super-low tide with a dock that is six-foot wide he
says he has tremendous difficulty getting on to the float. So
his request was one of two things: Either modify the float to be
an eight-foot width, or to add an additional 5x10 float in like
a "T" configuration coming off of the catwalk. Not the catwalk,
the ramp. To the 5x10, then to the 6x20.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Can you say that one more time?When you are
talking I want to look at the plans.
MR. COLE: In doing that, by changing it to the "T"
configuration, you are actually reducing the overall length by
ten feet.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you just clarify, he has trouble getting
onto the dock or is it--
MR. COLE: The floating dock. The rails, you see the rails on the --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MR. COLE: So it sort of prevents him from safely conveying from
the boat onto the.dock on a super tide.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The code provisions in our Chapter 275
really only allow for one 6x20 or 120-square foot float. And
actually that would also be inclusive of you are going to have a
jet ski ramp on, in other words total bottom coverage is no more
than 120-square feet. So I don't think it's, the alteration of
the float is not something that the Board -- I don't have a
problem with it.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The Board also discussed the possibility of
reducing it 20 feet. Dialing it back 20. You have it extend out 45 feet.
MR. COLE: I believe I submitted kind of, it has a white line
across it showing some of the docks in the area that, basically
what I did, I used air photography, identified what appeared to
be the apparent low water mark and then measured distances along
the shoreline and established that, you know, from that line, 50
feet out is roughly an average of two of the docks. One of them
wasn't fully configured on the aerial so I couldn't tell. So by
bringing the "T" in, we are actually cutting off ten feet there.
He's got a 26-foot Boston Whaler, says it draws two feet, so on
super tide it gets pretty low out there, so. He wants to
maintain at least enough water so he's not bottoming out with
his boat.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we were concerned about the--this
is a very large request, extremely large request for an
extension that places the end of the dock extremely close to the
navigation channel, and we are concerned that a boat with
fenders attached to it, it will be out into the channel. The
channel runs there.
Board of Trustees 20 January 18, 2017
The chairman has just requested to repeat the LWRP
considerations on this.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The LWRP considerations are as follows: The
application has not demonstrated the following dock standards
pursuant to 275-11. Construction and operation standards have
been met. An accurate dock line cannot be determined because the
ramp and floats of the dock to the east of the subject property
are not in place. Even so, the proposed dock extends past the
dock to the west, which is before the "T". I want to also
reiterate this was actually January 18th. This letter was
written January 18th, 2017, from the LWRP. The purpose of
extending the 66-foot long dock structure for water depth past
2.5 has not been identified. The tidal period for the water
depths are not identified. They are here on this. The proposed
vessel to be moored at the dock has not been identified.
I hit a couple these points. When we went out on our
inspection, actually you were out there with the kayak, or your
representative was on the kayak. That's good. That didn't happen
with the LWRP, unfortunately. The water depths are annotated on
this document that is received the 12th of January, 2017. So
what are your thoughts?
MR. COLE: He's willing to reduce the dock back to a point to
where the water depths are approximately 2.4 to 2.6. As you see
on the plans.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That would be dialing it back 20 feet.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: So by dialing it back 20 feet and making it a
"T" configuration, would that be--
MR. COLE: I think I want to table this and discuss it with him
to make sure he's okay with that. But I believe he will be. But
think we just want to confer with that.
With regards to the LWRP comments, you know, it's hard to
compare to something if it's not there. So.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Some of the points that were made by the LWRP,
you actually hit them with regard to the documents you
submitted. And by shortening it, it would bring it into
consistency. That's a good thing. And by tabling this, I think we
just hit a record. And not a good one. But I'll make a motion
to table this. Before I do so, would anyone else like to speak
on behalf of the applicant or discuss this at all?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to table.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. COLE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, WBL &Associates, LLC
on behalf of VIRGINIA A. BONTJE requests a Wetland Permit to
demolish existing dwelling and construct new two-story
1,488sq.ft. dwelling with attached 318sq.ft. deck; a 145sq.ft.
Board of Trustees 21 January 18, 2017
front porch and walkway; install two edged gravel pervious paver
patios at grade consisting of a 113x18.5' patio on seaward
side of dwelling, and a 9'x16' patio on seaward side of deck;
construct a 91sq.ft. shed; install a 16sq.ft. outdoor shower;
install a 220sq.ft. block driveway against dwelling, and
462sq.ft. driveway; abandon existing sanitary and install new
above-grade sanitary system with,retaining walls landward of
dwelling; add approximately 382 cubic yards of fill consisting
of 265 cubic yards on north side, 14 cubic yards on west side,
80 cubic yards on east side, and 23 cubic yards on south side of
property; install gutters to leaders to drywells for roof
runoff; install drywell for driveway runoff; and silt fencing is
to be installed prior to and maintained during construction.
Located: 805 Island View Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-57-2-23
This application has been deemed consistent by the LWRP.
It has been supported by the CAC.
The Trustees have been to the site, I think in total four
times. The Engineering Department at the request of the Trustees
and with the cooperation of the applicant performed a complete
conceptual review of the storm water and surface drainage needs.
And the Town Zoning Board of Appeals has granted an approval for
this project.
Is there anyone who wishes to speak on behalf of this
Application?
MR. BONTJE: Mike Bontje, WBL &Associates. Virginia Bontje
would normally be here but she is on medical leave. She seems to
have what seems to be going around, unfortunately.
I have one gatekeeping issue. I have received some green cards
back as a result of, I would like to hand in the green cards and
keep a copy for myself. We received three out of the six.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Trustees performed an in-house review of
the materials submitted. Having been there a number of times, I
don't think there any real questions at this point. The only
outstanding question we would have is there was a little
confusion about the right-of-way issue. There was a letter
submitted, I believe there was some brief discussion with the
Town Attorney Bill Duffy and Trustee Clerk Liz Cantrell
concerning the, I guess there was a purported easement. There is
a letter here from Ms. Kunio (sic) if I can just quote from that.
Mr. Richter--that would be Jamie Richter, the Town
Engineer who did the conceptual drainage review-- Mr. Richter's
consideration number one read the right of easement as indicated
on the survey running along northerly property line should be
verified. If it truly exists, any permanent work within the
easement area should be coordinated with and approved by LIPA.
This four-foot wide easement was proposed but never recorded nor
accepted. The applicant has asked that the surveyor, Mr. Nathan
Corwin, licensed surveyor, to remove this easement from the
licensed survey. This change has been made to reflect the actual
condition of the site. No LIPA easement exists.
This is a private road, right?
Board of Trustees 22 January 18, 2017
MR. BONTJE: It is a private road and there was a proposed
easement that went for-- it's two lots 16-feet wide that are a
private road, that occur north of the property. One of those
lots, which abuts one of the easements or lots, which abuts the
property being 16-feet wide. On that particular piece of
property and four feet into the property, there was a proposed
LIPA easement to move a series of power lines that kind of run
across the wetlands in that area, and to move them to the
roadway. That was proposed but it was never recorded. So Mr.
Corwin researched that and then provided a survey to the Town to
show the same survey without that proposed easement on it. So
the survey is now clear of that particular easement, per his
stamp. So that's gone.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: My understanding is that you did honor the
request of Jamie Richter to move the retaining structure from
the landward; is that correct?
MR. BONTJE: The retaining structure is on the property line and
the proposed easement went four feet inside the property line.
So now that easement is gone, so that is no longer an issue.
In other words, that was a proposed easement that was never
recorded. So now the property line is unencumbered.
TOWN ATTORNEY: If the surveyor put his stamp on'it, that's his
license that's --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I just wanted to review the matter because
that came in late.
TOWN ATTORNEY: Did he make that off an old survey or something --
MR. BONTJE: No, what happened is, for many years, ourselves in
included, the property owners in that area have been trying to
move the 13.2 kilovolt power line that runs, kind of clips the
southeast corner of our property, and it crosses the wetlands
and runs -- it's really kind of a mess. It's also the service
line for the north side of Shelter Island. And the LIPA people
keep coming out, PSEG just came out, they looked at the thing
and they always have a heart attack. Because that's the service
line to the north half of Shelter Island. It's in a horrible
location. It can't be serviced by trucks. It's really bad, in
terms of what their requirements are. Because it's not just
house service. So they proposed now twice, now on our third
time, in 2008, they proposed, in 2007, they said give us an
easement along the road and we'll move it there. So all the
neighbors got proposed easements and then the project never
happened, and has been tabled. And now they found an easement
across the other side anyway that kind of goes past the
property. So it was never, it was given a meets and bounds
description by the surveyor and proposed, but it was never, we
never went through the LIPA paperwork and it was never recorded
anywhere. So it's been dropped, basically.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm still confused. I'm looking at a survey that
we received on January 5th and it shows a 16-foot right-of-way.
MR. BONTJE: Yes. And that right-of-way is a roadway. There was,
in addition to that, a power line right-of-way that-- if
Board of Trustees 23 January 18, 2017
1 could step forward just to show you on the survey.
This is a copy of the same survey. Here is the property
line for the property. This is Island View Lane. A private road.
It's got two 16-foot lots that make up the road. This 16-foot
lot abuts the property. When LIPA was considering that project,
which is dropped, it went 16-feet and then four feet. They
needed a 20-foot right-of-way.
TOWN ATTORNEY: Easement.
MR. BONTJE: Easement. Not right-of-way. So that got eliminated.
So the right-of-way that exists is the road.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So the four-foot easement went away.
MR. BONTJE: Yes. And that's on the survey.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the stamped survey we have stamped in
our office dated January 5th, 2017, as last revised October 3rd,
2016, is the potential basis for referencing in a pending
approval.
MR. BONTJE: Correct.
MS. CANTRELL: These are his plans that shows the proposed
structures and sanitary system.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So we'll reference both. All right. So we'll
reference the plans.
Okay, is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. BONTJE: As indicated, Mike Bontje. I know you reviewed it
several times and you reviewed the history. So I'm just
awaiting your comments.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are there any questions from the Board
members?
(Negative response).
Not hearing any questions, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application as submitted based on the sign stamped plans of
Eugene G. Kempi, received in the Trustee office December 1st,
2016. And the property survey, last surveyed and updated by Nate
Corwin, last surveyed and updated on October 3rd, 2016.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded. All in
favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. BONTJE: Thank you, very much, for your time.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number seven, Creative Environmental Design
on behalf of VISHNUDAT SEODAT requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a timber or concrete wall located approximately 35'
landward from top crest of bluff; construct a concrete or stone
wall located approximately 75' landward from top crest of bluff;
re-grade existing fill and topsoil in order to create a level
Board of Trustees 24 January 18, 2017
area in-between the proposed walls; all disturbed areas to be
lawn/sod after final grading; install a fire pit in-between the
two walls; and for the installation of safety-rail fencing along
the edge of most seaward wall. Located: 580 Lloyds Lane,
Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-99-3-4.2
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The CAC resolved to support this application.
The Trustees met out in the field for a pre-submission as
well as field inspection on January 16th and did not note any
objections.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Yes, Dave Chicanowicz, Creative Environmental
Design, representing Dr. Seodat. I'm happy to answer any
concerns or questions you may have. We did in fact meet at the
site and it didn't appear there were any issues but I'm happy to
address any we might have now.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other comments?
(Negative response).
Any comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Thank you, for your time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number eight, Samuels & Steelman Architects on
behalf of JEFF &JAIME ABRAMS requests a Wetland Permit to
demolish existing two-story dwelling and abandon existing
sanitary system; construct new two-story 63'x40' dwelling with
attached garage, 7'6"x23' covered porch, a 17'x23' covered entry
porch, a 63'x15'8" seaward side porch, and a 4'x8' seaward side
barbeque terrace for a 3,352sq.ft. total site coverage for
dwelling with porches; install new sanitary system landward of
dwelling; proposed 20'x40' gunite swimming pool with at grade
1,372sq.ft. stone terrace landward of dwelling; new 4'x8'
outdoor shower; re-grade areas around new dwelling, and the
contour of the property on the seaward side of dwelling to slope
away from top of bank using existing soil in order to prevent
runoff and erosion; install gutters to leaders to drywells to
dwelling; upgrade existing driveway; replace handrails and
treads on existing bluff stairs; and replace existing 20'x14'
deck at top of bluff with smaller 12'x8' deck. Located: 7325
Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-4-1
The LWRP coordinator deemed this to be consistent provided
that the Board establishes a non-turf vegetated buffer landward
Board of Trustees 25 January 18, 2017
of the top of the bluff; Proposed drywells are located the
greatest distance from the top of'bluff as possible; and note
that this property suffered erosion damage and structural loss
due to Tropical Storm Sandy.
The CAC supports the application with retractable beach
stairs parallel to the bulkhead.
The Trustees visited this site on the 10th of January and
saw no real issues at that time.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. SAMUELS: Tom Samuels, Samuels & Steelman Architects, on
behalf of the owners. I'm here to answer any questions or
address any concerns of yours.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
In terms of a non-turf buffer, along the top of the bulkhead --
MR. SAMUELS: Not a problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ten-foot sounds reasonable to everyone.
MR. SAMUELS: Not a problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And there is no work being done to the stairs,
right, going down?
MR. SAMUELS: Correct. We really just wanted to reduce the size
of the landing at the top that is pre-existing. And at the
Zoning Board of Appeals they asked us to leave the posts there,
after we reduced the size,just to diminish the amount of
disturbance to the bank.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, I just want to note that the CAC had
talked about retractable stairs going to the beach. Just for
storms. So for the future, I know they are not doing it now, but
in the future.
MR. SAMUELS: That would be fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application,
including the ten-foot non-turf buffer along the top of the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded. All in
favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. SAMUELS: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number nine, Samuels & Steelman Architects on
behalf of ROBERT SERLING requests a Wetland Permit to construct
a two-story, single-family 2,276sq.ft(footprint) dwelling with
attached garage, 600sq.ft. of covered and screened-in seaward
side porches; 139sq.ft. covered entry porch; 684sq.ft. seaward
side on-grade terrace; 183sq.ft. on-grade terrace on side of
Board of Trustees 26 January 18, 2017
dwelling; renovate the existing 107sq.ft. shed; remove existing
and install a new sanitary system landward of dwelling; install
gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff; install
drywell for proposed driveway; install underground electric and
water lines; install and perpetually maintain a 10'wide
non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead; and a
line of silt fencing is to be installed prior to and during construction.
Located: 3575 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-10
The Trustees did a field inspection on January 10th and
noted that it was a straightforward application. There was a
question about an existing shed.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The CAC on January 11th resolved unanimously to support
this application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MS. STEELMAN: Nancy Steelman, Samuels & Steelman Architects,
here for any questions you might have. I think you are familiar
with this application. This is the second time we have gone
through this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Actually, some people have been there more
than that. We have a fireman here.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Unfortunately.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Just the one question about the shed shown on
the plans.
MS. STEELMAN: The existing shed, there was some fire damage as
you can see. The plan is, there's three individual doors now
that were there originally when the owner bought the property.
Those will be taken out and new windows, new siding, and small
amount of interior renovation.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I believe there was some questions, it would not
be a habitable structure, no electricity?
MS. STEELMAN: No.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: There is no water there currently?
MS. STEELMAN: Excuse me?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: There is no water hooked up to that shed
currently?
MS. STEELMAN: No, there is no water there.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else who wishes to comment on
this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number ten, Jeffrey
Board of Trustees 27 January 18, 2017
Patanjo on behalf of SUSAN A. GHETTI requests a Wetland Permit
to replace existing damaged bulkhead by removing and
constructing in-place a new 58 linear foot bulkhead using vinyl
sheathing with an 8 linear foot long return installed at each
end; reconstruct 4'x4' steps to beach; install approximately 40
cubic yards of clean sand fill landward of proposed bulkhead;
and with all work to be accessed by land with no disturbance to
the wetlands. Located: 625 Windy Point Lane, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-87-4-8
The CAC supported the application with the condition of a
five to seven foot non-turf buffer and hinged steps to the beach.
The LWRP program coordinator deemed the proposed action
consistent but noting that it requires a vegetated non-turf
buffer be established landward of the bulkhead.
The Trustees have been to this site several times. The
Trustees, based on field inspection, Trustees considered what
was a bulkhead as non-functional, and I believe after discussing
this at length at the work-session the Board feels this is really
an area where a retaining wall is more appropriate because we
have a ban on new bulkheads on the bays. So, anyhow, I just
wanted to put that out there as we open up the discussion.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf the applicant. I do have a
DEC permit for the project.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do we already have that in the file?
MR. PATANJO: You might have. I didn't see copy of my
transmittal, so I don't know if you have it or not. There are
revisions to the DEC permit subsequent to our meeting here last
time which was postponed. The DEC had requested and approved
relocating the bulkhead back three feet--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You had submitted it. We have it in the
file.
MR. PATANJO: (Continuing)from the existing as well as just like
the previous application, which is the new standard, cutting off
the sheathing at the mud line after it's removed. The existing.
And we do have a non-turf buffer on the proposed plans, and no
problem making the steps hinged.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board felt to have it functionally be a
retaining wall as opposed to a bulkhead replacement it should be
back another couple feet so it's tucked back a little bit
further. Is that a possibility? Because the Board really looked
at the very strong vegetation there, and actually based on our
field inspection we felt it's borderline for not establishing
the need and this should be an area where use of coir logs or
something innovative might work, and you would not have a large
expense, but you end up with a better environmental project. We
generally are thinking along the lines if it can't be a
bulkhead, if it's going to be a retaining wall it should be
truly functionally a retaining wall and be back just a little
further to allow for lush vegetation and keep it as such.
Board of Trustees 28 January 18, 2017
MR. PATANJO: As I understand the neighbor just to the south of
us, I spoke with him on the phone multiple times about this, and
they are losing land right now because of the bulkhead not
functioning. So without a doubt we'll have to do returns on
both sides of this to tie in the bulkheads to the north side and
the south side.
When you say-- let me just look at my section. Right now,
mean high water is at elevation 2.5, so we only have about
a foot-and-a-half of water at mean high up against the bulkhead
where I have this placed. I would have to move it back several
feet if you wanted this as a retaining wall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We scaled it off and it looked like the DEC
bumped you back two-and-a-half, three feet.
MR. PATANJO: Three feet.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We thought five feet might be good. But we
are concerned also with the damage and sloughing during the
construction with the activities of putting in the vinyl would
be damaging the wetland and that would be a better product. We
felt it would be a little more advantageous.
MS. GHETTI: May I speak? I'm the homeowner, Susan Ghetti.
MR. PATANJO: If you want to stand here, Susan.
MS. GHETTI: This is new to me, because all my neighbors have the
bulkheads and I always had the bulkhead there until it was blown
out by the storm. I'm not even sure what a retaining wall is.
But when the DEC asked that we move it back three feet, I have
to say I felt that was the only issue was that the bulkhead
would be moved back three feet. And that was a loss of three
feet of my property. Which is approximately 58 or 60 feet in
length at the waterway. And I think when you went out to the
property, you could see that all the bulkheads are sort of
symmetrical or go in a line there, in a distance. And I'm
wondering whether mine is going to be incongruous with what is
already there and what has been there for so many years. The
people, I guess they're to the north of me, they own that house
for many years, I think since the 1930's, and I mean, I have
pictures that they gave me going back when their kids were playing,
showing the bulkhead. And they are now approximately my age.
just ask for the consideration to put a bulkhead. I don't
even know what a retaining wall is as opposed to the bulkhead.
And I appreciate you, the willingness to save me an expense, but
I know what it's going to cost, I've got the money at this point
to go forward with it anyway. That would be my choice, but
perhaps it could be explained to me about a retaining wall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Basically, the location determines by
definition whether the Board, if something is so close to the
wetland, that with recurrent high tides that the water comes up
against it, we would consider it a bulkhead. And that with
sloughing or the natural tendency to have some erosion there,
that it would quickly become a bulkhead because of the water
lapping into it and potentially losing the marsh. The healthy
marsh fringe. The only difference is we are talking about two
Board of Trustees 29 January 18, 2017
feet further landward, essentially at that point by definition
we see it clearly being out of harming the wetland vegetation.
Actually, there is a unique situation when you have two
bulkheads either side of you in a fairly calm, protected water
body, which in fact Corey Creek is, you could probably go for
several other generations, actually. I know the creek because
used to take walks there as a kid myself from across the way.
You have the benefit of your neighbors, and the neighbors'
returns and bulkheads, you actually, would probably over time
have very limited erosion and a beautiful marsh. But I think we
all hear--
MS. GHETTI: Plus I think the plan does call, because I was with
the marine contractor when he came to the property. The returns
are separate. And the plan calls for eight-foot separate returns
from my bulkhead. They are not being tied into the neighbor's
bulkhead.
MR. PATANJO: One of the things, and of course, Susan, if you
could agree with me on this or not, I know we are worried about
loss of land and loss of property. If for instance, you were
okay with it, if we move the bulkhead back an additional two
foot, could we get away with no non-turf buffer?
Since it's a retaining wall?
MS. GHETTI: Is the concern in moving it back a wetland?
Because I understood that by moving it back three feet, when I
spoke with people at the DEC, that that solved the problem.
Particularly here. And the work, according to the marine
contractor, I have property on the north side of me where they
can get their equipment in there. So they told me they are going
to be able to do all the work landward. Plus, if we are moving
the bulkhead inward three feet, the proposed fill was from where
the existing bulkhead is to replace it. So we probably would not
have to put that fill in there. And I would just think that
those wetlands would be able to be preserved doing it that way.
That is just my sense.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's an option. I'm concerned there will be
damage. We don't ordinarily-- I'm wondering if an additional
inspection tied to the commencement of work just to make sure
everything can go,landward. I'm not sure it's a big enough
project to require bonding. Would you be willing to have an
additional inspection by a representative of the Trustees, the
area Trustee could go down and discuss it with the contractor
ahead of the work just to make absolutely certain that there is
no equipment incursion into the area? Does that sound
reasonable?
MS. GHETTI: I could tell you who the contractor I decided on and
who I discussed this with. The application process has been
about a year, so I have not spoken to him recently, but it's Mr.
Higgins.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because to dial the bulkhead back and do
away with the vegetative buffer, I don't know how the Board
feels about that. But I'm a little nervous about that. Because
Board of Trustees 30 January 18, 2017
new owners come in there and we have green lawn up to the --
MS. GHETTI: But I have no objection to inspecting, but what you
are saying is you want to verify with Mr. Higgins or the
contractor that they are going to be able to work landward.
MR. PATANJO: When he's out there building.
MS. GHETTI: And then when he commences, or before, so that we are
not making changes midway. '
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So if we can get an additional inspection to
have either the area Trustee or Trustee available to meet with
Mr. Higgins before he puts a shovel or piece of equipment in the
ground,just to run through the project specifications, but the
application as submitted I think we would want to keep with the
non-turf buffer, which would be the area where you don't have
fertilizer you don't have a green lawn going right up to the
edge. Is that okay?
MS. GHETTI: I appreciate that. And this is five foot?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are back to the three feet.
MR. PATANJO: I would like to stick with the DEC, the three foot
back.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In terms of the DEC permit with an extra
inspection.
MR. PATANJO: With the extra inspection.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Usually the minimum non-turf buffer we would
approve is typically ten feet, but it's a small property. You'll
have the soil disturbance anyway for fill in the bulkhead. Can
we get a six-foot non-turf buffer? It's beautiful location for
Montauk daisies.
MS. GHETTI: It's a lot of Montauk daisies.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are not telling you necessarily what you
have to put in the there.
MS. GHETTI: If we could come in three and we do the five feet.
or do you want the six?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We would like a six-foot non-turf buffer. It
could be in stone, it could be mulch. We don't specify.
MS. GHETTI: The only thing I like is because they are going to
replace the existing stairs in the middle, that we don't have to
walk over any stones or uneven ground, we can just leave a path
to get to the staircase.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You may want to have a hinged set of stairs
as the CAC has suggested because you might, you'll save your
stairs from being ripped out if an ice storm comes through.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Real quick, 40 cubic yards of clean sand fill,
you won't need that if you do this.
MR. PATANJO: That will be adjusted. Obviously, I'll send you
revised plans. Do you want me to send you the DEC permit as for
the revised plan or do you want hold your own? Do you want dual
stamp with the DEC or do you want your stamp?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have the stamp with DEC in the file. So
I think we can approve it with minor modification. It's di minimus. We'll take
it accordingly.
Are there any additional questions from the Board?
Board of Trustees 31 January 18, 2017
MS. GHETTI: May I ask one more thing? When I get the permit,
I'll contact the contractor. Should I at this point have him
contact the Board? Or should I let--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We would prefer to have the contractor--
you'll be issued a permit and have the contractor, we've worked
with Mr. Higgins before, have him contact the Board as he's
staging his equipment before he starts work.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'm the area Trustee for that, so. That's for
me.
MS. GHETTI: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional questions?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this
application subject to a six-foot non-turf buffer, a hinged ramp
and provision for an additional pre-construction inspection with
a representative of the Trustees meeting with the contractor.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded. All in
favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. GHETTI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: You're welcome.
Next, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of RYAN &CHRISTINE HARPER
requests a Wetland Permit to remove 102 linear feet of existing
bulkhead and 6' return, and replace the bulkhead and return
in-place using vinyl sheathing and raise the height an
additional 18" above existing top cap; add 15 cubic yards of
clean sand fill landward of proposed bulkhead; construct a
16'x32' in-ground swimming pool with dedicated pool drywell; and
to install and perpetually maintain a 10'wide non-turf buffer
along the landward edge of the bulkhead. Located: 2100 Ole Jule
Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-48
The LWRP has resolved to find this consistent and
inconsistent. I'll explain. The remove the 102 linear feet of
existing bulkhead and six-foot return, is consistent. However
the proposal to construct 16 foot by 32 foot inground swimming
pool with dedicated pool drywells is recommended as
inconsistent. And this is why. To relocate the pool drywells to
maximize the distance from the drywells to the water body
pursuant to Chapter 268, the Board of Trustees shall consider
the recommendation in preparing this written determination
regarding the consistency of the proposed action.
On the 10th of January at 1:15 PM all Trustees investigated
the property. The question was from the Trustees, is the need
Board of Trustees 32 January 18, 2017
for raised 18 inches. And the top bulkhead already has three
feet above high tide mark. Is there anybody who would like to
speak on behalf of this applicant?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. We have
no problem removing the pool drywells. And the raising of 18
inches was requested by the homeowner. It's typically approved
by the DEC as well. I could see it might be a little excessive
going three feet above.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Because of the neighbor's --
MR. PATANJO: Well, I have him on the next hearing and he has the
same exact thing, and I have a DEC permit and we are ready with
18-inch above grade. But if you say 12, I'm okay with raising it 12.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Say again what you said before. You are coming
in with another application?
MR. PATANJO: He's next. It's side-by-side. It's the house right
next door and I have DEC permit with him raising it 18 inches
already, which is consistent with DEC standards.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We saw what looked like a consistent
elevation throughout. It's a rather a quiet creek. We were
almost getting nose bleeds with the existing, walking up to the
existing one
MR. PATANJO: It was requested by the homeowner. Inconsequential
as it is. Can we put in six inches of raised height?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think that was more in line with what we,
I think we were all thinking in the field it was going to maybe
create problems, and we were concerned about the unbulkheaded
areas.
MR. PATANJO: Right.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is there anybody else who would like to speak
on behalf of the applicant?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just new plans with the drywell.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Right. I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the following modifications: Make a motion to approve this
application with the stipulation that the landward --that the
drywell will be landward of its current location on the survey
dated 2 December 2016, also with a six-inch height for the
bulkhead, variance to the bulkhead, instead of 18 inches. That
is my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 12, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of A. L.
& S. BOERA REVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove
and replace 60 linear feet of existing bulkhead in-place using
vinyl sheathing and raise the height an additional 18"; add 15
Board of Trustees 33 January 18, 2017
cubic yards of clean sand fill landward of proposed bulkhead;
remove and replace existing 4'x6' timber platform in-place; and
to install and perpetually maintain a 10'wide non-turf buffer
along the landward edge of the bulkhead. Located: 2170 Ole Jule
Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-9
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The CAC resolved to support this application noting however
there is no justification for raising the bulkhead.
The Trustees performed a field inspection on January 10th,
again, questioning the need to raise it 18 inches. Same as the
neighbor.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. I do
have a DEC permit in hand and we are okay with raising the
height six inches in lieu of 18 inches as specified.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here who wishes to speak on
behalf of application?
(Negative response).
Questions, comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded. All in
favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition of raising the bulkhead six inches as opposed
to 18 inches.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 13, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of
DOUGLAS & MICHELLE GEROWSKI requests a Wetland Permit for the
as-built 4'x5' timber walk to a 2'x13' timber catwalk with Trex
boards for the decking and three 4'x4" posts; a 2'x8'fixed ramp
with Trex boards for the decking; two (2)6" diameter pilings at
seaward end of fixed ramp; a 6'x8'floating dock with Trex
boards for the decking, two (2) 8" diameter float pilings; and
two (2) VW" by 66" long wood boards attached to fixed catwalk
which are used as kayak racks. Located: 5705 Stillwater Avenue,
Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-137-4-4
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
And the CAC supports this application with the condition
the Trex boards are replaced with flow-through decking over the
marsh land.
The Trustees visited this property on the 10th of January
and echoes the CAC.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
Board of Trustees 34 January 18, 2017
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of Doug Gerowski. Doug is
standing here next to me. We are both here to answer any
questions.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just think our main concern is the Trex is,
well, first of all, where it goes over the marsh it would be
better to have flow-through, which would be a pretty quick fix,
I think, considering the size of the dock.
MS. MOORE: Yes. We talked about that, that's fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And also just another thing, its like terribly
dangerous and slippery. So the flow-through will also save
someone's neck or back or something like that.
MR. GEROWSKI: Not a problem.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, the issue with the Trex.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were just talking about that.
MS. MOORE: The portion that is over the marsh area.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we were talking about a slip hazard,
trip hazard.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We just covered it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You did cover it. Okay. I thought we were
leaning toward all through-flow.
MS. MOORE: The entire thing through-flow, or just the marsh
area?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I was just thinking through-flow leaving the
hazardous condition there. I mean it's, while you are doing it,
it certainly makes it a lot more user friendly, particularly
because the ramp is in Trex, you are talking, it's extremely
slippery because it grows mold and things on it and it captures
the moisture so when you get frost. People that have had
experience with it and have watched others on Trex, it is just
crazy, crazy dangerous.
MR. GEROWSKI: Are you also suggesting the float portion be
replaced? -
MS. MOORE: No.
MR. GEROWSKI: The catwalk and the rest.
MS. MOORE: Have you ever had any issue with slipping?
MR. GEROWSKI: No.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right, are there any other comments from
the Board or anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding
this application?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the stipulation that the decking on the catwalk and ramp be
changed to flow-through.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. GEROWSKI: Thank you, very much.
Board of Trustees 35 January 18, 2017
MS. MOORE: You're okay with the plans,just making the permit
language is sufficient?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No problem.
MS. MOORE: I just want to make sure you didn't need anything.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application is Patricia C. Moore,
Esq. on behalf of JOAN SHANNON requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing ±22'x25.5' cantilevered upper deck and to resurface the
deck; extend existing 54' long retaining wall an additional 12'
to easterly property line; extend existing 75' long retaining
wall an additional ±35'to easterly property line and add a 10'
long return; extend an existing 50' long retaining wall up to
the existing deck; extend existing lower retaining wall an
additional 75'to easterly property line; replace existing 75'
long bottom retaining wall in-place; remove damaged 11'x75'wood
deck between lower retaining walls; replace only 19'x25' part of
existing deck located under upper wood deck, and replace
existing outdoor shower on lower deck; backfill area with 120
cubic yards of clean sand and top with beach stones; replace 4'
wide stairs to beach off of bottom retaining wall; replace
existing 4'x22' stairs that extend from top deck to lower deck;
replace/repair existing 75' long bulkhead; install steps to
beach off bulkhead; re-vegetate disturbed areas with mulch and
native vegetation. Located: 7080 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard,
Laurel. SCTM# 1000-126-11-7
This concerns various aspects of repairing damage to
portions of her deck and property located at 780 Peconic Bay
Boulevard, Laurel. The Board has been there a goodly number of
times. The last iteration was a plan we received October 14th,
2016, with a very nice color rendition.
MS. MOORE: I'm glad you liked it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was very nice. It was very clear, for our
purposes as Trustees.
The LWRP coordinator indicates that it will be brought into
consistency with a Trustee permit.
And the CAC supported.
This goes back a while. Okay, I have it here. Supports,
ayes all.
The Board really had no problem with the proposal as you
submitted it to us with the diagram, but there has been
consternation that the nice rendition you gave us does not
provide the information necessary for the Building Department
and Zoning Board to make determinations with respect to I guess
the side yard setback and the elevation of the lower deck.
MS. MOORE: That got resolved, actually.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't know if this Board ever got a
communication from Mr. Verity with respect to that, because--
MS. MOORE: I'll put it on the record and you can confirm. The
way we resolved it is the decking, we were just talking about
the at-grade decking that is being replaced under the
Board of Trustees 36 January 18, 2017
cantilevered deck. That is going to be setback at ten feet from
the property line so that we don't have any zoning issues. So
we'll stop it at ten feet, okay?
And we were at the office there and he said when we are
constructing, make sure that the decking goes perpendicular to
the bulkhead, not on top of the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Flush.
MS. MOORE: Yes. It can't be flush on top, it has to be --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are we talking about the retaining wall?
MS. MOORE: I'm sorry. They are called retaining walls.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We get confused with terms as well.
MS. MOORE_: Yes. So where the decking -- it was really the
decking, that is all that was the issue. So I'm making sure that
the decking, as I said, ends before the, in accordance with
setbacks and the way it's constructed, so.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Just to be clear, we are saying this will end
ten feet from the property?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just to be clear, the deck underneath the
cantilevered deck, which heretofore had a shower at some point.
MS. MOORE: It still will have a shower.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It will be ten feet off the side yard.
MS. MOORE: Right. I believe -- yes. I think it's five feet from
the property line now. I don't have the drawing in front of me.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So the last check off I have from the
from Amanda Nunemaker, is last dated October 31, 2016, it was
compelling a Building permit. It was compelling a ZBA approval
at that time. And any part of this be considered a demolition as
described under the Town Code. But it did note the ten-foot side
yard setback required for a deck against low retaining walls.
MS. MOORE: Okay, that's how it was resolved.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So what you are saying is there is
essentially, subsequent to this you had discussions with Mr.
Verity. So that would be a matter we could verify that.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This deck will be flush with this retaining
wall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the deck will be flush with the
retaining wall.
MS. MOORE: Correct, that's the way it has to be built otherwise
I end up with it being considered a structure rather than at
grade.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: On-grade.
MS. MOORE: Well, it's always going to be on-grade, its just a
question of whether it's sitting on top of the bulkhead and
therefore has a little lift or it's directly on.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So accordingly there should not be a problem
if an elevation sketch were rendered to Mr. Verity so he could
confirm basically what your conversations are. Because we are
getting caught between this, the file gets additions by year on
year with Ms. Shannon, we would like to close it out and we
Board of Trustees 37 January 18, 2017
understand she would like the use of her property.
MS. MOORE: Yes, she would. That's fine. We drew it, actually
who was with me at the time? Mike, were you there?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I was there.
MS. MOORE: I thought so, yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: If we could have a set of plans with side
elevation showing that. And we would go a long ways toward
rectifying the situation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And qualification of the top down ten feet
is met according to the, if you want to call it, the check off
that goes back to Amanda Nunemaker's review. So basically we
can close it out and we can approve subject to submission of
plans that allow for the final verification by the Building
Department officials, so we are not pushing something through
that ends up with issues with our brethren around the corner.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I mean -- all right. Are there any
additional questions, comments, concerns?
(Negative response).
I make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to approve the application as
submitted and dated into the Trustee office October 14, 2016,
subject to an elevation drawing to be reviewed by the Principal
Building Inspector or his representative that confirms that the
deck will in fact meet the requirements of being flush and that
--flush with the retaining wall, and that the ten-foot side
yard setback requirement for the deck is honored.
MS. MOORE: I just want to clarify, when you say elevation
drawing and I say cross-section, are they the same thing?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Cross-section and elevation, yes, same
thing. So that at a quick glance of Mr. Verity he'll be able to
see you have stuff at grade, passing the lawnmower test.
MS. MOORE: Yes. Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's my motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion is made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
RECEIVED
4 � e
MA - 3 2011 Michael J. Domino, President
a� n Board of Trustees
So hold Town Clerk