HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-02/15/2017 Michael J.Domino,President ®F sou, Town Hall Annex�®� ®�®
John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President 54375 Route 25
P.O.Box 1179
Charles J.Sanders Southold,New York 11971
Glenn Goldsmith ® a®� Telephone(631) 765-1892
A.Nicholas Krupski ®�yC®U Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEE_ S
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Minutes
Wednesday, February-15, 2017
5:30 PM
Present Were: Michael J. Domino, President
John M. Bredemeyer, Vice-President
Charles J. Sanders, Trustee
Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist s'
Damon Hagan, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:,Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 5:30 PM
WORK SESSIONS: Monday, March 20, 2017 at 4:30 PM at Downs Farm, and on
Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of January 18, 2017.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Good evening, and welcome to our February 15th
monthly meeting.
At this time I would like to introduce the people on the dais.
Starting to my extreme left, Trustee Krupski, Trustee Goldsmith,
Trustee Sanders; Vice-President of the Board, Trustee
Bredemeyer; and to my right, our counsel Damon Hagan; and our
secretary is Elizabeth Cantrell, and our able stenographer.
- Agendas are located at the lecterns and out in the hall.
And I also want to mention there are some postponements. It
would be a shame if you sat through the meeting and realize what
you were here for is postponed.
So if you notice, on page seven, under Roman numeral VIII,
number two, Michael Kimack on behalf of SOUNDFRONT HOLDINGS, LLC
request an Amendment to Wetland Permit#8047 and Coastal Erosion
Board of Trustees 2 February 15, 2017
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
23 sq. ft. top landing and a 24.5 sq. ft. bottom landing; replaced
collapsed brick patio with as-built 176 sq. ft. natural irregular
shaped bluestone patio between dwelling and top retaining wall;
as-built 73 sq. ft. lower tier bluestone patio; as-built wire
fencing along top retaining wall; added fill to terraced areas;
a ±450 sq. ft. sandy beach area landward of stone bulkhead;
revegetated void areas with American beach grass and rosa rugosa.
Located: 20275 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-8,
has been postponed.
On page eight, under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits,
number one is Docko, Inc. on behalf of BRIM FISHERS ISLAND
TRUST, clo JOHN BRIM requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to construct a 4'wide by+/-181 linear foot long
fixed wood pile and timber pier; a 3.5'x20' ramp; an 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, is postponed.
Moving further along on the agenda; items 15 through 20 on
page 12 have all been postponed, and 21 on page 13 has been
postponed. They are listed as follows:
Number 15, En-Consultants on behalf of STEPHEN & CHARLOTTE
WAGNER request a Wetland Permit to construct an elevated fixed
timber dock consisting of a 4'x49' (196 sq. ft.)fixed timber catwalk with
a seasonal 4'x12' access ramp at its landward end; a 3'x14' seasonal
hinged ramp; a 6'x20' seasonal floating dock secured by two (2) 2-pile
10" diameter dolphins; and two (2) 10" diameter tie-off pilings located
approximately 16 feet to north of floating dock.
Located: 20 Harbor River Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-24-1-11.
Number 16, Todd O'Connell, Architect, P.C. on behalf of
GEORGE ROCKLEIN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
174 sq. ft. addition to the seaward side of the existing 1 & 1/2
story dwelling with attached garage; construct a 1,264 sq. ft.
Board of Trustees 3 February 15, 2017
second story addition over existing first story and first story
addition; construct a 41 sq. ft. front portico; and to install a
115sq.ft. concrete platform and steps to grade off of dwelling.
Located: 875 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-63-7-31.1.
Number 17, 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.
Number 18, Shawn M. Barron, M.S. on behalf of PETER HAACK
requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story dwelling and
attached garage with a footprint of 1,369 sq. ft.; construct a
94 sq. ft. deck against the seaward side of dwelling; install a
new sanitary system landward of dwelling; install gutters to
leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff; and to install a driveway.
Located: 700 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-12-10
Number 19. 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
Number 20, 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 21, Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of
IOANNIS ZOUMAS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x46'
open-grate catwalk with 4'wide access stairs at landward end;
proposed catwalk to be supported by(12) 12" diameter piles and
elevated a minimum of 2.5' over grade/MHW; a proposed 3'x15'
adjustable ramp; and a proposed 6'x20'floating dock chocked 18"
off the bottom of the creek, and secured with (2) 12" diameter float piles.
Located: 5310 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-138-2-15
Those items have all been postponed.
I want to draw your attention at this time to Section 8(c)
of Chapter 275 which states that the files are closed seven days
prior to the hearing, that the submission of paperwork after
that point may in fact hold up the processing of the application.
At this time I'll take a motion to have the next field
inspection on March 14th, 2017, at 8:00 AM.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The next Trustees meeting, I'll entertain a
motion to hold it March 22nd, 2017, at 5:30. Is there a motion?
4
Board of Trustees 4 February 15, 2017
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like a motion to hold the next
work session at Downs Farm on March 20th, 2017, at 4:30 PM, and
on Wednesday, March 22nd, 2017, at 5:00 PM at the main meeting
hall. Is there a motion?
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 January 18, 2017.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for January 2017. A check for
$24,074.57 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the
General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for
review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold
hereby finds that the following applications more fully
described in Section VIII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee
agenda dated Wednesday, February 15, 2017, are classified as
Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are
not subject to further review under SEQRA:
Peter Haack- SCTM - 1000-115-12-10
Dekka; LLC, c/o Christian Baiz- SCTM# 1000-56-5-1.3
Paradise Point Association, c/o Douglas Ciampa SCTM#
1000-81-1-16.10 & 16.11
Estate of Grace R. Lewis, c/o Tom Lucak-SCTM# 1000-66-2-39
Lisa Gillooly- SCTM# 1000-27-4-7
Bexstoren, LLC-SCTM# 1000-66-3-1
Breese Property Trust- SCTM# 1000-70-6-24
John & Margaret Krepp & Richard & Dorothy Rom - SCTM#
1000-57-2-42.8
George Rocklein - SCTM# 1000-63-7-31.1
John & Maureen Hurley- SCTM# 1000-107-7-10
Board of Trustees 5 February 15, 2017
Randi &Alfred Silber- STM# 1000-104-7-10
Carolyn Ameen - SCTM# 1000-115-11-4.1
loannis Zoumas-SCTM# 1000-138-2-15
Todd Freed & Edith Webster-Freed - SCTM# 1000-116-6-12.1 & 12.2
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second the motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town
of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more
fully described in Section VIII Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, February 15, 2017, are
classified as Unlisted Actions-Negative Decision pursuant to
SEQRA Rules and Regulations. A Long Environmental Assessment
Form and a field inspection have been completed by the Trustees
for the following applications and it is hereby determined that
they will not have a significant effect on the environment:
Stephen & Charlotte Wagner- SCTM# 1000-24-1-11
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO NEW
YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT NYCCR PART 617:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral IV, Environmental
Declaration of Significance pursuant to New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act NYCCR, Part 617.
Okay, number one, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: 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
Moving down to S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with
this project having visited the site on February 7, 2017, and
having considered plans for this proposed dock at their February
13, 2017 Work Session.
WHEREAS, in reviewing the project plans dated December 19, 2016,
it has been determined by the Board of Trustees that all
potentially significant environmental concerns have been
addressed and noted herein:
Navigation: The proposed dock meets standards and does not
extend beyond 113 across the waterbody. Depths for the dock
Board of Trustees 6 February 15, 2017
terminus are within Town Trustees, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, and United States Army Corps. Of
Engineers guidelines and there is no recognized Federal/New York
State/Town navigation channel in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed structure.
Scope: The proposed dock is comparable to docks on neighboring
properties.
Toxicity: To protect the waters of Peconic Bay the dock's
decking shall be constructed entirely of non-toxic materials.
Scope in relation to the riparian rights of shellfishers: The
plan allows a standard piling design that will not impede access
for small vessels at low tide and those seeking shellfish and
crustaceans on foot in season. It does not diminish riparian
rights to harvest beneficial marine organisms.
Scope in relation to rights of small human powered watercraft to
navigate waters adjacent to the proposed structures: At low tide
a kayak might be able to paddle beneath this and other docks in
the area. As the fetch from the south and the southeast of the
proposed dock is approximately one mile and can result in waves
of 2-3 feet, a kayaker cognizant of the need to sail within the
limits of their personal capabilities would not find navigation
around the proposed dock to be dangerous or a challenge.
Environmental upkeep: The dock design projects a lifespan of 30
years, and with limited pile replacement minimizes bottom disturbance.
Therefore, according to the foregoing, the Southold Town Board
of Trustees Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of
Negative Declaration pursuant to SEQRA for the aforementioned project.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: In order to facilitate an orderly meeting and
not dwell on items that are minor in nature and/or action, the
Board sometimes groups together items to expedite approval, and
since they are not subject to public hearing, I would, under
Roman numeral V, I would like to group together items one, three
and four. They are listed as follows:
Number one, Michael Kimack on behalf of SOUNDFRONT
HOLDINGS, LLC requests an Administrative Permit for the as-built
100.8 sq. ft. front porch; and as-built 35 sq. ft. Bilco door on the dwelling.
Located: 20275 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-514-8
Number three, AMELIA MENDOZA requests an Administrative
Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to hand-prune the
vegetation landward of the top of bluff to not less than 3' in
height with hand removal of invasive autumn olive and multiflora
rose without ground disturbance. Located: 38015 Route 25,
Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-2-15.8
And number four, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of
EDMOND FRANCO requests an Administrative Permit to conduct
Board of Trustees 7 February 15, 2017
construction activities and land disturbance within Trustees
jurisdiction for a proposed swimming pool and pool deck; and to
construct a deck connected to the seaward side of proposed pool
deck with 10'wide stairs to grade, and 6'wide stairs that lead
down to pool equipment storage area under the deck; install a
14'6"x15'6" trellis on deck; and for a 3'2"x5'4" outdoor shower.
Located: 15919 Main Road, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-23-1-8.1
1 make that as a motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number two, East End Spa Service, LLC on
behalf of REGINA PAOLILLO requests an Administrative Permit to
install a 15'x33' on-grade bluestone patio with a 9'x12.8'wood decking
area level with bluestone patio that will hold a 6.4'x7.5' hot tub located on
the seaward side of dwelling.
Located: 3270 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-128-6-8
The Board has reviewed its procedures with respect to this
project, and based on field inspection we found that we did not
have sufficient information with respect to the hot tub, and
needs a set of plans. It was not staked. And so the Board feels
that the hot tub, unless it's a fill-and-draw hot tub that has limited water use,
it probably should have an associated drywell.
Accordingly, I would move to table this application for
submission of plans for the hot tub and associated drywell.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONSITRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Again, as with items that are administrative in
nature and on the agenda under Roman numeral VI, I move we
approve as a group items one through five and seven through ten.
That's my motion. They are listed as follows:
Number one, MARK D. KING requests a One-year Extension to
Wetland Permit#687, as issued on October 4, 1971, to Wetland
Permit#993, as issued on October 1, 1973, and both Amended on
March 18, 2015. Located: 220 East Mill Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000106-4-5
Number two, KAREN DADOURIAN requests a One-year Extension
to Wetland Permit#8568, as issued on February 18, 2015, and
Amended on March 23, 2016. Located: 2670 Deep Hole Drive,
Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-4-10
Number three, Patricia E. McIntyre on behalf of the NEW
SUFFOLK WATERFRONT FUND requests the Last One-year Extension to
Wetland Permit#8378, as issued on March 19, 2014, and Amended
on April 23, 2014, and Amended again on May 21, 2014. Located:
650 First Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-8-18
Board of Trustees 8 February 15, 2017
Number four, Patricia C. Moore; Esq. on behalf of RANDI &
ALFRED SILBER request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#3995 from
Grace Kaufman to Randi &Alfred Silber, as issued on March 27, 1992.
Located: 1570 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-7-10
Number five, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of RANDI &
ALFRED SILBER request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#4750 from
Grace Kaufmann to Randi &Alfred Silber, as issued on June 16, 1997.
Located: 1570 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-7-10
Number seven, JOSEPH PEDICINI requests a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#4435 from Robert Melchione to Joseph Pedicini,
as issued on April 27, 1995, and Amended on August 31 ,
1995. Located: 1130 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-1-8
Number eight, JOSEPH PEDICINI requests a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#4442 from Robert Melchione to Joseph Pedicini,
as issued on April 27, 1995. Located: 1 130 Oak Avenue,
Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-1-8
Number nine, Docko, Inc. on behalf of MARK FRANKLIN
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#8860 from Harrington
Family Limited Partnership, c/o David Harrington to Mark
Franklin, as issued on August 17, 2016; and for a Transfer of
Coastal Erosion Management Permit#8860C from Harrington Family
Limited Partnership, c/o David Harrington to Mark Franklin, as
issued by Town Board Appeal Approval on November
22, 2016. Located: Private Road on Clay Point Road, Fishers
Island. SCTM# 1000-2-112.2
Number ten, James F. Jackson on behalf of 1625 INDIAN NECK
HOLDING CORP. requests a Transfer of Administrative Permit
#8231A, from Margaret Hallden to 1625 Indian Neck Holding Corp.,
as issued on June 19, 2013; and for an Administrative Amendment
to Administrative Permit#8231A to modify the as-built
dimensions of the dwelling and garage to be a 55.5'wide by 37'
long dwelling with a landward bump-out of 22.1'wide by 13' long
for the attached garage, and a 14.1'wide by 9.5' deep seaward
bump-out for a new first floor total square footage of 2,474.70
with a 875sq.ft. covered porch on seaward side. Located: 1625
Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-5-8.1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number six, JOSEPH PEDICINI requests a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#944 from Robert J. &Alfred
Melchione to Joseph Pedicini, as issued on June 4, 1973, and
Amended on August 31, 1995, and Amended again on November 25,
1996. Located: 1130 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-1-8
The Board, in performing the field inspection on February
17th, Charles Sanders was the inspecting Trustee, and because
the existing float exceeds the current standards of a 6x20
float, nominally, the Board in reviewing the file has determined
that it would be appropriate to stipulate that the transfer that
is stipulated, that upon the useful life of this float that a
Board of Trustees 9 February 15, 2017
subsequent float replacement be brought into standard for a 6x20
float or the equivalent 120-square feet of total float
dimension. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number eleven, En-Consultants on behalf of
WALTER & PAULINE SCHARPF requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit
#2100 from Barry W. Lehr to Walter& Pauline Scharpf, as issued
on December 26, 1985; and for an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit#2100 to reflect in detail the existing
structures consisting of a ±122.5' (±72' plus ±505)total
length of existing primary bulkhead; the existing ±9' easterly
return; the existing westerly return which consists of four(4)
sections having lengths (north to south) of±9', ±85, ±2.5'
and ±95; and the existing 2.5'x4.5'wood platform and 2.5'
wide steps located adjacent to the westerly return.
Located: 15 Sun Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-76-1-1
Trustee Sanders performed the field inspection on the 13th
of February. The Board reviewed this matter at its Monday night
work session. The Board determined that the transfer of the
permit is not an issue, that the Board would approve the subject
stairs and the associated bulkhead return with the stairs as an
as-built permit in conformity with the licensed land survey of
John Metzger dated December 27th, 2016. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 12, MICHAEL J. CONFUSIONE requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8861 to modify the
fixed dock piles to be 8" diameter pilings installed eight feet
apart in lieu of 5" diameter pilings installed five feet apart;
and for the use of IPE natural wood decking in lieu of Thru-How
composite decking. Located: 1605 Westview Drive, Mattituck.
SCTM# 1000-107-7-9.
Trustee Goldsmith did a field inspection on this on
February 7 --correction. Trustee Goldsmith took the notes.
didn't recognize the handwriting. All the Trustees were there
for this field inspection and we determined that this is an area
of high energy and ice in the wintertime, and that eight-inch
diameter pilings is probably a good idea. However, to promote
bottom growth, we were in favor of through-flow composite
decking on the entire project.
So accordingly, I make a motion to approve this application
noting that we require through-flow decking the entire way.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 10 February 15, 2017
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 14, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of YOLANDA
KANES-ESPOSITO requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit#8763 and Coastal Erosion Permit#8763C for the as-built
construction of two (2) upper timber 65' long by 6' high retaining walls with
helical anchors in lieu of two (2) vinyl retaining walls along the bluff face;
and for the as-built set of 4'wide bluff stairs consisting of a 4'x4' upper
platform with 4'x35' steps down to upper middle retaining wall; three (3)
set of 4'x4' landings with 4'wide by 10' long stairs down off of each
retaining wall; and one (1) set of beach access stairs off of the bulkhead,
all of which was constructed in lieu of originally proposed set of bluff stairs.
Located: 20205 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-7
The Board of Trustees did an inspection, again, on February
7th, and the notes indicate that the general tenure is that this
is okay to proceed with a transfer of this as the structure
matched the description.
I make a motion to approve this application.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. RESOLUTIONS OTHER:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under Resolutions other, one, two and three
represent resolutions that are curative of some prior Trustee
permits and conditions associated with a dock in that vicinity.
Starting with the first one:
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees hereby
separate portions of the approved structures under Wetland
Permit#4818, as issued on November 5, 1997, and Amended on
November 5, 1999, in order to create Wetland Permit#4818A
specifically for the existing 3'x27' catwalk, a 3'x10' ramp, and
a 12'x20' "L" shaped float; and Wetland Permit#4818B
specifically for the existing 42' bulkhead, a 20' long bulkhead
at the end of the catwalk, a 6"x61' retaining wall, an 18"x37'
retaining wall, a 30"x45' retaining wall, and a 12" to 18"x96'
retaining wall, which are to be under new property owner names
and property tax map numbers for each portion of said permit.
I would move that, to approve the separation of these items
to conform with land use and ownership requirements of prior
permits.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number two, GARDINERS BAY ESTATES
HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION requests a Transfer of a portion of
Wetland Permit#4818A, specifically the existing 3'x27' catwalk; a
3'x10' ramp; and a 12'x20' "L" shaped float from Richard &
Judith DiBlasi to Gardiners Bay Estates Home Owners Association,
as issued on November 5, 1997, and Amended on September 22, 1999.
Located: End of Dogwood Lane in Spring Pond, East Marion.
Board of Trustees 11 February 15, 2017
SCTM# 1000-37-4-17 & 23
1 would move to approve.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Finally, the third of this series, which is
curative of separating the responsibilities and permit
ownership. This is Paul C. Goleb on behalf of PAUL C. GOLEB
REVOCABLE TRUST& DIANE M. GOLEB REVOCABLE TRUST
requests a Transfer of a portion of Wetland Permit#48186, specifically
the existing 42' bulkhead, a 20' long bulkhead at the end of the catwalk;
a 6"x61 ' retaining wall; an 18"x37' retaining wall; a 30"x45' retaining wall;
and a 12" to 18"x96' retaining wall from Richard & Judith DiBlasi to
Paul C. Goleb Revocable Trust & Diane M. Goleb Revocable Trust,
as issue on November 5, 1997, and Amended on September 22, 1999.
Located: 360 Bayview Drive, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-37-41.
So moved.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just to those of you who are totally
confused at what happened, the Trustees have an historic
ownership in lands underwater in some 22 creeks, depending on
how you count them, in the Town. Spring Pond in East Marion,
apparently through its genesis, has its ownership of underwater
lands that are ascribed to private owners in the adjacent area
and the homeowner association, and prior agreements between
upland land owners who had acquired the rights to wharf out and
access to the waterfront were written with the Gardiners Bay
Property Owners Association, and therefore when the properties
transfer, this is all following in agreement with prior
property-based agreements between the upland owners. And
Trustees have found the in-water structures totally comply with
the specifics of the construction standards that we have for
docks in all town waters.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you. At this time I'll make a motion to go
off our regular meeting agenda and enter into the public
hearings.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I have a motion and a second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to reiterate, please keep your
comments brief and relevant to the application at hand.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number one, in the matter of HAROLD J. BAER
requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#6170 to construct a
Board of Trustees 12 February 15, 2017
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
This application was inspected by the Trustees on February
7th and then subsequently on field inspection last Monday. The
Board has noted that the neighboring docks in this creek don't
extend much beyond the wetland fringe, and that the depths
requested by the applicant, excuse me, the extension of 40 feet
requested by the applicant is not really curative. Depths in
this creek, the Trustee president did an extensive review of
Google Earth maps, and found that there is essentially no
navigation channel in this creek, and based on the fact I think
on at least two of the visits that the Board was there, we found
that the depth at the end of the dock was essentially in
fractional inches or no water at all.
For the purposes intended and for usefulness of the dock,
usually there is some notion that a vessel that is capable of
navigating the adjacent waters and channels, if there is one, is
appropriate. In this case, the Board discussed this at length at
several field inspections and work session last week and feel
this creek is really not conducive to large motorized vessels,
and accordingly, provisions should be allowed to allow a modest
extension to be somewhat discussed here to allow for a kayak or
small rowboat to get into waters. But it can't be something
that has any substantial draft, and it can't be considered an
application to provide for motorized sail or any kind of a sail
boat with any kind of a keel.
I see that the CAC is resolved to support the existing
extension.
I know that on the several visits, the Trustees went
here, according to the tidal change its difficult to discern,
but by the final visit we were definitely convinced the
application as applied for is a bit excessive to meet the needs
of small boat use.
At this time I'll open this application up for anyone who
wants to speak on behalf of this application.
MS. BAER: I'm Dorothy Baer, 1425 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck.
thought we clearly stated that we have no motorized intention of
any vessel going onto this creek. And as it now exists, we
can't even get a kayak or a rubber raft out because the water
levels have so receded.
All the other docks on that creek are at a certain point
except for ours. Everybody comes out, if you drew a line, you
would find them all coming to the same point, except ours, which
is very recessed because of where we were allowed to go
initially. And I don't know why we should be penalized for--
the person to our right who just put a new dock in, extended
again out to this point where all the others have lined up, and
we are being penalized not to have that extension granted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes
Board of Trustees 13 February 15, 2017
to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
The Board did --
MR. BAER: Harold Baer. I would like to speak. When we put this
dock in, at the end of the dock was six inches of water, which
is good enough to get a kayak in. Shortly after we put the dock
in, Suffolk County decided to dredge the entrance way to our
creek, and as a result we now have no water at the end of the
dock at low water. So what we would like to do is just to get
out another 40 feet. It would put us into about six inches of
water, which is what we had when we put the dock in. And that's
all we are asking for. And I don't see why that's a problem. We
are asking for a dock that's 40 feet by four feet. That's 160
square feet of coverage over this huge creek. I don't see why
that's a problem.
In fact, as I recall, Mr. Bredemeyer, you and several of
your associates came out to look at our property way back in
September, and seemed to me at that time you all agreed there
was a problem here and the only way to solve the problem would
be extend the dock. I wanted 48 feet. I believe you said 40
feet. And think that was appropriate.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Just to clear up one thing. At this time we are
not saying it's not going to be extended at all. Its just the
current length is what we are concerned with.
MR. BAER: Excuse me, what's the problem with the length?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Actually, since I'm sort of holding the
hearing and opening this matter, we are not really going to
debate with the Board. At this point, Mr. Baer, if you want to
voice additional concerns to the Board, then I think I would
request we open it up for Board discussion, because some of this
relates also to observations that the Board made after the
September meeting where we also saw different tidal states. So
if you have additional concerns, we would be glad to hear them.
MR. BAER: I think my five minutes are up, but I would like to
hear what you have to say.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: According to the plans that you had, whether
it went out four feet or 40 feet, there was no difference in the
depth of the water. If you went out four feet, according to the
plans that were submitted to us, you would have an extra six
inches of water. That same six inches of water is at 40 feet
out. So really, whether it goes out four feet or 40 feet, you
still have the same water depth.
And with your neighbors' docks, basically they all end at
the fringe of the wetlands. Unfortunately you are in a little
bit of a hollow, but your dock ends at the fringe of the
wetlands just like your neighbors' docks do. So.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our code states that we follow a specific pier
line. A pier line is not a straight line, and it follows the contour of the marsh.
MS. BAER: But it's amazing how they are all extended to that
point because of the water levels. We are the only ones penalized.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There was some discussion amongst the Board
Board of Trustees 14 February 15, 2017
that a reasonable distance out, say in a range of ten feet, give
or take, and with an accommodation and a modification of the
current plan, that would allow for a step on the side of the
dock so that the user of the dock could easily launch a kayak
from the side of the dock, then go on to the step and then
carefully and safely launch a kayak to the side would allow for
additional depth.
Based on the shallowness on at least two of the visits, the
Board felt the existing steps you have at the terminus would be
an unsafe entry, would bury the nose of the kayak or canoe and
provide difficulties for somebody trying to have utility for the
waterway. I think we are cognizant of the fact, the Board
discussed the issue of dredging the entry of the creek. That's
good because it provides flushing and improves the health of the
creek, it diminishes the propensity for mosquito breeding, which
is a public health problem. So, the good news is you have a
better and healthier creek, that can change that. So I think the
general feeling was, for the Board to hammer out, we never
finalized an amount to go out, but we felt it was not
unreasonable to have a small extension out and consider a plan
of your choosing that you could submit to the Board for review
that would allow for a stepdown on the side so an individual
could launch a kayak from the side, get down safely, and launch
the kayak for navigation.
But observationally, to a man, the Board found that there
was essentially four to six inches from the end of the dock to
the distance that you sought in the permit, and we felt based on
what we saw in the field and our discussions on our work session
that this was inappropriate because we understood for the
purpose intended and for the size of the waters, a rowboat or a
kayak is totally appropriate, but extending further into the
creek gave you no more utility and no more safety to acquire that.
MR. BAER: Excuse me, I disagree. You said if we do go out
another 40 feet into the water, we will have approximately six
inches of water.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are not--this is not a debating
society. I appreciate your comments.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comment or comments from the Trustees, I'll
make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application with the extension of no more than 12 feet beyond
the existing catwalk, and the submission of plans for an altered
entry either through a step, with the removal of the existing
steps, or leaving the existing steps in place.
That's my motion, basically, to extend 12 feet and use or
Board of Trustees 15 February 15, 2017
not use the existing steps based on an alternate plan received
in the Trustee office.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded. All in
favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay, number one under Wetland Permits, 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 floating dock.
Located: 915 Bungalow Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-3-1 1.1
On February 7, all the Trustees were present and we
inspected this property. The notes indicate that the 25-feet
extension is within the pier line, the float is in a "T"
configuration.
The LWRP program have found this inconsistent and their
notes are as follows: The applicant 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 parcel are not in place; even so, the
proposed dock extends past the dock to the west; the purpose of
their extending the 66-foot long dock structure to water depths
past 2.5 feet has not been identified; the tidal period of the
water depths are not identified; the proposed vessel to be
moored at the dock has not been identified.
That was actually January 18th. We received a plot plan on
February 6th, 2017. It actually depicts the structure as well
as the water depth. Is there anybody here on behalf of the
applicant who would like to speak?
MR. COLE: My name is Chris Cole, Cole Environmental Services,
here to answer any of your questions.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: We have a lot of people, anybody else?
(Negative response).
Any thoughts from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The plans that were submitted were in
conformity with the prior inspection and at the request of the
Board; is that correct?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, new plans were submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mike addressed the inconsistency.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Yes, I'll do that.
I think the one thing I forgot to mention was the CAC has
resolved to support this. I apologize, I forgot to read that.
Okay, I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 16 February 15, 2017
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to accept the application
and deal with inconsistencies. By granting application for this
dock extension and referencing the plot plan with depths
received on 6 February, 2017, this will bring this into
compliance with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded. All in
favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. COLE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number two, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting
on behalf of CAROLYN AMEEN requests a Wetland Permit to remove
the existing fixed dock, ramp, floating dock and piles; and
construct a 4'x88' fixed dock with the first 25' of the,landward
end to be constructed using Thru-Flow decking; a 2.5'x12'
adjustable ramp; and a floating dock in an "L" configuration
secured with two float piles. Located: 755 Lupton Point Road,
Mattituck. SCTM# 10001 15-1 1-4.1
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on February 17th,
had some questions in regard to the pier line as depicted on the
plans. Also questioned about possibly scaling it back. There is
plenty of water depth to dial this back.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies
are a permit for the dock proposed to be replaced could not be
found. The proposed vessel to be moored at the dock has not been
identified. The proposed dock structure will extend further into
public trust waters. The applicant currently enjoys access to
public water via an existing private dock structure, incremental
and segmented extensions of permanent private dock structures
into public trust waters does not meet this policy.
We did receive a number of letters in regard to this
application. All the letters that we receive we give the same
credence as public testimony. So I'm going to paraphrase them,
I'll probably butcher it, but I'll paraphrase it' But just know
that we do read it in full and give it the same consideration as
we do with public testimony.
The first letter we have here is from Edward Hanus, Sr. He
questions the distance between the neighboring docks and the
proposed dock. Also questions if you have a 6x20'float you
could put a larger boat at the end, further reducing the
distance between the two docks. The property is for sale and
they are thinking that it's the only reason they are going for
this dock. Also questions that this dock infringes on the
extension of his property line. There is not a hardship to move
the dock toward the middle of the property. And overall he
strenuously objects to the size and placement of this dock proposal.
We also have a letter from Jerry Diffley who is also on the
neighboring dock saying the same thing about the distance'
between the two docks. It will also impede on his navigation
Board of Trustees 17 February 15, 2017
from his dock if his dock is allowed to be constructed. And
again, that the property is for sale. So that was from Jerry.Diffley.
We also have a letter from Nancy and Hank Loeffler, pretty
much saying the same things about the distance between the two
docks and how it would be a navigation hazard.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on this application?
MR. JUST: Good evening, my name is Glenn Just, JMO Consulting,
if there are any questions from the Board.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
MR. HANUS, JR.: I'm Edward Hanus, Jr. The three letters,you
received, the dock next to it is a joint dock, it's been there
over 40 years. Unfortunately two of the.letters, the gentlemen
are out of town, and my father is unable to be here tonight, so
I'm here to answer any questions and voice our concerns. The
drawing has it 15 feet away from the existing dock and with the "T"
at the end, floating dock at the end would make it closer. And
our concern is that it crosses, it's hard to tell by the,
drawing, but it crosses one property line, possibly two property
lines, because our dock is on a right-of-way down to the water
which three houses share, and it's only 15 feet. So the proposed
dock would cut across most likely both property lines. And 45
years ago they had to receive, get a letter from the neighbor to
cross the property line, to have that one dock put in. So those
are the concerns with that.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Is there anyone else here who
wishes to speak regarding this application?
(No response).
Any comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
The question we had is why does it need to go out that far when
you have plenty of water depth further back?
MR. JUST: I have to disagree about the water depths. If you look
at the photographs, the current float sits on the bottom. There
is 1.75 feet and then 2.15 feet just seaward of the existing
float. Anyone who wants to use this dock would not be able to
use it during periods of low tide or maybe two or three hours on
either side of low tide. Any boat that we tie to that dock would
also sit on the bottom, which creates a disturbance to the
bottom, the benthic plants; and basically what we are trying to
do is just get the dock into compliance, get it a little further
out to the minimum amount of depth of water where the float
would not sit on the bottom during low tide causing disturbance,
where the dock could be used 24/7.
1 understand because the way the property lines cut out
into the creek there, it's a tight fit. There is no discussion
about that whatsoever. The way that I laid this proposal out was
based on a letter from the Trustees, I think it was August 17th
of last year, where they asked me to try to create a pier line
from the float to the south to the float to the north, I think
it's Mr. Hanus. And we just tried to squeeze it in. And
Board of Trustees 18 February 15, 2017
'realize it's a very, very tight squeeze between the,proposed
dock,and the existing dock to the north.
The float that I proposed could be relocated to make an "L"
instead of a "T", giving it maybe 24 feet instead of 17 or 18
feet that it's showing now.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: What depth are you referring to in terms of the
float?
MR. JUST: I think all the current, the DEC, Trustees, you folks,
want two to two-and-a-half feet of water under' a float so there
is no disturbance on the bottom. And that's the reason for
extending the dock.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So according to the'plans that you submitted
on January 9th, 2017, if you dial that dock back approximately
35 feet, you have your two-and-a-half foot water depth.
MR. JUST: Beg your pardon?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: With the plans you submitted on January 9th,
2017, you have the water depths next to the dock.
MR. JUST: At 3.5 feet to the float.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. But if you scale back all the way, you can
see halfway down that dock you have that two-and-a-half foot
water depth.
MR. JUST: Again, when I laid this out, it was based on the
Trustees different inspections of the site and their report back
to me. We could definitely cut this back to 60 feet, the fixed
dock. From 88 feet. And that would give the end of the dock at
between 2.2 and 2.5 feet of water. And with a ramp and dock at
an "L" instead of on a -- I don't want to call it a "T" but it's
like an almost"T", that would give us sufficient depth to pull
a boat in without damaging the bottom, without the float sitting
on the bottom, and it also would increase the width between the
neighboring dock to the north to perhaps 24 feet.
know that Mr. Hanus' letter had asked for 25: We can go to 24.
The.only other change that we could possibly do is remove the
entire structure that is there now and perhaps,move it over six
feet to the south, do the same 60 foot stick dock with a ramp
and float at the end, with an "L", would give us sufficient
depth, and that would give us 30 feet between the two docks.
This is something I didn't take into consideration because I
didn't realize the concerns of the neighbors, I didn't meet with
them or discuss it with them. I didn't really have any
conversations with the homeowner as far as discussions he had
with the adjacent neighbors either. So all I'm trying to do is
get a dock that somebody can use, that doesn't sit on the bottom.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's probably not entirely apparent to you
but in the prior history of Board inspection there, we also
found that there were excessively large pilings installed
underneath the existing structure to rehabilitate it, that are
probably marginally outside the scope of activities that would
be allowed. And of course there is no permit there. So I'm
seeing a lot of heads nodding to my left, to your right. And
actually was I think on the Board when the original Hanus dock'
Board of Trustees 19 February 15, 2017
was approved. So I don't think it was quite that far back,
but it was the last century.
MR. JUST: I'm not going to be argumentative here, but I think it
was on a right-of-way at that time, and the right-of-way has now
been purchased by Mr. Hanus.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With respect to the inconsistencies by the
LWRP, our LWRP document is overly-weighted against an individual
and well-established right to wharf out. It's one of those
common law rights that we fought the crown over, and as the
oldest town in the state, we have a stake in maintaining our
riparian rights of both moving along the foreshore but also
wharfing out. And so I think what I'm hearing here, I don't
know how the rest of the Board feels, I think this would address
the inconsistency, and also, let's face it, the gentlemen who
share a dock cooperatively, that's something we don't see very
often now. So we want to accommodate the neighbors because they
are doing the right thing. I remember as a kid I loved the fact
I could use neighbor's dock. I didn't have the where with all to
have a dock. So I have to sort of make the pitch, it sounds
good, but should be subject to plans and additional review.
MR. JUST: Quite frankly, before I saw the letters from the
adjacent homeowners, I didn't realize it was shared by three
different owners, I didn't realize it was three different boats
on the dock. They set their boats up on the south side of the
dock, I know it's a tight fit on the north side because they
have the float at the end. I'm willing to revise the project to
make it a little more --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Any other comments?
(Negative response).
I make a motion to table this waiting for new plans depicting
moving the dock and shortening it.
MR. JUST: I'm more than happy to do that.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded. All in
favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number three, BREESE PROPERTY TRUST
requests a Wetland Permit to demolish a portion of the east wing and
attached garage to the existing 2,668 sq. ft. one-story dwelling;
reconstruct a slightly larger east wing and garage for a
combined new footprint of 3,480 sq. ft. Located: 3689 Pine Neck
Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-6-24
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent and asked
that the Board consider a non-disturbance vegetated buffer with
beneficial plants landward of the wood bulkhead.
The CAC resolved to support this application.
The Trustees visited this property on the 7th. There were
no major issues'found, but we questioned if the sanitary is
being updated and worked on, and its location, as well as the
Board of Trustees 20 February 15, 2017
plans do not depict gutters to leaders to drywells.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
(Negative response).
Any comments from the Board?
MR. BREESE: Peter Breese, I'm here representing the owner.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you would stay there for one minute, then.
Will the sanitary be updated and where is it located.
MR. BREESE: The sanitary is on the street side. It is a septic
system connected to the house. It's a four-bedroom system. if it
passes inspection in terms of we are not adding any bedrooms, so
the bedroom count will still be four; and if it meets the
requirements, we intend to keep it as is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, then just on the plans, we typically want
to see the drainage, so gutters to leaders to drywells on a new
set of plans. Does that satisfy everyone?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Definitely.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, thank you. 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
following the submission of new plans showing the septic and
gutters and leaders to drywells.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of JOHN &
MARGARET KREPP AND RICHARD & DOROTHY ROM request a Wetland
Permit to remove existing with 8'x1 0'fixed catwalk and
platform; and replace with a proposed 4'x28'fixed catwalk with
a 10'x12'fixed platform at seaward end for an overall length of
38', and using Thru-Flow decking on the 4'x28' section over the
vegetated wetlands. Located: 1235 Island View Lane, Greenport.
SCTM# 1000-57-2-42.8
The Trustees did a field inspection on the 7th and noted
that it should have, for environmental and safety reasons,
through-flow on all surfaces.
And the LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency arises from the fact that no permit for the
structures could be found.
And the CAC voted unanimously to support this application.
Is anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. And I have
comments from the DEC that would address the through-flow
decking on the entire structure. So we were going to modify the
for the DEC stating the same.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Very good. Is there anyone else that wishes to
speak to this application?
Board of Trustees 21 February 15, 2017
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions or comments from the Board?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve the application noting that there
will be through-flow on all surfaces.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number five, Patricia
C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of JOHN & MAUREEN HURLEY request a
Wetland Permit to replace existing damaged sanitary system with
a new sanitary system installed no closer than 50' landward of
the bulkhead. Located: 1535 Westview Drive, Mattituck.
SCTM# 1000-107-7-10
This application was viewed to be consistent with the LWRP,
achieving a greater setback to wetland existing, as an upgraded
system will provide higher degree of water treatment.
The CAC has voted to support this application.
The Board inspected the property on February 7th and
additionally felt that in this case, although its closer to the
wetlands than we might otherwise like, the application is
complicated due to the applicant's inability to move the
proposed sanitary system further landward as it would violate
the county standard for the drinking water wells of two adjacent
landowners.
Is there anyone here wishes to speak to this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore. You pretty much stated our
reasoning. So, it's a busy night, unless you have specific
questions, that is precisely why we need it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to
speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Board members, anyone else wish to speak to this?
(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 would make may motion to approve
this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number six, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf
Board of Trustees 22 February 15, 2017
of RANDI &ALFRED SILBER request a Wetland Permit to replace
existing foundation to dwelling in-kind and in-place within the
seaward portion of existing dwelling; construct a second floor
addition onto the dwelling; replace existing windows, doors and
siding; construct a 5'x15' covered porch on seaward side of
dwelling; construct a 5'x13'2" storage addition to landward side
of dwelling; construct a 13'4"x13'1 1" addition to landward side
of dwelling; install new 20'W x 151 brick on sand patio and
walkways around dwelling; install and perpetually maintain a 10'
wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead;
and to install water and electric lines to existing dock.
Located: 1570 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-7-10
On the 7th of February, all the Trustees were present at
this inspection. The one thing we did notice were on the plans
no gutters and leaders to drywells. We'll cover that in a little while.
As for the LWRP, the LWRP has found this to be consistent.
The Board requires that a ten-foot wide non-turf buffer be
vegetated with beneficial plants, which I'm sure is going to occur.
And then the CAC has resolved to support this application.
Anyone here on behalf of the applicant?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore. I also have my clients Randi and
Alfred Silber here, so if there are specific questions I can't
answer. I do want to make a correction, the description had a
5x15 covered porch on seaward side, it should be landward side.
I want to make sure that's corrected. That's a correction. And
also, apparently it's my fault, I failed to give you the
drawings that were approved by the Zoning Board, so there is an
additional porch on the seaward side, and that's probably why we
got confused, which is about 1 0x1 5 porch. So I will give you
these drawings that have the actual, and we have it highlighted
for you. The date of the plans are November 1, 2016. These are
the plans the Zoning Board had previously approved.
So it's in the general area that you saw, it's just a small
porch that extends out from the kitchen. And I'll give that to
the Board and I'll show it.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'm not sure we can accept those at this time.
MS. MOORE: It's just this little part, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know if that changes the fact that--
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Let me get this straight. The porch that you
just highlighted is landward?
MS. MOORE: No, one was a correction on the description, which
was always on the landward side. There is a little porch,
covered porch, on the front yard, if you see the drawings. Those
were always on the plans. The small porch on the back of the
house, the water side of the house, that is on this set of plans
which the Zoning Board approved, but my, the architect site plan
that I submitted did not have that. I don't know why, but it
didn't have it. So.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: My suggestion is to table this.
MS. MOORE: We'll continue it next month. But we are still
waiting for DEC permits. So I know he would like to finish up,
,Board of Trustees 23 February 15, 2017
but it's a very minor modification, so it's not a notice issue.
don't know why, but if you want to carry it over.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to table this hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. MOORE: Is there something you need me to do before the next
meeting or do you just want to look at it?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: An updated description and plans.
MS. MOORE: All right, we'll give you the description. And I'm
giving you the plans right now. So those are the plans, dated
November 1, so that we have it. And as far as drywells, that was
already going to be provided, so.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: That should be reflected in the plans.
MS. MOORE: We'll put it in the description. I'll see if the
architect can add it to the plans.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The application has been tabled. Let's move on.
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number seven, Costello
Marine Contracting corp. on behalf of L. S. SANFORD SOUTHOLD
RESIDENCE TRUST, clo LINDA S. SANFORD requests a Wetland Permit
to construct a landward 4'x40'fixed ramp onto a 4'x150'fixed
catwalk with a 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.
This application has been deemed inconsistent by the LWRP
coordinator. There are discussions concerning riparian access
along the foreshore, and it's a fairly lengthy document. A
number of those issues have been addressed already in the
environmental review that the Board passed review on at the
outset of this meeting for its determination of a negative
declaration of environmental significance.
The CAC has voted to support this application.
The Board has been to the site several times with
particular attention to make sure that those people that might
be riparian users of the foreshore be able to walk along the
foreshore, to go about their business to pass and repass would
not be abridged. And we noted that in fact the plans don't
diminish the rights of the people to walk on the beach.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. My name is John Costello and we are the
agents for the applicants. And there is a similar dock we
recently had approved and constructed, almost the same as this
dock, in the near vicinity. And the foreshore basically are not
Board of Trustees 24 February 15, 2017
obstructed, and the inshore ramp allows along the beach for any
other passage way. The only thing is there is an existing jetty
that you'll probably have to step over. It's not very high but
it is certainly accessible to the beach.
Any questions that the Board may have I'm going to attempt
to answer.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We believe that based on our inspection it
did not exceed the pier line of the existing docks to either side.
Is there anyone here also wishes to speak to this application?
MR. LEWIS: My name is Jeffrey Lewis, I'm one of'the owners of
the adjacent property, 680 Private Road 17. 1 have three
objections to the application. One is the length of the dock,
one is the infringement of the dock toward my property line, and
one is the placement of the dolphin moorings.
Let me address the first one, which is the length of the
dock. In the Town Code it says that the Trustees shall seek to
maintain lengths consistent with other docks. I understand you
have been to the scene and deemed this to be consistent. But I
want to point out that there are three docks --the only other
three docks to the south here. One of these was at 2100 Paradise
Point Road. This was permit number 8831, issued in June of
2016, and it was for construction of a 100-foot fixed dock with
a 4x40 ramp. So that dock is 100 feet. The next dock down, I
don't have the permit for, but I have seen it is the same in
size, so it's also 100 feet. And the third dock down is permit
number 5656, issued in 2012, and it is also for a 440 ramp
continuing with a 4x30' dock, then 6x70 foot dock. So again,
another hundred foot dock. So there are three 100-foot docks to
the south on Paradise Point. This application is for a 150-foot
dock. Fully 50% longer than any other docks on the beach. It's
literally the length of half a football field going out. It does
not need to be that long and it is not in line with the other
docks. It does not match the pier line.
If you look at the application on the plan, where it shows
the water depths at the end of the 150 feet, the water depth is
between 3'4" and -- between 34 inches and 36 inches. I understand
you are looking for a minimum of 30 inches, and if you go back you
can see visually it seems to me about two-thirds of the way back on
the north side, it's 30 inches-- it's 3' and 3'4", is my reading.
Virtually the same as it is at the 150-foot long.
So it appears to me from the plans you could build a
100-foot dock here, which would be in the pier line with all the
other docks in Paradise Point and you would still have virtually
the same depth, same water depth of three feet to 3'4"you would have
by going out 150 feet.
So for those two reasons, I strongly object to having a 150-foot dock
where the other docks are 100 feet, and there is really no reason I could
see it needs to be 150 feet. 100 feet gives you the same water depth as
150 feet. That's my objection to the length. Also esthetically, the length
is enormous.
also object to the encroachment on my property line.
Board of Trustees 25 February 15, 2017
Again, if you look at the same map, you can see that the
proposed dock goes straight out, if you will, whereas the
property line is at quite an angle. And the property line, when
you are there, you are looking that way, you see that the dock
is approaching toward the end on the property line.
Now, if we were to ever build a dock on our property, that
creates a problem for us, and it's very close to this dock here.
This is an issue with the placement. Not only does it infringe
on our property line but it's virtually as close as it could
possibly be to our property line, whereas she has actually quite
a bit of property to the north of there. Its not all centered
on her tract, it's about as far as you can get to our property
line as you can get to be within the code. So there is no
reason why it can't be moved to provide better access for us in
case we want to build a dock or just to follow our property line
out to the end, that it be moved toward the middle of her
property and made 100 feet instead of 150 feet.
Also, frankly, this I'm not quite sure about, because this
is not my field, but the mooring dolphins are shown right on the
clearance line, and they are just 25 feet from my property line.
And what I understand from reading the Town Code on the mooring
dolphins, my understanding is that the standards for residential
docks are that all docks which are defined, must be a minimum of
15 feet of any property line for the purpose of not interfering
with the neighbor's access to the waters. Now this is 25 feet,
but the dock includes floats that are attached, as I understand
it, meaning permanent structures such as, I believe, a mooring
dolphin would be part of the dock. The float would be a boat.
When you have a boat tied to a mooring dolphin that is just 25
feet from my property line, if you have more than a ten-foot
boat that is not tied up snug to that dolphin, when the tide is
going out, that boat will be on my property. If it's a boat of
any size whatsoever. So I object to the dolphins being placed
that close to my property line. I don't see why they can't be
placed on the other side of the dock. So for those three reasons
I have objections.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mr. Lewis, for the sake of clarity, this is New
York State bottom. Your property line ends at the foreshore and
the mooring you are talking about would be nowhere near your
property line.
MR. LEWIS: The other two objections I think are valid.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes
to speak specifically to this application?
MR. COSTELLO: I would like, if there is any other objections,
I'll try to address them all at the same time instead of doing
it piecemeal.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I was seeking to see if there are any other
objections or concerns.
MR. COSTELLO: All right.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I know going by rote length in the prior
permits is somewhat misleading in determining pier line because
,Board of Trustees 26 February 15, 2017
of the need to avoid obstructions and the degree that they can
or cannot go up the beach. Some docks may be shorter or longer.
But its a valid point. I would think that the Board may wish to
meet in the field to do an additional assessment and maybe
request the applicant do an additional top-down view showing the
pier line and the proposed structure. If I missed it. We had it,
but I don't think the Board felt on inspection it was going to
be an issue. And if the angle at which the dock proceeds
seaward is something that can be changed slightly, to allow for
the navigation of vessels approaching the shore for the
neighbors, that would be something I think the Board would seek.
Regardless, we can enforce the standard of the 15 feet in the
absence of a better way, but if there is a better way for
neighbors to get along, this area, I was sort,of kidding when I
said one of the other jobs, I said I remember from the last
century, I remember fluke fishing when I was a young fellow. So
it's a dock area, it's very suitable for properly-built docks.
So I'm just thinking this would maybe be an opportunity to
table the application and meet with the applicant to meet some
of those neighbor concerns. Unless, without going back into it,
Mr. Costello has something else he feels that could be amended
to address the concerns of the neighbor.
MR. COSTELLO: I'm going to try to address the concerns that were
brought up. The dock is not 25 feet from the projected property
line. That's the mooring. They can move slightly one way or the
other, no problem. There is an additional 30 feet, so it is 55
feet off the property line. Projected property line. As you can
see, the projected property line is an angle, and the length of
this dock is determined, is trying to obtain the same water
depth of a recently 100-foot dock that was built over there.
The same water depth is basically, is what we are trying to
do. And you can see where, on the design, there is no float.
There is no float. And there will not be a float on the south
side. There is and the intention is, weather conditions, if
someone wants to come in on the south side, temporarily tie up
there, or if you had northeast winds, you could tie up on the
south side. But the intention is to berth solely on the north
side of the dock. So prevailing winds in the summer, we all know
what they are, southwest primarily, with light north in the
mornings. But it's a dock that has the ability to go either side.
And the length issue is the water depth. And the
foreshores, we tried to address every issue that was brought up
in the SEQRA process, and we certainly would try and possibly I
would ask the principal whether those mooring piles could be
moved in further. Typically we try to keep them approximately
25 to 30 feet to allow our barges to come in and maintain the
dock over a period of time. If they need it to be reduced
another five feet, it certainly would not be an astrological
problem for the customer or--
MR. LEWIS: May I make one comment?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, go ahead, comment, then I have a
Board of Trustees 27 February 15, 2017
comment.
MR. LEWIS: I'm very anxious to reach an accommodation. It's
mutually beneficial to both of us if we both can agree. And the
only one comment I want to emphasize again, is in terms of the
length. I understood the length of this dock was based on
another dock they had done somewhere else, which really should
not be, but that's what we have to make it 150 feet, but like I
say, if you look at the map, at the chart, if you go back about
a third of the way, which looks to me at about 100 feet, you are
still at three foot, 3'4" depth. So I don't see why it has to be
150 feet. It's longer than any other dock out there. And you get
the same water depth at 100 feet as you do at 150 feet,
according to the chart.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Based upon on what I'm hearing,
I have a suggestion. I would suggest that if the applicant can go
back to the owner and request moving the dock inshore to a
lesser depth, possibly to some approximately 40 feet in would
still provide three foot of depth and potentially the range that
would accommodate high and low tides seasonally, and that also
along with that, the request to the owner to see if they would
allow for bringing in the mooring piles off for just a slight
change in the dock angle and then if the owner, having
communicated that with the owner, if the applicant would give us
a top-down view of the proposed change in a new scale drawing
for field inspection for next month.
That's my motion to table with the request of that
additional information be provided so the Board might be able to
work in accommodation where the neighbors would be happy.
MR. LEWIS: I thank the Board.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would also point out pulling it back 40 feet
would give you greater separation between the projected property
line and the mooring pilings.
MR. COSTELLO: That's undoubtedly true. If I may just make a
couple of comments on that. In bringing the dock back in, I
don't believe it accomplishes a lot for the Board. But, it's the
Board's decision and I'll respect whatever the Board says. But
this project is not going to be redesigned in its entirety by
comments. I mean, the Board here, everybody on the Board knows
what the tide is out here. The tides drop lower than this. This
is an average tide on here. They go lower by approximately a foot.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We all know that the Board has some
experience. I think that's why my offer to table was based on a
request to go back to the owner and see what is in fact
practicable under the circumstances for the purpose intended. We
understand that this reach of beach does have slightly larger
docks to accommodate vessels and provide safe harborage for the
vast time of the year. So the depth consideration would be one
we would request. There again, a review by the owner through
yourself and obviously, and that becoming a more difficult issue
for the owners, then maybe a slight alteration of the angle to
accommodate the neighbor's for their own navigation needs to the
Board of Trustees 28 February 15, 2017
foreshore might be an accommodation. We understand the
variability of the tides.
I'll make a motion to table this subject to submission of
altered plans for the request of diminishing the distance out
from the shore and to possibly change the angle to further take
it off the property line, and to move the storm pilings either
closer or--that's my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. LEWIS: I thank the Board.
MR. COSTELLO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number eight, Costello Marine Contracting
corp. on behalf of ESTATE OF GRACE R. LEWIS, c/o TOM LUCAK
requests a Wetland Permit to construct one (1 )45' long
low-profile jetty and one (1)60' long low-profile jetty.
Located: 885 Rogers Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-66-2-39.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on February 7th,
noting it does not seem feasible or like a long-term solution.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies
are: The proposed groins are not permitted pursuant to Town
Code Chapter 275-11(c)(f), which states: No new jetties or
groins will be permitted unless the work results in a net
decrease in the total number of jetties in the subject area.
There is no indication that the work would result in a net
decrease in the total number of jetties in the area. Further,
the proposed action does not meet the goals of the Peconic
Estuary program to reduce hardened shoreline structures. And
note that policy 4.2, Protect and Restore Natural Protective
Features of the LWRP, strives to minimize interference with
natural coast process. However, limited interference could be
undertaken if the benefits are proven and necessary, if certain
parameters of met.
The CAC resolved not to support this application based on
the following: No new jetties in accordance with Chapter 275;
requires a littoral drift analysis; requires a coastal
maintenance and erosion plan to see where sand will be
encapsulated; requirement of four drywells at the top of Rogers
Road with two additional overflow drywells; and storm water
runoff draining from garage gutters onto driveway and into the
street of the Latham property should be addressed.
Is there anyone here who wishes to comment on this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes. Again, my name is John Costello and we made
the application for this, these two short, minor-length jetties.
There is a community here and this community has had great
concerns over the period of years on the disappearing beach. The
beach sand has not disappeared. It's moved. Its migrated. It's
there. You can only also see the effect of some of the groins in
the area. There are several groins to the west. They are
buried. They accumulate and capture the sand and they'll build
Board of Trustees 29 February 15, 2017
the beach. Also, it's the intention to make the application,
whether it's allowed or not, was to do at the least costly way,
make them as short as possible. We have to, we have not
yet, persuade the DEC to allow the two groins to go past the low
water mark. You can see at the end of each groin, there is
approximately six inches of water. They may ask to have it to
zero. But having it go to six inches, the water, I believe you
are going to see that beach build up to some minor degree, if,
it's a research project if it does build up. And all the jetties
to the west and Grace Lewis'jetty over there on the entrance of
the canal, the littoral drift is from east to west. And if it
does build up any debris of sand, you will see the low water
mark move offshore slightly. That is hopefully what we can
persuade the DEC to save the stabilized beach. One of the things
that is difficult in this area for several of the homeowners,
they have bulkheading in the areas. Bulkheading is in jeopardy.
They have lost so much of the beach. If you can stabilize it to
any degree, it is going to assist the Town in stabilizing an
area that is eroding severely.
The other thing is, is you also have one of the most
environmental little creeks right there. It is plugging up. On
occasion its, the flow has actually stopped. It's typical. If
they stop the flow and the amount of sand that is in that area,
stops the creek, it is environmentally the wrong direction to go.
I walked Goldsmith Inlet the other day, there was no flow.
You could walk across it. And I don't want that to happen to the
creek there, and the amount of sand that is migrating to the
west, I think if you can capture any of it, you will find even
though it's 45 and 60-foot length, you will see that the low
water, the apparent low water, would migrate slightly off. That
would require going through the permit process with the Army
Corps, Department of State, the DEC, and hopefully with the
Trustees, again. And I'm sure that the Trustees would like to
see stable beaches. But that's the scenario. Any other
questions, I could offer, I'll try to answer them.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wish to speak to this
application?
MR. HOEY: Yes, please. My name is Patrick Hoey. I'm here with my
cousins. We are on the, we own, our family owns the adjacent
piece of property where that creek is located, as you can see on
the Google Earth map that is on the slide over there.
I'm very sympathetic to the situation our neighbors to the
east have invested on in losing their beach. However we are
concerned about the potential impact that these jetties jutting
out into the water could have on the adjacent properties, and
the impact it would have not just on these particular properties
just to the west, which is the wetlands property; but my cousin
owns the next property next to that, I own the next property
next to that one, and my other cousins own the property right
beyond that. We all have very nice beaches and I do have a
concern that we do not know at this point, when it gets
Board of Trustees 30 February 15, 2017
established, any record for us that would indicate what the
impact would be of these particular jetties.
We are quite willing to be reasonable, you know, under the
circumstances that our neighbors find themselves in, but we
really would need to have an understanding of what the impact
would be of them putting in these jetties.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Anyone else here who wishes to
speak in regard to this application?
(No response).
Questions or comments from the Board?
MR. NICKLES: John Nickles, Jr. I'm herewith my father who
represents the estate of Grace R. Lewis. And I have grown up on
that beach and I can give some historical perspective. When I
was a kid there used to be mounds of sand just to the west of
the mouth of Petty's Pond. You also have an application in front
of you this evening for dredging. So over a period of time the
dredging didn't occur and the mounds of sand which were the
supply for the beach at Beixedon Estates and probably the folks
that live down on the other side of Hippodrome Pond, that all
eroded away and went west, and all that sand down is there, found
a landing there, or went out to sea. It didn't just evaporate.
So I think this Board really needs to look at the big
picture here of what is going on. You have a community here of
Beixedon Estates, which for a long time was not in agreement as
to what the proper solution would be toward having beach there.
Our jetty project years ago was something that was
controversial. It's water under the bridge and it's something
that we needed to do, and we thought was the appropriate thing
to do. So now we are in a situation where property owners have
to make a choice as to whether to lose their property or lose
their beach. So they erected bulkheads. They came before this
Board and the DEC and got applications to have bulkheads put in.
And they have them. That was a choice they made between the
upland and the beach. Now everybody wants to have the beach
back. Including our family. So the way to do that is either put
in tons and tons and tons of sand and keep having a continual
supply of sand be brought in or dredge. But that can't just be
the only thing that keeps the sand. You have to have some type
of net to hold the sand in place. In my opinion. I'm 46-years
old, and that's sort of the summary of my experience with it, and
support this. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Any other comments?
MR. COSTELLO: I would like to make one more comment. There is
sand in the area. Most of the sand, after reflecting off the
bulkheads, goes offshore/onshore as much as it is literally
moving down the beach. And other alternatives, possibly, could
be a --the only reason to do the short jetty that only goes to
six inches of water is to minimize the cost. We don't know if
they are going to be super-efficient or not.
The other alternative would be at the same location
possibly put something, you could always put the jetties in and
Board of Trustees 31 February 15, 2017
take them out. Done it many times. You could also take a coir
log or heavier coir log and place them into the same lengths and
put pilings on either side, and see if it works. It would be
more of a research, but if it builds up, not a problem. If it
does not build up, remove it. But at no major cost. I think it's
a problem that the Board should address in the future somewhere.
MS. CLAYTON: Hi, my name is Elizabeth Clayton. I owned my home
in Beixedon for about 26 years and I would say that our beach at
the end of Rogers Road was maybe 30 feet from the sand to the
water. Now there is no beach. It's gone. So when you look at
that, our beach is across on the other side of the pond. That is
where our beach is. And we are not allowed to use that beach.
So we have no beach. So there has to be something to do to just
build up something, to get a start. It can't continually get
shutdown. Because the water will wind up going up Rogers Road,
and then what are we going to do. As it is, we have to have like
a, what's it called, a knee wall built just so the water would
not go up Rogers Road to people's houses. And it just keeps
happening over and over. So every storm we have, the drop off
gets lower and lower. We are going to have to build a dock at
the end of Rogers Road so that we can get, so that nobody gets
killed, basically. Ora bulkhead.
So I think by saying no,just by saying no, it's a really a
big mistake. We should try something. And the water that is in
the creek is so shallow, when I first came out with my kids, we
could go skating, ice skating on that. It's so shallow, it's
just a few inches deep. So, like, talk about getting mosquitos
and everything else, it's not going to be a good situation as the
years go by.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you, for your comments. I would like to
point out that it is beyond the ability of this Board to approve
something that is prohibited by code.
The second point that is a major issue here is the road
runoff should be addressed. And in that regard, that is
something that is beyond the scope of this Board, too. You would
have to go before a different body.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would not be opposed to trying something
here. And I understand you folks have a problem because of the
bulkhead that should never have been put there in the first
place. But this, I don't think this is the answer. And if
someone wanted to get together with another organization and run
some sort of tests, I think this would be an appropriate place to
do it. But just throwing in jetties, I don't know if that's the answer.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I agree with you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are in trouble here as a Board because
not only does the code prohibit it, but if you look at the
runoff you have two jetties with such a low beach level and so
much bulkheading, arguably we should rescind our SEQRA
determination and probably should be an unlisted action and be
pos-dec and then should have a full, formal scoping to determine
Board of Trustees 32 February 15, 2017
the size of the area that might be impacted and compel a larger
study to get true answers.
Unfortunately, the people did what they had to do to save
their property with bulkheads with the waters rising. Those of
us who have been here for a while, we sort of get it, because we
go home every day and see the waters higher in the creek every
time we go home. It's not an easy situation, but you build
bulkheads, you don't have beach. But standing code provisions,
and there is some wisdom to them, I think they existed for a
long time. I don't remember too many groins going in in my
lifetime. I think it's a very long haul. I'm not sure the Board,
even if-- in some cases the Board will defer to DEC where it's
over state land, but in this case it's a straightforward code
prohibition.
MR. COSTELLO: I'll make one more comment. If it's going to be
denied I would like to have it be denied without prejudice so
that another alternative could possibly be offered in the near
future. You know your codes are going to change in the future.
Somewhere, some time, somehow. And I would certainly like to
have it denied without prejudice so that another application or
alternatives could be reviewed. I have been doing this type of
work for a period of time, and I have seen occasions, on many
occasions, where beaches have built and beaches have gone. And
it's still happening. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's a reasonable request. The Board understands
the situation and we are empathetic to it. But as with regard to
also the big picture, we are dealing with greater, more frequent
storms, and storms of greater intensity, rising sea level, this
is a conundrum for this Board. Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other questions or comments?
MR. LUCAK: Yes. I'm Tom Lucak, I'm president of the homeowners
association. And I would just like to know what you think we
should do, because doing nothing is not a legitimate option.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: It's beyond the scope of our ability to give
any suggestions.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This Board can't design a solution. We only
examine what is brought to us.
MR. LUCAK: It sounds like this is being rejected primarily
because of code issues; is that correct?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are also here not to banter back and
forth with respect to interpretation of the code. It will be for
whatever Trustee brings the resolution forward to provide the
recitation. But we've elaborated what are probably other reasons
that are on the record, so I don't think we want to recap that
at this time.
MR. LUCAK: Okay, thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just a suggestion, the folks at Cornell
Cooperative Extension are constantly doing different plan
designs and things of that nature, and there are a few people
there that might be willing to help you and talk to you. They
are extremely helpful. The office is down Bayview.
Board of Trustees 33 February 15, 2017
MR. SCHWARTZ: Benja Schwartz, Cutchogue. You took the words
right out of my mouth, Nick. Possibly some addition of sand
along with planting might help hold the sand in place. We have
to try to re-soften the coast where you have that hard bulkhead
right now which is kicking the sand back into the water.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Okay, hearing no further comments,
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Due to Town Code 275-11(c)(f), no new
jetties or groins will be permitted unless the work results in a net
decrease in the total number of jetties in the subject area. I
make a motion to deny this application without prejudice.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: A motion has been made and seconded.
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number nine, En-Consultants on behalf of TODD
FREED & EDITH WEBSTER-FREED requests a Wetland Permit to
construct an ±18'x37' swimming pool (with automated pool cover),
a ±10'x37' on-grade masonry pool patio; and an approximately
464 sq. ft. on-grade masonry terrace on the waterside of existing
dwelling; remove seven (7) existing trees from vicinity of
proposed swimming pool, including one oak tree to be relocated
to/replaced in new location; install a drainage system of
drywells to collect swimming pool discharge and surface water
runoff from proposed patio surfaces; install pool enclosure
fencing with gates; remove existing flagpole from area of
natural vegetation; abandon existing path to beach and establish
new 4'wide path through natural vegetation to beach; and
install various landscape design features, including an ±18"
high landscape wall, stepping stone walkways, planting beds, and
hedgerows; and for a 150 sq. ft. on-grade masonry terrace with
built-in grill. Located: 12400 New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue.
SCTM# 1000-116-6-12.1 & 12.2
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The CAC resolved to support this application. However they
question the setbacks for the pool and the close proximity to
Great Bay.
The Trustees visited the site on the 7th of February and
discussed planting new, large caliper trees and moving the
drywell.
I also have several letters here which I'll paraphrase. The
first is from Miranda Beeson, a year-round resident of the area,
dated February 13th, 2017. And she expressed great issue with
future removal of the remaining trees, as well as issues with
chemical discharge from the pool. And with the four-foot path
going to the beach.
The second letter also dated the 13th, is from Randy
Board of Trustees 34 February 15, 2017
Plimpton, who owns the home directly west of the Freed property.
And he also takes issue with cutting the remaining trees. Also
talking about how the remaining trees were taken out of the area
originally, as well as the path and pool.
Okay, is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding
this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Good evening. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on
behalf of the applicant.
This is actually, with respect to code, a very
straightforward application. The primary component of the
application is a proposed 18x37 swimming pool which is located
98 feet from the tidal wetland boundary, as represented by the
mean high water line associated with the bay where Chapter 275
requires a 50-foot setback from the tidal wetlands boundary.
It is a little bit of an interesting application
jurisdictionally, so I just want to provide a little bit of
context to the Board and for the public, actually for what
portions of the project are actually before the Board tonight
and why, with respect to setbacks and jurisdiction.
As the Board knows, you are in a sandy, bay beach
environment here, so there is no tidal wetland vegetation that
establishes a vegetated tidal wetlands boundary. So for all
intents and purposes the mean high water line is used as the
tidal wetlands boundary.
There is actually very little of the project that falls
within the hundred-foot jurisdiction associated with the
wetlands boundary here. As I described in the statement of
effect in our Wetland and Trustee Lands application page, within
100 feet from the tidal wetlands boundary, which again is mean
high water, the project includes construction of a swimming pool
with spa and on-grade pool patio which are located 98 to 99 feet
from the wetlands boundary, again, which is almost double what
the code requires as a minimum wetland setback for swimming pool
and related structures pursuant to Chapter 275.
It includes, in part installation, of a fence and hedge row
along the westerly property line, some of which is located
within that setback; the removal of an existing flag pole that
is currently located within the naturally vegetated area. So
that would be removed. And the relocation of an existing access
path through the natural vegetation to the beach.
So there is an existing path there now, off on the east
side a little bit, and that's being relocated more to the center
of the property as shown on the site plan.
A four-foot wide width is proposed because that is the
standard walkway width to gain access to a beach or water.
Also includes the removal of three trees. You can see
there is a cluster of seven trees on the seaward side of you
there, three of which are located within 100 feet of the tidal
wetlands boundary. But as the Board knows, Chapter 275 also
gives you extended jurisdiction 100 feet landward from the
landward limit of a sandy beach. You don't have any required
Board of Trustees 35 February 15, 2017
setbacks per code from that beach but it does give you
jurisdiction up to 100 feet therefrom.
Now, conveniently here, you had a prior application on this
property for the dwelling, and at that time you had a landward
limit of beach that was delineated by Suffolk Environmental
Consulting that was reviewed and accepted by the Board at that
time for purposes of wetland permit issuance for the house at
the landward limit of the beach and the beginning of your
hundred-foot,jurisdiction.
Now, it's probably worth noting that since that time the
beach grass has actually flourished and moved a bit seaward,
farther from the house, so we could have gotten creative and
suggested that the Board's jurisdiction has actually moved
farther from the house since that time. But to err on the side
of caution, on the side of protection under 275, and just for
the sake of consistency, we left that Suffolk Environmental
landward limit of beach line on the site plan and we are still
showing you the exact same 100-foot jurisdiction that you
claimed in the last application here.
So where you see that boundary line shown on there as for
Suffolk Environmental, that is the jurisdictional line we used
here.
So with that extended jurisdiction there is additional work
that is proposed and that--so that again, this is going to be
more than 100 feet from the tidal wetlands boundary, but less
than 100 feet landward of the landward limit of beach. That
additional work is the removal of the other four trees in that
cluster of seven, which are just on the seaward side of the
proposed pool installation, of additional fencing, construction
of an additional masonry terrace that is up in the center of the
house just on the seaward side of the house, and the
establishment of several landscape features that include
steppingstone walkways, planting beds and other landscape
features that are described in the application.
Everything that is proposed is depicted visually on the site
plan and described in the project description. There is nothing
else here that is proposed that is not included on the site plan
and not included in the project description. It is all in front
of the Board.
I notice that your office threw in the third patio that is
up in the westerly, I think it's the southwesterly corner of the
house, and a barbecue grill. I did not include those in my
description because those are actually outside your
jurisdiction. But it's fine if they are included in the permit.
I think Liz probably did that to be safe and make sure we had
everything that was proposed in here as you wanted to treat it.
As mitigation for the project, there is, as would always be
Required, a project-limiting fence that would be set in place
during construction to contain site disturbance. We, even though
we are not at the building permit stage yet, the applicants went
through the effort of hiring Joe Fischetti, professional engineer,
Board of Trustees 36 February 15, 2017
who I know you are all familiar with, to have a professionally
designed drainage plan that would collect any potential surface
runoff from all the surface areas that are proposed.
It was my understanding from your field inspection that
there was one drywell that is actually, was originally proposed
on the seaward side of the pool, that you asked if it could be,
and I think, I'm sorry, I don't know if it was Glenn or Nick
reading the description of your field notes, but I did contact
Joe since your field inspection and asked if he could provide an
alternate design that would move the drywell, and he did so.
And what I can hand to you now is a plan which is otherwise
identical to what was submitted with the application-except that
the drywell that was down here on the seaward side of the pool
has now been moved up to the landward side of the pool. So if
that is acceptable to the Board we can submit formal copies,
multiple copies, stamped signed copies of that plan.
The only other component of the application, again, was
there was some discussion from field inspection that of the
trees that you are standing in front of there, there was one bit
more substantial oak tree that you had asked if that could be
either physically relocated, I know you discussed that with Dave
Cichanowicz of Creative Environmental Design, and the idea was
if that tree can be relocated to the other side of the property,
we would do that. And if it can't be relocated then it would be
replaced within an equal caliper tree, and that location is
called out on the site plan as well.
If the Board has any questions, I'm happy to respond to them.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I have a question. How is the equipment going
to be accessed to the rear of the property?
MR. HERRMANN: It would come from the easterly side of the
property.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I know there was an issue there with the
right-of-way.
MR. HERRMANN:The property is owned by the applicants and as far
as I know they have the right to access the property. Their
attorney Anthony Pasca is here if the Board has some question in
that regard.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Also, being with how close we are to the Great
Peconic Bay, a salt water pool would probably be advised,
believe, environmentally, or something along those lines. I know
most people are going with that now anyway, but it's sometimes
good in these cases to just mention that.
MR. HERRMANN: The applicants are here and they said they would
be agreeable to go in with that design. We are starting to see
that much more frequently and have used that as mitigation in
other projects.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Is there anyone else here that wishes to
speak regarding this application?
MR. FALLON: Yes, I do. My name is David Fallon, I'm an
attorney, 53 Main Street, Sayville, New York. I represent Ernest
Wickham Case, who is here today. Unfortunately he would rather
Board of Trustees 37 February 15, 2017
have me speak because he's 84-years old. He's the great grandson
of Wickham Case.
I believe there was some confusion when I looked at the
file here on that site plan as to who owns what is considered
lot 12.2. If you look at the site plan the Freed's have
included on this easterly side a 33-foot section saying that
they own this parcel. That is deceptive. Earnest Wickham Case
owns 10% of it. I also represent his sister who owns 10%. There
are also about 17 other owners. I would like to give a little history.
I sent to Heather Lanza last week a copy of the summons and
complaint by which Earnest Wickham Case has sued the Freed's
because the Freed's have put quit claim deeds upon his property
of this 33 feet. What has happened --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Excuse me, sir. I ask you to keep your remarks
relevant to this application, and this application deals with
property on Suffolk County tax map 1000-116-6-12.1 and 12.2.
MR. FALLON: But isn't, on the site plan, it lists both of them.
So therefore its as if they own both. And there was a question
from the Board as to access. They said on the easterly side.
There is currently an injunction in effect by the State Supreme
Court in an action that does not allow them to use that
right-of-way. And I believe it is deceptive that the Board
doesn't know this, especially when the Freed's removed and were
fined by the Town a thousand dollars when they removed on 12.2 a
number of trees. And there are a number of neighbors here, stand
up --
(Audience members standing up)
(Continuing) --who would like to be heard on this issue. And there
was a letter to the Town by Mr. Pasca, their attorney, in which
the Town had raised issues over the lot subdivision. And he had
said that the title company required two descriptions for this
lot, and I explained to Heather Lanza that that is not true,
that the title company would not insure title to the lot.
I have for the Town a title report that was obtained by the
Freed's by their attorney Patricia Moore which shows that before
they purchased this property, they did not have title where they
were purchasing it from. Instead, Ernie and his heirs did.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Sir, I have another question. Is there a copy of
the injunction in the file?
MR. FALLON: I'm not aware. However, I do have for you, and I sent
it to Heather Lanza, and I don't know if she provided it to
Board, there is currently an action pending also in the Supreme
Court by Mr. Case right to declare the quit claim deeds that
were recorded by the Freed's invalid. And notice they were quit
claim deeds. And also attached to this is the contract of sale
by which they purchased 12.1 where it says the parties
acknowledge that an approximate 30-foot wide strip of land runs
along the east side of the premises from New Suffolk Avenue to
Peconic Bay, and continuous with the premises hereon in Schedule A.
At or prior to closing each of the sellers will provide to the
purchasers an individual affidavit as to facts and circumstances
Board of Trustees 38 February 15, 2017
supporting their vested adverse possession claim and an .
individual quit claim deed to the 30-foot strip of land. They
actually negotiated a $137,000 approximate reduction of price
when their attorney Patricia Moore discovered that the people
who were selling this strip of land shown on that site plan,
right, turned out Patricia Moore found out they didn't own it.
Who was selling it to them. So I think it's deceptive to this
Board when you are talking about removal of trees and what you are
doing to have a site plan that reflects this additional 33-foot
piece. Because that's not accurate. And I have, if the Board
will take it, the Patricia Moore title report. This was obtained
by the Freed's own attorney, who you are well familiar with,
saying that they, the people who selling it to them, did not own
it. And I also have the summons and complaint. So I would like
to submit that to the Board on your behalf.
And I said this was also provided to Heather Lanza last
week. I did not receive a response from her. And also two years
ago, there was an issue, and I provided the same type thing to
Lori Hulse at the Town. And that's why when the house was built
you'll notice the setbacks run from that 33-foot piece.
Now, my client objects to the deceptive nature of the
application. He owns and he has sued the Freed's in the Supreme
Court based on, and he's based it on the title report obtained
from the Freed's attorney, that he is actually one of the owners
of the parcel and not the Freed's. So how can the Board rule on
something when they thought that based on what was submitted to
you, that they own this big piece, while 33 feet is clearly in
dispute? That is unfair to the people.
Also my client objects to the removal of the trees as the
Freed's already clear cut and was fined by the Town in essence
the lot that was owned by Wickham Case's heirs. And the fact
that this was raised to the Board and there was an e-mail sent
by Mr. Pasca right there who represents the Freed's, when the
Board -- Heather Lanza questioned was there a legal subdivision of
this property, and Mr. Pasca sent an e-mail, it was received on
February 2nd by the Board, in which he,said, the property was
conveyed through multiple deeds on the same day, though as I
said, the title company required two descriptions. The title
company didn't require two descriptions. The title company said
we are not going to insure the title. And I just read you the
contract of sale that said, hey, we are only buying 12.1 and
give us quit claim deed. Now we have an affirmative
representation that is false. And I'm going to stop because
know many of these neighbors want to be heard on this issue.
Unless you have questions for me.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I want to point out once again this Board does
not adjudicate civil disputes. The argumeftyou are presenting
is not relevant to this particular application. So we want to
stay focused on this application. And I would ask everybody to
keep your comments brief and relevant to the application.
MR. FALLON: Well, when I ask does the site plan --the site plan
Board of Trustees 39 February 15, 2017
does include this 33-foot strip, does it not?You were just
submitted another one. I didn't get to see the one that was just
handed up.
MR. PASCA: Anthony Pasca, 108 East Main Street. I'm the attorney
That Mr. Fallon has referenced a couple of times. I am the attorney
in the title disputes that he's referenced. And I was going to
say to you that this Board never adjudicates title disputes.
That belongs in the Supreme Court. They have been trying for a
couple of years to declare that my clients don't own the
property. They have been unsuccessful so far. That's where the
dispute belongs. Right now, the Freed's are the owners of the
property of record, they pay taxes on the property. That's all
irrelevant to this application. Because what is before you is
the part of the property on the other side that is not in
dispute. We have not called for any work to be done in this
application that is before you on that part of the.property. If
we did, it still would not matter, because your job is not to
pick sides when there is a title dispute. If they think they
can get an injunction against us, which by the way is a lie,
there is no injunction stopping my clients from using their
property. That's a lie. But if they think that they can get an
injunction to stop them from accessing the property over their
property, then my client will be able to access it in
alternative means. That is what I understand.
But that's their problem. That is not your problem right now.
Your problem is to deal solely with the improvements that are on
the other property that they have to admit is not in dispute.
So I agree we need to keep this focused not on irrelevant
title disputes that you don't have any jurisdiction over.
If have you any questions about it, I'm happy to talk to
you about it, but I don't really think it has anything to do
with what is going on today. -
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Hello, President Domino, Members of the Town.of
Southold Board of Trustees, I'm Benja Schwartz. I live in
Fleets Neck in Cutchogue, on the other side of town. My beach in
front of my house is adjacent to the Fleets Neck Property Owners
Association beach on Cutchogue Harbor. I thank you tonight for
conducting this public hearing and your gracious consent to
listen to what I have to say.
The laws of land use regulations, unlike speed limits,
involve a significant amount of discretion. My legal interest in
the subject property is indirect. I do have people that I know
who live in the area, which this subject application deals with
the center of that area. I call it Cutchogue south or.west New
Suffolk. By their invitation, I have used that right-of-way to
access the beach over the property adjacent to the subject
property, except that that property is also listed right here in
the agenda, lots 12.1 and 12.2. And I have pictures here from
Google Earth that show that the applicants have been using, not
only have they have been cutting down trees but they have been
Board of Trustees 40 February 15, 2017
using the beach access, the end, the south end of Bay Road, for
construction vehicles. This so-called right-of-way, and I would
like to talk to you a little bit about that, now, you don't have
to, but I would hope you would listen to what I have to say,
consider it and maybe even agree with me. That particular
right-of-way over the 12.2 provides our entire community, well
not the entire community, but our community, the exclusive
access in Cutchogue in that part of Cutchogue, to the shore of
the Great Peconic Bay. That is between East Creek and Downs
Creek, and there is a bunch of obstructions from East Creek,
from Downs Creek is private property--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Excuse me. This is not pertinent to --.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, it is.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You are not asking to access their swimming '
pool. f
MR. SCHWARTZ: No, I'm not. But the--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Please keep your comments brief. We
understand that there are differences here where there purports
to be a right-of-way. But we are looking at an application for a
swimming pool on the principal property of the owner. And --
MR. SCHWARTZ: Until the owner resolves the extent of their
property, the Town Code says you don't have the authority to
consider this application. And ultimately I would like to ask
you to reject, to dismiss this application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is a public hearing. This is not an
inquisition.
MR. SCHWARTZ: No, it's a public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So please comment to the record. But the
Board will respond appropriately through its attorney. But we
are not here to answer quote questions, and --
MR. SCHWARTZ: I'm not asking you -- I'm not here to speak in favor of
denial of this application. I'm here to speak in favor of dismissal of this
application and I'm here to speak on behalf of the community interest,
which is indirectly legally relevant in this case.
The building permit that was granted and the building which
these people put up has forever changed the character of that
neighborhood, as did the demolition and construction --
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I have a belief system that I would like
everybody,to have the opportunity to speak specifically to the
application. And the thing I'm struggling with is what you are
currently talking about doesn't apply.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay, let me direct my comments to that
connection. Cutchogue south, between West Creek and Downs Creek,
there is a neighborhood. Most of the neighborhood was only owned
by Wickham Case, whose descendent is sitting here. In 1951, the
descendants and the successors in interest to Wickham Case
deeded to the Town the entire Town of Southold the rights to the
roads, Short Road, Bay Road, Chase Road and Meadow Lane. At the
time, Bay Road extended to the bay, therein the name Bay Road.
But the end of Bay Road was not deeded to the Town, instead it
was -- it became, it continued to be a private road. At one
Board of Trustees 41 February 15, 2017
point vehicles were blocked from that road --
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Let me interrupt you for one moment. I really
do want people to be heard. I could understand if they were
proposing to put the pool in the right-of-way, then all of this
information would be absolutely pertinent. But because the
application is focusing on a pool that not on the right-of-way,
that is where we have an issue, and we need to appeal -- let me,
finish. We need to appeal to our counsel to determine where to
go forward with regard to this.
MR. HAGAN: If you would not mind, Counsel, I've looked up the
index number on this,just because I'm trying to get clarity for
the sake of the Trustees. Are you making a representation to
this Board that you have filed and obtained an injunction in
this matter?
MR. FALLON: In the case of Freed v. Barbara Best and Zarko
Svatovic, where the Freed's actually sued them --stand up,
Zarko.
MR. HAGAN: Do you have an index number on that?
MR. FALLON: There was an injunction issued by Justice Tarantino.
MR. HAGAN: And that's not included in this matter you-submitted
to the Board?
MR. FALLON: No, because that's a separate action that I brought
on behalf of Ernie Case. The Best action is a prior action where
Tarantino issued the injunction and it had a twofold injunction.
One limiting them to a ten-foot piece, but also saying nothing
could be done with the right-of-way. And in fact I was in the
courtroom when Judge Tarantino, when there was an issue, where
the Freed's wanted to sort of extend their driveway, and if you
look at the map you'll notice everything stops right on that 33
feet.
MR. HAGAN: I understand that everything stops at the 33-feet line.
I'm just trying to ascertain so that I can clarify for the Board.
MR. FALLON: There is an injunction.
MR. HAGAN: That there is an injunction. Are you aware of what
the index number is on the matter that the injunction was issued
on?
MR. FALLON: I can get that for you.
MR. HAGAN: If you could, I would appreciate that. And with
regard to that injunction, are you saying that there is an
injunction only to ten feet from the property line?
MR. FALLON: No, it affects the whole strip, the whole 33-foot strip.
MR. HAGAN: So the entire 33-foot strip is affected by the
injunction. Is there anything in that injunction that you are
representing to the Trustees that goes beyond that 33-foot strip?
MR. FALLON: No.
MR. HAGAN: Okay, so there is no injunction that affects 34-feet
and over?
MR. FALLON: Correct.
MR. HAGAN: Okay.
MR. FALLON: But again, as was pointed out, this application says
it's proposed tax maps.
Board of Trustees 42 February 15, 2017
MR. HAGAN: I understand the reference --
MR. FALLON: That's one of the big concerns, that this
application at most would have to be re-filed with the proper lot.
.MR. HAGAN: Is it your contention that the proposed pool is
being constructed on that 33 strip, that 33-foot strip that is
subject to the injunction?
MR. FALLON: No, but it is my contention that when a Board is
submitted a site plan that is inaccurate, that affects the whole
application.
MR. HAGAN: But with regard to your position, is it that the, is
there currently a dispute with regard to proper ownership of the
33-foot strip?
MR. FALLON: Yes, we say we own that.
MR. HAGAN: You say your clients own it and the Freed's say that
they own it?
MR. FALLON: Yes. They have filed, as I read from the contract of
sale and from the title report that was given, their attorney
determined through a title report that the people selling to
them did not own it therefore they could not get insurance,
title insurance, therefore they got quit claim deeds. But I
could do a quit claim deed to your house.
MR. HAGAN: And then is there any sort of representation made by
your clients that there is a claim to the remaining section of
the property, that portion that exists outside the 33 feet?
MR. FALLON: No, it's the 33 feet. And why that's important,
though, besides the site plan representation that this is two tax lots
is there is, part of the application is to remove trees, and if
the Board was to look at the whole site plan they'd say, well,
this is a bigger lot, we are not as worried. There are some
other trees here. But they don't own that.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The trees identified, unless I'm wrong, are the
trees that are on that photograph are in the 30-foot
right-of-way.
MR. FALLON: True. But if I was a Board I would say let me look
at the whole site plan, are there other trees.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The other opportunity is to request an upgraded
site plan with the information --
MR. FALLON: Absolutely. Because you are dealing with improper
information. That's my clients' biggest point. And they knew it.
MR. PASCA: Can I address that, please. Because this is
something that we dealt with when the original building permit
application was filed a few years ago, and we went through the
Town Attorney's office, we went through the Building Department.
And the Town's position, not just our position, the Town's
position is this is one parcel. You can't divide it up. We
offered. You want us to just show what is on that one tax lot,
we'll do that. They said, no, it's not a subdivided parcel. It's
one parcel. Therefore you have to show the entire, on the
survey, you have to show the entire plans. But we did not, not
in the Building permit application and not in the current
application for the pool, we did not propose any work in that
Board of Trustees 43 February 15, 2017
33-foot strip. So the entire property shown is that my client's
own it and that's what the town record is.
MR. FALLON: I have that index number for you.
MR. HAGAN: Okay, that was my question, do you have the index.
MR. FALLON: The index is 14--
MR. PASCA: I'll clean it up for you and I'll explain exactly
what it says so you can have it for your records.
That was, it's been called a peacekeeping order. And it was
something that we sought as an injunction against a couple of
people who were abusing the right-of-way area, what they
considered the right-of-way, and the judge granted our
injunction. At the same time what the judge threw in there was we
can't alter—alter--the area in and around the path, the ten-foot path,
described in that order along the eastern boundary of the 33 feet.
And the judge said do not alter what is around it. Never said we
are not allowed to use our own property. It just says do not alter.
That's why when you guys went down there you probably saw that
the grading of that 33 feet has been undisturbed whereas the rest
of the property has been. So it was a lie to say we have been
enjoined from using our own property. It's just not true.
MR. HAGAN: Is this litigation still ongoing?
MR. PASCA: Yes.
MR. HAGAN: And your next court appearance on this matter?
MR. PASCA: We have pending summary judgment motions.
MR. HAGAN: Cross motions against-- both sides cross-motioning
against each other?
MR. PASCA: Yes. Of course.
MR. HAGAN: Thank you. Is this the only injunction in place with
regard to this parcel?
MR. PASCA: Correct.
MR. HAGAN: Counsel, is that your understanding as well?
'MR. FALLON: That is my understanding. The Ernie Case is a
separate action recently brought. That was the Freed's suing
Svatovic.
MR. HAGAN: I just want to make sure there is only one injunction,
not multiple injunctions and multiple actions. I'm sure you
understand.
MR. FALLON: I understand.
MR. HAGAN: Thank you.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Counsel, may I? Last week I went to the Town of
Southold Assessor's office. and it's a lie. I don't like to use
that term but since it's being used by the attorney for the
applicants, I would call his statement that the Town of Southold
only recognizes one lot a lie. It was explained to me that the
lot was split because the applicants could not show a chain of
title, proof of ownership of 12.2. bespite that, after Suffolk
County split the lot, Southold Town --the lot was originally in
one piece. It was split into two pieces, and Southold Town added
a notation to that effect on the property record card. Then
applicants went to Suffolk County and they refused to recombine
the lot into, the two lots into one lot because of the question
,Board of Trustees 44 February 15, 2017
issues of title. So Southold Town then created two new--two
separate property cards for the two properties. And if you are
going to say-- if you are going to say.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Benja, May I --
MR. SCHWARTZ: May I finish? I'm trying to be brief.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We try to limit it to five minutes per person,
and there is a lot of folks here.
MR. SCHWARTZ: May I finish?And then I'll sit down. President
Domino, may I finish my thoughts?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: As long as it's relevant to this application.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. If I made an application and I said that I
wanted to build a small outbuilding on my property, but I
submitted a site plan including my neighbor's property, that
application should be screened out by the Building Department.
don't know why that was not done in this case. But with all due
respect, I do not believe that the law, the zoning law of this
Town allows you to consider an application without having a
defined lot. Thank you, for your consideration. And --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you.
MR. SCHWARTZ: You know, I just want to say that not only is this
property separate and the applicants are trying to steal it from
the owners, but they are taking a part of our community and they
are eliminating access to the wetlands, which is part of the
reason why this, the Southold Town Board of Trustees exists is
to protect the--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think that is within the purview of
this Board, Benja.
MR. SCHWARTZ: You don't what?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think that the property is within
the purview of this Board.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Would you consider an application on property that
made five years ago?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is a public hearing but when you are
telling me, you are making accusations about theft, presuming we
are going to render some kind of decision, you are sadly
mistaken.
MR. SCHWARTZ: The only decision I'm asking you to render is to
dismiss this application. Not to determine the ownership.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I think your point has been very well articulated
and made. And the key for us is to determine the legality of
this situation. Beyond that, obviously there is two varying
conflicts that are occurring. We only, we have a very fine line
that we can deal with, and within that fine line we'll be able
to execute our mission. But right now, the information that is
being discussed is beyond our abilities and it has to be
addressed to counsel.
MR. HERRMANN: Jay, can I just make a quick comment. Just to try
to refocus for a second. Understanding there is a dispute, and
don't want to step even one toe into that dispute, it is our
understanding -- and I have yet to have anyone tell me our
understanding is incorrect--that while under dispute,
Board of Trustees 45 February 15, 2017
right now, the Freed's are the legal owners of this entire
portion of this property. Having said that, if this 33-foot
strip was owned, say, by Glenn Goldsmith, the application that
is in front of the Board that relates to Chapter 275 would be
identical. The swimming pool, the patio, the stepping stones,
the fencing, everything that is proposed is proposed no more
within that 33-foot strip than it is proposed on Leonard and Amy
Wessel's property to the east. Leonard and Amy Wessel are not
here claiming we are proposing a pool on their property.
So we are going to ask the Board, understanding that there
is a dispute over that section of the property, there is no
dispute over the rest of the property where all of our work is
proposed. So I just want to reiterate that, because there is a
lot of discussion about taking away the community rights and all
these other things that I understand relate to another topic
that doesn't have anything to do with why I'm here. But it
doesn't have anything to do with why I'm here. So I just wanted
to reiterate that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The obstacle is in two places. One, the property ,
description that was given to our clerk typist including 12.1 and 12.2.
MR. HERRMANN: That's correct.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And so does the site plan. That is where the
hurdle arises. Thank you.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: So given that, what are the options?
MR. HAGAN: Well, we still have a public hearing, so we can
continue to hear public commentary on the matter.
MS. BEST: Hi, my name is Barbara Best. I live across the street
from the property, and I have deeded rights, access rights, to
12.2, which is owned by the Wickham Case family. I'm very
concerned about this from a number of aspects, and I want to
reiterate the fact that 12.2, that property, is everywhere on
this application. So I don't know the legalities of why just
this was not submitted with just 12.1 on it. Maybe it's,because
they have to include the whole lot. That makes it relevant to
everything we have to say. So please consider that.
I also have a question about this particular document that
I found in the file. This document is from the Southold Board of
Trustees to the Building Department. And I see that there is a
sticky note noting that it,was okayed by B. Duffy because of a
letter from Anthony Pasca. And I see there is a letter from
Anthony Pasca here, and I'm wondering what does the Building
Department do with that? I believe this is subject to the code
and should be reviewed according to the code, specifically
280-9. And on 280-9, this is clearly a split. This is a clear--
this is from --take a look at this. And if they tell you it was
not split, I don't know whose lying. You can keep this. I just
have notes on it.
MR. HAGAN: Is that a submission?
MS. BEST: I'll give you another copy. So aside from the
environmental, the hardening of the shoreline, I also would like
you to please keep the record open for other people who will be
Board of Trustees 46 February 15, 2017
submitting information to you after this. Thank you, for
allowing me to speak.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
MR. SVATORIC: Hi, my name is Zarko Svatovic. I'm one of the
deed holders, the right-of-way property owned by Wickham Case
family that I have acquired by purchasing 12345 New Suffolk Avenue
across the street. It was part of the Wickham Case Estate.
When it separated, they gave us right to that right-of-way. This
right-of-way is 100-years old. There is a deed chain going for 100
years which proves without any doubt that this property belongs to
Ernie Case and his family.
Every single title search including the Freed's title search shows
that they don't own that property, never owned it, and have no
rights of any kind whatsoever to 33 feet part of that property.
I understand your problem and you want to decide whether or
not to allow a pool on a part of the property that Freed's
claim. The Freed's claim this joint property by deed. And
understand it is not in your concern and you don't need to
consider those kinds of things. But matter of fact is that this property
is claimed by the deed, which is by all accounts fraud, and actually
its fraudulent deed. Okay, actually the fraudulent deed, deed fraud
is a serious crime and actually is prosecuted actually in New York State.
If you read New York Times you'll find out it's been prosecuted quite
a bit now, because it's on the rise in Brooklyn and different areas.
What I want to say that you, the decision you going to make
is not going to be about 12.1. The decision, because the way
application is submitted, it's going to be for entire
application that they submitted. And that application includes
both 12.1 and 12.2. Everywhere, if you look. Because the Freed's
claim the entire property.
The other factors also Court never ruled anywhere that
Freed's own 33 feet. Ever. The injunction is there because they
don't own it. So what Mr. Pasca said is a direct lie. Freed's do
not own 33. It's not only they have no any kind of claims to
that piece of property. Okay, so you have no way of actually
issuing under the circumstances here, you have no way of issuing
Freed's permit for this pool because you can't issue it for
12.1. Actually, in the past, with the same kind of shenanigans
they have managed to get building permits for 12.1, which is
also illegal.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Sir, you are going far afield here now. Thank
you, for your comments. But this Board is not ruling on the
civil matter, we are not adjudicating the property that is in
dispute. We are here to entertain and listen to comments about
the application before us that is clearly defined on this site
plan as being solely on 12.1. And in addition, this Board is not
granting, we never grant a right to go on someone else's
property. So --
MR. SVATOVIC: I have a hard time understanding how could you
issue permit for 12.1 which application is for permits for 12.1
and 12.2.
Board of Trustees 47 February 15, 2017
TRUSTEE DOMINO: None of this proposed construction is on 12.2.
It's not on the right-of-way. It's entirely, as you can see from
the staking, is on the western side of this person's property.
MR. SVATOVIC: I understand what you are saying but you are still
not answering my question. My question is how could you
possibly, if you look at town codes, you are not issuing --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Once again, we are not here to answer questions.
We are taking information, and we try to make a balanced approach,
and we try to be fair and listen. But your comments are
continually drifting off the application that is before us,
which once again is that swimming pool on 12.1.
MR. SVATOVIC: This application for a swimming pool was not
requested for 12.1. So why would you issue for 12.1 when it is
requested for both properties? How can you do that?
MR. HAGAN: The site plan has been, at the request of the
Trustees, they asked me to clarify, that the site plan has
clearly listed the location of the pool.
Is there anyone here that claims that the location of the
pool is located in the 33-foot strip that is currently under
dispute?
(No response).
Is that the position you are taking right now that says
that you want to put your pool in the 33-foot wide stripe?
MR. FREED: No.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Like I said before. It's a fine line what our
area of operation is, if you want to call it, our area that we can
deal with. Our jurisdiction. That's where our struggle is.
totally understand everyone's thoughts, totally understand where
the dispute that may have occurred in the past and all of that
that has led up to this point, but as our attorney has stated,
we are only dealing with the pool location. There is nothing
else we can do with regard to -- unless new information is being
presented to the Board that is separate from what we already
discussed in depth, we have to make a move going forward.
MR. SCHWARTZ: May I please submit a photo that shows the
applicants using 12.2 --
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Again, we can't--that is where we are tied.
Our job is not to enforce whether or not they can or cannot
access that. We are only dealing with where the current pool is
located.
MS. WALDRON: My name is Trima Waldron and I am one of the 20 lot
holders, about 20 lot holders, with a free and un-obstructed
right-of-way provision in my deed to what is described in this
permit as lot point-- lot 12.2. 1 believe that this permit
should be denied. According to Town Planning Director Heather
Lanza's e-mail of January 19th to Elizabeth Cantrell, it combines
two lots into one parcel without having obtained prior Planning
Board approval. And that would be lot recognition code 280/9.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Ma'am --
MS. WALDRON: And I know you are not going to decide ownership
of lot. I totally understand that. That is not within your purview, but--
,Board of Trustees 48 February 15, 2017
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Let me make a suggestion. This is my
suggestion. Because a lot of information has been flowing, and
legally we don't have to accept anything that came across the
dais today. We have done it already.
I'll make a motion instead of closing this hearing to table
this hearing, and I'll make that motion right now. I make a
motion to table this hearing.
MS. WALDRON: And what does that mean?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: It means we'll be able to bring it up next
month and you can --what? I have made a motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO:You didn't get a second.
Is there a second to that motion?
(No response).
Motion made and not seconded.
MS. WALDRON: You don't know if I'm ready to add something or
not. And I am ready to add something on lot 12.1. Okay, and it
is the following. Okay, the survey shows that the Freed's want
to,,wish to cut a new, wider path --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Ma'am, we have rules of order.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There was-an open motion on the floor.
MS. WALDRON: I'm sorry. Yes, you're right. Excuse me.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a --we determined there is no second
on the motion. The public hearing can now continue if there is
no second on the motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: So you can continue. I got shot down.
MS. WALDRON: You got,shot down? Such a nice man. All right.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Now you may continue.
MS. WALDRON: That is,the Freed's wish to cut a new wider path
through existing beach grass and sandy rise leading to the
beach. The existing path on lot 12.1 has been used for decades
and is certainly adequate. Everyone else has found it adequate.
And when you cut a new path and revegetate an old path, it takes
years for the beach grass to regenerate and get that root system
going thoroughly, and this is not good'for the environment.
Okay?That is on 12.1. You don't want me to say anything about
all the misrepresentations on 12.2 but I'll be glad to submit
you all copies, because I have made copies and I have photographs
as well. And one major reason we are concerned is how they get
the heavy equipment down there. It would have to go through
12.2. They also show on that extending the lawn into 12.2 and
planting additional marsh grass, and if they don't in fact own
the 33 feet-- but the other one I was going to bring up is the
drywell but that's already been dealt with by the environmental
people. But any project that size with a lot of heavy equipment
is bound to affect the fragility down there. If you look at
Downs Creek, it's constantly shifting. The beach front is
constantly shifting. And now there are, there is this afternoon
at high tide, there were breaks through four different places
into the creek. So more disturbance is not desirable in the
least. And there is plenty of room for a pool on the north side
of the house in any case. Thank you. Am I allowed to deliver
Board of Trustees 49 February 15, 2017
these?Yes, no?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes, you may.
MR. PASCA: We can simplify this by stipulating not to take "
access off 12.2 for purposes of construction and stuff. We can
stipulate to that. It's not necessary. So if for--and this a
constructive suggestion for how you might deal with a
resolution. We don't care if you put in your resolution that you
are not approving anything relating to 12.2. We don't care. We
just can't physically divide up the site plan, per instructions
from the Town, we cannot divide up a lot that was previously
recognized as one lot into two, for purposes of submission. But
if you want to make it clear in your resolution that you are not
approving any relief relating to what the tax map is 12.2, we
don't care. So that may simplify what everybody is talking about
today.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Sir?
MR. GIORDANO: My name is Ed Giordano, I'm one of the 18
residents that live in this neighborhood. I think that was a
very grand gesture and I hope it gets into the record that they
won't be using 12.2 for any purposes, transport, trucks or any
equipment, because that was my biggest concern. I met with just
about everybody-- I shouldn't say any of the Trustees, but the Town
Attorney, Assistant Town Attorney, I met with Elizabeth several
times. I've met with the police department. The concern that I
have with this work, I'm happy for him to have this pool, I'm
happy for them to do all this work. I'm just concerned about any
activities in the row which could damage the row, ruts and
trucks and stuff, damage, passage for me to'go to the beach when
I want to go to the beach. So those are my concerns.
This thing has been kicking around for five years,
probably, in the courts, back and forth, ownership, who does,
rumors about the Freed's limiting our use of the right-of-way,
et cetera. It's all rumors and all that stuff. But it concerned
me when the Freed's first took ownership of whatever part of
this they do own, they clear-cut the entire property and made it
very not north fork-ish, in my book. It just became very, very
uncomfortable, wide open territory. To their desires, they get
to do whatever they want. The house, same thing, whatever they
want. The map that was given to you, the site plan, et cetera,
has errors in the right-of-way, and I asked the Town Attorney
and I asked Elizabeth and I asked the police.department, if more
trees are cut down, I find at the end of this project is
minuscule. We don't want any more trees cut down, we don't want
any more disturbance of the environment. If you agree as the
Board, which is your responsibility, to decide at the building
site, can he lose trees, move trees, take down trees. But we
would like not to see accidentally the contractor cut down a few
more trees that are in the right-of-way, remove stumps that are
in the right-of-way, et cetera. And there is nobody for us to
call to say, you know what, it's not going to be what you agreed
to. There are things going on on the site. Nobody wants to hear
Board of Trustees 50 February 15, 2017
it. Nobody wants to hear our appeal. So once you approve this,
Mr. Pasca and the Freed's have just agreed not to do anything
in this area, if their word can be taken, then we probably, I'd have
less of a problem, personally. And as long as my grandchildren
can walk down to the beach without being run over by a truck, I
have no concern over that. I thank you for listening.
MR. PASCA: Just to be clear, we are telling you we are not going
to access for any purpose relating to this project, we are not
,going to use 12.2 as access. That is what we are saying. We are
not saying forever they are not going no touch this. It's their
property. And that's for a different day. But I just want to make it
clear. Because you said promise to never do anything on this
property--
TRUSTEE SANDERS: That's clear and understood.
MR. FITZGERALD: Good evening. Sean Fitzgerald, across the street
neighbor from the Freed's. I have the same concerns as Mr.
Giordano. You know, quite honestly, if we get the assurance that the
row is not going to be utilized to access the heavy equipment
and such with the pool, then I wish them all the luck with this.
But for my family, that was our main concern was the access to
the row. And if the equipment will be used to do the pool. So
it was relevant in that sense. Ownership, I understand that is
not your purview, but it was just how the row,would be utilized.
That 33-foot section. So if we get assurances for that, we are
good to go.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Thank you.
MR. FALLON: Last point for my client about the trees. My client
Mr. Case is concerned that any trees being removed from 12.1,
because they already clear-cut 12.2 and removed_nearly all the
trees, and we are, were fined by the town, so now when the
application is in front of you for 12.1, we only want to remove
a couple of trees, it's an important factor that they illegally
and got fined by the Town when they removed a ton of trees, and
believe, I don't know if all the neighbors would agree with
that statement, so we don't repeat, would you stand up if you
agree with that? So I don't just keep going over and over.
(Audience members stand up).
How many trees were removed, roughly, to your knowledge?
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Hundreds.
MR. FALLON: So I would just like to make that point.
MS. WALDRON: I provided in the material, you can see part of
both parcels in that picture, before the Freed's cut down everything.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Thank you, ma'am.
MS. WALDRON: It's a Google Maps picture.,
MS. SAWASTUINOWICZ: Good evening, my name is Nancy Sawastuinowicz.
My great grandfather Ludwig Sawastuinowicz farmed in Cutchogue
100 years ago. It was an experience I will always treasure, to
grow up on the north fork. To me as a child, Cutchogue was
paradise. I used to ride my horse bareback and swim in the bay
off of New Suffolk Avenue. All the beaches were used by the
public. It's a taxpayer's right to use our beaches. As the years
Board of Trustees 51 February 15, 2017
went by, the north fork was found. The over-development being
permitted by the Town of Southold is breaking my heart. Thank
you, for holding this public hearing. As a member of the public,
I'm here to oppose the proposed swimming pool and further
hardening of the landscaping on an already overbuilt lot. The
Freed's have already built a McMansion that is a disgrace to a
once peaceful area. The oversized McMansion --
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Ma'am, at that point I have to cut you off.
Again, you are making subjective accusations on the esthetic
quality of a property that is --
MS. SAWASTUINOWICZ: Esthetic value is part of the --
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Ma'am, that is again, outside of our
capabilities. I totally understand your desire to express your
feelings with regard to how the north fork is changing, but that
is out of our ability to address.
MS. SAWASTUINOWICZ: Okay, I won't address that again.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: We can only address things specific to this.
I'm sorry.
MS. SAWASTUINOWICZ: Okay. The oversized McMansion --
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'm sorry, I'll have to cut you off again.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Please restrict your comments to the
environmental aspect of the proposed swimming pool.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Those are subjective accusations that are not
subjective to the case at hand. I'm sorry.
MS. SAWASTUINOWICZ: The right-of-way over the property on the
east side of the Freed's property is an important asset. You
could even call it the centerpiece of the neighborhood. I don't
live in the neighborhood but I have friends who do. When I visit
them, we love to go to the beach, not to see giant houses but to
see a natural setting.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Ma'am, you're doing it again. I apologize, I
know you want be able to express yourself but I would like to
express myself in many ways but I can't do it because it's'
outside of the purview of my job.
MS. SAWASTUINOWICZ: People who live on the Peconic Bay--
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Ma'am, I'll have to cut you off, I apologize.
MS. SAWASTUINOWCZ: Do not need a pool --
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Ma'am, please respect the dais. I'm being
very respectful --
MS. SAWASTUINOWICZ: This is my closing statement. It has nothing
to do with McMansions.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: It has nothing to do with the case and that's
why-- I
MS. SAWASTUINOWICZ: It has to do with the shoreline and marine
waters. I'm going to talk about the shoreline and marine waters
right now.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'm sorry, I'll have to ask you not to continue on
this vein. I'm sorry.
MS. SAWASTUINOWICZ: The few trees that are left is what is a
precious natural neighborhood to protect Peconic Bay from noise
pollution and water pollution and to increase the risk of
Board of Trustees 52 February 15, 2017
erosion and planned ugliness that would be inevitable by
resulting a permit-- I'm sorry, I would like to have this in
the record. (Handing).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would point out that the Town does not have
a tree code on residential property. So if you.are concerned about
trees, and most of us are, you have to address it to the right venue.
MS. SAWASTUINOWICZ: I know, but these people cut trees down on
the right-of-way.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We are not having a back and forth.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board is aware of that. We drove by
that many times in the course of our inspection in the area.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm not saying your concerns are not valid. I'm
just saying you are putting them forward in the wrong place.
MR. HERRMANN: Maybe I'll take another shot, maybe to try to
advance this this evening to further what Tony Pasca had said,
because there were a couple--of all the comments that have
been made, there were a couple of very specific comments made by
Mr. Fitzgerald and also Mr. Giordano about a practical concern,
understanding the dispute on the 33-foot, most easterly 33 feet,
about access and heavy machinery and damage. If it would allow
us to conclude this tonight, then what the Freed's would be
willing to do to further provide the assurance with respect to
Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Giordano's comments would be to further
extend the project limiting fence, because as the Board knows
project limiting fences are established within properties that
are not in dispute every single night. If there is a portion of
the property, typically nearest the wetland, having nothing to
do with the right-of-way, the Board requires some sort of
project limiting fence to contain site disturbance, that has to
be set up before construction begins, and sometimes the Board
will even call for a pre-construction inspection to make sure
that the project limiting fence will be set up in the right
location. So if it would allow us to get to the point where
everybody understands that, regardless of the dispute, that the
33-foot section of this,property would not be used as access, we
can submit a site plan that shows the northerly extension of
that project limiting fence along that disputed property line
that would just provide some, not only speaking assurance to the
neighbors who brought that up tonight but would provide a
physical assurance once the property is under construction that .
it would even be subject to your pre-construction application to
confirm that the fence is in the right place, so it would be
very clear if the condition of that permit was being violated,
if there is machinery on the other side of that fence. That does
not speak in any way to the ownership of the property, but just
protecting a portion of the property from machinery access, same
as this Board does on any other application that it handles.
My next application tonight, if I ever get to it, has a
project limiting fence between the proposed 'construction and the
waterway. So, again, I'm just trying to respond to the very
concrete concerns that relate to this proposal that might
Board of Trustees 53 February 15, 2017
provide some assurance to those people.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: A quick question to address some of the
concerns. I know they are going to move or replant one large
caliper tree. Would you be amendable to planting some more trees
to make up for those you are taking down?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A couple of small cedars to replace the cedars
that are being taken out, possibly.
MR. FREED: Hi, my name is Todd Freed, the applicant. And yes,
we would. So, thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And then my other question is, you are
abandoning an old foot path?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can we revegetate that with -- because it is
the Board's practice, as you know, to put a four-foot wide and
no larger, we are pretty strict on that, footpath to the bay, as
you know. If we can revegetate the old one with those grass, I
did a lot of work in restoration, that is very doable, if we
could do that.
MR. HERRMANN: I can do one better, too, Nick, because on the
plan now that pathway which is already sort of passively
re-vegetating, its shown to be abandoned and allowed to
revegetate passively. I think what you are asking for is active
re-vegetation, which we could do, and we could also reduce the
four-foot width of the proposed pathway down to three feet, which
would be closer to the one that is there, so it would be closer
to a one-on-one replacement. So we are willing to reduce the
width of the proposed path and active re-vegetation of the other
path, and then propose the additional tree relocation over the
easterly side, but westerly of the disputed property line.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Could we have an actual replacement of two
trees for every tree removed?
MR. HERRMANN: We would have to see if we have the room for it.
But I would defer maybe to Dave.
MR. CHICANOWICZ: Dave Chicanowicz. The location of the proposed
trees?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I was just thinking as a principle, because
there has been so much clearing on the lot, the trees that would
be best suited for survivability wouldn't necessarily have to be
within the wetland jurisdiction to kind of get transferred next
to the water. It's just a thought so we don't leave it untidy,
just nebulous trees replaced that were once cut down. I thought
two for one small caliper trees.
MR. HERRMANN: I think one-for-one works. I mean, that is what we
are trying with the oak. We could try the same thing with the
cedars. Or again, if Dave Chicanowicz is the landscape design
person involved with the project would find a different native
tree that would be suitable and acceptable to the Board, I would
defer to Dave. But certainly in principle we could agree to that
and come back with a plantings plan.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Not less than one-for-one.
MR. HERRMANN: Correct.
Board of Trustees 54 February 15, 2017
MR. SCHWARTZ: To speak to the point of the trees, I believe
those cedar trees are too large to transplant.-They have a long
tap root and I don't believe they can be transplanted.
If I may, since I was interrupted before,just speak to the
issue of lot 12.1. 12.1 has never been recognized by the Town of
Southold. Even though there is a property card right now for
12.1, Section 280-9 says a lot shall be recognized if the lot is
approved by the Southold Town Planning Board. The only lot that
the Town of Southold might recognize is the one that is divided
by the Suffolk County tax map people into two lots because they
recognize there is separate ownership. So I don't believe this
Town, this Board, can consider an application on half a lot. Lot
12 is history. They need to establish, first they need to go to
the Planning Board. They need to do the subdivision. Then they
can come to you. Despite the fact they got that building permit
and despite the fact there are other pools along the same
well, you're not listening.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: We are actually looking at the site plan.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay, I'm sorry.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I guess I'm starting to get a little confused
here. Were you claiming that there is just one lot and it is 34
feet or 33 feet wider than this one?
MR. SCHWARTZ: May I submit this for you to take a look at?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I asked you a question: Are you claiming this is
just one lot?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Lot 12. When the applicants contracted to buy the
property, there was one lot.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And we established the fact there is two lots --
MR. SCHWARTZ: One tax map. -
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And this is on Suffolk County tax map 12.1
MR. SCHWARTZ: Right. And in the Town of Southold it was 12.1.
MR. PASCA: Part of what is he is saying actually correct. Back
when this was purchased, this was one tax lot. It always was one tax
lot. Since the days they started with the tax lot. It only got
split when the deeds were split. But in the eyes of the Town,
and that's why we got into this with the Building Department
when the first permit application went in, in the eyes of the
Town, when all these codes started, it's always been one lot.
And the Town said to us you can't just subdivide it. We are not
trying to subdivide it. We submitted an affidavit saying we
never tried to subdivide it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We are going over ground we have already gone
over.
MR. PASCA: But you keep letting them bring it up, too, and they
are trying to muck up the record at this point.
MR. SCHWARTZ: We are looking at the Town Code here.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Benja, all right. I'm about ready to limit the
discussion. Unless somebody has something totally new or relevant.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak, a new
person, regarding this application?
(No response).
Board of Trustees 55 February 15, 2017
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Recognizing that there is a dispute over the
right-of-way, and making note that this is outside of our
purview, I make a motion to approve this application with the
following amendments and stipulations: This will be a saltwater
pool; they will revegetate the old path; we will receive new
plans for a project-limiting fence; also including a three-foot
beach access path to the bay; they will replace the six cedars
with six new evergreens; the plans with the new drywell
location; and with a stipulation that no access through the
disputed 12.2 will occur during construction.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded.
How do you vote?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mike, can we take a five-minute break?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes, a five-minute break is a good idea.
(After a recess, these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, break is over. Number ten, En-Consultants
on behalf of BEXSTOREN, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 14'x16' screened porch addition to existing
3,490 sq.ft. one-story dwelling with 5'x6' landing and 6'wide
steps to grade; demolish and remove existing upper and lower
attached decks and steps; reconstruct in-place ±143 sq. ft.
portion of lower deck situated seaward of existing 841 sq. ft.
swimming pool which is to remain, and construct new reconfigured
±970 sq. ft. lower and ±878 sq. ft. upper decks connected by 12'x12'
landing and steps; remove existing pool house and roofed over
deck, and construct new 8'x12' pool house with attached 4'x8'
outdoor shower and 8'x16' roofed over deck; remove existing pool
house leaching pool and install a new upgraded sanitary system
landward of dwelling for proposed pool house and dwelling;
install pool equipment, pool enclosure fencing, and pool drywell
for existing swimming pool; install a drainage system of
leaders, gutters, and drywells to contain roof runoff; remove
±30 linear feet of existing wood retaining wall; reconstruct
in-place ±54 linear of existing wood retaining wall; construct
±40 linear feet of new 18" high stone retaining wall; remove
existing brick walkway and steps, and construct 84 sq. ft. of
on-grade masonry walk with wood steps; remove existing on-grade
walkway and steps and construct portion of proposed ±646 sq. ft.
On-grade masonry walkway; replace existing masonry walk and
steps to existing dock with proposed 4.5' wide dry laid masonry
slab steps; and to establish and perpetually maintain a 10'wide
±1,535 sq. ft. non-turf buffer adjacent to the tidal wetlands boundary.
Located: 625 Arshamomaque Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-66-3-1
Board of Trustees 56 February 15, 2017
The Trustees did a field inspection on February 7th, and
noted that all the construction is within the existing footprint
and therefore does not affect the wetlands.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The CAC voted unanimously to support this application.
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of the
applicants.
It is largely a reconfiguration with some changes of the
existing decking, other decking that's going exactly in-kind and
in-place, all depicted and described in the site plan; the replacement of
existing pool house, which is on the C of O; the addition of a
porch within the footprint of the existing deck that is being
removed and reconfigured; and significant mitigation with the
project is actually the removal of the existing'sanitary pool
that is located within your jurisdiction and associated with the
existing pool house, which is being moved totally out of your
jurisdiction as part of one upgraded septic system that would
serve both the new pool house and the existing dwelling. We
proposed a ten-foot non-turf buffer along the'tidal wetlands
boundary, and if the Board has any questions or observations
about the application, I'm happy to respond to them. Hopefully
you won't.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We appreciate the excellent description and
straightforward project.
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else who wishes to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I make a motion to approve this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you, all.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number eleven, Suffolk
Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of FROST ROAD
ASSOCIATES, LP, clo 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
Board of Trustees 57 February 15, 2017
Arshamomaque Avenue & 1840 Frost Road, Channel leading into
Petty's Pond, Southold. SCTM# 1000-66-3-14& 15
The application has been reviewed by the CAC which supports
the application.
This application has been deemed to be consistent with the
Town's LW RP.
The Trustees inspected the project, we have determined that
access from Arshamomaque Avenue so it won't create issues of
access while conducting the project. The project is being done
with a relatively small scale with front end loader. The meets and
bounds are similar to a project which I believe I saw some time
in the late 80's, early 90's, it's a reoccurring need because of
the sand that moves into this particular sump abatement on
Southold Bay. Is there anyone here wishes to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
on behalf of Frost Road Associates. I don't have anything
further to add to what you already described, but I'm here to
answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any questions?'
(Negative response).
Upon Trustee inspection, the record reflects this is
straightforward. Does anyone else wish to speak to the
application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this
application as submitted for ten-year maintenance dredging of
Petty's Pond. '
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number 12, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Inc. on behalf of DEKKA, LLC, clo CHRISTIAN BAIZ requests a
Wetland Permit to repair the existing ±480.0' long concrete sea
wall where needed; install a ±439.0' long retaining wall located
±15.0' landward of the existing concrete sea wall and comprised
of vinyl sheathing, two (2)tiers of 6"x6" timber waters, two
(2)tiers of 6"x6" timber backing clamps, 2"x24" timber top cap,
8"-12" diameter timber deadmen and 8"-12" diameter lay-logs with
tie-rods; install a proposed 15.0' long bulkhead return back to
the proposed retaining wall within the southeastern corner of
the property; install a proposed 20.0' long return off the
northern terminus of the existing sea wall within the
northeastern corner of the property; for the existing timber
bulkhead and return totaling 78' in length on the southeastern
corner of property; deposit±700 cubic yards of clean fill
Board of Trustees 58 February 15, 2017
obtained from an upland source between the existing concrete
seawall and proposed retaining wall, grade and groom same, and
plant with native plantings; relocate existing 155 sq. ft. shed landward
to a minimum distance of±100'from existing concrete seawall.
Located: 120 Bay Home Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-5-1.3
On 7th February 2017, all Trustees visited this property.
The notes say good to go, no issues were discovered during the
inspection.
The LWRP has resolved that this is consistent. Their
comments are use vegetative, non-structural measures to manage
flooding and erosion hazards.
And under the CAC, they have resolved to support this application.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of
this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicant Dekka. This is an application that was
originally granted shortly after Hurricane Sandy had caused
extensive damage here. The applicant acted on his permit and did
some minor bulkheading replacement work on, I would say the
south, southwest corner of the property, which you saw in your
inspection. Because that was done, it enabled us to eliminate
approximately 40 feet of additional landward retaining wall. So
it is in all respects consistent with the application previously granted.
The reason why it's taken this time to implement it is
because the applicant has been seeking various loans and grants
from the State of New York, and it's taken a very long time to
secure those. I believe he's ready to move forward with all of
that at this time.
I'm here to answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is there anybody else who would like to speak
on behalf of the applicant?
(Negative response).
Any thoughts from the Board?
(Negative response).
All right, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The next application, number 13, Suffolk
Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of PARADISE POINT
ASSOCIATION, clo DOUGLAS CIAMPA requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 42' long bulkhead extension comprised of vinyl
sheathing, two (2) sets of 6"x6" timber walers, two (2) sets of
6"x6" timber clamps, 8" diameter timber pilings, 8" diameter
deadmen and tie-rods; backfill eroded area landward of proposed
bulkhead extension with ±40 cubic yards of clean sand obtained
Board of Trustees 59 February 15, 2017
from an upland source to be graded and groomed.
Located: 225 Briar Lane; Inlet leading into the Boat Basin, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-81-1-16.10 & 16.1 1
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on February 7th,
noting the bulkhead does not appear to be necessary for this
location.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The CAC resolved to support this application. Is there anyone
here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicant, Paradise Point Association. I hate to use the
dreaded word "right-of-way", but what this application is about is
maintaining access so that the inlet can be managed. When you
went out there and looked at it, what you would have seen is a
rather large escarpment, and normally when we look at these we
try to do a rock revetment. That's what we favor now. But
because the distance is so limited between the shoreline and the
property boundary, we had to choose to go with a bulkhead, and
our concern is not that we can't get there today, because we
can, it's just that if we have any further erosion in there, it
will effectively block access to what I would call the northerly
groin, which we went through, actually Rob Herrmann went through
to have it revegetated, to re-bulkhead it, and it's a solid fill
bulkhead, as is both sides. And we use that area for soil
deposition and also access. So if we can't, I know of no other
way to stabilize that area so that access can be maintained, and
that's the only purpose of this application.
So that's why we are asking for it, but I don't think there
are any alternatives available to the property,owners to
preserve that access.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you talking land access or sea access?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Or like a walking path?
MR. ANDERSON: No, we get real equipment down there because we
used to use, and still do, we have a spoil site on the beach, and
we need to be able to get a truck down there. So if, when you
walk down there, you know, you would have walked on a dirt row
when you get down that is maybe ten-feet wide. So if I were to
lose another three or four feet, I would have a real problem.
would no longer have the access I need to manage that inlet. So
that's the purpose of the application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Could you show me on that photograph where the
right-of-way is? '
MR. ANDERSON: (Indicating). This is the bulkhead return is right
here. This whole area is being scoured out, so what we did is we
decided to go off that return and back this way so we could get
in this way, in here. This is the spoil site, as is this. With
the dredging of this inlet. And we need to move earth around.
It's subject to a ten-year maintenance permit that has been
approved by this Board but we don't just pile it up, we need
equipment there to smooth it out. Its a big pile of spoil.
Board of Trustees 60 February 15, 2017
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's not my question. It appears to be a piece
of property here to the west. Does the right-of-way come in on
the bottom there and --
MR. ANDERSON: The right-of-way comes along here.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's on that property.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Actually--
MS. CANTRELL: Those yellow lines are not accurate.
MR. ANDERSON: That's what is throwing me off. It's probably
easier to see on the tax map. It's actually along here. I think
this line belongs this way a little more. I think this line is
actually, it belongs more this way, to be honest with you. But
physically, when you are down and look at it, you would have
said to yourself, well, how would, you know, a backhoe get in
there. How would a machine to grade out the spoil that is
deposited in this area, get in there.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's the reason for my question because we
came in on the south and walked along the shore, and I couldn't
see how you could do that, with equipment.
MR. ANDERSON: We in fact did bring equipment here, we had John
Hocker do that when we were dredging out this piece which filled
in after Hurricane Sandy. so we had a barge stationed here and we
had support equipment here.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Tropical Depression Sandy.
MR. ANDERSON: Right.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I believe our concern is if we allow the
bulkhead to extend, will that stop the scouring or are you just
going to move that problem further down on the map there, inland?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, all I could say is that it looked to me that
it's very localized, and it's also very apparent from looking at
the aerial that is very protective. I won't say it would never
happen, but it would have to be an extraordinary situation for
it to happen, if that helps.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Why wouldn't you consider rip rap in that
area?
MR. ANDERSON: Because in order to build the rip rap, the
steepest we would ever build it would be a two-to-one slope. So
if the rip rap were high enough to equal the escarpment, which
is say five or six feet in that area, the base of it would be
nine to 12 feet. And that would cause me to be putting the
structure in waters and over bottom lands. So we didn't want to
do it that way. I'm sure we could not get permits to do that
from the DEC. You can't put in water revetments, for good
reason, quite honestly. So that's the only reason why it's a
bulkhead. Because you cannot fit a revetment. And I just know
of no other solution. Not even a low sill bulkhead, not even
coir logs, because the escarpment is, it's at least five or six
feet high. So the weight of the truck, if we don't have
something that is, or a vehicle that would access it, you will
have earth, vehicle, perhaps, fall into the creek. And we don't
want that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have a structural problem with
Board of Trustees 61 February 15, 2017
respect to our code, which prohibits new bulkheads on the bays.
And this is not just a relatively small return. What about the
consideration of some sort of engineered system where you might
go with vinyl sheathing or something, but with an allowance of
sufficient room to put Hesco baskets or something welded,
Hesco-style baskets with rock or something to attenuate the wave
energy. Because it looks, it's a scouring, it seems to me it
would be rebuilt and re-vegetated it might last until the next
major storm event. You know, build a road necessary for the next
maintenance dredging, but I'm thinking non-structural or
justify, if it's looks a little more like a revetment it has
something to attenuate wave energy, it gets us out of the box of
no new bulkheads on the bay.
MR. ANDERSON: I would say, first of all, we are not on the bay.
And secondly--we are inside the bay, I would argue. And the
second reason is I don't have the lateral room to do that. In
other words it could be sheet piling, it would just be more
extensive, I suppose. If I had vinyl siding and I had like a
gabion basket-filled rocks behind it, I don't know it would be
any difference between that and what I'm proposing. The gabions
would essentially be the anchoring system for the vertical surface.
So I don't see there is a gain for anyone to do it that way. And
can't recapture the area that is underwater because that's
considered by regulators like filling in bay bottom, anymore
than you can extend bulkheads into the water and backfill behind
them.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Our concern is the bulkhead you are proposing
will keep creeping more and more landward. You have the
reflective wave energy and the scouring will now take place 42
feet, whatever it is, further landward than where it's occurring
now.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, I can appreciate your concern but I simply
don't know of a way to maintain the access that is necessary to
manage that inlet. There is no access to the other side and, you
know, it's not something, I mean, the bulkhead, it was
re-bulkheaded and the return was extended at that time, probably
not enough, that would have been a new section of bulkhead
anyway. It's just that in looking at this, there is really, in
my opinion, I don't see any other way of doing this. If we can't
protect the area then we really can't manage the inlet. But we
don't have the lateral width, if you will, to do it with a
revetment, which is what we normally do now.
If you think about it, we do very few new bulkheads. We do
returns all the time. We just did one for Dekka. So my hope is
that this is just an extension of a return is how I would
characterize that. I would not look at it like this is a new
bulkhead. There is some new bulkheading but it's almost as
though when this was first done we would have done a return
differently. I can tell you, for example, it might have been
better not to have done a return at the end that is there now,
at a right angle, for example. It might have been better to
Board of Trustees 62 February 15, 2017
choose a 45 degree angle. Because we would have lost it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What about a low sill bulkhead?
Because we are running out of options. Low sill with some kind
of planting.
MR. ANDERSON: Again, I don't mind doing a low sill bulkhead but
have a five to six-foot escarpment there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you look at the Mill Creek Inn property
there, they have a very steep slope in a similar situation and
it's just a simple matter of maintenance with the planting the
grass. You are going to lose a little bit in a wave incident,
but once is establishes, it will lock in. It's a very similar
slope that they have there.
MR. ANDERSON: But we did that work there and the big difference
there, quite honestly, is that is all hard-hand clay. And that
is a completely manmade situation. And when you watch them
drive piles or do dredging, when you saw the'dredging, the
dredging for that alone took an entire winter, almost every day
Hocker was there. You saw his crane there, I'm sure. And,
that's because he's dropping it on this material that just
doesn't move. So you are right, it is a very steep slope there.
We did put a low profile, low sill bulkhead, and it works very
well here. And it can sustain a slope from that bulkhead of
probably 45 degrees, I would say. But when you look at this, if
you walk next to it, the sand will slough right off. If you -
walked within three feet of the edge there, it would just, the
sand would leave below your feet and go into the waterway.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's part of the problem. We were there right
after a large cyclonic storm, and it was coming in from the
southerly part of this photograph. You could see scouring,
undermining of the bank, that energy seems to be reflecting off
.the bulkheads that you have there, and just shooting right down,
maybe because of amplification, but it's causing a great deal of
erosion down there.
So to reiterate, what the Trustee said before, extending
this is just going to exacerbate the problem. It will make it
move down to the south. So that is why we were hopeful that you
could use large rocks to somewhat attenuate,the energy so it's
not reflected. That's the one thing. And maybe it will come a point
in time that you'll have to barge in your equipment, with the
materials, because you can see the scouring on the southern part
of what is right there now.
MR. ANDERSON: I agree with you. It is what it is. You know, I am
at a loss for an alternative that preserves the road access to
that area.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm uncomfortable with this application. I
think it's just going to make an ongoing situation to continue
to bulkhead inside the creek. I don't know, I have problems
supporting this. I just want to be honest with you, maybe table,
I don't know, maybe table this and allow for additional
consideration. This just doesn't look good.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, I would rather you table it than deny it,
°Board of Trustees 63 February 15, 2017
because maybe there is an alternative that I'm not thinking of.
But standing here before you today, you know, I don't know if
it's a geotextile that could be laid over, is what I'm thinking.
I can't do any kind of a standard revetment. I know, it would be
a vertical stack wall. Near vertical. Maybe gabion. So I would
say let's table it and see what we can come up with.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other questions or comments?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to table this hearing to explore further
options.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded. All in
favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number 14, Suffolk
Environmental Consulting on behalf of LISA GILLOOLY requests a
Wetland Permit for the existing split-level frame dwelling
approximately measuring 49'x24.9' and occupying 1,348.6 sq. ft.
with a 10.8'x8.3'four season sunroom; existing ±28.5'x30'
(631.7 sq. ft.)waterside deck with 7.5'wide waterside steps to
grade, T wide easterly side steps to grade, and T wide
westerly steps to grade; existing ±24.9'x1 1' (217.5 sq. ft.) deck
on landward side of dwelling; existing ±82'x&5' (283.5 sq. ft.)
westerly paver walk; existing ±34'x3.5' (1 19 sq. ft.) easterly
wood walk and steps; existing 12'x32' in-ground swimming pool
with pool equipment on 2.5'x4.5' concrete slab; two existing
propane tanks with two bollards; existing 17 linear foot long
westerly retaining wall; existing 7 linear foot long easterly
wood retaining wall; existing ±47'x34' (1,106.6 sq. ft.) at grade
patio; existing ±20'x21' gravel driveway; and for a proposed
22'x30' (660 sq. ft.)garage landward of dwelling; a proposed 45.1
'x48' (1,526.6 sq. ft.) on-grade pool patio; re-line and elevate
existing 12'x32' in-ground swimming pool; install a proposed 120
linear foot long retaining wall and deposit 1,000 cubic yards of
clean fill to achieve required elevation for a possible future
septic system; modify existing driveway for a proposed 21 'x33'
gravel driveway; install four(4)drywells for proposed garage
and driveway; install four(4)drywells for existing dwelling;
and install two (2) drywells for pool backwash and draw down.
Located: 450 Harbor Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-27-4-7
The project has been deemed to be inconsistent by the LWRP
coordinator. I'll go through his concerns momentarily.
The project is supported by the CAC.
A letter has been submitted to the Trustees from a resident
at 370 Harbor Road, Orient, who indicates in light of the recent
application -- I'll paraphrase: In light of the recent
application of Suffolk Environmental Consulting, this letter is
concerned that structures were built on the property without
permits and wants to dial back and have all structures without
permits removed in this process.
Board of Trustees 64 February 15, 2017
The Trustees inspected the property on February 7th. We
had specific concerns about why the septic would not be
installed during this construction, particularly since the
proposed fill is substantial. And although they are not proven
allegations of the existing sanitary system having failed and also
having been previously transmitted by the same neighbor who wrote
the letter.
In the comments of the LWRP, he made a specific list of
concerns that he had that are related to the functioning of
drainage structures and the fact that the proposed construction
is within the flood zone. The first is that the policies, number
four and number six, of the Town LWRP, should be adhered to. The
area is prone to flooding, and is in the flood zone, and the
flood zone is not shown on the plans. So the flood zone, unless
we missed that, would have to be included on the set of plans.
There is a concern of the LWRP coordinator concerning the
retaining wall causing additional flooding in King Street by
deflecting flood waters. Its recommended that this particular
aspect of the project be reviewed by the Town engineer. The
project engineer certification for the needs of a thousand cubic
yards does not assess any impacts, potential impacts of the
thousand cubic yards of fill to raise the property should be
assessed. There is a question about the depth to groundwater and
the ability for the drywells to meet the construction standard
and function. And the existing cesspool is located close to
surface waters partially within the coastal erosion hazard area,
and the location does not meet Town Code. And those are the sum
total of the LWRP coordinator's concerns.
Now, I know, based on several prior applications for
wetland permits, including the one immediately across the street
from Ms. Gillooly, that the Trustees had tabled the applications
and requested a review for the specific engineering based
questions concerning meeting capacity for the drywells and the
distance of drywells above the groundwater, and I guess we can
include that; concerns about the reflected wave energy could all
be reviewed as basically an engineering calculation which is
beyond the K-channel capabilities of this Board. So that was a
thought we had. We've had, I would say this is the third
application where serious concerns of ourselves or the LWRP
coordinator exists with respect to functioning of drainage
structures. It is notable, this is a brutal area for flooding.
do recall going down there after Tropical Storm Sandy that, the
Christmas storm, was actually the 26th of December, and viewing
some concerns that the Board previously had with this property,
and Ms. Gillooly was trying to engage me in a conversation about
her property when I was really heading up the shoreline with my
camera taking pictures of a number of sites, and Ms. Gillooly
quickly got in her kayak and she was kayaking up Harbor Road to
try to engage me, and it was really not the appropriate time for
me to be doing that. But it is notable that before the Town put
in a flapper valve to keep the waters from Hallocks Bay coming
Board of Trustees 65 February 15, 2017
in there, you could regularly kayak the terminus of Narrow River
Road and Harbor Road, and made quite a journey of it. That
actually has improved a lot. So there is some improvement
there. Sorry for the aside. I should have gone off the record.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: We said something about being brief.
TRUSTEE BREDMEYER: To make it particularly brief, the other
question is the sanitary system. The existing system is within
the coastal erosion hazard area. This has to do with the Town, is
probably poised at some point in the very near future to compel
denitrification systems, so it would be discretionary for the
Trustees at this time whether they want to enforce the system,
add the proposed new one, and you as the applicant and Ms. Gillooly
could consider putting the system in now, or if it is a case that
the existing system were deemed to be failed, you might be on
the hook to put a new high-tech denitrification system in. I'm
making note, having seen personally one way or the other, other
than it might be, with the extensive needs of the retaining
wall, additional engineering review, all the septic associated
with it- it would be something you might wish to consider a
conventional system if that was something that was a little
better to Ms. Gillooly.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk environmental Consulting
for the applicant. Ms. Gillooly went to the Town to seek a
zoning variance for a garage. There was nothing in that
application and nothing in this application that spoke to the
existing dwelling. We are not proposing anything to do with
that. There is nothing that speaks to a septic system per se.
There is an allegation from the next door neighbor that this
system was failing. We then hired Joe Fischetti who is here
tonight, who can walk you through the results of his inspections
of the system. But for me, the important kernel was she produced
a letter that was written by the Trustees dated October 11th,
2016. And the sum and substance of the letter is that the
concern was that if the garage was built, it's all these people
want to do is build a detached garage, that it might take up too
much room, so that making a future septic upgrade impossible.
So with that, what we decided to do was to, even though we
are not doing anything that would affect what is called a design
flow or the capacity, you know, of making the house any bigger or
not doing any of the things that would trigger a new septic
system, that would be constructed to prepare the site, such that
if a septic system were required, we could easily install it. So
initially we, I had Mr. Fischetti prepare a plan which shows a
septic system which it was filed with the Board, and it said
future septic system. Now, that septic system would require a
variance from Suffolk County Board of Review because the
components of the septic system are within a hundred feet of
surface waters.
Now, having said that, we are not terribly concerned about
that because the existing cesspool is as Trustee Bredemeyer has
Board of Trustees 66 February 15, 2017
expressed, very close to the shoreline and within the coastal
erosion hazard line. So we said whether you install the septic
system today or tomorrow, let's make sure that it can be
installed in the best possible location to achieve the upgrade
should it be needed. And that is what the application speaks to.
So we were sort of guided by this October 11th, 2016, letter,
which I'm sure is probably in your files. And that is where we
came up with the wall. So the wall had to be a particular
height. The wall had to be put on the property line. We have
separation constraints between the wall and future septic
components. So we had Joe Fischetti work through all of that.
We also said to ourselves while we are at it, okay, we
should make an effort to bring the property into compliance with
the Town Storm Water regulations, and that's why you see the
extent of drainage work that is proposed.
Now, I'll tell you, I have no problem with our engineers
and the Town engineers getting together to go over that. And I
think that's certainly not an unreasonable request for this
Board to make. But I think it's important, I want you to
understand how it is you approach this and why we approached it
this way, because, don't, forget all they really wanted was a
garage. So this project has gotten much bigger and much more
extensive than the garage, which I doubt anyone in this room has
an actual objection to. Other than it's potential to preclude a
septic upgrade in the future. So that's what is guiding this whole --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And that's precisely what the Board
conference requested.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Now as to some of these specific things, I
can certainly give you a flood zone on the map. But that doesn't
concern me one way or the other because none of what we are
proposing is subject to that form of regulation. We are talking
about--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The garage is not subject to the flood --
MR. ANDERSON: No. So we're okay with that. It's a detached
structure. So as to the impact to the fill, why we have the
retaining wall, you couldn't upgrade the septic system without
the wall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I understand that, quite frankly, I
understand that is still --
MR. ANDERSON: And the fill is the fill that is needed to achieve
the elevation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think that's simply a matter the engineers
can look at. The Board is passing through the comments of the
LWRP coordinator while they also relate to the structures.
MR. ANDERSON: And as to the structures built without permits,
what they are is pre-existing. They are not illegal structures.
They are simply built prior to the regulatory controls. And we
do this all the time when we come into properties, maybe there
is a shed down by a bulkhead somewhere and it's unpermitted. It
doesn't make it illegal. It just means that you need, that the
Town wants you to get a permit. And the applying for the permit
,Board of Trustees 67 February 15, 2017
is what cures it from an LWRP standpoint.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We understand that. That was not an LWRP
coordinator concern. And I know from being a fellow that lived
out here, the deck has been there pre-coastal erosion hazard
ordinance, the deck which extends into it.
With respect to the sanitary, though, obviously it's laudable
to try and improve sanitary systems. If you were here earlier
in the meeting, we ended up passing approval on an upgrade to
the current standard within 50 feet of a wetlands because there
were drinking water wells involved.
My understanding, unless Suffolk County has not changed
their regulations, is that a rebuild of an existing pre-existing
home to replace the sanitary system is permit exempt from the
Health Department. They only inspect and certify brand new
construction. So that the upgrade here would in fact avoid the
need for a review board hearing with the Health Department and
could be conducted according to the plan submission you made,
and you can go ahead and check with the program supervisor in
the county if that has not changed. Because where systems are
installed further landward than existing systems, particularly
where you are putting systems above the ground water, it's
considered a benefit. Whereas if the denitrification system were
to be put in in the future it would be subject to government
regulations, including testing of the water.
MR. ANDERSON: I'll tell you this. Tomorrow, at 9:30 in the
morning, Joe Fischetti and I will be in front of the Suffolk
County Board of Review. In this application, we are abandoning a
cesspool located approximately 50 feet from surface waters. And
we are replacing it with a conventional septic system that will
be located some 90 feet from surface water. We are subject to
full regulations from the Health Department and we are in front
of the Board of Review tomorrow at 9:30 for that. So I
respectfully disagree with that.
I'm confident I would get it because my system would be
better than what I have now, and I'm confident that even though
would need a variance for this, I would get it. And
explained to the property owners, you may want to put it in when
you are going through it, because honestly, it's more money but
it is not, as a function of the overall site improvements,
felt it was not that--the big drawback is this poor person has
been trying to get a garage built for, she says, a couple of
years now. And I do understand what the concerns of the Board
was. I do know also that it will take us nine months, ten
months, to go through that process with the Board of Review so
that we can build a garage, even though we are not effecting the
design flow at all.
So that is where we find ourselves. But I would like to,
for your benefit, and I have no objection to the engineers
working together or reviewing it privately and letting it come
back to you, but I would like to turn it over to Joe to explain
what his thinking was when he prepared these plans.
Board of Trustees 68 February 15, 2017
MR. FISCHETTI: Good afternoon, Joe Fischetti. I'm sorry, we
didn't put test hole data. We did do a test hole, Mark
McDonald did one on 9/14/16, so six months ago, groundwater was
at elevation 0.7. So we usually use elevation one minus the
groundwater. All sanitary systems are two feet above. All the
drainage structures are two feet above. I have no problem having
this submitted to the Town engineer as part of their storm water
management plan. The whole idea, when Bruce said to me I want
you to design a system on the site, I said, its a tight site. I
said I have to do drainage, too. Because I can't just sit back.
I have to keep that drainage 20 feet from the sanitary, and I
have drainage all over the place. There is just no room to do
this. So we had to look at this site completely. And that's what
we did here. So I have no problem. This is all approvable by
the Town engineer. I just failed to put in the test hole there
because it was not really relevant to this application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the Board --
MR. FISCHETTI: But I can put it in there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board gets it's one foot to groundwater.
We are not surprised.
MR. FISCHETTI: When you are that close it's usually a foot or a
half a foot.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I remember with a neighbor across the street
we had test hole similar.
MR. FISCHETTI: It's what it is. I've done enough close by that
the ground water lens gets so thin at that point, we use one
foot to groundwater. That's kind of normal.
designed this as a galley system. The galleys have to be
two feet above groundwater. If groundwater is one, the galley
is two feet, the galley is two foot high and they need another
foot, that brings me up to the elevation of seven feet. That's
why that retaining wall is seven-and-a-half feet.
I think, I also have the ability, the septic tank is in a
location that,if the Board, if the Town Board or this Board or
in the future, we could replace that septic system with some of
the new denitrification systems because basically they take that
septic tank gets removed and the denitrification system gets put
in there, there is enough room to put that there. I know we
talked about that and I thought about it. So this site is just
-- it had to be done that way.
The retaining wall, the Health Department regulations say
you can replace an existing system in-kind. Any time you don't
replace an existing sanitary system in-kind, you have to ask
approval from them. So this would have to be submitted to them.
You can't just put systems in the ground. You can replace
In-kind if you have a septic tank or an overflow tank. What
we've done in years that we find many times where there is an
old cesspool and what happens is that old cesspool gets clogged
and they put another tank in. So basically, that cesspool
becomes a septic tank. It's an overflow. It's solid. It ain't
leaching.
Board of Trustees 69 February 15, 2017
So, I've talked to the people, the engineers, they said,
fine, put a septic tank, put a leaching pool, you don't have to
talk to us,just do it. So we do that in-kind. This is not
in-kind. We have to do a complete submission. I have, they
require ten foot separation between anything of the septic that,
the sanitary system and the retaining wall. I only have five
here. I have gotten them approved for five. So I have no
problem with the Board of Review approving this when I have to
go to the Board of Review. But that takes us nine to ten months.
For us to wait for us to get an approval for this for them to
build a garage and wait nine months, that's--we are not going
to do that. We are not triggering a requirement for a sanitary
system.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Have you inspected the existing
sanitary and is it functioning?
MR. FISCHETTI: Yes, its functioning. They use it as a summer
home. When Doug Morris went there and he says he goes there and
finds it was actually down. So it is leaching. It's not very
big. It's eight-foot diameter by six-foot deep. So it's
marginal. But it is functional. So. And I agree, Bruce and I
agree with them that they really are spending this money,just
the retaining wall will be about$120,000. Just the retaining
wall. It's very expensive to do that stuff. So to do that
without doing the sanitary system, my own feeling is they should
do that.
MR. ANDERSON: I want to just add, I am of the view that
upgrading the septic system will be an eventuality, okay. I
mean, we can talk about what has to be done today or tomorrow.
But I don't think this is something that can stay in the long
run. And I also think time may very well be our friend because
as people get more comfortable with the denitrification systems,
you might even see a new septic system that is better than what
Joe has designed in that this will contain that component and
the ring. So I'm not sure forcing the issue at this point is
even good for the environment. Because everyone is looking at
this with baited breath. I'll tell you, I see some of these
towns are going to be requiring these. We know that. What we
don't have a lot of knowledge of is how they perform over time. You
know, and so, an upgrade I think will happen at some point.
would have no, if it were me, I would do it now, but it may be
better to wait, actually.
MR. FISCHETTI: I'm done, if you have any questions.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Does anyone else wish to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Any comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Okay, thank you. I think just to get this onto the engineering
side of the house, which also might include a discussion
concerning the reflected wave energy and whether the town
engineer would advocate any kind of small rip rap or something
Board of Trustees 70 February 15, 2017
along the wall, I guess call it open season, ask questions of
the Town engineer when you are doing the review over there.
And so, anyhow, accordingly, I would make a motion to table this
application subject to review of the drainage calculations
specifically dealing with the Town storm water management review
of the calculations.
MR. FISCHETTI: Can I make a comment?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I didn't close the hearing. Go ahead,
you actually could.
MR. FISCHETTI: We have to do a storm water management plan for the
building permit. It's not done. So for you not to approve this
plan for waiting for storm water management has nothing to do
with anything. As I said to you, this has to be approved, the
storm water management plan has to be approved by the Town
engineer as part of the building permit application. I have to
do one for them to get a building permit. So as to wave action
coming down --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was brought in by the LWRP coordinator,
that might be an engineering thing where they say, okay, we
might have some rip rap. To be perfectly frank, while we are
still on the record, before I get into the mood for tabling
again, I'm a little uncomfortable with not having the
engineering calculations done, because it may result-- I don't
mean, look, I know Mr. Fischetti has worked for a long time
here, but if the Town engineers had concerns or required
changes, it would have to come back to this Board anyway.
MR. ANDERSON: I think there is a lot going on in this site. It
sounds to me the concerns are whether or not, it's typical to
read from an engineer's standpoint, whether or not the engineer
would be supportive of this design, is what I'm hearing. And I
don't think it's the end of the world to have a conversation
with him and let him come back. So I think that's fine, if you
want to table it. The only thing I would say is just reflective
wave energy, the wall abuts a concrete/asphalt road. If the
concern was refractive wave energy, you'd get rid of the asphalt
road, not the wall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And the house and the pool.
MR. ANDERSON: The house and the pool.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I kind of agree with you. I'm trying to give
deference to our LWRP coordinator.
MR. ANDERSON: It's almost like I'm opposed to curbing on the
side of a road because that does it, too. I mean,"we can have
that conversation but I don't know that it goes anywhere because
I don't know there is any other way to do this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are there any other concerns of the Board?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to table this application, pending a
conceptual review by the Town engineers for the storm water
management.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
Board of Trustees 71 February 15, 2017
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
Michael J. Domino, President
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED
APR 3 2017
Southold Town Clerk