HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-03/22/2017 ®� s®���
Michael J.Domino,President �®� ®� 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 �� Telephone(631) 765-1892
A.Nicholas Kmpski ®��co � Fax(631) 765-6641
RECEIVED
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APR An
Minutesouthold Clerk
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
5:30 PM
Present Were: Michael J. Domino, President
John M. Bredemeyer, Vice-President
Charles J. Sanders, Trustee
Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Secretarial Assistant -
Damon Hagan, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER.__—,
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 5:30 PM
WORK SESSIONS: Monday, April 17, 2017 at 4:30 PM at Downs Farm, and on
Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of February 15, 2017.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Good evening, and welcome to our monthly
meeting. I would like to announce the people on the dais.
Starting on my left, Trustee Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee Charles
Sanders. Trustee Jay Bredemeyer is a moment late, he's giving
blood at the firehouse. I hope that is going well. To my right
is Assistant Town Attorney Damon Hagan, our clerk typist
Elizabeth Cantrell and our stenographer Wayne Galante. Agendas
are located at the podiums and out in the hall.
I would like to announce at this time the postponements.
Typically, they are postponed at the request of the expediter or
in some cases there is some missing information. If you note on
page eleven, under Wetland Permits, numbers 19 through 23 are
postponed. They are listed as follows:
Number 19, 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
Board of Trustees 2 March 22, 2017
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 20, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of
FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP., c/o FISHERS ISLAND CLUB
requests a Wetland Permit to raise the existing elevation of
four areas on two separate fairways; two areas on the 14th
fairway and two areas on the 13th fairway; at the 14th fairway
Section 1: To remove existing sod, remove and stockpile topsoil,
to place approximately 409 cubic yards of sandy fill, replace
the stockpiled topsoil, and seed and mulch the area
(approximately 36,757 sq.ft); at the 14th fairway Section 2: To
remove existing sod, remove and stockpile topsoil, to place
approximately 120 cubic yards of sandy fill, replace the
stockpiled topsoil, and seed and mulch the area (approximately
9,678 sq.ft.); at the 13th fairway Section 3: To remove existing
sod, remove and stockpile topsoil, to replace approximately 134
cubic yards of sandy fill, replace the stockpiled topsoil, and
seed and mulch the area (approximately 9,726 sq.ft.); at the 13th
fairway Section 4: To remove existing sod, remove and stockpile
topsoil, to place approximately 521 cubic yards of sandy fill,
replace the stockpiled topsoil, and seed and mulch the area
(approximately 23,000 sq.ft.). Located: East End Road, Fishers
Island. SCTM# 1000-1-1-3.13
Number 21, 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 6'x20'floating dock in an "L" configuration secured with
two float piles. Located: 755 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck.
SCTM# 10001 15-1 1-4.1
Number 22, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf
of PARADISE POINT ASSOCIATION, c/o DOUGLAS CIAMPA requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a 42' long bulkhead extension
comprised of vinyl sheathing, two (2)sets of 6"x6" timber
waters, 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 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 & 16.11
Number 23, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of
LISA GILLOOLY requests a Wetland Permit for the existing
split-level frame dwelling approximately measuring 49x24.9' 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, 3'wide easterly side steps to grade,
Board of Trustees 3 March 22, 2017
and 3' wide westerly steps to grade; existing ±24.9'x11'
(217.5 sq.ft.) deck on landward side of dwelling; existing
±82'x3.5' (283.5 sq.ft.)westerly paver walk; existing ±34'x3.5'
(119 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
If you here for one of those, they won't be heard tonight,
so you have a short evening.
Also, I want to announce by Town Code the files are closed
seven business days before the hearing. That is under Chapter
275-8(c). So if you have something you wish to put across to the
Board, we may accept it but it may lead to delays in the application.
At this time I would entertain a motion to have the next
field inspection on April 11, 2017, at 8:00 AM. Do I have a
motion?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The next Trustee meeting, I would like to
entertain a motion to hold it on April 19th, 2017.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like a motion to hold the next
work session at Downs Farm, April 17th, 2017, at 4:30 PM and on
April 19th, 2017, at 5:00 PM at the main meeting hall, and the
next meeting will be April 19th, at 5:30 in the main meeting
hall. Is there a motion?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 4 March 22, 2017
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion to approve the Minutes for February 15, 2017.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustees,
MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for February 2017. A check for
$13,599.48 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the
General Fund.
PUBLIC NOTICES:
c
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, March 22, 2017, are classified as Type
II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not
subject to further review under SEQRA:
John F. Costello Trust- SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.3
335Hill, LLC, c/o John McCarthy-O'Hea - SCTM# 1000-70-4-31
Kathleen Meguin - SCTM# 1000-55-3-25
Victor Ferrulii - SCTM# 1000-76-3-5
Fishers Island Development corp., c/o Fishers Island Club -
SCTM# 1000-1-1-3.13
Lee Schultheis - SCTM# 1000-106-6-29
Samuel Singer-SCTM# 1000-75-6-6.1
Carol A. Cassel Revocable Living Trust- SCTM# 1000-56-5-40
Michael Kurtz& Lisa Cleff Kurtz- SCTM# 1000-119-1-9.1
John A. Claflin -SCTM# 1000-4-7-6
John Elenterio & Juan Jaramillo - SCTM# 1000-37-5-21
Island Holding LLC, c/o David Long - SCTM# 1000-3-3-3.5
Mark Franklin - SCTM# 1000-2-1-12.2
Blue Horizon Bluffs, LLC, c/o Richard J. Principi, Jr. - SCTM#
1000-74-1-35.53
Paul & Margaret Kobalka - SCTM# 1000-14-2-23
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
Board of Trustees 5 March 22, 2017
Environmental Quality Review Act NYCCR Part 617:
1. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Ern-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
S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2017 the Southold Town Board of
Trustees found that the application of Stephen & Charlotte
Wagner is to be classified as an Unlisted Action-Negative
Decision pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations. A Long
Environmental Assessment Form and a field inspection have been
completed by the Trustees and it is hereby determined that it
will not have a significant effect on the environment.
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees are familiar with
this project having visited the site on February 7, 2017 and
March 16, 2017, and having considered plans for this proposed
dock at their March 20, 2017 Work Session, and,
WHEREAS, in reviewing project plans dated January 12, 2017 and
survey with water depths dated August 13, 2010, 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 1/3 across the waterbody. Depths for the dock
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 in an area where docks historically used
for commercial and recreational purposes.
Toxicity: The proposed dock 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.
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 proposed dock.
Scope in relation to view sheds: The seaward end of the
proposed dock lies landward of all existing docks that frame the
Board of Trustees 6 March 22, 2017
view shed. The perspective from New York State Route 25 will not
be discernibly different from the existing view currently
dominated by surface gear associated with shellfish aquaculture.
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 a Negative
Declaration pursuant to SEQRA for the aforementioned project.
At this time I'll entertain a motion to approve that
resolution.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. RESOLUTIONS -OTHER:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral five, Resolutions other.
Would one you of you gentlemen like to read this?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: 1, Resolution in support of Great Pond
Phragmites Eradication
WHEREAS, the emergent shores, ephemeral connected wetlands and
adjacent areas bordering Great Pond, Southold have been
overtaken by the invasive reed, Phragmites australis;
undermining the ecological and biological diversity of the
foreshore creating a disconnect between man and his environment,
and,
WHEREAS, the loss of varied habitats is diminishing the quality
of life for all shoreline residents, including man, and,
WHEREAS, this onslaught has marched persistently for over half a
century consuming nearly ninety percent of the shoreline, and,
WHEREAS, Great Pond's underwater lands are entrusted to the
stewardship of the Southold Town Board of Trustees for the
benefit of all residents, and,
WHEREAS, public access is currently available to Great Pond
through Suffolk County Park lands and Town properties, and,
WHEREAS, the technical feasibility of controlling Phragmites
australis has been successfully demonstrated elsewhere in the
Town of Southold, and,
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board of Trustees believe a
Phragmites control program for Great Pond, Southold is in the
long term best interest of current and future residents of
Southold, be they plant, animal or man, now therefore be it,
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Trustees support the "Invasive
Species Rapid Response...Grant" application dated March 24, 2017
from the Group for the East End to the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation on behalf of Southold Town, its
residents and the Kenney's and McCabe's Beach community, and be
it further
Board of Trustees 7 March 22, 2017
RESOLVED, that Southold Town Board of Trustees are resolved to
assist in this endeavor to ensure that said grant, if assigned
and funded, is fulfilled so that the benefits thereof ensure to
all the residents of the Town, County and State.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this time I would entertain a motion to
approve this resolution.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Roman numeral VI. In order to simplify our
meetings, the Board of Trustees groups together actions that are
deemed minor in nature. Accordingly, I'll make a motion to
approve as a group items one through four. They are listed as
follows:
Number one, Bruce Meyer on behalf of ARROWHEAD COVE AT
INDIAN NECK P.O.A. requests an Administrative Permit for a Ten
(10)Year Maintenance Permit to hand cut(trimming) of common
reed (phragmites australis)to not less than 12" in height; and
to remove any knotweed or bittersweet; with trimming and removal
to be on an as needed basis within an area 10 feet wide along
the roads and beach access way, the area would be approximately
6,800sq.ft. In total. Located: 2215 Arrowhead Lane, Peconic.
SCTM# 1000-98-2-26 & 27
Number two, En-Consultants on behalf of KEAN & BRIDGET
DRISCOLL request an Administrative Permit to replace (in the
same footprint) an existing ±11 'x16' enclosed screened porch
with a first story addition for habitable space. Located: 905
Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-10-3
Number three, Eileen Wingate on behalf of K MAC REALITY,
LLC requests an Administrative Permit to remove 60 sq.ft. of
existing second-floor deck, and 60 sq.ft. of existing first floor
deck; construct a new second floor roof deck; a new first floor
deck; and a new seasonal screened in porch for a combined total
of 705 sq.ft. onto the southerly side of the dwelling. Located:
405 Cedar Point Drive west, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-2-27
Number four, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of
RICHARD & SCHEHERAZADE MADIGAN requests an
Administrative Permit to construct a 20'x40' swimming pool, terrace,
and trellis structure (10'x20'); pool enclosure fencing; pool mechanical
enclosure; interior and exterior renovations to existing barn;
new sanitary system; and a drywell for de-watering and gravel
parking area. Located: 856 Narrow River Road, Orient. SCTM#
1000-27-49.6
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 8 March 22, 2017
VII. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Similarly, Roman numeral VII, I'll take a motion
at this time to group together for the sake of simplicity and
speed in the meeting items one through seven and nine through
14. They are listed as follows:
Number one, Sheri Winter Clary on behalf of VANSTON BEAR,
LLC requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#8600 from Glendalough
Properties, Inc. To Vanston Bear, LLC, as issued on May 20,
2015. Located: 5250 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#000-111-10-14
Number two, ANDREW TORGOVE &JONI FRIEDMAN request a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#8677 from 850 President, LLC to
Andrew Torgove &Joni Friedman, as issued on September 16, 2015.
Located: 7165 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-5-31
Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of KEAN & BRIDGET
DRISCOLL request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#8878 from Gloria
A. Scollard Inter Vivos Credit Shelter Trust to Kean & Bridget
Driscoll, as issued on September 21, 2016. Located: 905 Willis
Creek Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-10-3
Number four, JOSEPH VARELLO &JOANN TIERNEY VARELLO request
a Transfer of Wetland Permit#4442 from Joseph Pedicini to
Joseph Varello & Joann Tierney Varello, as issued on April 27,
1995. Located: 1130 oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-1-8
Number five, JOSEPH VARELLO &JOANN TIERNEY VARELLO request
a Transfer of Wetland Permit#4435 from Joseph Pedicini to
Joseph Varello & Joann Tierney Varello, as issued on April 27,
1995, and Amended on August 31, 1995. Located: 1130 Oak Avenue,
Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-1-8
Number six, JOSEPH VARELLO &JOANN TIERNEY VARELLO request
a Transfer of Wetland Permit#944 from Joseph Pedicini to Joseph
Varello & Joann Tierney Varello, 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
Number seven, Elaine T. Villano on behalf of BRUCE SANDS &
SARA KARP SANDS request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#4269 from
Elaine T. Villano to Bruce Sands & Sara Karp Sands, as issued on
January 27, 1994, and Amended on November 28, 2016. Located:
2080 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-4-3
Number nine, DKR Shores, Inc. on behalf of RONALD SCHWALB
requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#7448, as issued on
December 15, 2010; and for an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit#7448 to reconstruct in-place the existing 20'
long timber return using vinyl sheathing, and raise the height
of the new return to match the existing bulkhead height; and for
the as-built 46' long timber retaining wall. Located: 3105
Sigsbee Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-126-6-6
Number ten, Cole Environmental Services on behalf of SALLY
COONAN requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#8937 to shift the proposed 8'x20' landing at the bottom of
Board of Trustees 9 March 22, 2017
stairs further to the west to be constructed 5' off of the side
property line. Located: 262 Paradise Shores Road, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-80-1-4
Number eleven, Docko, Inc. on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DEV.
CORP., c/o FISHERS ISLAND MARINA, LLC requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit#8798 and Coastal Erosion Permit
#8798C to install a new±515 sq.ft. Sea Stretcher in lieu of the
originally proposed ±475 sq.ft. Sea Stretcher access float.
Located: Central Avenue, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-1-9
Number 12, JOSEPH BATTAGLIA requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit#64-3-3 for the existing water and
electric that was installed to the seaward end of the dock.
Located: Hobart Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-3-3.1
Number 13, JOSEPH BATTAGLIA requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit#7985 for the existing water and
electric that was installed to the seaward end of the dock.
Located: 2000 Hobart Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-3-3.2
Number 14, GREGORY DADOURIAN requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit#8568 to construct a 43.8x22'
on-grade bluestone patio against the westerly side of the
proposed pool with a French drain installed along the westerly
side of the patio; and to re-sod the entire property behind the
house to the fence line. Located: 2670 Deep Hole Drive,
Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-4-10
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number eight, Palumbo and Associates, PC on
behalf of BRUCE SANDS & SARA KARP SANDS request a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#679 from Anthony R. Villano to Bruce Sands &
Sara Karp Sands, as issued on August 9, 1971; and for an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#679 for the as-built
docking facility consisting of a 5'x33.3' catwalk with a
7.3'x7.9'fixed catwalk extension including a bench at seaward
end; a 3'x14' adjustable ramp; and a 6.2'x14.4'floating dock
with two (2)floating dock support piles. Located: 2080 Deep
Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-4-3
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency arises from the fact that the dock was built
without a Wetlands permit. Therefore, if we approve this request
for the transfer, we will bring it into conformity by giving it
a permit.
Okay, at this time I make a motion to approve this
transfer.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this time I'll take a motion to go off our
Board of Trustees 10 March 22, 2017
regular meeting agenda and enter into the public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number one, under Amendments, DKR Shores, Inc.
on behalf of SAMUEL SINGER requests an Amendment to Wetland
Permit#8893 to relocate the dock further to the north of
previously approved location; and to construct a smaller dock
consisting of a 4'wide landward fixed ramp up to a landward
fixed dock section using Thru-Flow decking and supported by
4"x4" posts in vegetated areas; a seaward 4'x60'fixed dock
section using Thru-Flow decking and supported by Monopile 3-pile
(8"-9" diameter) ice-breaker pilings installed 12' on center; a
adjustable ramp; and a 6'x20'floating dock secured in an "L"
configuration. Located: 44030 Route 25, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-75-6-6.1
On the 20th we'conducted, the Trustees conducted an inhouse
review and found no issues.
The LWRP has already reviewed this action, so no new
information has been reported.
Let me check the CAC. No change under the CAC.
Is there anybody here who would like to speak on behalf of
the applicant?
MS. RIGDON: Good evening, Agena Rigdon, DKR Shores, at the
behest of the applicant, here to answer any questions.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Are there any questions or thoughts from the
Board?
(Negative response).
Would anybody else like to speak on behalf of the applicant?
MR. SKABEIKIS: Good evening. I'm Daniel Skabeikis. I live in the
vicinity. My question is just for my own knowledge, and I could
tell the neighbors when they ask, what was the reason for the
move of the dock further north?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The DEC has chosen to have them move to that
section and reduce --would you like to speak to that?
MS. RIGDON: Sure. As you are aware, the dock was previously
approved further to the south near the southern property line.
We got a little roadblock with the DEC, so we basically went
back to square one, researched some aerial photographs, we had
the surveyor complete full soundings of the entire parcel, 22
acres. We found some deeper water to the north. The DEC asked to
us move it to the north. They approved the project.
Coincidentally we ended up making the dock quite a bit shorter
as well, at the same time.
MR. SKABEIKIS: Deeper water, okay. And I was wondering, in
approving a dock like this, are any specifications made as to
Board of Trustees 11 March 22, 2017
the number of crafts that could be tied to it at any one time?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The general rule of thumb is two craft can tie
up to a dock.
MR. SKABEIKIS: Okay, so that's the general rule.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is no exact prohibition. The Town Code
also provides for provisions for two boats other than an owner.
It's generally based on what an owner feels prudent to protect
their original equipment. Heretofore we have not found it
necessary to be an issue with respect to the boats registered or
owned by an individual owner.
MS. RIGDON: Okay, the configuration of the dock only allows for
two crafts. It's in an "L" configuration.
MR. SKABEIKIS: Who stands by that law if we find it broken?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's Town Code. The bay constable enforces
the Town Code if there is something prohibited that relates to
the Town Wetland Ordinance.
MR. SKABEIKIS: Thank you, very much.
MS. RIGDON: Thank you, for your consideration.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: You're welcome. Would anybody else like to
speak?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve this application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number two, Docko, Inc., on behalf of ISLAND
HOLDING LLC, clo DAVID LONG requests an Amendment to Wetland
Permit#8799 and Coastal Erosion Permit#8799C to modify the
proposed dock to consist of a 4'wide by 85 linear foot long
post/pile fixed wood pier with handrails on both sides, of which
±53 linear feet is water ward of the apparent high tide line;
install a 3' wide by 30' long seasonal hinged ramp; install an
8'x20' seasonal floating dock with associated restraint piles,
and three additional tie-off piles for a total of five (5)
tie-off piles; the 3'wide pile supported ships ladder and
associated ladders at seaward end will not be installed.
Located: 1982 Brooks Point Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-3-3-3.5
The Trustees reviewed this application on March 17th.
The LWRP found this to be consistent provided that, confirm
that the proposed square footage of the newly proposed structure
is less than 200-square feet or the float is removed from the
water body each year, and to assess the potential impact to the
eel grass beds to the north of the proposed structure.
The CAC did not make an inspection therefore no
recommendation was made.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application?
Board of Trustees 12 March 22, 2017
MR. NIELSON: Good evening, my name is Keith Nielson, I'm
representing the applicant Mr. Long. This project has been
permitted in a strictly fixed-pier configuration in permits 8799
and 8799C, and the modification came in, a request came in after
the permit was issued to modify the dock to have a float. And so
this is a seasonal float, a seasonal ramp, otherwise the fixed
pier would remain the same. In this small area right here, the
authorized fixed pier will be shortened by ten feet in order to
make sure that the floating dock and the boats at their berthing
slips will stay clear of the eel grass beds. And they are in
deep enough water that there should be no impact on the eel
grass beds. The berthing configuration at this floating dock is
the same as the berthing configuration previously approved. I
would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: What's the water depth at the float?
MR. NIELSON: Seven to eight feet.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there any reason for the 8x20 as opposed
to the 6x20?
MR. NIELSON: Because of the water roughness. We are in somewhat
of a tough situation in that to make the docks fit within the
boulders that we denoted, you can see the gray boulders
highlighted in this drawing, and to avoid the eel grass beds, we
put the dock in the best we could for the existing conditions,
and that's just where we ended up. The float will be about 60
degrees broadside to incoming prevailing waves that come up
Fishers Island Sound from the west.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And it would be a seasonal float, correct?
MR. NIELSON: It's a seasonal float, probably will be installed
late in May and taken out early September.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Where will it be stored?
MR. NIELSON: It will be stored probably at Glenmore Marina in
Mystic. It will be towed off island.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
to this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions, comments by the Board?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: How was your trip out here?
MR. NIELSON: Awful. Only to be bettered by the trip back, I think
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Hearing nothing further, I'll make a motion
to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion to approve this application with the
condition the seasonal float that will be removed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing, number three, Docko, Inc.
on behalf of MARK FRANKLIN requests an Amendment to Wetland
Board of Trustees 13 March 22, 2017
Permit#8860 and Coastal Erosion Permit#8860C to construct a
4'x6'fixed pile supported ramp landing using open-grate decking
off of southerly side of fixed pier; install a seasonal hinged
ramp; install a 8'x20' seasonal floating dock with restraint
piles; and to relocate two southerly batter braced tie-off piles
to allow for the proposed floating dock. Located: Private Road
on Clay Point Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-2-112.2
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. NIELSON: Yes, Keith Nielson, Docko, Inc., I'm here to speak
on behalf of the Franklin family on behalf of this application.
About six months ago this project was permitted for the
Harrington family as a full-length fixed pier. Within a month or
so of the time of our application submission, the property was
under contract to be sold, and we decided after collaboration
with the Trustees that it would be best to see the old
application through. We had to get a variance from the Town
Board, which we did, and the permit was ultimately issued late
in the year. We have gone through a permit transfer process and
now we are trying to abide by the Franklin's, the new owners,
desire to have a floating dock for some of their recreational
boating access and activities. This again is a seasonal float,
seasonal ramp and seasonal decking system for the hinged ramp
landing platform.
I have prepared the application drawings and the details to
depict and adequately identify the seasonal nature of the
components as requested, and we respectively request your
approval.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board did review this both on field
inspection day and then discussed it at our work session. We
understand that this had already been before the Town Board for
an appeal under the Coastal Erosion Hazard ordinance, and there
is a degree of reluctance, that we were having a little bit of a
problem understanding the practicality of removing a 4x6'
open-grate support seasonally and the practicality of it and the
fact that it's typically, that is a fixed permanent addition to
a dock that is not normally removed like the ramp was, and I was
wondering if you could explain further how that might work.
MR. NIELSON: Sure. When we have areas where we have coastal
erosion concerns, the framing is installed and pile supported,
and the decking system is prepared in modular sections that can
be bolted in, clipped in, and at the end of the season the
decking, which is the part of the dock system that usually
causes erosion, I should say wave damage, is pulled out. It can
be stored up onsite or can be stored on the float and taken away
with the ramp and brought back and reinstalled in the next season.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So the timbers stay in place but the decking is
removed.
MR. NIELSON: Right, the decking is removed. And it's been our
experience that the, first of all, this landing platform is a
pretty small segment of the structure, but the timbers that are
Board of Trustees 14 March 22, 2017
used for framing it, because it sticks out from the edge of the
pier, are on the order of 4x12 or 6x12 timbers. They are pretty
stout. And the piles of course are permanent, and the system is
cross-braced. And the pile and deck framing are not going to be
broken by the waves. The waves will form around them. The
decking normally takes the brunt of the uplift load and is what
either comes off or rips the stringers out with it.
In this case, you can see, there is the landing. It's one
of the smallest sections of the entire pier, and with the
four-by and six-by timbers, it's extremely strong. It will not
fail under wave damage.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you, for that clarification.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The question I have is based on the location
of the proposed seasonal float that would probably be the
leeward side through the prevailing winds off that point, which
is typically hard northeast or north, so that provides the
maximum protection in season for vessels.
MR. NIELSON: Exactly.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So this small platform though would be
subject to other than the forces that are slightly less than the
dock width, which is to the windward and it is a very minimal addition.
MR. NIELSON: Very small plan.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I know the Board is concerned about setting
a precedent with respect to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act,
because this had already been on appeal. And I know we discussed
that at length. Obviously we wanted to listen to your testimony
here before we render a decision.
We have in the past granted bump outs for the matter of the
safety of people going on and off docks, and this provides for
similar, appears to provide similar to that. I'm wondering if
the Board might consider tabling this and have a further
discussion with respect to us granting the approval with or
without it being seasonal, and whether or not the Board would
want to delve into this, whether this is a di minimus addition
that provides safety. Because it seems the fixed portion is no
different than any other section on the long run of the fixed
dock to the windward. I don't think the Board, we want to hear
from you, and I'm thinking we should have further discussion on
this. I don't know what the rest of the members feel.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I agree with that.
MR. NIELSON: Take it away?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If you wish to comment additionally on that.
MR. NIELSON: The summary you provided is true and accurate. The
storm induced waves that would be an issue at this site are from
the north. The structure of,the main pier is already going to be
a pretty heavy-duty structure. As you know, from the previous
permit, the piles are braced beneath the deck, they are stout
piles; the timbers, the stringers are going to be 412 between
each one of the pairs of support piles, each one of the bents,
and the decking on the pier is all permanent. And those are
screwed down connections. And so the structure is stout. It's
Board of Trustees 15 March 22, 2017
built for this location. Hurricanes and coastal storms, which
can be an issue, are really coming down Fishers Island Sound
from the east and from the northeast. But this dock sits in the
shadow of Clay Point. And so the facility is blocked from those
storms. The north storms, the frontal-passage storms, are
usually considerable less duration, and although they can have
fierce winds, the waves generally don't develop in the sense
that they would develop for a coastal storm where the duration
would be in terms of ten, 12, 14 hours or a day. The frontal
passage storms are usually a duration of three to four hours, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we have an understanding of the
forces here. The issue for the Board of Trustees is with the
permit granting administrator under Coastal Erosion but not the
appeals board, and this structure looking much more with what we
associate with a permanent structure, the question would be
whether we have the authority to deem this di minimus or that's
a decision the Town Board could make, because this already has
been on appeal to the Town Board. So I think this is a question
of, in essence, the Board has to burrow into this for its
thoughts and confer with counsel and also possibly the Town
Board counsel with respect to whether we have the authority to
deem it di minimus and/or minor compared to the existing
structure, whether it has to go back on appeal to the Town
Board. We don't want to speak for the appeals agency, so.
MR. NIELSON: If I could just say one other thing. The square
footage of this platform is that 25-square feet. The area of the
pier is 750-square feet, and so this represents about 1/30th of
the size of the main structure. So I think from a di minimus
standpoint this clearly meets that definition. And like I said,
we tried to make sure that we can accommodate the damage
resistance of the structure by making, one, the pier stout, and,
two, removing the primarily target, which is the decking system.
And so we would appreciate your discretion in that regard.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes
to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table this application for
further consideration.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. NIELSON: Thank you.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Wetland Permits, number one, Patricia C.
Moore, Esq., on behalf 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'x1 5'
Board of Trustees 16 March 22, 2017
covered porch on seaward side of dwelling; construct a 5'x13'2"
storage addition to landward side of dwelling; construct a
13'4"x13' 11" 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
This was before us previously with the Board project
description. I'm going to read the revised project description.
Received in March 10th, 2017. This is a request for a foundation
replacement in-kind and in-place in front yard, and construct a
second-floor addition, new windows, siding, doors, construct a
5x15' covered porch in front yard, a 5x13.2 storage addition in
the front yard; construct a 13'91"x 15'33" master bedroom
addition. The addition is two foot landward. Construct a new
20x15' pervious brick-on-sand patio and walkways around the
house; a ten-foot non-disturbance buffer adjacent to the
bulkhead, drywells and gutters to leaders in accordance with
Town Code 276. This is all in accordance with plans prepared by
Scott F. Lurie, dated 11/1/16, approved by the Zoning Board of
Appeals November 17th, 2016.
In addition, we received revised plans last dated March
10th, 2017, received by this office on March 13th, 2017.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The CAC resolved to support this application. Unanimously
support it.
And the Trustees on the last inspection of the site made a
note about gutters and leaders to drywells, which is the
architectural plans needed to be updated, and obviously both of
those have been addressed by the new plans and new description.
Is anyone here to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no comments, any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the new revised plans and project description.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number two, J.M.O.
Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of HANS FLICK&
CELESTE KIME-FLICK request a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the
two (2)existing 60' long timber groins in-place utilizing vinyl
sheathing. Located: 1200 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. SCTM#
1000-90-2-21
Board of Trustees 17 March 22, 2017
This application previously was tabled by Board action
because the proposed groins extending out into state underwater
land appeared to need modification to meet current standards.
JMO Consulting did approach the DEC and did receive a permit for
which we have a copy of the DEC permit in our files, and for
which we have revised plans indicating that to construct groins
according to the current standard, that the groin on the west
side would be 40-feet long and the groin on the east side would
be 45-feet long, and would be of the low-profile construction,
and maximum 18-inches above grade of the down drift beach.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. JUST: Good evening, Glenn Just, JMO Consulting. Just
repeating what Mr. Bredemeyer just said, we went back to the DEC
after the Trustees meeting in January and questioned the plans,
and again we conformed to their new standards for groin reconstruction.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe this worked well for the sake of
processing because the Board in eying the situation on our field
inspection felt the groins would be in a relative length in that
range of 40 to 45 feet and not wanting to draw the exact footage
and have you on behalf of the owner going back and forth between
agencies for state underwater lands. I think this worked well.
Any other questions?
(Negative response).
Anyone else who wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Not hearing anyone, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in
this matter.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded. All in
favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application with the modification it conforms with the
Department of Environmental Conservation project plan that was
submitted to the record and to our file dated March 13th, 2017,
in that the western groin would be no longer than 40-feet in
length and the eastern groin 45-feet in length and to be of the
low-profile design with maximum height of 18-inches above grade
as per the plans. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded. All in
favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number three, 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
Board of Trustees 18 March 22, 2017
proposed 3'x1 5' adjustable ramp; and a proposed 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
On 3116, March 16th, 2017, the Trustees inspected this with
the exception of I was not present at this inspection. The notes
in the inspection state: Does not fit with the character of the
area, may jut out too far from the pier line and have a heavy
environmental impact. Those are the notes for the Trustee
inspection.
The LWRP deemed this to be inconsistent under the following
conditions: 6.3, protect and restore tidal and fresh water
wetlands, and 9.3, preserve the public interest in and use of
land and waters held in public trust by the State and the Town
of Southold.
The CAC has resolved to support this. The CAC supports this
application with the condition of a non-turf buffer and the
total length of the docking facility is shortened. The proposed
docking facility exceeds one-third across the width of creek and
will impede navigation.
Is there anybody who would like to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. HALL: Yes. Good evening. Dan Hall, with Land Use Ecological
Services. I'm the agent for the owner loannis Zoumas.
I was at that 16th site inspection and want to make a
couple of comments. The first of which is that I provided to the
Board an aerial overlay photograph which illustrates the
proposed dock in relationship to the creek surrounding the area
and the adjacent facilities, and I just wanted to point out a
couple facts about this site that led to the design currently
presented.
The first fact is that, as you view in the aerial
photograph, there is, adjacent to a bulkheaded piece of property
and there is a wetlands that juts out into Mud Creek here. And
that is the reason why we had to extend the dock out a little
further. And what appears to be some of the neighboring docks,
although it is a little further out than the existing adjacent
dock to the south, it's of similar length to other existing
docks in Mud Creek, and of similar design, some of the docks and
various floats and seasonal ramps, and some are fixed.
There was talk that there is significant objection to this design. We
talked at the site about possibly making it just a fixed catwalk, um,
which may be acceptable. I just didn't know, I wanted to have some
more thoughts from the Board on that topic this evening.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: You are referring to this (indicating),
correct?
MR. HALL: Yes.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: So we are on the same page.
MR. HALL: Yes. And similar, I don't know if I'm allowed to
submit anything tonight to the Board. It's just additional
aerial photographs,just showing more area.
Board of Trustees 19 March 22, 2017
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We'll accept those.
MR. HALL: It's just a wider view of the site. And the second
page of,the photographs shows Mud Creek to the south. It just
gives you a better idea of the numerous dock facilities that do
exist adjacent and in the vicinity of the project that are of
similar design and of similar length. Some further out, some
shorter. I mean, there's different, various conditions that led
to these designs. The dock design as currently proposed is the
length that it is because of the water depth encountered at the
site, that are obtained by a licensed land surveyor per New York
State DEC requirements, which reference water depth to mean low
low water. And as you can see on the plans, the dock is in that
deeper water. That's why we chocked it to keep it off the
bottom. It's not going to hit the bottom, therefore never really
have any adverse impacts on the bottom. It won't hit the bottom,
it's chocked. And then the float will be more on the outside, I
mean the boat will be more on the outside of the float. You
know, we have two-and-a-half foot water depth or greater. And
that's usually the standard of acceptance for the DEC and other
agencies for water depths. Water depths that are acceptable for
mooring of vessels. And I just didn't know what kind of
structure the Board was considering for this site, if it were to
be just a fixed structure. The catwalk is open-grate, it allows,
I'm sure you are familiar with that design. Minimal impact on
the environment. And I just want to hear what the Board's
thoughts were on this.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: If I could enter something into the record. The
property to the south has current, issued in 2006, for 4x44'
walkway with a hinged 4x16' ramp to a 6x20' float. The property
to the north, immediately to the north of your application, that
would be tax map 1000-138-2-14, in 2006, there is an amendment
to the permit for a 59' bulkhead and 20' return with a ten-foot
non-turf buffer. No float. No dock, no float. Similarly, the
next property north, that would be tax map 138-2-13, on January
of this year, was issued a permit to replace the bulkhead, use
coir logs, L-shaped 3x10'fixed dock and a 4x16'fixed dock. No
float. So what I was hoping for is something a little less
robust in this area. It seems to me in looking at the aerial
photograph also, you are on the cusp of something where further
back the structures are smaller than they are on the southerly
end of this creek.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would appear this is an area of
transition to an area where floats are not suitable even with
chocking. And the aerial that you gave us, we are not sure
whether or not that was simply an unapproved structure or winter
storage of a float that someone had pulled up alongside the
bulkhead, which Trustee Domino referenced that was prior
approval of the Board. I know you pointed out to us on field
inspection and we were a bit surprised because it was not there
at the time of inspection but showed up on this one aerial. And
I'm familiar with the creek quite a bit because I was up there
Board of Trustees 20 March 22, 2017
doing water quality work and I had not recalled the float there also.
I think the Board, when we discussed this at our
work session, we thought possibly an opportunity to do another
field-based inspection of the site to possibly discuss
alternatives to the float or possibly reconfiguring it, mindful
of the fact that this is a period in transition, the water is
fairly shallow, and we might be able to discuss with you if you had
thoughts about alternatives that would not be a full 6x20 float.
Possibly a smaller float or configuration, which we have with
some docks that are fixed, with a stepdown to allow for easy
launching of small, hand-powered watercraft.
MR. HALL: I understand.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I just don't think the float in that
configuration is appropriate for this location.
MR. HALL: Okay, so you are recommending to table tonight and
recommend additional site inspection for April?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, if that's amenable to you. It's
getting to a point where I don't think the Board is very much in
favor of it as it lies. That gives you the opportunity to talk
it over with the owner and possibly come back with maybe a menu
of a couple of alternatives.
MR. HALL: Okay.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Would anybody else like to speak on behalf of
the applicant?Anybody else?
(Negative response).
Anymore thoughts from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't hear anyone else. At this time I'll
make a motion to table this application for additional field
inspection.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number four, Costello Marine Contracting
Corp. on behalf of JOHN F. COSTELLO TRUST requests a Wetland
Permit to remove the existing davit and two ladders; remove 98'
of existing bulkhead and construct 98' of new bulkhead in-place
using vinyl sheathing; and to reinstall'the existing davit and
two ladders. Located: Right-Of-Way at the end of Wiggins Lane,
Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.3
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on March 16th
noting the need for a non-turf buffer.
The LWRP found this to be exempt due to that it is a minor
action for the replacement rehabilitation reconstruction.
The CAC resolved to support this application with a
drainage diversion plan for the sloped lawn area and the
installation of a ten-foot, non-turf buffer.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
Board of Trustees 21 March 22, 2017
'MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine. I'm fine with
that. We'll do the non-turf buffer and we'll divert the water.
It's always been an issue on that site.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Like a French drain.
MR. COSTELLO: It will'be diverted into the non-turf buffer area
where it will be pervious. And I'll answer any other questions
you guys might have.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: How about the gazebo? Could you put that on
the --
MR. COSTELLO: I don't have the plans. The gazebo will stay but
the shed will go. I didn't grab those plans with me. So I was
not sure if those were on there. The gazebo will stay. So I'll
alter the plans if it's not on there. But the shed will
definitely go. Like I said, I don't have a copy of the plans
with me.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer and plans with
the gazebo depicted on there.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded. All in
favor? ,
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number five, 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
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
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. We
addressed the inconsistencies at a previous hearing, so we don't
have to do that again. This is quite lengthy. But I would note
that if it should be approved this evening, that would bring it
into conformity.
The CAC resolved to support this application on January
11th, 2017. The site was re-staked and the Trustees did a field
inspection on the 16th, and we are in receipt of a letter from
Board of Trustees 22 March 22, 2017
Donald Leventhal who is the adjoining neighbor who I believe
previously had objected to the dock, which states in this new
letter we have no objection to the revised application, dated
2/2/2017.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine. I'm here to answer
any questions you might have regarding the application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I thought it was very nice that the neighbors
worked with the applicant. It seemed like reasonable questions
and a reasonable response.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a note also that we had, some Trustees
had some concern about the length but in reviewing it more
carefully we see that it is necessary to have that depth and to
get to it you have to have this particular length.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion
to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion to approve this application with the new
revised lengths.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. COSTELLO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number six, LEE
SCHULTHEIS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x12'
landward fixed ramp leading to a 4'x44' catwalk to be 4' above
grade of wetlands; a 3'x1 5' adjustable ramp; and a 6'x20'
floating dock configured in a "T" shape; the total length of the
structure not to exceed 78 linear feet; and the use on
non-treated lumber on the decking of the dock. Located: 372
North Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-6-29
This application was supported by the CAC.
It was deemed inconsistent under the Town's Local
Waterfront Revitalization Program. Many of the issues concerning
the vessel and the dock, and this LWRP were addressed by the
familiarity of the Trustees with the site onsite inspection. We
also noted there were docks both to the north and immediate
south of this proposed dock. The specific comment came from the
LWRP coordinator that since tropical hardwoods are proposed,
they are to be certified by the Forest Stewardship Council. We
can further discuss that during the course of the hearing as it
goes forward.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
Board of Trustees 23 March 22, 2017
MR. SCHULTHEIS: I'm Lee Schultheis, the homeowner. And this
application is in essence essentially identical to one that was
approved by the Trustees four years ago, March of 2013, for the
prior owner. One additional thing that-- I think the only
reason for some tropical Greenheart in that application was the
dock construction providers mentioned it was tough to get that
particular kind of timber in 4x4's for the CCA, but we can find
something that is not tropical Greenheart, if that's acceptable,
we can do that, too.
One thing that one of the Trustees mentioned onsite
inspection, which I thought was a great idea, was to look into a
3x20' aluminum ramp rather than 3x15 due to the degree of tides
in Mattituck Inlet. Upon thinking about it, my only thought was
at that point I'm assuming I would take the end of the catwalk
and fixed ramp and move those back some, otherwise my floater
would kind of bisect my dock at high tide completely. So I don't
know how we deal with that. Other than that, I think it's kind
of straightforward.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The more typically if it was your wish to
put the longer suggested ramp for the safety aspects of it in
Mattituck Creek where there is a high-rise in intertidal
distance, the Board could condition an approval on the
submission of an amended plan incorporating that since you would
have to get a Department of Environmental Conservation permit as
well, it might be advisable to fully consider if you wanted to
make the ramp longer and then submit it through revised plans to
both agencies.
With respect to the tropical woods, talking to the clerk,
and her information would carry over several boards, because the
need for tropical woods was new, I was on and off the Board
several times and basically the clerk indicated that
previously the Board did leave it to the individual to get it
from a secure facility, but since the LWRP coordinator made
specific reference, your lumber supplier usually can give you a
sort of a titling based on his distributor that the forest
products did come from the Forest Stewardship Council. So
believe that most of the major suppliers of Greenheart or other
tropical hardwoods can give you some kind of a chain of custody
verification. And I don't know if the Board would simply take a
letter for inclusion in the file to meet compliance with that.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I would agree with that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And obviously if you are prepared to put in
a non-toxic tropical hardwood that is grown with sustainable
forest practices you are not only helping our waters but you are
also helping foresters in places where they need work in places
of the world where we are trying to promote proper use of
material resources. So I think that's a win/win. So if you
could check with your supplier.
I see nowadays, I recently have been researching a project
myself, I noticed that you see it on most of the websites, most
of the providers now will tell you right up front this is Forest
Board of Trustees 24 March 22, 2017
Council approved.
MR. SCHULTHEIS: I think the application was only for some of the
timbers. Some of the rest were CCA.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We'll cover that. With respect to
open-grate decking, we had discussed that in field inspection.
Is that your wish, to stay with that?
MR. SCHULTHEIS: Yes, that's fine.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe because you are envisioning some
changes, I'm thinking maybe it would be best if we table the
application for submission of the new plans, unless you know for
sure you want to go with 21-foot ramp and with through-flow, we
could consider moving the application with the stipulation you
submit plans as a condition of the permit.
MR. SCHULTHEIS: I would rather do it that way, with the stipulation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, is there anyone else who wishes
to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this
application with the stipulation that new plans would be
submitted in conformity with the applicant's wish to go with a
ramp up to 20 to 21-feet in length, that the proposed dock would
not go further seaward than the plan already submitted, and that
it would include the provision for through-flow decking on the
plan; and that the applicant would submit a verification that
the tropical hardwoods to be on several pilings would in fact
have been approved by the Forest Stewardship Council or similar
rating agency that would provide the fact the materials were
harvested and grown sustainably. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number seven, Susan E. Young, R.A. on behalf of
JOHN A. CLAFLIN requests a Wetland Permit for the existing
3,953 sq.ft. dwelling, and for the as-built construction of a
156 sq.ft addition and a 30 sq.ft. addition onto the seaward side
of the dwelling. Located: East End Road, Fishers Island. SCTM#
1000-4-7-6
On March 15, the Trustees inspected the file.
The LWRP coordinator has found this to be inconsistent
under(a), comply with statutory and regulatory requirements of
the Southold Town Board of Trustees laws and regulations for all
Andros Patents and other lands under their jurisdiction. Also
there is a note stating that the structure was built without the
benefit of the Board's review.
Board of Trustees 25 March 22, 2017
And the CAC did not make inspection and therefore no
recommendation was made.
If the Board deems this to be approved then it will satisfy
the LWRP by granting it a permit.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of
the applicant?
MR. YOUNG: Yes. I'm Susan Young, speaking on behalf of the
Claflin's. I have a couple of visual aids but they are awfully
small. I don't know if I could simply give them to you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We'll take them. Do you want these back?
MR. YOUNG: No, I don't need them. Basically, we did not look at
the setback line and we apologize terribly for this. Our
surveyor did not note it on his survey. He just did the building
setbacks, and the line actually runs just in and out of the
front of the building. And it was an oversight. We had two
architects on the project, a surveyor and the Building
Department also came to look at the project, and none of us
realized that in about 103-square feet we were actually
encroaching on this wetlands setback line. And it was, we have
only gone into the setback about five feet, and we never meant
to. We are very chagrined, apologetic, that we did this. We
should know. And at any rate, they got a permit for the--we
got a permit for the first half of the house, and the contractor
started straying into the rest of the house before it was
permitted and it was on that part that there was a 30-square
foot area and another area in the other part that was, that
actually should not have been built on. But right now, there is
foundations under there, and there is a vaulted ceiling all
resting on that, on the outside, at the perimeter. They did it
very, very carefully. They just dug it by hand and wheeled it
away in wheelbarrows. And it is very far from the wetlands, the
actual wetlands, but we did build on them without a permit and
we just, we didn't mean to. The building inspector just came on
the site and said well, looks great, guys,just get a permit
when you can. But because they were doing this great building,
they were putting in parking ties and just doing a great job
with it, and it turns out they were building something in the
wrong place. But right now, I think it would be so expensive to
undo, and we are only covering about 103, you know, that is
10x10. So I would say, you know, maybe we are hoping you could
grant us a permit for it because it would be awful to tear it
down. I can point things out on that map.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Question. The rendering is very small, as
are the photographs. Are there gutters and leaders to drywells?
MR. YOUNG: I believe so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because that provision of the Town Code we
wish to reiterate where it encroached on the wetland zone --
MR. YOUNG: Most of it is existing or just improvements on the
existing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would be a matter that typically the
Board would stipulate if it's unclear, that would be a
Board of Trustees 26 March 22, 2017
requirement for your final compliance inspection by the Board of
Trustees.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is there anybody else who would like to speak
on behalf of the applicant?
(Negative response).
More thoughts from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the modification that proof that gutters and leaders to
drywells are reflected on the new set of plans, and this would
bring this into compliance by giving a permit for the structure,
this -- by us giving you a permit for the structure, it fulfills
the LWRP's inconsistency. That's my motion. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number eight, PAUL & MARGARET KOBALKA request
a Wetland Permit to construct a walkway/footbridge over the
gully to the water using Thru-Flow decking, 4"x4" tropical
hardwood posts installed 8' o.c., 2"x6" stringers, and 2"x6"
headers. Located: 695 Pettys Drive, Orient. SCTM# 1000-14-2-23
The Trustees conducted a field inspection March 15th,
noting that the seaward structure could be a little bigger,
possibly 2x10 or 2x14 to protect the bridge and foot path.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies
are the proposal walkway will be at great risk of loss from
storm surge due to fetch of the waterbody. And also tropical
hardwoods are proposed and are not permitted unless it is
certified by the Forest Stewardship Council or similar organization.
The CAC resolved to support this application using
appropriate construction materials, no disturbance to the dune
and natural vegetation, and no disturbance to the existing
natural debris.
We did receive a number of e-mails from the neighbor Maddy
Droesch of 885 Pettys Drive, expressing her concerns. We did go
over all these e-mails. I won't read them for you. Six pages
worth. But we did consider those and we have taken them into the
file for consideration just like public testimony.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. KOBALKA: I'm Margaret Kobalka. My husband and I are
applicants. This letter is in response to a letter written to
you from Madelyn Droesch who lives to the east at 885 Pettys
Drive. Is it all right? If you want to --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, there was'confusion. I was not sure
who you were when you were delivering something to our clerk.
Board of Trustees 27 March 22, 2017
I'm sorry.
MS. KOBALKA: This is my first time, so I wasn't sure what to do.
To object to our request for a walkway to the beach instead of
stairs. My husband and I consulted three marine building
companies including a marine engineer. After their site visits
all three proposals recommended a walkway and did not recommend
building stairs to the beach. We chose the marine engineer who
has constructed waterfront walkways for over 40 years, and has
knowledge of the most stable construction methods. We have
confidence in his respect to the environment and will follow
recommendations from the Board of Trustees.
Re, police involvement. On Saturday, 3/18/2017, 1 noticed
Ms. Droesch had driven her SUV into the wetlands on her property
and trespassed into our backyard where she took photos of the
proposed flagged area and other areas of our property. When I
went outside and asked Ms. Droesch may I help you, she spun
around toward me, aimed her point and shoot camera at me and
took photos of me. I was frightened by her behavior and ran into
my house.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mrs. Kobalka, I'm going to have to ask you to
stop at that point. The comments about police involvement are
not relevant to the application and we are in receipt of this
statement anyhow, and we'll put that into the folder. So, we
are aware of it, okay?And if you --
MS. KOBALKA: All right. So there are other things she wrote
that-- and so I don't know how to continue then. But you are in
receipt of the letter that I wrote and I would like that in the file.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes.
MS. KOBALKA: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
There are no other comments. I'll make a motion to close the
this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All'in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the conditions of either 2x10 or 2x14 posts that is the
most seaward, which will address the LWRP's concerns regarding
being at risk of loss during storm surge, and also to get a
letter from your marine contractor certifying that it is
tropical hardwood certified by the Forest Stewardship Council or
similar organization. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would second that motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number nine, Joan Chambers on behalf of JOHN
Board of Trustees 28 March 22, 2017
ELENTERIO &JUAN JARAMILLO request a Wetland Permit to raise
foundation of the existing one-story, 31.2'x45.3' single family
dwelling approximately 2' higher than existing elevation;
install a parged cement front entry with an in-grade patio
(17'8"x11'0" overall dimensions); install a 290 sq.ft. paver
patio and a 122.5 sq.ft. paver patio on the seaward side of
dwelling; install two in-grade walkways between the two patios
and around the northeast corner of the dwelling using concrete
pre-cast stepping stones; replace existing outdoor shower with a
3'10"x4'5"fenced, un-roofed outdoor shower in-place; and
install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff,
and in accordance with Chapter 236 of the Town Code. Located: 50
Knoll Circle, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-37-5-21
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The CAC, on March 15th of this year resolved to unanimously
support this application and suggested gutters and leaders to
drywells, and a ten-foot non-turf buffer.
Okay, the Trustees field inspection on March 16th and had
some questions about the grade of the patio on the seaward side
of the dwelling and possible runoff problems, and suggested
perhaps a French drain there that would alleviate the problem.
Is anyone here to speak to this application?
MS. CHAMBERS: Yes. My name is Joan Chambers, I represent the
owner.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Joan, can you speak to the issue of the French
drain?
MS. CHAMBERS: Actually, I spoke to the architect today. He was
planning to be here but he couldn't make it. And he actually
said they are thinking of eliminating the pavers on the side of
the house for budgetary reasons. But he also said to go ahead
and make any decisions here that would move it forward, which
would include adding a French drain, if you think that would be
helpful, I don't think that would be an issue.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Eliminating the pavers would be helpful, but if
the patio was in there, we can see that it becomes an issue
because of the topography, and the French drain might go a long
way toward solving that. So if we were to address the
application as is, we would like that as a condition.
MS. CHAMBERS: Why don't we address it as it is and put the
French drain in as a condition and in the next couple of days
I'll ask them to make a final decision on whether we'll use the
French drain or eliminate the pavers, and get back to you with
revised drawings.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That works for me.
MS. CHAMBERS: It just was coincidental, we were talking and they
said they had a budget meeting and we think the patio has to go.
And I said, well, I'll bring that up with the Trustees if it becomes a point.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Doing less is good. We have problems when people
do more.
MS. CHAMBERS: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The Town attorney advises me if you choose to
Board of Trustees 29 March 22, 2017
eliminate the patio, you need to notify us in writing.
MS. CHAMBERS: Thank you, I'll make that note.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are there any other questions or comments?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Motion to approve this application with the condition of a
French drain on the seaward side of the proposed patio.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number ten, Joan Chambers on behalf of
KATHLEEN MEGUIN requests a Wetland Permit for the existing
627"x36'2.5" (2,027 sq.ft.) 1 1/2 story dwelling; existing
42'8"x20'7" (858 sq.ft.)wood frame deck attached to seaward side
of dwelling; and for the existing 16'4"x16'4" (267 sq.ft.)
In-grade deck on seaward side of dwelling. Located: 605 Long
Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-55-3-25
The CAC made an inspection however no recommendation was
made. It was difficult to determine a proposed action, that
being bringing into conformity a pre-existing house that didn't
have a Wetland Permit, is what it is.
The LWRP coordinator indicated that this is inconsistent
because it does not, it did not have the as-built residential
structure was constructed without a Wetland Permit, therefore it
would not be consistent. Permitting it in would bring it into
consistency. In the event the action is approved it should
require vegetated buffers, that buffers landward of the wetland limits.
The Board of Trustees did inspection on March 15th. We did
notice there is a split-rail fence in the backyard, and we also
noticed a small frame shed of 6.3'x8.2'which is not in the
description, which we wanted to bring to your attention. And the
generally, the Board felt that the land use practices where the
finished lawn was landward of the split-rail fence which set a
natural delimiter might be an appropriate location to continue
that line for providing a buffer protection for the wetland.
MS. CHAMBERS: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Entering into those kinds of discussions, is
there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MS. CHAMBERS: Joan Chambers, speaking for the owners. I was
called out to this job because the deck was built without a
permit. So it started as an as-built deck, so I drew the deck
plans, submitted them to the Building Department to do an as-built,
and they referred me, of course, standing on the deck you
are looking at the creek. So they automatically referred me to
Board of Trustees 30 March 22, 2017
the Trustees. And at that point Elizabeth pointed out the house
was never permitted. So we went back, revised to get the permit
for the house, but mostly it was for the as-built deck which was
built without a Building Permit or Trustees permit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We did notice that. It was newer
construction. We were not sure about the history of the house.
MS. CHAMBERS: I was not aware that the house did or not have a
permit. I didn't think it was pertinent. But we'll clean it all
up at this point for the Meguin's.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With respect to, do you think they would be
willing to extend the line of the split-rail fence, because it
does slope down quite a bit, to make that effectively a
non-disturbance zone with the allowance of a four-foot wide path
for access to the creek?
MS. CHAMBERS: I think they would be absolutely amenable to that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because the shed is landward of that, would
they like us to permit that in at this time so they can continue
repairs to the shed?
MS. CHAMBERS: Yes, I think that would be a good idea.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak on behalf of
this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application for a wetland permit for a house and associated
deck, and to include the framed 6.3'x8.2' shed appearing on the
licensed land survey of John Metzger, last dated December 7th,
2016, and thereby granting this a Wetland Permit brings into ;
consistency with the LWRP, and that the permit issuance would be
subject to the submission of a plan detailing the
non-disturbance buffer as an extension of the existing
split-rail fence line, and including it with an allowance for a
four-foot wide access path to the creek. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. CHAMBERS: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: BLUE HORIZON BLUFFS, LLC, clo RICHARD J.
PRINCIPI, JR. requests a Wetland Permit to construct bluff
stairs consisting of a 3'x6'9" upper platform, 3'x14'8 stairs
down to a second 3'x3' landing, 3'x3'8" stairs to a third
3'x4'2" landing with a bench, 3'x1 2' stairs to a fourth 3'x3'
landing, 3'x7'4" stairs to a fifth and final 3'x3' landing with
a set of 3'x6'1 1" seasonal hinged stairs down to existing grade
at bottom of bluff. Located: 4690 Blue Horizon Bluffs, Peconic.
Board of Trustees 31 March 22, 2017
SCTM# 1000-74-1-35.53
On 3/16/17, Jay Bredemeyer and Mike Domino, reviewed this
file. Their notes state that this is straightforward and okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We did go to the site. We performed a site
inspection.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: They went to the site. However the LWRP has
found this to be inconsistent. Accordingly, minimize potential
loss and damage by locating development and structures away from
flooding and erosion hazards. That is 4.1, minimizing loss of
human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards.
The CAC has resolved to support this. CAC supports the
application with the condition the fence along the top of the
bluff is depicted on the site plan, and the stairs are
constructed using best management practices and with minimal
disturbance to the bluff.
Would anybody like to speak on behalf of this applicant?
(Negative response).
Crickets.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The LWRP coordinator, the ordinary and
common purpose of the stairs is for access to the water. and this
is a bit of a new one on me, in that individual access for the
purposes of riparian access, whether it be over a dock to
surface waters or over a set of steps to get to the foreshore of
the beach is a common place and ordinary way that we access the
water. And to my mind, there is no alternative to that. We have
not developed craft or balloons or other means of getting there.
So I believe by what is ordinary and common place and quite
ordinary and usual, at least to this point in time, that by
granting of a permit, because we did perform the inspection and
it is what we are used to seeing and there is no common access
possible through a developed subdivision plan that would have
made provisions for a group access, that by the careful
consideration of what we saw in the field and a very ordinary
and minimally constructed set of plans that we should, it should
meet the inconsistency by virtue of what has been quite ordinary
throughout the Town and the state allowing for individual access.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: When I was reading this, the only way to make
it 100% consistent is to never allow anybody to have bluffs or
stairs, and it just didn't seem logical.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's contrary to about four policies in the
LWRP with respect to allowing people to allow access to
foreshore and for all those good purposes.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Would you like to say something?
MR. PRINCIPI: I'm the owner, Richard Joseph Principi. I'll
locate that split-rail fence. It was just there for safety. It's
exactly where the silt fence and bales of hay were exactly and
I'll have it on my final survey when I submit. I'll get your
office a copy as well.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mr. Principi, have you gotten your permit in
before the DEC at this time?
MR. PRINCIPI: Yes. I checked on it last Friday as well.
Board of Trustees 32 March 22, 2017
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Have you heard progress whether it may be
issued?
MR. PRINCIPI: They wouldn't really tell me, but I stopped to
speak to the plan reviewer and the biologist. I have her name
but it has not been scheduled yet.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The reason I asked, previous discussions
with respect to permitting on the site, there are cliff swallows
nests there. Try to avoid the nesting season. I didn't know if
that was becoming issue with the Department of Environmental
Conservation directly, and by the time you get permits out from
thi's agency and theirs it might be right in the middle of the
nesting season. So we are wondering about what your
construction process is for the stairs.
MR. PRINCIPI: I addressed that with her on Friday and she just
basically asked me not about the cliff swallows as much as the
piping plovers. And I don't remember seeing them there at any
point. So I'm hoping they'll get out there in the next week or
so. I told them I would like to start once I'm fully permitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So they'll make a site inspection. Was that
Alexa?
MR. PRINCIPI: Correct. But she couldn't pin down a time. Its I
guess complete the application? I would like to start it as soon
as possible by hand as per the design, and I'll include the fence
and final survey once it's complete.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Would anybody else like to speak on behalf of
the applicant?
(Negative response).
Anymore comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve this application,
and by doing so the design proposed is consistent with
pre-existing structures and its design minimizes loss and damage
of structures on the water. And by granting a permit this will
bring it into compliance with the LWRP. And new plans
reflecting a fence along the top of the bluff depicted on dated
site plan.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Can we have a brief discussion on the birds.
Can we request a stipulation in the permit that no construction
take place during active bird nesting? It would be a matter of
a couple of weeks until they are fledged.
MR. PRINCIPI: I believe that is consistent with what the DEC--
I'll communicate whatever they, when Alexa does come down. I'll
stop by the office and let you know. I'm not looking --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Bredemeyer wants to know if you want to
amend your motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: What I'll do now is add the stipulation the
Board of Trustees 33 March 22, 2017
construction does not occur during the active bird nesting.
MR. PRINCIPI: Okay, when is it-- do you --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. We'll contact the DEC and we'll let
Alexa make that determination. My expertise is limited.
Typically you are talking May, June and beginning of July. May,
June, probably. Very soon they'll start.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. PRINCIPI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 12, 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 1/2 story
dwelling with attached garage; construct a 1,264 sq.ft. second story addition
over existing first story and first story addition; construct a 41 sq.ft. front
portico; and to install a 115 sq.ft. concrete platform and steps to grade off of
dwelling. Located: 875 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-63-7-31.1
The Trustees performed a field inspection February 7th. The
LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency was the
plans do not show the jurisdictional setback to the top of the
bank and therefore does not meet Chapter 275. However, we
received new plans dated February 15th, 2017, that does show the
setback.
And the CAC resolved to support this application.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. CAPPUCCI: My name is Nicholas Cappucci. I work for Todd
O'Connell's office. Good evening, members of the Board, Town
Attorney, Secretary Clerk.
I have a return receipt that was undeliverable. I don't
know, do you want the whole mailing?
MS. CANTRELL: Yes.
MR. CAPPUCCI: I'm here to add permission to grant a two-story--
second story dormer addition to an existing dwelling. We are
taking this dwelling and we are actually adding more square
footage to the building. We are bumping it out and squaring it
off on the corner of the building. When we have this bump off
you'll see the setback to where the water starts is about 75
feet and there is a drop off where the top of the bank from
where the bump out will be is about 25 feet to that top of the
bank. Then there is about a 50-foot slope, like a cliff, going
to the water. I believe you need 100-foot setback for the
wetland requirements, so that's why we are in front of you today
to get permission to grant permission to grant this setback
relief.
We are coming in with a stair to access this portion. It
won't have a roof over it. Its just a flat concrete three-foot
wide, about 23-foot wide, about three-foot out, with a few
steps, like three or four steps coming down.
Board of Trustees 34 March 22, 2017
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes
to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any 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).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
noting that the new plans of February 15th, 2017, address the
LWRP inconsistencies, and stipulating gutters and leaders to
drywells for the construction.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. CAPPUCCI: Thank you, very much. Good night.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 13, 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 1,369sq.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# 1000-1 15-12-10
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The CAC, on February 8th, resolved to unanimously support
this application.
The Trustees did a field inspection on March 16th, and
noted questions whether or not the project would need ZBA
approval because it seemed like it was a rather small lot, and
requested that it leaves as many trees near the water to survive
the construction as possible. Leave trees closest to the water.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. HAACK: Yes, sir. Good evening, gentleman, my name is Peter
Haack, I'm property owner. I'm requesting permission to build
this structure to relocate my family from Riverhead to
Mattituck, and that any trees that would be removed in the
permit during the course of construction I would propose I'll
replace with subsequent trees that would meet the Board's
approval. So I'm going to replace whatever we take down, we are
getting replaced. The driveway will be pervious and the deck is
contained within the footprint of the house itself.
If you have any questions-- I also spoke to about a letter
of non jurisdiction from the DEC. I did receive it. May I
approach?
Ms. Cantrell, there is an issue of non jurisdiction from
the DEC.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
MR. BARRON: Shawn Barron for the applicant, but Mr. Haack took
Board of Trustees 35 March 22, 2017
care of everything.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no one, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. BARRON: Thank you, for your time.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number 14, Richard
Tripcousky on behalf of VICTOR FERRULLI requests a Wetland
Permit for the existing 52.3'x46' (1,721 sq.ft.) irregularly
shaped dwelling; existing irregularly shaped deck attached to
the side of dwelling; existing 8'x10' shed; and to reduce the
size of the existing garage from 14'x19' to 11.8'x14.5.
Located: 1540 Smith Drive South, Southold. SCTM# 1000-76-3-5
The CAC supported this application with a recommendation
for a 15-foot non-turf buffer.
The LWRP coordinator indicated that since the as-built
structures were constructed without a wetland permit, you would
need a wetland permit to come into consistency, and he
recommended the installation of a non-turf buffer in the advent
that the Board is approving the application. And also in line
with that, the Board of Trustees noted that there were several
high tide bush, Baccharus, wetland vegetation that were cut down
on the property adjacent to the water.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. TRIPCOUSKY: Good evening everyone. Richard Tripcousky, for
the applicant. The original home was built sometime in the
either in the 40's or early 50's. Mr. Ferrulli purchased the
home in 1992 and permitted a permit to build an unheated breeze
way which is now heated. Around the same time, the deck was
built, '93 to '94, he built a dock which received a Wetlands
Permit. At that time he said four members of the Board of
Trustees came to the property and stated that home, et cetera
was okay, and just needed a permit for the dock. Basically there
are no changes proposed for the property with the exception of
reducing the size of the garage as it was discovered that it
encroached on the neighbor's property, and we want to change the
size to meet what was approved by the ZBA.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Do you understand, on the
description of the project and the concerns I think it really
boils down to bringing it into conformity with the ZBA decision
and the request of the CAC and the LWRP program coordinator.
Board of Trustees 36 March 22, 2017
Do you, on behalf of the applicant, is there a problem with
a 15' non-turf buffer? It would be an area that would be
allowed to naturalize immediately adjacent to the water.
MR. TRIPCOUSKY: I don't see a problem with that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And you do understand the Board did notice
there was wetland vegetation clearing, which it was
discretionary that we didn't immediately refer to the bay
constable for a fine. So that's a serious matter, but we saw
just one shrub cut. We are not sure if that was or what was the
circumstance surrounding that, but it was serious, so we want it
noted for the record.
MR. TRIPCOUSKY: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do any Board members have any additional
questions?
(Negative response).
Anyone else here wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no additional speakers, I make a motion to close the
hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll move to approve this application as
submitted, with the stipulation that we receive plans showing a
15 foot non-turf buffer, and there is to be no vegetation cut
within the non-turf buffer. And with the submission of new
plans, thereby bringing this project into compliance with the
LWRP coordinator and the request of the CAC. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. TRIPCOUSKY: Thank you. Have a great night.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I have a number of requests for a five minute
break.
(After a short recess, these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, we are back on the record.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number 15, 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#
1000-70-625
On the 16th of March, Jay Bredemeyer, Mike Domino and Glenn
Goldsmith and Nick Krupski were able to go to this property and
it appears I was absent. The note states that it's not a
retaining wall, it's a bulkhead. That is the information that
came from the actual inspection.
Board of Trustees 37 March 22, 2017
The LWRP has found this to be consistent.
The Board, minimize CCA and construction of a Kenny wall to
further policy five; require a ten-foot non-turf buffer be vegetated with
native beneficial plants to further policy five and six.
And the CAC has resolved to support the application.
Is there anybody here on behalf of the application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. My
understanding is the proposed application was made as a
retaining wall,just for the mere fact that it's well beyond the
mean high tide line and never sees water. I thought the
definition of a bulkhead was something that saw water during a
high tide event. I don't know if that means anything,just for
the record.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Observationally, we had some pretty high
tides but it looked from our perspective that it had been
totally awash with the high waters now going up to the proposed
location. I had been summoned to the site based on a complaint
in the Fall. You may have gotten the history preceding the
constable. We appreciated they stopped the work immediately. But
it looked entirely different on this inspection when the Board
was there in that when I was there it looked more like it would
have fit in with the general notion of a retaining wall, but it
was so washed out and it looks like it had repeated high tides
going right up to the foot of it, that those of us on the Board,
the four of us that were there, felt we were really deeming it
to be constructed in that location was going to be functioning
as a bulkhead, and it was going to continue to erode out the
foreshore. And the problem we saw is we could not really make a
recommendation to dial back without removing a lot of trees in
the buffer.
MR. PATANJO: I'm just looking at the site survey we had
conducted. We had this public hearing one or two months ago,
which we postponed, the fact you wanted an updated survey of the
property, which we made. Looking at the elevations on the
property survey, which are NGBD80A, I think, this high water
elevation is elevation 1.1, and looking at the location of the
proposed new wall, we are about elevation six or so. So I don't
know if in fact that was from high tide coming in. I was not
there during the high tide so I can't say myself, but looking at
the survey and from engineering experience it doesn't seem like
we would see a four-foot high tide line.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was wiped so clean by high waters, I
don't recall seeing a rack line. We saw sand all the way up to
the building where he had already started to dig the foundation
for the first tier.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I want to confirm that we saw it on the date of
an unusually low tide, and while we were there, we walked down
to the proposed construction and it looked as if an increase in
tide would have brought water up to where we were standing. So
I don't want to contradict your data but it appears something is
amiss here.
Board of Trustees 38 March 22, 2017
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And unfortunately, we had a little bit of a
mishap with the camera that day, but I did snap a picture with
my phone and the rack line was right up on the construction.
But unfortunately, we can't post it because we happened to run over
the camera.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: A suggestion is made we can table this for
further discussion or site visit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are thinking less structural coir logs or
jute fiber and re-planting stabilization as a starting point for discussion.
MR. PATANJO: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: There is also another issue. That is we checked
the permit history of the pool patio and it doesn't exist, or it
exists in a highly modified form than what physically exists
there now. So we have to address that also.
MR. PATANJO: How do you want to proceed with this, then, as far
as addressing that, the pool? I had no idea about the pool.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We can discuss it but perhaps as an as-built,
because it's significantly different from what was permitted,
and it has an impact in terms of runoff. As you can see in this
case, we have red bricks, you can see the arc that would be the
northwestern side, and what year was that, Liz?
MS. CANTRELL: 2015.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And here is what we have now
MR. PATANJO: You are saying it's an increase in the impervious area.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Absolutely.
MR. PATANJO: Ok. So that might be something that would be
remedied with a drywell?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Particularly we are not zeroing in on the
aspect of the deck other than noticing in the course of
inspection it looked like new construction during a permit
search and we had not given it consideration whether its a
drywell or site-specific action would lend itself more to a
French drain or other combination. We are kind of blind to that,
too. This all happened in the run up to the meeting here.
MR. PATANJO: So you would like to revisit this application.
Maybe we can have some sort of site meeting to hone in.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: To meet with yourself to discuss --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It would be a good idea.
MR. MEEKER: Peter Meeker, with the CAC. We would like a better
understanding of your policy on the CCA material as a building
material. Is that acceptable --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you want to do it in this context or in
the context of general discussion at the end of the meeting? We
could do it then.
MR. MEEKER: I think it was they intend to use the material in
this project.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sure. For edification purposes, where the
Board is essentially deeming this construction to have wet feet,
if you will, and be a bulkhead, then CCA would be a prohibited
material, because current construction would be for a vinyl
face. If it's a bulkhead, it's a bulkhead, it would be
Board of Trustees 39 March 22, 2017
constructed to the non-toxic standard with the vinyl sheathing.
So that in fact would detail this. If it was sufficiently
landward that it was not going to be impacted by the wave and
reflected energy and being wet all the time, then we have not
had a prohibition unless it's been brought up a specific issue
with an individual permit. But typically, we have allowed
retaining walls to be, the current, are not really CCA but
C-Quad, the current state of the art treated wood. It's not
really CCA treated but it's C-Quad.
MR. MEAGER: Okay, because the plan I have shows it's 13 feet
from mean high water mark, so I guess that's close enough to--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think that's the point of discussion at
this point on field observations are not meshing with the data
we have. Because whether it's specific to the current recent
very high storm tides or that fact maybe it's already been part
of the beach washed out, whatever the conditions are, I think
that's one of the reasons we are encouraging additional site
visit on it to ground truth and give a little more consideration
to whether it's a non-structural alternative.
MR. MEEKER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Being no further discussion, I'll make a motion
to table.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 16, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
335HILL, LLC, c/o JOHN McCARTHY-O'HEA requests a Wetland Permit
to construct a 4'x40'fixed dock with Thru-Flow decking,
supported by 8" diameter piles; a 30"x14' aluminum ramp; and a
6'x20'floating dock with un-treated decking supported by two
(2) 10" diameter piles. Located: 335 Hill Road, Southold. SCTM#
1000-70-4-31 335
The Trustees performed an inspection on March 15, noting it
appears the dock is within the pier line.
The LWRP found this inconsistent. The inconsistencies were
that the applicant must demonstrate that the dock standards
pursuant Town Code 275-11 have been met. And that the proposed
dock structure will extend into public trust waters resulting in
a net decrease of public access to public underwater land in the
near shore area.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. And I
don't know if I have anything to add other than to answer any
questions.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Does anyone else here wish to speak regarding
this application?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Would the applicant consider through-flow? It
says untreated decking.
MR. PATANJO: Untreated decking on the dock. I do have
through-flow on the -- did I not add that? No, its on the
Board of Trustees 40 March 22, 2017
typical section, I have through-flow on the entire fixed
portion. It's noted. It's on there already.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other questions or comments?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this
application noting that the dock will be built according to Town
Code standards, and it is consistent with the other docks in the
area, which will dress the LWRP's concerns.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 17, En-Consultants on behalf of CAROL A.
CASSEL REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST request a Wetland Permit to
install approximately 116 linear feet of 500-1,000 1 b. Stone
rip-rap (over filter cloth)seaward of toe of storm eroded
upland embankment, including ±32 linear fee to be located on
adjacent Town of Southold property; restore eroded upland area
between proposed rip-rap and top of embankment with
approximately 50 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be trucked'in
from an approved upland source and planted with native
vegetation; remove and replace in-kind/in-place storm damaged
±4'x11 ' concrete steps; and remove and replace
in-kind/in-place ±4'x16 section of existing timber catwalk as
needed to replace adjacent steps. Located: 800 Willow Point
Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-5-40.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The CAC resolved to unanimously, on March 15th, to support
this application with a drainage plan and sanitary plan depicted
on the survey. It's noted one-third of the property is located
within a flood zone.
The Trustees did a field inspection on March 16th, and
noted that the configuration was designed to minimize the
vegetation loss, which was a good thing. And noted that they
might need release for construction from the Town of Southold.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann. How are you guys doing.
En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. This is a project
that was originally conceived after Hurricane Sandy in 2012.
Though the vegetation has, a lot of which is phragmites, has
grown back in substantially, it was all wiped out after Sandy.
And the embankment adjacent to the driveway which is near the
home was severely eroded and scoured. So as Mike pointed out we
were trying to stay out of that vegetated area as much as
possible and really keep the structure as close as we could to
the driveway because that's what we are trying to protect. Then
Board of Trustees 41 March 22, 2017
allow the natural vegetation to do its thing seaward of the
proposed rip rap.
The only unique feature of this application is that it does
propose to continue the rip rap, although it would be more low
lying and not backfilled at this point. But to continue off the
property line to tie into those larger and buried stone that was
installed by the Town at end of Willow road. I don't have
anything in writing but it's my understanding from talking to
Latham Sand & Gravel, which is the contractor, and also to your
Office that Jamie Richter was contacted by Latham Sand & Gravel
and seemed to support the project or at least did not have any
objections to it.
So if the Board has any questions I'm happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a point of information for the Board, I
spoke to town licensed architect Jamie Richter and he had
discussed this with the Town Highway Superintendent Vincent
Orlando, and they did not have a problem with it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Have you been before the Town engineers? The
question is the CAC brought up about drainage, there is nothing there.
MR. HERRMANN: There would be no connection to what we are
proposing and a drainage plan for the house.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you. Okay, any other questions or comments
from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 18, En-consultants on behalf of
MICHAEL KURTZ& LISA CLEFF KURTZ requests a Wetland Permit to
construct approximately 133 linear feet of vinyl retaining wall
(±16' landward of existing bulkhead)with two (2) 10' returns,
and re-nourish bluff face landward of proposed wall with
approximately 40 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be trucked in
from an approved upland source, and planted with Cape American
beach grass (18"o.c.); remove 3.5'x±10' bottom section of
existing bluff stairway, and construct a 4'x4'wood landing and
steps off proposed retaining wall; construct a 12' northerly
vinyl bulkhead return landward of existing bulkhead; remove
existing 8'x1 9' deck, and construct a new 16'x30' on-grade deck
(with untreated decking); and revegetate any areas of bluff face
disturbed during construction with native vegetation. Located:
9905 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-119-1-9.1
Board of Trustees 42 March 22, 2017
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on March 16th and
had some questions about if the brick patio was permitted,
noting that it seems to appear that there is a new retaining
wall in front of the brick patio, some cutting of trees on the
bluff, and questioning the size of the deck at the bottom
of the stairs.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies
are the as-built structures were constructed without a Wetland
Permit. The 16x30' on-grade platform deck proposed to replace
the 8x19 unpermitted deck does not comply with the following
Town Code Section 275-11; and that the platform would equal 487
square feet and is seaward of the top of the bluff.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants. I was not
aware of the prior permitting issues you are talking about with the
retaining wall, so we can maybe deal with that second.
In terms of the project itself, it's a project designed
with the homeowner, Ian Crowley who is here and can talk a
little bit to the specifics of the construction design if needed.
The proposal is actually very similar both with respect to
the retaining wall and to the wood deck as to what was approved
by the Board on the adjacent property under permit 4914. It's a
little bit of inconsistency in that project because the
amendment that was issued for that project authorized a 13x40'
deck behind the bulkhead. What is actually there is 15x36. But
it seems it did pass inspection because it has a certificate of
compliance. And so we were proposing something a hair wider but
also shorter. So we are having a smaller square footage in the
deck in that we were proposing 16x30.
The rationale behind that was we were basically just
decking that area around the bottom of the stairway landing that
would be between the bulkhead and the proposed retaining wall.
The distance between the existing bulkhead and proposed
retaining wall of 16 feet is about the same as it is again on
that adjacent property. So from a construction perspective we
are trying on have some continuity with the condition of the
bluff as it runs along the shoreline.
Ian, did you want to talk a little bit about the placement
of the retaining wall at that location or--
MR. CROWLEY: If you have a question, I could answer it. Do you
guys have a question about where it was, or a concern?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are talking about the retaining wall that
you are proposing, not the one that is at the top --
MR. CROWLEY: No, that was put in -- I want to make sure to put,
on the record, we were not the ones who constructed the one on
the top.
Ian Crowley, on behalf of Michael Kurtz and Lisa Kurtz.
The top one, I don't know when that was put in, but I know the
explanation that he had given me when I informed him there was a
problem with it, was he had met with the Suffolk County Soil
Board of Trustees 43 March 22, 2017
Conservation people, or something like that. I don't know on
whose recommendation. But they recommended he put--this is what
he explained to me --that they recommended he put some sort of
retaining wall. I don't even know what it's made out of. Is it
stone or?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's wood. He has a couple tiers of 4x4 CCA.
MR. CROWLEY: I don't know how guys will address that. But as far
as the lower one goes, it's pretty much, in keeping with the
rest, we did all the work down the beach, a little further down.
But if you bring the wall back where it is, it allows us to work
on the lower wall when the time comes. You know, gives us enough
room for tie rods, dead men, we can also get the penetration
without a break behind all that stuff so that wall stands a
chance if the lower wall becomes compromised. So, and he plans
on planting in front of it. I don't know environmentally how
that affects, you know, if it's 15 feet, 14 feet, that doesn't
really much matter. But you don't want it ten feet, because it
will fall down if the lower wall goes.
MR. HERRMANN: And I should have, what I probably should have
included on the plan, that entire 16-foot wide area between the
bulkhead and the retaining wall, I would think would be planted, right?
MR. CROWLEY: Where there is no decking, I don't know if it's on
the plan, I didn't look at the plan, to put Cape American beach grass.
MR. HERRMANN: So I noted that the re-nourishment area behind the
retaining wall, because if you look at the profile, obviously
you are going to have the height of that retaining wall, you
know, the slope is coming down here, so you would backfill that
whole area and plant it. But what I'm saying is we would also
have a 16-foot wide continuation of that non-turf buffer area
that would occupy the entire area between the bulkhead and the
proposed retaining wall, except for where the deck is.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So the purpose, that clarifies, I think the
Board's concerns in the field, because we noticed that the bluff
itself was fairly well vegetated, naturally stabilized, but in
the event of aging out of the primary bulkhead, which allows --
MR. CROWLEY: Which is going to happen. I was actually on the
fence about addressing it at first, but. And the fill that is
by the stair area I think was brought in after Sandy. I didn't
do that. But I think if you walk further to the south, it's
vegetated, but it's still escarped from Sandy, you can see it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At the foot of the stairs there is a deck right
now that is approximately 8x19.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And the bluff itself is, in my opinion, is
overly steep here already, but the angle of repose is kind of
steep, so I was wondering if instead of excavating back 16 feet,
if we could move this new retaining wall a little bit closer to
the existing bulkhead. I understand with Ian saying about
needing room to work on it. Can you get by with less than 16
feet?Would 14 feet work?
MR. CROWLEY: It all depends where that 14-foot is. If you are
Board of Trustees 44 March 22, 2017
talking 14-foot to the face of the pile? Or 14-feet to the face
of the sheet? If it's not face of the sheet, no. Because
anything else than 14-feet is not long enough deadmen for the
lower wall.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay.
MR. CROWLEY: I mean if you have 14-foot to the face of the pile,
which will put this sheathing 15, you know, with ten inches for
piling and six inches for the stringer, it all depends where you
put that line. You know, it's a pencil line on the plan but the
profile on it looking down is substantial. So where that is --
MR. HERRMANN: And the other thing, if you look at the profile,
you know, the bottom of the slope is actually going to get
leveled to run out to the top of the retaining wall as opposed
to going straight down, wherever it is, whether it's 12 or 14 or
16 feet. I don't know if that makes a difference, but.
MR. CROWLEY: I think the bank is fine. It's just when the surge
comes over and clips the bank, that's the problem. And that's
the whole purpose of this exercise. It's not to save the bank.
The bank is fine. If the water never comes up, the bank would
never do anything. But the water will come up and over the
bulkhead again, and that's what creates the problem.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What's going on currently with surface
waters --
MR. CROWLEY: Yes. And it's bad enough they have a little bit of
beach. But that will go away.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I understand your comments and I truly respect
your in-the-field expertise. If we could just narrow it a little
bit,just so that it's not overly steep.
MR. CROWLEY: What was the amount of fill that was proposed to be
brought in?
MR. HERRMANN: I have the seaward face of the proposed retaining
wall 16 feet landward of the back side of the existing bulkhead,
with approximately 40 yards coming in to re-nourish behind it.
MR. CROWLEY: As long as we have 15 feet where we have working
room from the face of the bulkhead pile to the face of the
retaining wall pile, that's fine. Which gets you like, it's two-foot
increments for the tie rods.
MR. HERRMANN: Why don't you just look at this.
MR. CROWLEY: Just by moving that dimension to the seaward face
of the bulkhead pile is probably 18 inches. He has it from the
back of the sheathing. So just by bringing it in, you'll get a
foot. That's all we need from the face of the bulkhead pile.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's an improvement. Okay.
MR. HERRMANN: So that dimension would be 15, in other words
holding the same reference point, that dimension becomes 15 feet.
MR. CROWLEY: Give or take.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Plan it now and then what about future
consideration for a splash pad, is that getting a lot of water
dumped over it with this particular bulkhead?
MR. CROWLEY: I didn't look prior and after. That worked out
pretty well for the neighbors. You know, they have not had any
Board of Trustees 45 March 22, 2017
issues. They are going to plant it. They intend on planting it.
So I think that's probably a good step to start, and if the
beach grass gets washed out, maybe they think about putting some
coir stone. But I think it's good to plant it and cross our fingers.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I went to town beach today at high tide and
observed the waves. The reason I did that is because during
storm Stella, at the same beach, I guess a different combination
of winds and so forth, the splash you are talking about, every
third wave or so was splashing up at least 35 feet. And it was
just astounding to me the difference between the two storms.
Every storm is different. But this is an issue that we need
address eventually.
MR. HERRMANN: Well, I think the balance that a lot of people
debated after Sandy was the idea of the benefits that come from
having a vegetated non-turf buffer 95% or 98% of the time versus
what happens in that 2% of the time. Then you want to have all
that stone there. But for the rest of the time, from the
ecological perspective, you would rather have the sand and the
beach grass.
MR. CROWLEY: And depending on the timing. If you get three
years for it to establish and it doesn't get eroded, then you have
something.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Point well taken.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: How about the inconsistency about the size of
the deck?
MR. HERRMANN: Now part two. So obviously, the width of the deck,
if we reduce that from 16 to 15 right off the bat gets it
reduced to 15, and it becomes 15x30, which is, again, smaller
so --from what was approved to the north and what is actually
there. So I mean we are at your mercy with that. We would ask
you to be consistent with your decision, but obviously you are
not bound to that. But we would ask you for it. As I said, it
would immediately become reduced to 15 instead of 16 feet wide,
and probably actually a little narrower.
MR. CROWLEY: It is. Because you won't cover the piling. So.
MR. HERRMANN: So we can show it as 1430 is probably what it
will be.
MR. CROWLEY: I explained to them that's what was going to be
proposed. Not what they were going to get. So it's entirely up
to you guys what you would like to approve.
MR. HERRMANN: So we could take 60-square feet off it right from
the top and reduce it to 1430, if you would be willing to
approve it. Again, with a buffer, we would show plantings for
the rest of that spacing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's an area with decks, and the decks
have not been floating down the bay yet.
MR. HERRMANN: And it would be on grade, it would not be a
Building Department regulated structure.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: President Domino just queued me with the
upper deck. The Board had a prior pre-submission discussion
which included they wanted to put a hot tub in, and seemingly
Board of Trustees 46 March 22, 2017
they may have gone to Soil Conservation or some other group and
they put the retaining wall in. I don't know, maybe that would
be something we would want to include or have a discussion with
the owner. Maybe as part of the overall omnibus application, or
split it out, if you have insurances from the owner you could
represent to deal with some of those issues as a separate
matter. I don't know where you are at or if the owner is aware
of the concerns of the Board. We have not sent the constable out
yet, but.
MR. HERRMANN: One thing I noticed, even on this survey, is the
retaining wall is not even on this survey, so, I mean, I'm sure,
ideally, I don't know what your schedule is, we could --
MR. CROWLEY: Do you want to table and resubmit a plan?
MR. HERRMANN: What I would like to do would be get a permit for
this proposed work that is down at the bulkhead and obviously no
matter what falls squarely in their jurisdiction, and then as a
separate matter they would have to come in and get squared away
with you guys in terms of(a), this patio, and (b), the
retaining wall. And in that interim, the survey would have to be
updated to show the retaining wall, because it's not on the
survey right now.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Bredemeyer would like to make a
suggestion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If we move forward with the well-considered
lower aspect that we were just discussing, maybe we could put a
timeline for a response from the owner on the unapproved
construction on the top and possibly seek a modification for
that as a separate matter.
MR. HERRMANN: For a separate permit
MR. CROWLEY: Whatever is easier for you and for the Board. There
is no rush on getting the permit to do the deck now. Like if you
want to resubmit for next month. We were planning on next month
anyhow, based on what you had told me.
MR. HERRMANN: Regardless of timing, to me, I think they should
be separated because one involves proposed work that we know is --
MR. CROWLEY: I don't know if it will save you another
inspection. If you can get it right back--
MR. HERRMANN: He'll have to get his survey updated to show the
retaining wall and basically come in, from my perspective,
don't know if Liz has any opinion on this, but would come in for
a separate permit that would address the unpermitted structures,
so that if that is not submitted in a timely fashion then he'll
end up with a violation, but it doesn't necessarily tie these
two things together. I don't know if Damon has an opinion.
MR. CROWLEY: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to
speak?
MR. HOEZL: My name is Carl Hoezl, I'm the adjacent on 95 on the
north side of the subject land I have a hand-up here. I have
hearing problem so if you can speak up a little bit, if you have
any questions.
Board of Trustees 47 March 22, 2017
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Sir, in the event you come before us, again,
there is a Town Code prohibition about handing in additional
information at the hearing. In other words this should have been
handed to us--
MR. HOEZL: I just got the information at the end of last week.
It was going on. I apologize.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll accept it, but for future reference, should
you ever come here again, all right?
MR. HOEZL: Yes. I apologize. I just got-the notice the end of
last week.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Understood.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Could you paraphrase your study for us,
generalize what is in the packet for us?
MR. HOEZL: What is in the packet is a one-page letter why I feel
it should be disapproved in the present form. And then there is
a series of enclosure photographs, okay, before and after, okay,
of a design they had done 100 feet away of a similar design like
this, which failed catastrophically with that. And they are
planning to do the same thing here. And I'm afraid we'll have
the same catastrophic type of failure if we have another
Superstorm Sandy type thing. I understand their concern about
overflow, okay, but the one they did, the design they did 100
feet away, had a catastrophic failure, while the present design
with the bulkhead helped. It didn't fall down. It didn't break
down. There was overflow, yes, but there was no damage. And
think what they are doing now is they have an excessive cut with
the 16-foot wide deck, they are going into the toe of the bluff,
and this bluff is a fairly steep bluff. I think the photographs
show that, okay, with that, and to cut into the bluff by this
amount, okay, is going to cause a problem. It will disrupt the
lower portion of the bluff.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe we should table this and revisit this.
Are you an immediate adjacent--
MR. HOEZL: I'm right next to him, yes. I'm north. I'm the
property that is north of him. And the first portion, enclosure
one, shows 98 -- 9905, 9895 which is me, and then the other
property that where the failure of the second-tier bulkhead is 9775.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's listed in your report?
MR. HOEZL: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because I don't know if this is involved
with this. The Board may wish to look at it. There has been a
history of several properties which had inappropriate
construction that didn't meet current design standards for upper
retaining walls, and I don't know if that involves this
property. The Board may want to continue to take a look at this
again.
MR. HOEZL: When they proposed a second tier in '981 was told at
that time, they told me this was designed to withstand the
Hurricane of'38. And Superstorm Sandy, the overflow wash
evidently eroded the second-tier wall which collapsed on the
first tier. And you can see through the photos there, there was
Board of Trustees 48 March 22, 2017
a catastrophic failure there.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: For my edification. This is the subject
property.
MR. HOEZL: Yes. I'm here and this is where the similarly
designed wall, they designed it, failed here.
MR. HAGAN: So you own this property. There is no residence.
MR. HOEZL: No. So what I'm requesting is they should cut back
the 16-foot wide deck because that's going into the bluff and
causing a major problem there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, for your concerns.
MR. HOEZL: Thank you, for your attention.
MR. CROWLEY: I want to add a couple of things. I'm familiar with
the site. The upper wall failed as you went down to the north
because the lower wall was completely wiped out. Completely
wiped out. It was splintered. The upper wall didn't bring the
lower wall down. The lower wall completely failed. And the
upper wall, 'it's not the same design. That was done with tie
rods and deadmen that were probably eight-foot long. And once
the fill fell in front of it, which was helping to support it,
came, it rotated over. And that's what happened. That's not the
design here.
MR. HOEZL: That's not the way it looks in the photo there with
that. You are welcome to look at the photos.
MR. CROWLEY: I was there before it happened and I was there for
months after it happened. I know exactly what happened. But the
upper wall had nothing to do the failure of the lower wall.
MR. HOEZL: The upper wall came down on top it. It didn't hold.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Sir, we can can't have a cross dialogue. It has
to be in the record.
MR. HOEZL: I'm sorry.
MR. CROWLEY: I want to say that for the record, that had nothing
to do with the lower wall failing.
MR. HOEZL: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wish to speak regarding this
application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Perhaps we should table this and have another
onsite, an onsite meeting with Rob and Ian. Or whichever of them
can make it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Possibly even the owner. At this point
while we still have the upper deck, it might be an opportunity
to discuss all issues.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We need to table just so I could read these and
digest this.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to table this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this time I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
Board of Trustees 49 March 22, 2017
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
a
Michael J. Domino, President
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED
APR 2�0 20170 S I t3
fm
U4"tt 0S thold Town. �
clerk