HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-04/19/2017 SOF U��
Michael J.Domino,President ®� S® �® Town Hall Annex
John M:Bredemeyer III,Vice-President 54375 Route 25
P.O.Box 1179
Charles J. Sanders r� Southold,New York 11971
Glenn Goldsmith a� Telephone(631) 765-1892
A.Nicholas Krupski' ��C% �, Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RECEIVED
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD (�;
Minutes *Stho11d_Tb2-C
Wednesday, April 19, 2017 lerk
5:30 PM
Present Were: Michael J. Domino, President
John M. Bredemeyer, Vice-President
Charles J. Sanders, Trustee
Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist
Damon Hagan, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 8:00 AM.
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday May 17, 2017 at 5:30 PM
WORK SESSIONS: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 4:30 PM at Downs Farm, and on
Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of March 22, 2017
r TRUSTEE DOMINO: Good evening, and welcome to our April 19th
monthly meeting. I'm Mike Domino, President of the Board of
Trustees. To my left, we have John Bredemeyer, Vice-President;
Charles Sanders, Trustee; Trustee Glenn Goldsmith; Trustee Nick
Krupski. To my right, Assistant Town Attorney,Damon Hagan,
Senior Clerk Typist Elizabeth Cantrell, and our stenographer
Wayne Galante. Agendas are available on the-lecterns over there
and out in the hall.
I would,like at this time to announce the postponements.
Postponements are usually for the applicants that might not have
completed the application or completed a mailing. We have on
page eight, number 16, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on
behalf of AIDEN STENSON requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to remove 49' of existing bulkhead and construct
49' of new bulkhead in-place of existing; remove existing
610 sq.ft. wood decking and reconstruct a 199 sq.ft. deck once
Board of Trustees 2 April 19, 2017
bulkhead construction is complete; and to remove existing 46'
long jetty and construct a new 46' long low profile jetty
in-place of existing. Located: 570 Rabbit Lane, East Marion.
SCTM# 1000-31-18-12, has been postponed.
Number 17, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf
of PARADISE POINT ASSOCIATION, clo DOUGLAS CIAMPA requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a 42' long bulkhead extension
comprised of vinyl sheathing, two (2)sets of 6"x6" timber
walers, two (2)sets of 6"x6" timber clamps, 8" diameter timber
pilings, 8" diameter deadmen and tie-rods; backfill eroded area
landward of proposed bulkhead extension with 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, has been
postponed.
And on page nine, number 18, 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, has been
postponed.
And number 19, 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# 1000-115-11-4.1, has been postponed.
Also, I would like to announce at this time that under Town
Code Chapter 275-8(c), the files, the applications were closed
seven days ago. Submission of additional paperwork at this time
may result in a delay of the processing of the application.
At this time I'll entertain a motion to have the next field
inspection on May 9th, 2017, at 8:00 AM. Do I have a motion?
Board of Trustees 3 April 19, 2017
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll move it.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The next Trustee meeting, I'll entertain a
motion to hold it on May 17th, at 5:30 PM at the main meeting
hall. Do I have a motion?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion for our meeting at 5:30 PM.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I would like a motion to hold our next work session at Downs
Farm on May 15, 2017, at 4:30 PM, and on May 17th, at 5:00 PM,
at the main meeting hall. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
At this time I'll entertain a motion to approve the Minutes of
March 22nd, 2017.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for March 2017. A check for
$7,112.43 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the
General Fund.
11. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for
review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold
hereby finds that the following applications more fully
described in Section VI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee
agenda dated Wednesday, April 19, 2017, are classified as Type
II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not
subject to further review under SEQRA:
Sally Coonan - SCTM# 1000-80-1-4.
Board of Trustees 4 April 19, 2017
Mattituck Property Family Trust- SCTM# 1000-23-8-28.4
Lizbeth Jansen - SCTM# 1000-144-5-27
Scott & Julia Olser- SCTM# 1000-87-3-57
David Eckert- SCTM# 1000-78-7-14
Albert Leutwyler- SCTM# 1000-107-4-5
David & Chantal Landman - SCTM# 1000-59-8-6.1
Charles & Brenda Grimes - SCTM# 1000-86-2-12.6
Eugene C. Burger, Jr. - SCTM# 1000-104-3-2
Paul & Nanette Lancey- SCTM# 1000-51-1-22.1
Dotmedia, LLC- SCTM# 1000-54-4-7
Robert Karpas & Claire Aiosa-Karpas 1000-80-5-3.1
Aden Sternson - SCTM# 1000-31-18-12.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second to that resolution?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral IV. In order to simplify
our meetings, the Board of Trustees groups together actions that
are deemed minor or very similar in nature. Accordingly, I'll
make a motion to approve as a group items one through four. They
are listed as follows:
Number one, East End Spa Service, LLC on behalf of REGINA
PAOLILLO requests an Administrative Permit to install a 15'x33'
on-grade bluestone patio with a 9'x12.8'wood decking area level
with bluestone patio that will hold a 6.4'x7.5' hot tub located
on the seaward side of dwelling. Located: 3270 Great Peconic Bay
Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-128-6-8
Number two, Donald R. Wilson on behalf of DOMELUCA, LLC
requests an Administrative Permit to construct 12'wide by 70'
long in-ground swimming pool; install a 13'x42' lawn terrace
area adjacent to pool; install a pool equipment area; and
install pool enclosure fencing. Located: 14909 Route 25, East
Marion. SCTM# 1000-23-1-2.8
Number three, Donald R. Wilson on behalf of DOMELUCA, LLC
requests an Administrative Permit to install a gate
approximately 13' in width, and call-box at entry to driveway.
Located: 14909 Route 25, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-23-1-2.8
Number four, Donald R. Wilson on behalf of DOMELUCA, LLC
requests an Administrative Permit to construct an extension of
the existing driveway in order to create a code compliant 12'
wide by 70' long hammerhead (turn-around). Located: 14909 Route
25, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-23-1-2.8
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number five, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
Board of Trustees 5 April 19, 2017
Inc. on behalf of WILLIAM H. PRICE, Jr. & SUSAN P. ANDERSON
request an Administrative Permit for the as-built 16'x26'
(416 sq.ft.) attached deck with 4'x23' (92 sq.ft.) steps. Located:
1345 Long Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-55-3-30
The LWRP coordinator has found this inconsistent. The
as-built structure was constructed without a permit. We'll
address the LWRP inconsistency by granting a permit for the
as-built 16x26' deck. Do I have a motion for that?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Move to approve bringing it into consistency
by granting a permit for a deck which is not impacting the
Hashamomuck Pond section.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number six, Michael Kimack on behalf of ERLINDA
LEUNG requests an Administrative Permit for a Ten (10)Year
Maintenance Permit to hand cut the common reed (phragmites
australis) to not less than 12" in height on an as needed basis;
and to remove any dead or dying trees as determined in the
spring by a tree expert. Located: 4001 Wells Road, Peconic.
SCTM# 1000-86-1-9.4
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent,
wondering how the proposed removal of trees will be monitored.
Upon further inspection, the Trustees determined that the
applicant must come in and must flag the trees, then come in and
have an area Trustee come down to approve it for removal of trees.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is that your motion bringing it into
consistency?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. I make a motion to approve this application
with the amendment that the homeowner will come in after
flagging trees and contact the area Trustee for approval, which
will bring the LWRP into consistency.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Roman number V. Again, in order to simplify our
meeting, I'll make a motion to approve as a group items one
through three and five. They are listed as follows:
Number one, En-Consultants on behalf of NITIN P. DESAI &
BARSI, LLC request the Last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit
#8417A, as issued on May 21, 2014. Located: 18915 Soundview
Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-15
Number two, PAUL J. ROMANELLI &THERESA BOYLE request a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#4252 from Bruce & Barbara Beany to
Paul J. Romanelli &Theresa Boyle, as issued on October 28,
1993. Located: 1750 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-3-5.1
Board of Trustees 6 April 19, 2017
Number three, Karen Hagen, Esq. on behalf of EMERY& MARY
KORPI requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#5785 from Dena
Shand to Emery& Mary Korpi, as issued on July 23, 2003.
Located: 1460 North Oakwood Road, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-127-6-11.
Number five, DAVID D. ROHDE &ANTHONY W. CROWELL request a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#1650 from Philip & Lorraine Sabalja
to David D. Rohde &Anthony W. Crowell, as issued on July 22,
1983, and Amended on January 19, 2005. Located: 1615 Anchor
Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-79-4-6.1
That's my motion. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, DAVID D. ROHDE &ANTHONY W. CROWELL
request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#5885 from Philip &
Lorraine Sabalja to David D. Rohde &Anthony W. Crowell, as
issued on March 24, 2004. Located: 1615 Anchor Lane, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-79-4-6.1
I'll make a motion to table item four.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Roman numeral VI. At this time I'll take a
motion to go off our regular meeting agenda and enter into the
public hearings section.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to reiterate our request to keep
comments brief and relevant to the application, state your name
and try to keep the comments germane.
Under Amendments, number one, Docko, Inc. on behalf of MARK
FRANKLIN requests an Amendment to Wetland 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 3.5'x20' 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# 1000-2-1-12.2
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The CAC did not do an inspection, therefore no
recommendation was made.
The Trustees reviewed this file on several occasions, most
recently on March 15th, 2017, where they questioned how the plot
Board of Trustees 7 April 19, 2017
would be deemed seasonal. After studying the files, a resolution
was passed at work session deeming that the removal of the
open-grate decking on the southerly side would in fact be
seasonal. Therefore I make a motion --are there any comments?
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 DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: CHARLES & BRENDA GRIMES request an Amendment to
Wetland Permit#8805 to modify the size of the proposed dwelling
to be a 62'6"x45' (2,812 sq.ft.)two-story dwelling with attached
28'x32' (896 sq.ft.)garage; and a 15'x25' (375 sq.ft.) deck
attached to the seaward side of dwelling. Located: 4145 Wells
Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-12.6
Nick, you just went to this, right?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay. On April 15th, Trustee Krupski went to
this property and did not see any issues with it at that time.
The CAC has resolved to support this application.
There is no LWRP.
Is there anybody who would like to speak on behalf of the
applicant?
MR. BETA: Frank Beta. I submitted the paperwork for Charles
and Brenda Grimes for the property because there was originally
going to be a house built there prior to them purchasing the
property, and what they had to do for the Department of
Environmental Conservation was give them that other 25-foot,
which they put in that envelope they applied for. The notice was
posted and letters were sent out. Everything was in order for that.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Anybody else like to speak on behalf of this
application?
(Negative response).
Anybody from the Board?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: 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).
MR. BETA: Thank you.
Board of Trustees 8 April 19, 2017
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits,
DKR Shores, Inc. on behalf of PAUL & NANETTE LANCEY request a Wetland Permit
and a Coastal Erosion Permit to replace in-place existing damaged 110' long timber
bulkhead with a steel sheet piling bulkhead; re-use existing functional bulkhead pilings
and install new where necessary; install two (2) new steel sheet returns within property
lines; backfill eroded area with approximately 625 cubic yards of clean fill; install a 10'
wide stone splash pad along the landward edge of the new bulkhead; for the as-built
bluff stairs with associated platforms consisting of a 10'x10' upper platform, 4'x14.8'
stairs, 4'x10' middle platform, 5.8'x4.9' landing with steps, 3'x14' stairs; repair the
damaged section of bluff stairs consisting of a 8.7'x10' bottom platform, 3'x4' stairs, and
3'x14' timber ramp; replace the 4'x14' access stairs to beach off bulkhead; and
re-vegetate disturbed areas using Cape American beach grass 2" plugs planted 12" o.c.
Located: 19525 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-22.1
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on April 11th, noting that it was a
pre-existing nonconforming deck and stairs; that the platform on the bottom of the stairs
should be less than 100-square feet; possibility of splash pad to prevent scouring, and to
reconfigure the on-grade patio possibly with a French drain to prevent further erosion of
the bluff.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies were a permit for a
stair and bulkhead was issued in 2000, however the stair as-built does not comply with
the permit, and also that the location of the proposed stair is within the Coastal Erosion
Hazard Area.
The CAC resolved to support this application with the condition that the beach
stairs are retractable. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. RIGDON: DKR Shores here to represent Paul and Nanette Lancey. I listened
to some of the recommendations, we have no problem with the CAC stairs I think
being retractable and/or aluminum, i.e., untreated in nature. As far as the old, previous
permitting, the dimensions are slightly off and that was just an as-built construction
error, really, but it did in fact have a permit, and was in compliance with the old
Trustee permit. Those structures do still currently exist minus the beach access
stairs.
We did also note the splash pad originally before the application was received
and/or processed by the Town, you had requested the stone splash pad,,so that's
part of the application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: How about the lower platform?
MS. RIGDON: The lower platform is really an on-grade ramp that will be reconstructed
in place of the existing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Will it be less than 100-square feet?
MS. RIGDON: It is now. It's just a ramp. It's three by-- it's not a platform, if that's
what you mean. It's an on-grade ramp, and it's three, it was 3x14', and it's hanging
in mid-air. So that's less than 100-square feet.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is that the eight-foot by ten-foot deck on the bottom?
MS. RIGDON: It's 8' 7 Y2" by ten foot deck. And that exists currently. And if it
doesn't get reconstructed soon, it will collapse. But it is currently there. That ramp
that you see on the plans, that is 3x14, that did get damaged.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: How about the French drain at the top?
MS. RIGDON: We have a stone splash pad, and that will drain all the rainwater
Board of Trustees 9 April 19, 2017
runoff coming down the bluff. Not only that, but the bluff is rather vegetated, and
during the proposal we did include restoration of the bluff, and with Cape
American beach grass to stabilize it. If you'd like, I could include jute fabric.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think there is a misunderstanding on that.
I think it's a point of clarification. I think the Board was hoping to have a small
French drain at the joint between the, between the patio --the patio currently grades
or slopes down toward the bluff face and we thought that possibly a French
drain at that location. We understand the splash pad. That's just to protect your bluff.
It could be hidden below the current brick face, so it could actually be installed
below the brick.
MS. RIGDON: Okay, I think that's a very reasonable request. Would the Board like
to hear from the owner while he's here in attendance?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Sure.
MS. RIGDON: I just want to add, before he comes up, this was a
result of a storm event. As you know, on March 14th, Storm
Stella hit the north fork, and 70 mile-per-hour winds creating
quite a bit of havoc, and Mr. Lancey's property was particularly
hit by telephone poles, actually. It was debris that destroyed
his bulkhead. And the neighbor witnessed it. Paul?
MR. LANCEY: If you have any questions.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes. You can see right where the deck meets
the wood platform, the water is going right down there. So it's
undermining your stairs. So that's where we are talking about a
possible French drain.
MR. LANCEY: I understand. I support that. It's a good idea.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And the other thing is retractable or
removable stairs at the bottom.
MR. LANCEY: I have a comment on that. 20 years of being there,
when I originally built the house, the existing bulkhead was on
the ground, so I rebuilt it in 2000, so I get a chance to do it
twice. Lucky man. But both my neighbors had the retractable
steel. I built the steps down to the beach with backlifts, and
they lasted, okay, until this storm now, okay. I lost some
steps, individual steps along the way. But each of my neighbors
have had, once the wind gets above 70, and Stella, nobody even
knew had a name, my neighbor has a weather station, looked it
up, they gave it a name because the gusts were over 70. They
took out two or three of the people with steel steps. Now, you
can't take the steel steps off in the winter, but my feeling is
esthetically, wood into the sand is probably more pleasing,
okay, esthetically, environmentally more friendly, it's wood.
And quite frankly, mine lasted longer than all my friend that
had steel steps in the side. I'm amicable to do both. But I
personally feel wood steps would be a better decision.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are also talking not necessarily about
retractable, but also removable, which is bolted steps.
MS. RIGDON: I think I have a better idea. Instead of that
think we should plan the stairs going parallel with the bulkhead
instead of going straight out. What do you think?
MR. LANCEY: I'm okay with that.
MS. RIGDON: I don't know if it would be wood, but permanent
Board of Trustees 10 April 19, 2017
going this way.
MR. LANCEY: Interesting fact. That works. If I could do the wood
that way.
MS. RIGDON: So I'll get a written submission to the list.
MR. LANCEY: So wood that parallels the bulkhead. Any questions
for me?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here to speak regarding this
application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion to approve this application with
condition a French drain is installed at the top by the patio as
well as wood stairs parallel to the bulkhead at the bottom to
address the LWRP inconsistencies. And by permitting this, it
also brings it into consistency with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES').
MS. RIGDON: Thank you, have a good evening.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number two, Michael Kimack on behalf of
DOTMEDIA, LLC requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit for the existing 1,462.23 sq.ft. dwelling with attached 172.26 sq.ft.
landward concrete stoop; construct a 220 sq.ft. sunroom off south westerly
side of dwelling; and construct a 342.8 sq.ft. deck with two (2) staircases
off the seaward side of dwelling. Located: 525 North Sea Drive, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-54-4-7
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
proposed deck and stairs are proposed on a dune system. The
plans are deficient. The structure is not shown on a survey.
Setbacks and new structures are not provided. The proposed
action is located within a VE Flood Zone. The addition of a
non-major addition requires a Coastal Erosion Management permit.
The type of addition has not been specified.
The CAC resolved to support this application.
The Trustees visited this site on the 11th of April. We
were discussing the size of the deck on the seaward side of the
house. Also the house lacks gutters and leaders to drywells.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding
this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant DotMedia.
have a proposal based upon the concerns of the Board. And I
would like a chance to speak to my client. Just to look at it,
at the present time there exists 1,462.23 square feet of
livable condition space, and under Chapter 111 you cannot
Board of Trustees 11 April 19, 2017
exceed 25% of that space in order not to have to go before the
Board and ask for a variance. Which is 365-square feet. The sunroom,
the conditioned sunroom on the side is 220-square feet.
Our proposal would be to take the open deck and enclose a
portion of the open deck so that portion of the open deck and
the sunroom together would not exceed 365-square feet, and that
the remaining open deck would not exceed 200-square feet. So
that the conditioned space would not exceed the 365, which we
cannot do, and the open deck would not exceed 200-square feet. I
know it's a little --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. In recapping, the structure in total
is growing by not more than 24.99%, so it's considered a
non-major addition in the dune zone under the coastal erosion,
so it would be a proposal that is compliant with the provisions
for the granting of a permit, and it's honoring the less than
200-square foot that is in that catch-all for construction that
doesn't require the coastal permit docks and open construction.
MR. KIMACK: Question. Is it 199 or 200?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's 200. Therefore it can be 199.99.
MR. KIMACK: Got it. And I would propose that we revise our
architectural drawings and submit four additional sets according
to that layout that we just proposed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Is there anyone else here that wishes to
speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Are there any comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Okay, with that being said, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded. All in
favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the following amendment, that new plans are submitted
depicting the deck less than 200-square feet and depicting the
overall structure livable space to be less than 25%, which
would therefore bring this into consistency. And also leaders
and gutters to drywells.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KIMACK: Thank you, very much. Have a good night.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application under Wetland Permits, number one,
Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of IOANNIS ZOUMAS requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a 4'x46' open-grate catwalk with 4'wide access stairs at landward
end; proposed catwalk to be supported by(12) 12" diameter piles and elevated a
minimum of 2.5' over grade/MHW; a proposed 3'x15' adjustable ramp; and a proposed
6'x20'floating dock chocked 18" off the bottom of the creek, and secured with (2) 12"
Board of Trustees 12 April 19, 2017
diameter float piles. Located: 5310 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-138-2-15
This application, the Trustees have been to the site two times and discussed it at
two work sessions, the latest being on the 11th and the work session on the 17th.
The CAC indicates they supported the application with the condition of a non-turf
buffer, and the total length of the dock is to be shortened. The proposed docking facility
exceeds a third of the way across the creek and will impede navigation.
The proposal has been deemed to be inconsistent with the town's LWRP in that
the interests of the public trust lands and lands underwater of the people of Southold
and the Trustees need to be reviewed to limit grants and coverage over town bottom.
The revised set of plans detailed the elimination of the ramp and float were
subject to this additional discussion of the Board at our field inspection and work
session. I know there are continuing concerns by the Board. The size of the piles are
considered and the initial application are considered excessive. We have to discuss pile
size on the proposal. And the Board still has some very real concerns concerning
the extent to which the dock goes into the creek.
Is there anyone who wishes to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. HALL: Yes. Good evening. Dan Hall, Land Use Ecological
Services, for the owner. We revised the plans to now include a
4x60' open-grate catwalk with a 4x15' platform at the end. This
facility is four-foot shorter than previously proposed with the
ramp and float on it. This provides, you know, the water depth
at the end of the float, about two feet, two-and-a-half feet
where the boat would be sitting, which is what the New York
State DEC had accepted and requested per their letter, notice
from their office, to the original proposal. And the platform
is in an "L" configuration at the end, and it's as close as it
can be to the property line, 20 feet off the property line as
measured by the Army Corps of Engineers. And we have, we were at
the site, we discussed it, we have aerial overlays. I don't
think-- this is at the northern end of this particular
waterway. It's no major navigational traffic that goes through
here, that I can see. That's why we eliminated the ramp and
float. This is a transition zone, as we discussed, and making
this structure shorter than is currently proposed, we believe
would have adverse impacts on the environment, which we are
trying to protect. Of course we are amenable to the size of the
pilings. We have 12-inch piles, which are standard. Eight-inch
would probably be more acceptable to the Board. That would be
fine for us to use for this site. And the only other difference
from the original proposal is that the catwalk is proposed to be
elevated four feet above the tidal wetland vegetation and then
over which two-and-a-half feet above mean high water as depicted
on sheet two of two of the project drawings. And then that's
the proposal that has been modified that seems to address the
concerns of the, well some of the concerns of the Trustees and
all the concerns of the other agencies involved at this site.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. I think at the work session there
was frank discussion that we wanted to bring to you concerning
the elimination of the "L"that you've added on and go with a
straight-out dock, and we would, we see the waters here as more
conducive to a small flat bottom skiff or kayaks. And that the
r
Board of Trustees 13 April 19, 2017
net change is really only essentially two feet. The difference
between the extension into the creek is really just the
difference between a 6x20 float and the four-foot wide section,
at most maybe three feet.
The Board is very reluctant at this location to go further
out because an existing natural channel stream course, but there
has not been a history of dredging there in so long, we don't
have an opportunity to make the waters deep again. So,
extending out into the navigable waterway is going to prevent
other users to get further upstream and where it does narrow so
sufficiently. So I think the Board is definitely headed in that
direction. And typically, I know you rightfully described the
needs of other agencies. We are aware even though we are not
entirely in agreement, that the Army Corps of Engineers and US
Fish and Wildlife Services requiring the decks, the surface
areas of catwalks, the deck area to be at least three feet above
the marsh, even with through-flow. We are having trouble
discerning why that is necessary because through-flow allows as
much as 70% of the light through. But in this instance I think
the Board is fairly firm in the request that we further dial it
back. We don't feel this waterway is conducive to a structure of
this stature. Typically, the Board wants to see six-inch
diameter material through the vegetated wetland for a small
creek and then going out into the lands below mean high water in
a creek such as this, smaller diameter materials. Six-inch
maximum, four-inch typically. Four-inch square, you know,
materials. And certainly not 12-inch.
We can have a continuing discussion with members of the
Board if, you know, six-inch material or if there is a concern
about frost heave and maybe going to eight-inch at the seaward
most, but no ten or 12-inch piles for a creek like this.
MR. HALL: Okay, so we have to describe more what you are asking
for at the end because I'm not clear on exactly--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Essentially, the Board wants to totally nix
--we are not inclined to disapprove the application. We want to
work with you, but we don't think it's appropriate to have a "T"
or an "L" at the end. It should be straight out. And we are not
in the business of designing what would provide the most utility
for you but if you want to come in with a design for set of
steps or low platform off the side that would facilitate
entering into a launching of kayaks.
MR. HALL: So shorten it by another four feet.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, shorten it by four feet. At this point
I don't think the Board really thinks it's appropriate for the
"T" construction straight out. As we see many of the other docks
there.
MR. HALL: Right. Well, many of the other docks there have floats.
But we have already been through that discussion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, we have. Does the Board have any other
thoughts of dialing it back and keeping the "T"? I think it becomes impractical.
MR. HALL: I can make it smaller than it is, but I think that
Board of Trustees 14 April 19, 2017
just serves -- it's a liability, that's a liability issue, not
off of anything. Four-foot wide is not--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board has a recent history of at least
two or three other instances where we want to maintain people's
rights to exercise their riparian rights for access, but where
there is limitations of navigation, we have allowed for like a
midway stepdown that is covered with through-flow. So it
enables someone to put a kayak on it and then go down and launch
a kayak or go in and out of a kayak, or if you want to have a
set of steps along the side, in other words going no further
seaward if you wanted to have a set of steps for entering into
the water, for launching a kayak or for ease of getting into a boat.
MR. HALL: Which would go perpendicular to the dock?The steps?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think, in the past we have been
fairly flexible in the design of access steps because they are
to meet the needs of the individual for getting themselves or
craft in the water. Reasonably, you know, four-foot wide steps
as many--set of four-foot wide steps with as many steps as you
need or a platform that is parallel to and alongside but not
going further seaward.
MR. HALL: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If that, I believe that the Board is fairly
firm in our resolve on this based on our work session discussion,
if that's amendable, and you either want to go back to your
client, we would consider tabling the application or if you --
MR. HALL: No, we'll go ahead with that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We would consider an approval that
would be subject to submission of new plans and a verbal description.
MR. HALL: Correct.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What's your thought about pile size?
MR. HALL: Six-inch through, and the end may require a couple
sets of eight-inch piles.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: How does the Board --six inch?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That creek, typically there is plenty of
four-inch piles and the ice tends to grab them a little less and
I don't see a whole lot of freezing there. I mean if you guys
are inclined to be the last set.
MR. HALL: I'll do all six-inch then?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: That seems reasonable.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Six-inch is fine.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else here who wishes to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Not hearing anyone else, I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this
application subject to the submission of new plans that will
indicate that the proposed dock catwalk goes no further than the
perpendicular section, no further seaward, and that a set of
Board of Trustees 15 April 19, 2017
steps or platform not exceeding four-foot in width that may be
attached to the dock landward of the end of the dock thereby
minimizing coverage over public land will bring this application
into compliance and consistency under the LWRP.
That's my motion. And with pile size not to exceed
six-inches throughout.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number two, Cole Environmental Services on
behalf of SALLY COONAN requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing 809 sq.ft. dwelling with 60 sq.ft. front porch; existing
18 sq.ft. outdoor shower on landward side of dwelling; existing
20 sq.ft. platform with stairs leading to beach down bluff;
existing 50 linear foot long timber bulkhead; and for the
as-built 5'x12' above-ground porch/landing with stairs to grade
on side of dwelling; and the as-built±43'x8' (344 sq.ft.)
Irregularly shaped ground-level patio on side of dwelling.
Located: 2662 Paradise Shore Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-80-1-4
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency arises from the fact that the structures were
built without a Wetland permit. Also notice that the setback
should be shown on the plans from the top of the bank and shown
from the average high water mark. And if approved, a vegetated
buffer is recommended.
The CAC resolved to support this application.
The Trustees did a field inspection on April 11th and noted
that the structure looked good and questioned about a drain
pipe. It's almost by the arrow on the photograph, coming out of
the basement, a very small drain pipe.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no questions or comments, any questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: No questions or comments, I'll make a motion to
close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted,
noting that the granting of a permit will bring it into
consistency, and that the bluff is heavily vegetated as it is.
And gutters and leaders to drywells.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What about that pipe?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The pipe will have to be removed. That's my
motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 16 April 19, 2017
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Wetland permits, number three, ALBERT LEUTWYLER
requests a Wetland Permit to raise the existing dwelling by 18"
to conform to FEMA AE 8 regulations; construct a second-story
addition to dwelling; add a two-story 12'x10' addition onto
landward side of dwelling; construct a 5'x13'6" second-story
balcony on the seaward side of dwelling; install a 5'x8' outdoor
shower on the landward side of the dwelling; and the existing
38'x8' and 42'x10.3' attached wood deck to dwelling to be raised
18"to match the new height of the dwelling. Located: 4573
Wickham Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-107-4-5
On April 11th, all Trustees inspected this property. The
questions that were generated from this visit: What's the need
to clear seaward of existing deck; the wetland line is right at
the back of the deck, and the question was can the house be
moved landward.
The LWRP has found this to be consistent.
And the CAC has resolved to support this.
Is there anybody who would like to speak?
MR. LEUTWYLER: My name is Albert Leutwyler, the owner of the
property.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I got your name pretty close then, didn't I.
MR. LEUTWYLER: Yes, yes, everybody does.
Just for your information, today I just received the
permits from the DEC. They came in the mail very timely for this
meeting today. If you have any questions, I would be glad to
answer them.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The one concern we have, do we have
pictures of this particular property?
MS. CANTRELL: Working on it.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: One question some of the guys came up
with, is it possible to move it a little further away from the wetland or
is your main goal to go up 18 inches and that's it?
MR. LEUTWYLER: The principle I would like to do is just raise
the house up from its existing footprint and add on some space
in the back rather than moving the entire house back. FEMA
requires, because I'm doing this raising, FEMA requires that
do everything conforming to FEMA code in terms of the
elevations, and we did look at the, I thought of moving
everything back, but I think we, Carol and myself, are retired,
we live on Social Security so I would like to minimize the cost
as much as possible.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Really, the only other concern that we have is
if you look at how close you are to the wetland, how are we to
ensure that the wetland vegetation does not get disturbed during
that time period.
MR. LEUTWYLER: That's a fair concern. I would like to point out
to you when we got the permits to build the deck, the wetland
was quite a bit closer to the creek than it is now. And because
of all the planting that I did in front of the deck, the wetland
area by the surveyor has been moved in by at least ten feet.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: All those plants currently--
Board of Trustees 17 April 19, 2017
MR. LEUTWYLER: That's my work. Because there is, you know, I'm
concerned about the runoff as well. I have a French drain that
is in front of the deck, the entire length of the house, and so I'm
very conscious of the need to be environmentally sound.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If we were to ask you to put a -- because
this area is subject to additional flooding -- if we were to ask
that you, at a limit of clearing, that you install a silt fence
on the edge of your French drain, in other words--
MR. LEUTWYLER: The entire property we plan on having a silt
fence around.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because we need to see that on the
plans. I didn't see it in front, maybe I missed it.
MR. LEUTWYLER: I thought maybe the site plan showed the silt
fencing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right. I just wanted to do that as a
reiteration. Okay, I see the hash line. I see limit of clearing,
but it's not saying that it's a silt fence. That's why. I just
want to make sure. It just has a dash line limit of clearing.
Unless it's additionally keyed. Is there an additional key?
MR. LEUTWYLER: In the upper right-hand corner?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, hay bale with silt fence.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: He has it--yes, exactly. We are good.
MR. LEUTWYLER: I'm concerned about it, too. We'll continue to do
planting. I did have to leave a certain area open according to
the permits we got eight years ago for an access to the creek.
And so that area has not been planted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, for the clarification.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Yes, that helps out a lot.
Would anyone else like to talk on behalf of this particular
application?
(Negative response).
Anymore thoughts from the Board?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as deemed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. LEUTWYLER: Thank you, very much. May I just give you the
copy of the permit I got from the DEC. (Handing).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number four, Eugene J. Burger, Sr. on behalf
of EUGENE C. BURGER, JR. requests a Wetland Permit to construct
a 10'6"'x20'2" porch, a 9'6"x6 porch, a 10'6"x6' addition; and a
second floor addition onto the existing single-family dwelling.
Located: 2385 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-3-2 the
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
Board of Trustees 18 April 19, 2017
The CAC resolved to support this application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on April 11th,
noting it was straightforward and there was no environmental
impacts.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on this application?
MR. BURGER: Eugene Burger, Sr.,just to answer any questions you
may have.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to
comment on this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this
application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion is made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. BURGER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number five, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
on behalf of LISA GILLOOLY requests a Wetland Permit for the
existing split-level frame dwelling approximately measuring
49'x24.9' and occupying 1,348.6 sq.ft. with a 10.8'x8.3' four-season
sunroom; existing ±28.5'x30' (631.7 sq.ft.)waterside deck
with 7.5'wide waterside steps to grade, 3'wide easterly side
steps to grade, 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' (1 19 sq.ft.)easterly wood walk and steps; existing
12'x32' in-ground swimming pool with pool equipment on 2.5'x4.5'
concrete slab; two existing propane tanks with two bollards;
existing 17 linear foot long westerly retaining wall; existing 7
linear foot long easterly wood retaining wall; existing ±47'x34'
(1,106.6 sq.ft.)at grade patio; existing ±20'x21' gravel
driveway; and for a proposed 22'x30' (660 sq.ft.)garage landward
of dwelling; a proposed 45.1'x48' (1,526.6 sq.ft.) on-grade pool
patio; re-line and elevate existing 12'x32' in-ground swimming
pool; install a proposed 120 linear foot long retaining wall and
deposit 1,000 cubic yards of clean fill to achieve required
elevation for a possible future septic system; modify existing
driveway for a proposed 21'x33'gravel driveway; install four
(4) drywells for proposed garage and driveway; install four(4)
drywells for existing dwelling; and install two (2) drywells for
pool backwash and draw down. Located: 450 Harbor Road, Orient.
SCTM# 1000-27-4-7
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
area is prone to flooding and the flood zone is not shown on the
Board of Trustees 19 April 19, 2017
plans. The retaining wall could cause additional floodings at
King Street by deflecting flood waters. It's recommended this be
evaluated by Town engineers to determine potential impacts on
town roads.
The project engineer certifies the need for a thousand p
cubic yards in the application but does not assess potential
impacts, if any. What is the depth to groundwater with the
drywell function. The existing cesspool is located close to
surface waters and partially encroaches the coastal erosion
hazard area. The location does not meet Town Code.
The CAC resolved to support this application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There are a number of letters in the file.
H&F Rieger. The letters basically discuss how this area is
prone to flooding; dated cesspool; the impacts that a garage
would have and if the drywells could contain it.
Also there is a letter in here from James and Carol
McLoughlin. Dear Southold Trustees, we are writing to express
concern about changes that are proposed for this property for
the following reasons. Then it goes on to address the proximity
to the salt water and to the bay and how frequently it floods.
Soil composition along with the water table, added pollution
issues and dramatic, there has been a dramatic loss of
biodiversity along this beach.
The Trustees have been to this site many times in the past,
most recently, 2/7/17 by John Bredemeyer to examine the septic,
and we have also gone over inhouse at many, many work sessions.
Following the initial request from the LWRP coordinator,
the request was sent to the engineer to evaluate this property,
and the engineer's letter reads as follows:
The site plan indicates a-note which states existing
cesspool location by owner, location seaward of CEHA line and
it's within 20 feet of the rock revetment and timber bulkhead
heading that protects the property from Orient Harbor. In
addition, the cesspool would almost assuredly be in direct i
contact with groundwater due to the grade elevation and distance
from tidal wetlands. Therefore it is strongly recommended a new
sanitary system which meets all current SCDHS requirements for
residential construction be mandatory if for this project.
The retaining wall has been proposed for the property line
along the town road known as King Street. Where necessary,
removal of the existing asphalt pavement must be saw cut in a
straight line prior to excavation for the new retaining wall.
Weep holes will not be permitted in this retaining wall.
The existing LP tanks located along the property line of
King Street must be relocated to a minimum ten-feet away from
the property line. These tanks must be properly anchored to meet
code and this reinstallation should be poured in with the
building department for additional requirements.
Porous pavers have been indicated for the new pool
surround. The detail for construction appears to be tenuous and
difficult to construct without a solid base. The permeability of
Board of Trustees 20 April 19, 2017
this design will require certification by the project engineer
after installation is complete.
The drainage design is proposed less the area of porous
pavers meets the minimum requirements of Chapter 236 Storm Water
Management. A test hole should be added to the site plan to
verify soil types and depth to groundwater. The eight new
leaching pools designed must be installed with a minimum
two-foot separation above groundwater. The grade may need to be
elevated in all these to accomplish this installation. The site
plan should also indicate how all LPs will be piped together.
All erosion controls must be located on the site plan and
details of the proposed installation must be shown. All
proposed drainage structure and piping must be detailed and
dimensioned with cross sections that should be added to this
site plan. Sincerely, James A. Richter, from the Engineer's
office.
Okay, is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding
this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicant. I'm also here with Joseph Fischetti who is
our project engineer.
I just want to put everything in context here before I
begin. The first part of this is this application started with a
request to build a detached garage. Lisa Gillooly the owner, I
believe approached the Board during its work session quite a
while ago to discuss this. Then a rather thoughtful letter was
written from back to Lisa Gillooly from John Bredemeyer,
President of the Trustees. And at that point we got involved.
The reason why we thought the letter was very thoughtful and
helpful was because what it essentially expressed was a concern
that if we were to build this garage there might not be
sufficient room to plan and implement a drainage plan that would
comply with the Town storm water regulations. And number two,
there might not be sufficient area to accommodate a septic
system.
So when we got involved with that, those were, that was our
guide and I thought it was a very good guidance. So we developed
a plan that would address those two specific areas. When we then
returned to the Town Board, we heard a few things from the LWRP
coordinator, essentially that the buildings and structures on
the property were inconsistent, they were not permitted. They
were not permitted because they pre-exist. So the application
cures that.
The flooding concerns apparently that the coordinator has
is not apparently shared by the engineer and it's very apparent
looking at your aerial photograph the predominant littoral drift
is west to east in any event. And of course the road ending is
paved and DEC has recently visited the site and installed rip
rap at the end of the road ending, which they own. So I think
that issue is behind us at this point.
So we asked our engineer, who is here tonight, and he can
Board of Trustees 21 April 19, 2017
walk you through this, to meet with the Town Engineer and work
out a plan that addresses his concerns. And the important part
of the letter is that the engineer agrees that the plan would
comply with the Town Storm Water regulations. So we have passed
that hurdle. And when we say that, we are talking about
providing for the drainage for all the hard structures on the
property, not just the garage that we are proposing. So we
believe that also is behind us.
The issue of the septic system is curious in that there is
nothing about this application that triggers an upgrade to the
septic system. So what triggers an upgrade to a septic system
is failure, so that it has to be replaced. Or two, that you are
increasing the design flow, meaning that the septic system
doesn't have the capacity to handle the flows that are generated
from the property and the building constructed on that property.
So here we have the cesspool, it is not located in an area
that we would permit today, it's not of a design we would permit
today, and we in fact did provide the Board with a design that
meets current Health Department regulations. And we provided
proof that it can be located, we provided sufficient area,
sufficient elevations visa vie the construction of the retaining wall.
As you know, septic systems are --the discussion of septic
is a very dynamic discussion, and there is a move to install or
cause property owners, particularly waterfront property owners,
to install new, upgraded systems that feature some nitrogen
removal. The county executive is trying to unveil a plan that
will, a grant program that he says will provide $11,000 on a
system we figure will cost absent retaining walls 30 to $40,000
to install. It may be imposed on property owners and maybe it
should be, when it's either related to a question of design flow
or a question of septic system failure.
We are prepared for that. And I think eventually when
make, you know, whether I propose anything further on the site or
not, there will come a time when that septic system will have to
be upgraded.
I must say however that I don't know today what that
upgrade necessarily would be. The design we provided for you
would comply with the Health Department regulations subject to
Board of Review approval for a number of technical reasons we
believe that would be successful. We are reluctant to propose a
septic system at this point, because number one, it's a very
fluid matter in that it is entirely possible that the septic
system today may not be acceptable septic system of tomorrow. So
we certainly don't want to undertake the expense twice.
Secondly, we are curious to see how government implements these
new plans, including their grant program. Often times a
politician will unveil a grant program like elevating properties
in response to Hurricane Sandy, for example, and while it all
sounds good, most of my clients that have tried to capture those
grants have not as yet been successful actually collecting money
from Hurricane Sandy, which now occurred more than
Board of Trustees 22 April 19, 2017
three-and-a-half years ago.
So we want to see how these new systems perform, we want to
know how they are in fact, how the county programs are going to
be implemented. We are interested to know how the Town will
eventually grapple with this issue we are not opposed to. What
we are opposed to is doing it today as part of this application.
Because again we are not doing anything that increases design
flow, and we are not, the cesspool that serves the property
right now is not the subject of this application.
So that is the position of the applicant. I ask right now,
Joe, if you can just speak to the remaining aspects raised by
the Town Engineer and how you address them.
MR. FISCHETTI: Joseph Fischetti, Professional Engineer. We kind
of got into this, I guess as Bruce said, because I had to lay
this out so that I knew that I had room for the sanitary system.
So I laid out all the drainage. I laid out areas for roof
runoff, moved things around. Those are normally submitted to the
Town Engineer and the details for those that he is asking for
are normally submitted on a Storm Water Management Plan for a
building permit. So when I met Jamie a few weeks, we went
through that. I said, well, I only did this so I could lay it
out and let the Board know I did the analysis. He questioned my
pervious patio, and I laid it out, but it was not enough detail
on it. But it can be done. And he threw it back to me saying
certify it. And I know I can. Because it really got tight. The
site got very tight. I couldn't put anymore storm water rings,
so I just did a pervious patio. Which works. Basically you are
using three-quarter inch stone underneath the patio to the
containment. And it can be done. And he and I have talked about
that and he said just show me the details when you submit it.
So basically I didn't put a test hole plan even though we
had groundwater there is at elevation .8, which is normal. So
it will be two feet above water. We will comply with everything
on the drainage, but that's the reason it was not submitted
because this was just to do the analysis and the design and
submission to you. I'm here to answer any questions you have on
my basic layout, if you have any.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Does anyone have any questions at
this time from the Board?
I'm speaking specifically for this speaker.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This gentleman wants to speak.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have a couple of people. I'm speaking from
the Board.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is true. I mean, this was a straight-up
garage application, but a heavily constrained lot, and we
realized, the Board doing its due diligence would want to ask
the applicant to pre-plan for the eventuality they would have to
upgrade the sanitary, particularly since I'm a resident in
Orient and have property on Orient Harbor, and understand that
the coastline is making a very big imprint further inland
constantly. And so that was a prudent aspect of the Board doing
Board of Trustees 23 April 19, 2017
its due diligence. And the applicant and expediter has gone
that extra mile to engage a licensed professional engineer to
make it happen. And I think it's true that the current, we are
all monitoring very closely this issue with the status and where
we are going with the denitrification both at the town level and
at the county level, with the accessibility of grants. But the
proposed plans that we do have do plan for the eventuality and
at least solidly, even though the final engineering
certification is not in, solidly allow for sufficient volume to
handle the liquid waste associated with a single-family house
mirroring almost exactly the Board approval of the house
immediately across the street, which similarly suffers, if you
will, it's not the greatest situation, you know, less than a
foot to ground water, but the Board has given prior approval
based on the same concept of a preliminary engineering review by
the Town's engineering department to ascertain that the
engineering specifics are a possibility, and then the expediters
and the owners coming back to the Board for review to finish the
review process.
MR. FISCHETTI: One more comment. The sanitary system can be
either, had been designed for the current conventional
sub-surface sanitary system but has enough room to do the
denitrification systems that they have now. So it can go either
way. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
MR. RIEGER: My name is Rieger, I'm the next door neighbor.
have a concern about the submission. The application mentioned
several things I think are not right. For example, it mentioned
that it's a split-level dwelling, which is incorrect. It's a
bi-level dwelling.
My second point is that it omitted a large area or building
attached to the main building, which is a sauna or washroom, and
about 124-square feet, which is not mentioned in that
application which you have today.
And my third point is of course the cesspool. I think the
cesspool has been indicated by the owner and I don't think its
the correct location. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
MS. MATTHEWS: Catherine Matthews. I live at 275 Harbor Road,
which is my permanent address for the last 15 years. My home is
diagonally across the street from Lisa Gillooly and I'm here
concerning her proposal to build a garage on her property.
Let me begin by saying I'm representing many of my
neighbors who have similar concerns about this proposal but are
unable to attend because they are only hereon weekends or are
away at this time. Lisa and I have been good neighbors for many
years so my being here has nothing, is nothing personal. It has
only to do with protecting a very fragile and delicately
balanced environment and ecosystem.
Board of Trustees 24 April 19, 2017
My late husband and I built our home in 1971, as did the
Rieger's across the street and the Sicola's, who were the
original owners of Lisa's property. Most homes around our block
were built in the late 60s, early 70s or before. A lot has
changed since then. For many years, the degeneration of the area
was barely noticeable. Today we know that every storm is reason
for concern. We have learned so much more about our surrounding
environment and what we need to do to protect it. The Gillooly
and Rieger properties facing the bay have been subject to
massive erosion and both have been trying to keep what they have
left. Each nor'easter brings the threat of even more erosion.
Our beach is one half the size that it was in the 1970s. I know
you made a site visit recently but I have brought some
photographs to illustrate what the area looks like during a
rather mild storm which occurred in January of this year. I
didn't take any during the storm that was just mentioned
recently. So that was a fairly mild storm. And if you've seen
the photographs you can see the amount of flooding.
Superstorm Sandy had a massive effect on this area,
flooding basements for the first time ever, leaching brackish
water into wells and causing untold damage to an already
threatened environment. We now know that everything one person
does affects everyone in the surrounding area. The amount of
fill alone that the Gillooly's are proposing to bring in will
displace an untold amount of water. As you can see from the
photos, where will the water go? Next door, across the street,
further up and down both Harbor Road and Narrow River Road,
killing lawns, vegetation, seeping into our wells and in fact
causing more damage to her own property and the property of
those surrounding her. At what point do we stop to think of the
larger picture and the negative impact any and all building in
this area will cause.
I'm here to ask you not to wait until it's too late. This
can only be accomplished when we all agree to become good
stewards of this uniquely pristine area. Thank you, for your time.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you
MS. MATTHEWS: Does anyone have any questions regarding the
photographs?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you, for the photographs.
MS. MATTHEWS: You're welcome.
MR. FISCHETTI: I would like to respond to Mr. Rieger. I went out
there a few months ago with Morris Cesspool when I had to
certify the operation of the existing system, and it was not
that location that was on the survey.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other comments from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, I just, I mean I'm your local Orient
guy, I know you can kayak up that street many times. It's a
difficult thing to deal with for homeowners. This application
though is a garage and it portends an upgrade to the sanitary
which actually does improve the quality of surface waters. It's
Board of Trustees 25 April 19, 2017
a straight-up math calculation, the amount of water that will be
deflected, if you will, by the additional fill necessary is
probably only millimeters high when it's spread over the
entirety of the water surface area on the northeastern sub unit.
We all have to live out there. I'm sort of putting myself out in
front of this. But this property is looking like it probably
will ultimately have a denitrification system because of the
timing and the good things that are happening that everyone is
trying to do. And it will have a garage added to it.
In its current status, a Board that would be inclined to
take a long view in this case and prevent a garage will be
leaving open to continued substandard waste water control which
will be adding nitrogen. So I know I'm getting way out in front
of this but I think it has to be said for the record that there
is a weighing of equities here, and obviously, you know, we
don't have a formal policy in this Town of coastal retreat in
the face of what is going on, which would bind the Trustees in
ways that would make use a lot easier and everyone would know we
can't do this sort of thing in the future. But we just don't have that.
So, I understand it's very difficult. After the Halloween
storms, I managed to hit the perfect storm, Gloria, you name it,
I hit every single storm out there as a Trustee and I walked the
beaches and worn my waders to make the walk from the yacht club
all the way to Peter's Neck. And it's not going to get better.
But denying someone a garage I don't think is the answer.
MS. MATTHEWS can I ask one more question? How large is the
building lot and how much building is allowed on it? I would
have been to other meetings except--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's a good question. It's a fair
question, but it's not us because the Building Department and
Zoning Board of Appeals which has ordered the review of this
project is the one that determines compliance with respect to
building coverage. We are really all about trying to protect the
wetland and honoring the Town's Coastal Erosion Hazard
ordinance.
MS. MATTHEWS: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I don't disagree we should all be
good stewards, and if that was the case there probably would not
be any houses here. But this is what we are dealing with and it
is simply a garage application. I make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
subject to final engineering certification which will bring the
LWRP coordinator's report into consistency, also by granting
said permit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 26 April 19, 2017
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, for your time. I gladly appreciate it.
MR. BREDEMEYER: Yes. The chairman requested, we'll just take a
brief five-minute break before we go back on the agenda.
(After a brief recess, these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are back on the record. Item number six
En-Consultants on behalf of STEPHEN & CHARLOTTE WAGNER request a
Wetland Permit to construct an elevated fixed timber dock
consisting of a 4'x49' (196 sq.ft.)fixed timber catwalk with a
seasonal 4'x12' access ramp at its landward end; a 3'x14'
seasonal hinged ramp; a 6'x20' seasonal floating dock secured by
two (2)2-pile 10" diameter dolphins; and two (2) 10" diameter
tie-off pilings located approximately 16 feet to north of floating dock.
Located: 20 Harbor River Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-24-1-11
Just a point of information on processing of this will
application, some materials came in that requested to amend the
permit that came in at our work session so that they may not have
been available for public scrutiny for the full one week that is
required for the Board to take action on an application. Also,
had requested the chairman to do an extensive review of the LWRP
document and did so and that has not been entered into the file
yet, which I have requested that the Board will put in. And
there is a very extensive LWRP document which I believe is seven
pages long that is also in the file. So the file has new
additions on top of large prior additions so that we won't be
able to conclude a discretionary decision in the matter tonight,
but we want to open up the public hearing so that everyone can
have an opportunity to be heard. We would ask that you keep your
comments brief because there is a very ample written record now
that has been developed dealing with all manner of aspects of
both the LWRP coordinator, concerns of the Trustees and requests
and concerns of the expediter on behalf of the applicant.
And just so I properly do this, it has been deemed to be
inconsistent on multiple grounds concerning all manner of issues
of public lands underwater, concern about wave fetch, handling
of sanitary waste, concerns for the commercial shellfishing
operation, the creek next door.
And the CAC has resolved to support the application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak on behalf of the
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant, Steve and Charlie Wagner. Steve Wagner the
applicant is also in the audience tonight, as is Ian Crowley of
Crowley Marine who is the dock builder.
This an application that is actually filed now probably
about the second week of the year. We were not able to be heard
originally in February because the Board had not received an
LWRP report, and at that time your 30-day time period requiring
that had not yet expired. It was eventually submitted in March
after the time period for its submission had expired, but in
Board of Trustees 27 April 19, 2017
response to some of the substantive point that the report raised
we asked for the hearing to be postponed until this evening so
that we could evaluate the LWRP coordinator's comments, provide
a response thereto and make any changes to the plans that we
thought were appropriate and might address his comments.
So in an effort to try to keep my comments brief, as
Trustee Bredemeyer is requesting, what I would like to do is
just focus primarily on the changes that were submitted by us by
date of letter April 14th and revised plans dated April 13th,
2017. Briefly, the genesis of this was a fairly straightforward
dock application among Orient Harbor. I don't know if you can
pan on your aerial photo there or not but there is about seven
other docks located along the stretch within about a thousand
feet to the south that runs from Harbor Road over to the Orient
Wharf Company dock. You can start to see them on the screen
there.
So along this stretch of shoreline until you get, basically
when you get from Orient Wharf to Orient Creek this is basically
the last property in this cell there that could have a dock in
this area. And as are all of the other docks in that photograph,
it is in a coastal erosion hazard area, but we very carefully
designed the dock to keep the scope of it minimized actually so
that it is exempt from the required coastal erosion management
permit. And the reason for that is because there is less than
200-square feet of permanent dock structure. The ramp is
seasonal, the float is seasonal and the incline access ramp on
the landward end is also seasonal.
We get into water sufficient to secure a floating dock
permit from the DEC, although the DEC, their sole comment in
response to the application was that we change the float
configuration to a four-pile float setup so that we could align
chocks between the pilings just to make sure that in extreme low
tide the dock does stay elevated above the benthic environment
at all times.
There are also various comments, as Trustee Bredemeyer
alluded to, contained in the LWRP coordinator's memorandum,
which is seven pages long, plus lots of attachments. We did take
time, as we had asked for the postponement of the hearing, to go
through all of that information, including the Coastal Fish &
Wildlife Habitat assessment form in connection with the New York
State Department of State designation of Orient Harbor as a
significant fish and wildlife habitat. So in addition to the
chocks, we proposed a few other changes which are detailed in my
letter of April 14th.
One of the things that is mentioned is administrative
shellfish closure, and so what we tried to do is have the
installation or employment dates of the dock work out so that
the dock is only employed during that shellfish closure. So
originally we had proposed on the plan that the seasonal
components would be removed by September 21 st annually, and what
we have done is now put in an installation date of no earlier
Board of Trustees 28 April 19, 2017
than May 15th. The closure actually extends later in October but
we have not changed that, we kept September 21 st as a cut off
date as an abundance of caution. So at this point you would
have the dock actually employed and in use approximately four
months of the year, between May 15th, and September 21st.
The other time period that that coincides with is, its
mentioned in the LWRP coordinator's memorandum and also the
Department of State information that you have a period during
the winter where there is migratory waterfowl that use this area
as a stayover, so the dock would not be in use during that time.
So we would be in use during the shellfish closure and out of
use during the migratory waterfowl period.
To address some of the concerns about the potential for
contaminant release from treated lumber, we have revised the
design, at additional expense of course, but to basically make
the entire dock a non-treated dock structure. The original
design included all Greenheart pilings, so that the only treated
members was really the framing and some of the float components.
But now we would have that design changed to 100% non-treated
materials for the entire dock construction.
As I mentioned, to ensure that the floating dock remains
elevated above the bottom, we have added two additional dolphin
piles to secure the float and support the chocks. And the other
issue raised in the LWRP memorandum which was actually, seems to
be one of the primary or really the primary focus of his
memorandum, was public access. One of the reasons that we don't
have a continued stairway or something over the revetment that
was permitted by the Board many years ago, not only just to
preserve the beach grass there but so that we would be able to
maintain lateral pedestrian access along the beach even while
that seasonal ramp is employed.
Looking at some of the comments in the LWRP memorandum, we
did give it some more thought and realized that although you
would have access below mean high water and thus seaward of the
Wagner's property eight months of the year, for the four months
of the year that the dock is actually in use, which would be the
high time for people to be wanting to get along that beach, we
were forcing pedestrian access to stay above mean high water.
Now, Steve Wagner is here, he's never put up a no trespassing
sign, he would have no intention of stopping anyone from walking
around the dock or calling the police if somebody walked around
the dock, but I understand from an objective perspective he
could change his mind one day, he could sell the property,
somebody else with a different disposition could buy it. So
what we have done also now is add two sets of lateral steps to
either side of the catwalk so that if you were walking along the
beach you could go up and over the dock below mean high water.
don't think the average person would do that, I think the
average person would continue to walk around the dry sand
between the dock and the stone, but just from a sort of public
trust doctrine perspective we are now providing safe access up
Board of Trustees 29 April 19, 2017
and over the dock via those steps. And its of course important
to keep in mind it is a private beach above high water, but the
public is allowed unfettered access below mean high water. So
we wanted to make sure both forms of those means of access are
provided.
I'm not going to go into summary or description of the rest
of my response to the LWRP coordinator's memorandum. I did
submit a four-page letter to the Board that provides a very
detailed response to all of the LWRP coordinator's concerns. The
only thing I would state for the record in that regard is that a
lot of the LWRP coordinator's positions are based on the notion
that basically any dock is inconsistent with public use and
access. He cites language that is in Policy Nine of the LWRP,
but basically the language that is in Policy Nine of the LWRP
reflects the goal of maintaining public access points, of
improving public access points, and limiting permitting of
private structures that are demonstrated to have a significant
adverse impact on public access wherein they would block public
access points. Otherwise his position as I see it is
essentially a personal position that is not supported in Chapter
275 at all.
As you know, Chapter 275 sets forth explicit standards for
the permitting of private dock structures. And it's been this
Board's practice over the years to uphold those standards.
And it is also not really supported in the LWRP. There is no
language in the LWRP that recommends against the approval of
private docks. So if you apply the main position of this
memorandum across the board, you basically could have no more
docks over public lands underwater in the Town of Southold.
So we tried to respond and amend the plans in response to
specific concerns, whether it's the aquaculture operation in
Orient Creek to the west, which is why we switched to completely
untreated materials, or any whether it's public access below
mean high water in addition to above mean high water.
That's all I have on it. Again, Mr. Wagner, Mr. Crowley are
here and I'm here if the Board has any other questions on the
proposed design. Generally, we spent a lot of time trying to
think out this proposal and come up with a design that really
minimized its scope, minimized the number of approvals that were
required and minimize the impacts.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have one question. The LWRP coordinator
report was concerned about a method of construction, whether it
was going to be jetted piles. My own notion of that particular
property is that was a former mining, that particular underwater
land was a mining site. When the state highway was built that
was significantly mined. But I heard in great detail from the
former, several former owners, Eugene McDonald and then his
son-in-law, that they probably took several hundred-thousand
cubic yards of sand and gravel out that was used in the batch
plants when they built the state highway, which also goes down
Village Lane, which has now been covered with asphalt. That
Board of Trustees 30 April 19, 2017
said, I don't think there is any fine or silt material there we
would not want to have going to Orient Creek because of the
shellfish operation. I was wondering if we could just get a
test form to confirm that or can construction of the dock take
place on outgoing tide. Its probably very minor but I want to
honor the concerns of the LWRP coordinator and shellfish
operation.
MR. HERRMANN: I can let Ian Crowley speak to,that. My initial
reaction, one,-its a very cobbly bottom. It's a very rocky
bottom that is there. The timing of the pile jetting I'm sure is
something that Ian can work with. In terms of general concerns,
turbidity, I mean, I think it's a pretty major operation going
on right now in terms of the dredging of Orient Creek, so
whatever turbidity coming out of these pile jettings would be
kind of literally a drop in the bucket relatively speaking. But
to address those concerns with specific regard to this
application, Ian, do you have any thoughts on that?
MR. CROWLEY: Ian Crowley, on behalf of Steve Wagner. I don't
really have any thoughts on that. I mean, outgoing tide, that's
fine. Turbidity curtain is fine. I don't see anything getting
into the creek and bothering the oyster operation, but we can
employ anything you guys see fit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I just want to raise the issue. I don't know
any of clay soils, but cobbles that optimally are there on the
surface are all larger than anything I have ever seen clamming
in the vicinity, pending eel spears on the bottom.
MR. CROWLEY: It's very sandy, dry, sand. Very good drainage.
Which is not good for us the way we do it, but.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I want to thank you for not going over each and
every point in your notes. My notes on your notes took several
pages. I also want to, not a question but a statement. But
Chapter 275 does explicitly set forth the standards for
permitting a dock. And also construction standards. So it
should never be an implication that docks are not allowed in
this Town.
MR. HERRMANN: I would agree with that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else on the Board who wishes
to comment? Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
MS. WATTS: Hi, members of the Board, I'm Laura Watts, 495 Harbor
River Road, which is right next door there,'and the neighbor of
Steve and Charlie Wagner. I'm here with my mother Martha Watts
who brought me to Orient in 1970, where we have been ever since,
first as renters, then owners. I grew up at the road end. And
submitted a letter to the Trustees addressing my concerns and
the concerns of several neighbors who use this road extensively.
And the beach adjacent.
When I received the notice that the Wagner's were planning
to build a 101-foot dock on the town beach adjacent to the road
end, I was very surprised. That beach is a public treasure
which is used daily by Orient and Southold residents. Last year
Board of Trustees 31 April 19, 2017
the Town at some expense rehabilitated the end of Harbor River
Road making it easier for Southold residents to access this beautiful
beach. Kids play in the shallow water. Residents swim off the
ladder on the bulkhead, launch kayaks to explore Orient Creek,
collect beach glass, watch the Osprey nets on the adjacent
beach, send for minnows in the creek mouth, cast at dawn and
dusk off the rocks at the end of the beach.
As an adjacent landowner, I observed the comings and
goings of people all day long enjoying this one public place to
access the beach on this side of Orient. In the evening groups
come down to watch the incredible sunset across the causeway.
As I laid out in my letter dated February 13th, we respectfully
request that the Trustees deny the request for the permit for
the following reasons. The dock which bisects the beach, would
interfere with and obstruct public use in violation of Sections
96 and 275. The dock would interfere with public transit, in
violation of Sections 96 and 275. And despite any cure of steps
up the side, I'm not going to walk across somebody's dock and I
don't know anybody else who is going to. And even a section
permitted on the northward side, the landward side, those are
sandy berms that people, the Wagner's have taken great care so
it doesn't erode further. We are not comfortable walking on that
either. So there is no, how you get this beach is cut off.
And quite frankly, the dock would mar one of the most beautiful
views in Orient in violation of Section 96, 275 and 111. 1
understand the Trustees made a visit, made visits to the beach
on February 7th and March 16th and made a determination during
their working meeting that the proposed dock doesn't violate
SEQRA. I don't believe however a finding however that it's not
environmentally significant for state rules to relieve the
Trustees of their obligation to the residents of the Town of
Southold and Orient to protect their use and enjoyment of this
beach.
I guess ultimately there is so much in Orient that has
historically been communal and this was one of the last
marvelous communal places, and I just don't think we should give
it up. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to
this application?
MR. TUTHILL: My name is Fred Tuthill, I own the property
adjacent to this property. I have an oyster business in that
creek and we are dredging it out. I think, I don't like to deny
anybody any options that somebody else has had in the past.
let the yacht club use that beach so the kids could come over
after they have sailing, et cetera. I do have a problem with
people coming in and out of the creek because I have about a
four-and-a-half knot tide, when the tide is really flowing, and
I seen people come in and run, and we have two docks there, they
hit the dock. I have racks all through that creek because we
own the bottom. And I have a fairly sizeable operation. So I
Board of Trustees 32 April 19, 2017
like to keep everybody happy but there is a lot of things that I
have on my mind are the liabilities of people coming into a
non-navigable creek. And so therefore the dock that Mr. Wagner
wants, he owns the property in front of his house, and all the
people along the road have an option to do the same, and so I
don't object to that. However the only thing I have in mind is
that I'm dredging out the creek right now to support my
operation, otherwise it's closing down and that I was not
getting the water to grow my oysters. And so I'll do anything
in the future from the yacht club standpoint of view, Het them
use the beach, but I can't let them go inside the creek. Because
we are just dredging it out. And I can't. And I don't want the
liability of having people coming in and getting hurt or that
type of thing. So. But the dock, I have no objection to.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Thank you, sir.
MR. WAGNER: Steve Wagner, I'm the property owner. I'll try and
make this brief. The Watts' have been great neighbors for a very
long period of time. My wife and I are very friendly with them.
I recognize that change is always difficult and hard to adjust
to, and that when you have lived somewhere for as long as they
have, the notion of a new structure that might come into their
line of sight is disruptive. But I do want to clarify a couple
of points that I think are very important.
, First of all, we cherish our property like no one else. I
mean we cherish it. And over the course of the 12 years that
we've owned it, we invested a great deal of time, energy and
money in approving the property and protecting it with a
revetment that was reviewed by the Trustees and approved by the
Trustees about ten years ago. That is the berm that my neighbor
was referring to. That is a fixed berm. It's on our property.
Our property continues further to the bay, approximately 16
to 18 feet closer to the water than you would otherwise think,
because the revetment looks like a property line but it's not.
And we have, my wife and I, have always been willing to share
our beach and access to the point with our neighbors and with
the residents of Orient and their guests, and we have never
chased anybody away or refused anybody access, and we don't
intend to do so now.
Working with Rob and Ian, we have designed the dock in a
way that we believe will continue to provide unfettered access
to folks even in the middle of the season. Its not our
intention to deny anyone that access. But what we do want to do
is clarify the record and make sure that it is part of the
record that our property does continue on down beyond the
revetment and that the beach on which everyone walks is our
property. It's our private property. Further below that, below
the mean high tide mark, is basically a rocky shoreline which is
very difficult to navigate on foot. So people walk on our beach,
and we are fine with that. People do launch kayaks from time to
time. It's not a regular occurrence. People come down to watch
the sunset, but as well, the road ends, which is not a very good
Board of Trustees 33 April 19, 2017
picture of it here, but is adjacent to the Watts' property, was
recently renovated by the Town and is now a beautiful beach site
that was the case back 20 years ago, but over the period of time
from then to just last summer it had eroded and become a
dangerous place to be. The seawall was falling down, it was a
dangerous place for young kids. It's now back to fully restored
and a beautiful spot for people to swim from, to enjoy sunsets
from. It's a great spot. And I think will continue to serve as
a dual opportunity for people to enjoy the waterfront at that
point.
So while on the one hand I do understand the Watts'
objection is probably more related to the visual aspect of
having a dock there, I don't believe what we are doing is going
to in any way have a negative impact on access or in any way
diminish the enjoyment of the people of Orient and Orient
village to enjoy that piece of real estate. Thank you, and thank
you for considering this application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments, anyone?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further discussion, I would encourage the
members of the Board to review the additional materials that
were submitted, the letter of Ms. Watts, my assessment on the
LWRP report and the LWRP coordinator's report, and that I would
move to table this application to allow the Board the
opportunity or the public to review the additional materials and
that the Board would reserve decision after reviewing the
materials. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number seven, 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
4'x±10' steps off proposed retaining wall; construct a 12'
northerly vinyl bulkhead return landward of existing bulkhead;
remove existing 8'x19' deck, and construct a new 16'x30'
on-grade deck (with untreated decking); and re-vegetate any
areas of bluff face disturbed during construction with native vegetation.
Located: 9905 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-119-1-9.1
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency
arises from the fact that the structures were built without a
Wetland permit. And in addition, the 16x30'foot on-grade
Board of Trustees 34 April 19, 2017
platform/deck proposed to replace the existing 8x19' unpermitted
deck does not comply with the Town Code. Town Code says
platforms may not exceed 200-square feet and must be landward of
the top of the bluff. The platform is about 480-square feet.
The CAC met on March 15th and resolved to support the
application and requesting retractable stairs at the base and
downsizing of the replacement deck to be compliant with code.
That is 200-square feet.
The Trustees did a field inspection most recently, on April
11th, where there seems to be support for having the bulkhead 14
feet back from the face of the -- correction. Having the
landscaping wall 14 feet back from the face of the existing
bulkhead. And that we should permit it in the structures at the
top of the wall, that being the small retaining wall at the top
of the patio.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant.
Consistent with Trustee Domino's discussion, since the time
we met at the site, during field inspections, I had two things
accomplished. One, we were miraculously able to get Ken Woychuk
out within the course of the last week to pick up the locations
and areas and lengths respectively of the existing brick patio
and the two timber walls. And I also took the liberty of
revising our project plan to reduce the separation distance
between the bulkhead and the proposed retaining wall from 16 to
14 feet. And to reduce the width of the proposed on-grade deck
accordingly also from 16 to 14 feet.
So I am going to hand up to you, consistent with your
request, a survey prepared by Kenneth M. Woychuk Land Surveying
PLLC, last dated April 18, 2017, depicting 1,080-square feet of
brick patio and two timber retaining walls labeled, one is 18"
high by 17' long and the other is 15" high by 33' long. And I'll
hand up three copies of both of those to you.
And we also prepared a revised project description that
E-mailed to Elizabeth earlier today that would reflect the
change in the retaining wall setback and the width of the deck,
as well as the inclusion of the masonry patio and two timber
retaining walls. I don't know if you want me to read that .
description into the record or it's good enough that Liz has it
in writing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like you to read it into the record,
please.
MR. HERRMANN: The revised description says: Construct
approximately 133 linear feet of vinyl retaining wall plus or
minus 14 feet landward of existing bulkhead with two 10-foot
returns and re-nourish bluff face landward of proposed wall with
approximately 40 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be trucked in
from approved upland source and planted with Cape American beach
grass 18 inches on center; remove three-and-a-half by eight foot
section --sorry, let me start again. Remove three-and-a-half by
Board of Trustees 35 April 19, 2017
eight-foot bottom section of existing bluff stairway and
construct a 44 wood landing and 4x10 steps off proposed
retaining wall; construct 12-foot northerly vinyl bulkhead
return landward of existing bulkhead; remove existing 8x19 deck
and construct new 1430 on-grade deck with untreated decking;
and revegetate any areas of bluff face disturbed during
construction with native vegetation, all as depicted on the project
plan prepared by En-Consultants last dated April 17th of 2017.
New sentence, maintain existing 1,080 square foot on-grade
masonry patio and maintain 18" high by 17' long and 15" high by
33'foot long timber landscape retaining walls on water side of
dwelling, as depicted on the survey prepared by Kenneth M.
Woychuk Land Surveying PLLC last dated April 18th, 2017.
That's the end of the description. That's the other change
I forgot to mention, because we are pushing the retaining wall
seaward by a couple of feet, it reduces by a couple of feet the
section of existing stairway that has to come out.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay. The challenge for us is to always bring
the application into conformance with the LWRP, and Town Code,
of course. And therefore the 14x30' on-grade deck you are
proposing exceeds the 199-square foot that is allowed. 199.99.
So, would your client entertain changing that to 14x14 feet
which would be 196, and therefore would not violate the code?
MR. HERRMANN: Mike, what section of code are you referring to
that would limit a deck to 200-square feet? I know that's in
the Coastal Erosion code but where is it-- because I know there
was a permit issued for an even larger deck next door.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: 275-11. On this number six, platforms, letter
(b), platforms may not exceed 200-square feet and must be
landward of the top of the bluff. So --
MR. HERRMANN: Doesn't that relate to stairway, though?
Stairway platform?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is in relation to construction standards,
platforms.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would say this relates to the stairway. It is
attached to the stairway.
MR. HERRMANN: It isn't really. I mean, a stairway platform is a
platform that is structurally integral to the steps where people
used to proposed like a four-hundred foot party platform in the
middle of the face of the bluff. This is not designed to be a
structural-requiring Building Department approval. This is an
on-grade deck that is down at the base of the bluff and is
consistent with other decks that have been approved by the Board
and in fact smaller than others approved by the Board.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Consistently tonight we have required people to
have, in the coastal erosion zone, decks less than 200-square feet.
MR. HERRMANN: Well, that I know. But we are not in a coastal
erosion zone.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Hold on. Platforms associated with stairs may
not be,larger than 100-square feet. Platforms may not exceed
200-square feet and must be landward of the top of bluff.
Board of Trustees 36 April 19, 2017
MR. HERRMANN: Right. That was the change that was made with
respect to stairway platforms.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: To finish my statement. The purpose of that in
Coastal Erosion is so that during a storm it does not become a
projectile, and so carrying through that logic I would like to
see this platform be 14'x14'.
MR. HERRMANN: I understand what you are saying, but I just
two points. The way the 275 was previously written, it limited
landings and platforms associated with stairways to an odd
number, like 32-square feet. Back when Trustee Bergen was on the
Board. And we repeatedly ran into issues where we were coming
up with these cockamamie designs to try to match the 32-square
feet. So the Board changed the code relative to that constraint
to allow for 100-square feet. I understand from 200-square feet
is something the Coastal Erosion code. What I'm saying is that
for this area, these types of decks that are landward of the
bulkhead at the base of the bluff that are on-grade decks, in
other words these are not Building Department regulated
structures, including the one that if you pan just up the
screen, was just issued a permit with CC on the Weiner
residence.
I'm not debating with you. I'm just supporting why we are
asking what we are asking.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is shown on the plans April 19th, 2017, you
just handed it to us. That deck is, in my opinion, associated
with these steps. And therefore if you really want to push it,
should be limited to 100-square feet.
MR. HERRMANN: To me it's a specious point. It's not structurally
integral to the stairway. The stairs happen to land on the deck.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm agreeing with what, the legislative
history is there, the 32-square feet was problematic, but the
Board, in keeping with trying to come up with a general policy
did include the 200-square foot notion because we were trying to
dial them back where they particularly in areas that were prone
to flooding or heavy wave action, which start, even though we
don't have a coastal erosion area here, we did have overtopping.
So in a sense that was the intent. But the stairs go right to
this deck and this is in keeping with the Board has and the
Board has granted some allowance for pre-existing decks that
exist to allow them to go back. But--
MR. HERRMANN: If the Board wants to approve a 14x14, I can't
stop you from doing that. I'm just trying to articulate why we
came up with a number and when we were finished, what I thought
we were finished with the hearing a month ago, everyone seemed
to be accepting of the 14x30, which is why I put that on the plans.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm not sure we articulated the deck
particularly in last month's discussion. I think historically we
have tried to dial them back to 200-square feet. And, yes, you
are correct, the 32-square feet. But a strict reading of the
code, it's a platform that is attached to stairs, I mean
detaching becomes arbitrary. But 200-square feet to me seems
Board of Trustees 37 April 19, 2017
reasonable under the circumstances.
MR. CROWLEY: Ian Crowley on behalf of Michael Kurtz. I guess one
solution would be to not have it land'on the deck. I don't know
the code back and forth. I don't. I've never had the 200-square
foot called. We built, you know, over in Cedar Beach -- no, we
didn't build Bill Bodeno's (sic), but I've never had this issue raised
and I would not consider it part of the steps. And that's a
simple solution would just move the deck over and not have them
land on it and it wouldn't be part of this deck.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't want to speak for the members of the
Board. If you move it, I think what President Domino was saying
in his review of the file is that we would not split hairs over
moving in and that 200-square feet, you know, we are aiming, I
think.he's trying to put the trajectory at 200-square feet, and
a very strict, very strict reading of it would be 200-square feet.
MR. CROWLEY: Ultimately it would not matter to me. I'm just
trying to guess how they're going to feel. Because I didn't
prepare them for this. And I can guess how they'll feel, they'll
be pretty disappointed, but.
MR. HERRMANN: Well, only because the logic, they based their
design idea on what was approved adjacent.
MR. CROWLEY: What was the size of the one that is there?
MR. HERRMANN: The one next door was approved, I know the
as-built was 15x36. That's what is on the CC. But I mean, this,
the original approval goes way back before this section of code
that Mike is talking about, so.
MR. CROWLEY: I don't see how this, I don't know, boardwalk, are
you going to limit boardwalks to 200-square foot?
Like a four-foot wide strip on the bottom top of the bulkhead?
So you only allow 4x50? How is this going to go forward?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We can't say how we are going forward
because we are not talking forward. We are talking about this
application, with all due respect.
MR. CROWLEY: So again two-foot wide by 100-foot bulkhead, you
would be out of--
MR. HERRMANN: I don't think it applies to boardwalks. It's just
platforms.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are going to a different place here.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The existing deck is less than 160-square feet.
MR. HERRMANN: It's also illegal.
MR. CROWLEY: As far as their best interest goes, I don't know
what to say.
MR. HERRMANN: It sounds like their best interest is they take
the 14x14 or they get a denial, so.
MR. CROWLEY: That's fine.
'TRUSTEE DOMINO: Does anyone else wish to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Any other questions or comment from the Board?
-(Negative response).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have to say this again. You know, we went to
Board of Trustees 38 April 19, 2017
this property originally; we met with a consultant for the
homeowner, we talked about dumping on the bluff, we got oh, yes,
of course, of course, of course. We go back, there is an
illegal retaining wall and there's chunks of the illegal
retaining wall on the bluff, down the bluff. So obvious you
guys didn't go there and build that and dump more garbage, but
it has to be relayed. It's like what are we doing here. It's
just, let's just put a water slide down the bluff, you know.
MR. HERRMANN: Just for the record the consultant Nick was
referencing was not me.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was not you, correct, for the record.
MR. HERRMANN: And I do understand the scope of the site, which
is why, despite what Mike may think, I'm really not kicking and
screaming too much over the size of the deck. I was just trying
to articulate where we were coming from.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Logical argument.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: One other question, Mr. Herrmann, the request
that the stairs be removable. Is that anything you might consider?
MR. HERRMANN: Oh, the stairs to the beach?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes.
MR. HERRMANN: I think we included steps. Did we include that?
I think we did. We did. No, we didn't.
No, the only steps proposed are attached to the platform
that runs alongside the retaining wall. So those would not be
removable.
MR. CROWLEY: You are talking about the ones down to the beach,
correct?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes.
MR. HERRMANN: They are existing.
MR. CROWLEY: They are removable. Everything is removable.
MR. HERRMANN: Including that patio.
MR. CROWLEY: In their best interest, they would be removed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we can come back again, like I said
earlier tonight, you know, if its built with a large bolt on
top, you can take the bolt out, two bolts out and take it in in
a storm event. Is that meeting in the middle somewhere?
MR. HERRMANN: But it's not part of the application. That's why
I'm confused.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's the comment from the CAC, that's why we
have to address it.
MR. HERRMANN: That explains it.
MR. CROWLEY: Just for-clarity would you mean removable by a
certain date or just removable in principle?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In principle. Say a large storm event or
something of that caliber.
MR. CROWLEY: Right. That's fine. That's perfectly logical.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments or questions, I'll
make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 39 April 19, 2017
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application
noting that with the new revised description, and it would be
built according to the plans received April 19th, 2017, which
addresses the patio, and the 44 upper retaining wall and the
condition that the lower platform be no more than 200-square
feet, with the submission of revised plans.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second the motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES). ,
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number eight, En-Consultants on behalf of
MATTITUCK PROPERTY FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to
remove and replace in-place approximately 48 linear feet of
existing timber groin with a low-profile vinyl groin; and to remove the
most seaward ±8 linear feet of existing groin and groin remnants.
Located: 520 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-23-8-28.4
The Trustees visited this site on April 11th and the notes
state that it does not appear the groin is functional.
The LWRP has found this inconsistent and they point out the
following: 4.2(c), minimize interference with natural coastal
processes by providing for natural supply and movement of
unconsolidated materials and water and wind transport; limiting
intrusion of structures into coastal waters; (d) a limited
interference with coastal processes may be allowed where the
principle purpose for the structure is necessary to simulate natural
processes where existing structures have altered the coast; provide
necessary public benefit for flooding and erosion protection;
provide for the efficient operation of water dependent uses.
The CAC has resolved to support this, and I would just like
to read the definition of a groin as well as the Chapter 275
rules related to it.
A groin is a manmade barrier typically perpendicular to the
shoreline used to change the natural littoral drift, prevent
erosion or protect an area from wave energy.
And under section one, under jetties and groins: Only low
profile jetties as defined herein will be permitted. Only inplace
replacement of the existing low profile functioning jetties and
groins as defined in 275-2 is permitted. And under(c),
pre-backfilling of jetties and groins may be required.
Is there anybody who would like to speak on behalf of the
applicant?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the,
applicant. Based on your initial comments, this one I'm going to
kick and scream about, because, because of the condition of the
groin we made a point specifically to meet the Board last
summer. And probably when there was lower sand there, I don't
recall. But we specifically wanted to meet with the Board and
with the DEC before the homeowners invested the money in the
application. And you all stood there and said it's still
functioning. And if up look at the aerial photographs
Board of Trustees 40 April 19, 2017
including, I don't know if you have it up there, but the ones
that we submitted, you can see that it does still function. The
top of this thing is tattered and torn, there is no doubt. But
it is still functioning to collect littoral drift as it moves
along the beach. And that was the Board's assessment. And based
on that assessment, we went ahead with the application.
Conditions really have not changed of the groin itself
since last summer. It still looks like hell. It looked like hell
last summer. So I'm being facetious, but I'm just hoping the
Board is not now changing course on that.
One thing we did discuss that is consistent with what has
been the longstanding policies of the Board is that you only
permit in-place replacements, which is why we are keeping the
somewhat jogged design at the landward end. That you do not
permit sections that clearly are no longer functional, and you
and the DEC have always defined that based on basically dry
beach at a mean low tide or mean low or low tide. In other
words, if there is --well, let's use these numbers. If we have
56 feet linear feet of groin as we do here but the outer most
eight feet are being passed over by the sand and they are not
functioning, you don't allow that section to be replaced. Which
is why in our application we show the most outer eight feet,
which you can't actually see in that photo, but I think-you can
in the ones we submitted with the application. That section is
to be permanently removed and not replaced. And your other
standard has always been low profile, which has continuously
been based on the idea that no higher than a foot-and-a-half
above the beach elevation at low tide, and we basically carry
that elevation up to the landward end. This is a groin that is
amidst a groin field of other groins that have been permitted
but have been replaced, a couple we have worked on, a couple we
have not; a couple that appears to have been built pursuant to
permits, one or two probably not. But anyway, that is why we '
carried through with the application because we did get an
indication both from you and the DEC that the functional portion
of it could be replaced so long as it was low profile and only
the section that was still trapping sand. And that's the design
that we have come up with in the application. So with that, I
pass it back to you.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay, good pass. Anybody else like to speak on
behalf of the applicant on this file?
(Negative response).
Any thoughts from you guys?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What's the current DEC status? Have they
passed on the general construction?
MR. HERRMANN: Sorry, what was the question?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Has the DEC passed on the design features
as far as bringing it back the eight feet?
MR. HERRMANN: I believe so, yes. I don't have the physical
permit, but that was consistent with our discussions with the state.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: If that's still functioning, we can wait for
Board of Trustees 41 April 19, 2017
the DEC.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm fine with either or. If you want to wait
for DEC to make sure they put their blessing on it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Or approve it consistent with DEC in case it
needs a slight modification.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We can do that.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Anybody else?
(Negative response).
Motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL,AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve the application
contingent upon the approval that this application is consistent
with the DEC.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And a point of discussion, meaning if it was
altered, we would have to do a permit revision.
MR. HERRMANN: We owe you a DEC permit before we can get your
permit. That's understood.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Which is also consistent with our discussion last
summer, by the way. You said the same thing when we met, that if
the DEC approved it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number nine, En-Consultants on behalf of
LIZBETH JANSEN requests a Wetland Permit to construct
approximately 176 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in-place of and
12" higher than existing timber bulkhead; incidentally dredge a
10' wide area adjacent to the bulkhead to a maximum depth of 4
MLLW and use approximately 50 cubic yards of sand/silt spoil and
approximately 25 cubic yards of clean sand/loam to be trucked in
from an approved upland source as backfill; construct ±10'
westerly vinyl return and ±15' stacked stone on-grade retaining
wall along easterly property line to contain backfill on subject
property; remove existing 4'x26'fixed dock and two (2)tie-off
pilings to be replaced with (in a new location) a proposed
3'x14' ramp off bulkhead; a 6'x20'floating dock situated in an
"I" configuration secured by two (2) 8" diameter piles; and two
(2) 8" diameter tie-off pilings; install electric and water
supply to proposed dock; construct a 5'x30' on-grade wood
walkway landward of bulkhead; and to establish and perpetually
maintain a 10'wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of
the new bulkhead. Located: 260 Sailors Needle Road, Mattituck.
SCTM# 1000-144-5-27
The LWRP found this consistent and inconsistent. Consistent
provided that turbidity controls are required, and that the
ten-foot wide non-turf buffer is vegetated with beneficial
plants. It was inconsistent because the as-built dock structure
Board of Trustees 42 April 19, 2017
was constructed without a wetland permit. The applicant must
demonstrate the following dock standards pursuant to Chapter
275-11 have been met. And the proposed dock structure will
extend into public trust waters resulting in a net decrease in
public access to public underwater land in nearshore area.
The CAC resolved to support this application with the
condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer, and questioned the
distance of the tie off pile'from the floating dock.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on April 11th.
The dock was not staked at that time. We questioned the need to
dredge around the bulkhead and also questioned the location of
the floating dock due to the large wave fetch and the proximity
to the channel. '
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Sure, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicants who are also in the audience, along with Ian
Crowley who is again the marine contractor for the project. A
couple of comments in response to those just raised, the in-place
replacement and raising of the bulkhead is a pretty
straightforward application in and of itself. The incidental
dredging proposed off of the bulkhead is a standard proposal for
a site like this where material has been lost through the
deteriorating bulkhead over time, and is expected to be lost as
part of the replacement process itself. In connection with the
proposed incidental dredging and the relocation and
reconfiguration of the dock, we did have a hydrographic survey
prepared by Robert Fox of Sea Level Mapping. So the depths that
are noted on our plan, which range as low as just over a foot at
low tide, are actual surveyed certified water-depths. The
depths generally out about ten feet off the bulkhead do range.
around four feet. So there would be a typical incidental dredge
to no deeper than four feet off the bulkhead.
Again when these incidental dredges are proposed, they are
really designed not as some sort of major dredge operation but
to protect the permit holder and their contractor for when they
have to reach in the bottom and recover material that has been
lost which if we didn't include in the permit they would be
exposing themselves to a violation of the permit.
So that is really the intention of that. We can certainly
employ a silt curtain around the outside of that. If you have
any other questions about it, I would defer to Ian.
With respect to the dock, Mr. Jansen is here and can speak
to it, but we had quite a bit of discussion at the site in terms
of where the dock would be moved to. The dock as you see it now
is a fixed dock that has tie-off piles to its north. And we
would propose to bring that down so that you would have now a
completely seasonal dock that would be a ramp and float that
could be taken out during the winter months that is located just
down this direction to the south. And so to the bottom of the
photo of what you are looking at. Honestly, we didn't stake it
because it was not, the seaward extent was no different from the
Board of Trustees 43 April 19, 2017
tie-off piles that are there. The reason we moved it this way, and
again, Mr. Jansen can speak more to this firsthand as the homeowner,
but I was asked to show where I showed it because according to him
the farther you go with that direction, you are actually interfering more
with two-way boat traffic that is coming in and out.
Jake, I don't know if you want to explain that.
MR. JANSEN: Jake Jansen, 260 Sailors Needle Lane. We watched the
boat traffic all year-round from there. When there is.two-way
boat traffic going in, these boats almost kind of tag right into
that outer tie-off piling to begin with, and I think if we went
out straight right from that spot, I think it's going to close
off the channel even more, and basically we want to just allow
enough room so that the boats can still keep going, not risk
damaging our dock. So if we moved it over just a little bit
there would be no loss of the current width that is already there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we were more wondering about the other
direction, because you have a huge fetch that will be coming
right at your dock from across the bay right into James Creek.
So I definitely understand your concern with traffic because I'm
super familiar with James Creek and the entryway there, and I
never hit your--
MR. JANSEN: Yes, we would certainly like to be as protected as
possible.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. So is that as far over as we can go there,
on the property, I guess?
MR. JANSEN: We are really only going about eight or ten feet to
the --
MR. HERRMANN: You can see the --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Have you experienced with vessels or boats
there to have a notion of how the wave fetch will be acting on a float?
MR. JANSEN: We have seen all kinds of weather there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You have lived in that location for a while.
MR. JANSEN: Yes. I mean, even in the boat basin, depending on
the wind direction and type of storm, boats get tossed around in
there, too. But we kind of know when that will happen. You know,
we kind of watch the weather. We have an agreement with our
neighbors on the other side, they have two floating docks or
dock, and there is another one behind it from another property,
but we usually tuck our boat around if it's going to be nasty,
and we would take out the floating dock in the winter time and
have that out for the winter.
MR. HERRMANN: My perception is it was an improvement over the
existing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't necessarily disagree with that. I was
just wondering how far down you move it, if you get more and
more out of that fetch. And I mean more so west.
MR. HERRMANN: Do you mean like around the point?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Headed that way. I understand you kind of
then get into a one-third rule situation, but I mean, did you
possibly think about doing a float next to the bulkhead?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Parallel to the dock?
Board of Trustees 44 April 19, 2017
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that a possibility?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With large fenders or--
MR. JANSEN: Well, the only time that we really get worried about
the foul weather is, you know, the way the boat is, it's nose
out into the waves. So it handles the waves pretty well. And
it's why we have the two tie-off pilings, too, to assist in
that. I think if we went parallel to the dock it would constantly be
slamming it into the floating dock and not riding the waves.
MR. HERRMANN: The other thing, Nick, looking at this
hydrographic survey, which I had not looked at before with this
in mind, since we never discussed this as an option, but it does
get noticeably shallower similar distance out as you come up
into the basin. So the numbers out off the float are closer to
five feet around that point and they are closer to three feet as
you get inside. And I was wondering if that has something to do
with that sand shoal that sort of collects on the opposite side
there, which is also going to trigger I think you said the
one-third concerns.
So unless you had a real sort of environmental reason to
not put it where we show it, I'm thinking it it's probably in `
the right spot where we show it.
I mean, Ian, wasn't that your--
MR. CROWLEY: We spoke briefly. I think further to the west you
go, the more you are opening it up to surge out of the east or
southeast, which is really what, they probably get every day
south and southwest. I don't know if it's southwest affects you
where you are now. The prevailing southwest.
MR. JANSEN: All I know is where the new proposed area is, it's
no better or no worse than where that permitted dock is right
now. It's such a short distance. When it's nasty over there,
it's the same weather that's there or weather that's to the west
a little bit.
MR. CROWLEY: If it's below, going to below 40, you got to go.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mr. Jansen, you said you are going to remove the
ramp and float in the winter?
MR. JANSEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Where would it be stored?
MR. JANSEN: I'm not certain yet but we have a good relationship
with Strongs and I probably would ask them to store it over
there. Then the ramp, you know, the ramp would just come up and
we would pull that up and it would sit up on top.
MR. HERRMANN: I think we have, you mentioned a ten-foot non-turf
buffer. We do have that in the plan.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And of course Ian will build it to dock
standards.
MR. CROWLEY: Yes, sir.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other questions or comments from the
Board?
(Negative response).
Board of Trustees 45 April 19, 2017
I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this
application with the conditions that a silt boom is used during
construction and that by granting a permit it will bring it into
consistency with the LWRP, and that with it will be built according
to current dock standards as described in Chapter 275-11.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number ten, En-Consultants on behalf of
SCOTT&JULIA OSLER request a Wetland Permit for a Ten (10)Year
Maintenance Dredge Permit to dredge a ±33'x34', approximately
1,120 sq.ft. of existing private boat basin to a maximum depth of
four feet below mean lower low water(4 MLLW); and place
approximately 60 cubic yards of sand/silt spoil in a ±40'x40',
approximately 1,600 sq.ft. spoil disposal area on subject property.
Located: 2480 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-57
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The CAC resolved to support this application with a condition of
15-foot non-turf buffer, and elevation of the spoil area is indicated on
the plan.
The Trustees went out on,the 11 th of April and had no
serious issues with the application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the
applicants. This is a proposal of maintenance dredge of a basin
that was previously maintenance dredged pursuant to Trustee
permit 4954 which is first issued back in the late 90s. In
response to the CAC comment we do have a section of the spoil
deposition site. We are trying to spread it out so we only have
,about a foot of spoil and I'm sure he'll then push that around
after it dries. And I think he may even have in mind some sort
of landscape project that he may come in with the Trustees later
after the dredging is done. But otherwise it is a pretty straightforward
application to maintenance dredge a previously dredged basin.
So I'll hope I don't have to say anything else about it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there plans for a silt boom during dredging?
Is that, did I miss that?
MR. HERRMANN: I think I hedged on that in my application
somewhere where I indicated that if the Board or the LWRP
coordinator felt a boom should be strung between the two points
of the bulkhead, that would be a simple way to contain turbidity
to stay within the basin. So if that's a condition, we have no issue with it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about including some sort of buffer, I
mean, in best practice situations you have the dewatering going
on there, it's probably environmentally, you know--
MR. HERRMANN: The whole property is sort of a buffer. But I
Board of Trustees 46 April 19, 2017
don't think there is --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: More so like a protective barrier between the
dewatering, if not just right on, you know, I'm not necessarily
looking to give away the whole thing here but.
MR. HERRMANN: Well, the only thing I'm wondering is that
bulkhead was -- I think that bulkhead was replaced. It's
probably a ten-foot non-turf buffer that is already on the
property but it may have been before you were requiring
covenants. If you give me a second, I can check.
Liz, you don't have handy access to that permit, do you?
MS. CANTRELL: No.
MR. HERRMANN: I can't remember if I printed it. I did. Hold
on. Let's see. You transferred it in 2014 and the original
permit if had a five-foot non-turf buffer. Do you want to double
that to what you would normally?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure.
MR. HERRMANN: Or covenant that buffer. Whatever your pleasure.
As I said, the whole --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not like a well-landscaped, manicured,
heavy fertilizer zone.
MR. HERRMANN: And again, I don't know what he may want to do
with it that they would, that might trigger, you know, a
different-- I would say if we go with ten-foot non-turf buffer
as the standard and depending on what he comes in with, if you
want to expand that, or you can do that under that application.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If everyone agrees with that, I'm fine with that.
MR. HERRMANN: And that doubles the buffer that is supposed to be
there already.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Great. Is there anyone else that wishes to
speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the amendment of use of a silt boom during the dredging
activity and a ten-foot non-turf buffer to be established.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion is made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Nick, that's along the back main bulkhead section,
correct?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number eleven. 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
Board of Trustees 47 April 19, 2017
water line; add 35 cubic yards of clean sand fill landward of
proposed retaining wall; and install and perpetually maintain a
10'wide non-turf buffer along the landward side of the proposed
retaining wall. Located: 3693 Pine Neck Road, Southold. SCTM#
1000-70-6-25
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The CAC on January 11 th meeting resolved to support this
application with the condition that the retaining wall be
constructed with non-treated lumber.
Most recent Trustee field inspection at the site was on
April 11th, 2017, at which time our.notes reflect that the
desire to dial the retaining wall back five foot from the what
was then the proposed location of the retaining wall and five
feet back from the line of the fence, and to use as a reference
point for the depth of this retaining wall, the last step on the
cement walkway down to the water.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. Just to
clarify, we are definitely going to move the proposed retaining
wall back five feet and it is going to be in line with the end
of the existing fence posts. So that will be a reference point
for the field inspection. We'll just line it up with the corners
of the fence.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And the ten-foot non-turf buffer?
MR. PATANJO: That would be directly behind the retaining wall.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Are'there any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Okay, so just we are clear then, it's going to be five-feet back
from what was originally proposed and go from fence post to
fence post, and the base level will be at the cement level of
the bottom step.
MR. PATANJO: Correct. And I'll submit revised plans.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And revegetate?
MR. PATANJO: ['thought we talked about natural revegetation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are thinking it might repopulate because
it's so frequently flooded by tidal waters.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I believe that was the feeling of the Board at
the site. Any further comments?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the changes noted, that it will be five-foot back from what
was previously proposed, and will reflect the plans received
December 13th, 2016.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
Board of Trustees 48 April 19, 2017
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 12, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of FOR
THE LOVE OF FAMILY LLC, c/o ANTHONY LOMANGINO requests a Wetland
Permit for a Ten (10)Year Maintenance Permit to dredge 250
cubic yards of course sand from existing inlet; dredged material
to be spread on a beach to a maximum depth of 12"; all work to
be above the mean high water line and avoiding disruption of
existing vegetated wetlands in the area; the maintenance permit
would include five (5) additional dredging events consisting of
50 cubic yards of sand for each event. Located: 9205 Skunk
Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-3-16.1
This has been deemed to be consistent with the LWRP.
We have an old CAC report in favor.
The Board has been out on this before. We've had prior, I
believe a hearing we had and discussion previously, and this has
been returned to the DEC with a final set of plans. I didn't
notice in our record, we don't have a stamped copy of the plans
from DEC?
MR. PATANJO: DEC is still pending.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. I just want to clarify that because
sometimes it's difficult to see their stamp. Is there anyone
here to speak on behalf of the application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. The
proposal as you know, there was some dredging that happened on
the subject property and we clarified the situation and had a
permit to do some restoration work from the previous dredging
occurrence. We went,through and did soil sampling based on the
DEC. We did the grain size analysis prepared by Universal
Testing in Babylon and it turned out to be all course sand and
gravel. A well, well drained material with no silts, no fine
materials. Looking at it right now, I don't have this aerial on
my list of aerials, this must be a brand new one, but it's
actually completely closed right now from what I'm seeing. It's
killing off the other little pond section and is desperately in
need of dredge.
As you see from the aerial photo, we discussed this last
time, I think, Nick, you brought this up. I think the county
dredged that?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
MR. PATANJO: So the county dredged that. Subsequent to the
dredging all the materials filling in this inlet that we are
proposing to dredge under this application. So the material is
going to be dredged to a depth of four feet below mean low water
and three foot below mean low water and broadcast on the beach,
allowed to drain right on the beach, away from all the wetlands
planting which is on the subject property of For The Love Of
Family, and it's going to restore the aquatic habitat in that
back basin area.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's pretty straightforward, given all the
Board of Trustees 49 April 19, 2017
course material, and unfortunately becomes a recurring
operation, given the littoral drift.
With respect to the five additional dredging events
consisting of 50 cubic yards of sand for each event is that on a
yearly basis to continue --
MR. PATANJO: As needed. A storm may bring in some material or we
may have a beautiful summer, beautiful fall and you are never
going to need it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is DEC limiting you with a window to protect
shore birds?
MR. PATANJO: There will be and we'll be subject to DEC requirements.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, it's pretty straightforward.
Anyone else who wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any concerns of the Board?
(Negative response).
Under the circumstances, maybe if we can get a copy of the
stamped DEC permit and their provisions, since we don't usually
make provisions with respect to the piping plover or other shore birds.
MR. PATANJO: Sure.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a
motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application as submitted, upon the submission of the DEC permit.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number 13, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ROBERT
KARPAS & CLAIRE AIOSA-KARPAS request a Wetland Permit to remove
and replace existing 125 linear foot timber bulkhead with new
vinyl bulkhead in-place; remove and replace existing 3.5'x6'
upper platform, 3.5'x15' embankment stairs, 3.5'x12' lower
platform with 3.5'x7.5' stairs to beach; and construct a
proposed 6'x6' platform extension landward of bulkhead off of
the 3.5'x12' lower platform. Located: 350 West Shore Drive,
Southold. SCTM# 1000-80-5-3.1
On April 11th, all the Trustees went to this property. The
notes say are they going to tie in with neighbors, but
everything else looks good.
The LWRP has found this to be inconsistent. One
inconsistency is there is no permit. The other one, the as-built
stair structure was constructed without,a wetland permit as
stated. The 6x6 platform extension combined with upper admitted
platform stairs does not comply with following Town Code:
Section 275711, construction and operation standards for
platforms.
What we have here is a 6x6 platform extension combined with
Board of Trustees 50 April 19, 2017
the platform area of the stairs equals 141 square feet. Also it
says it is recommended to further policy six, that the
previously approved approximately 25-foot wide non-turf buffer
be referred to in this decision.
The CAC has resolved to support this application.
Is there anybody who would like to speak on behalf of this
file?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. We
discussed this project in the field and it is a continuation of
the bulkhead that we did to the east and west, and it is going
to be tied in with new vinyl bulkhead on the east and tied into
the bulkhead on the west for a consistent project that will
protect the bank. The existing, new proposed platform, the 6x6
platform extension will be within that ten-foot non-turf buffer
area, which I believe is an allowable use in a buffer area, and
maybe I need clarification on this. I thought it was 200-square
foot maximum for platforms and/or deck area, by code, if I'm not
mistaken.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If it's immediately associated with the
stairs. We have had others in the discussion you may have heard
tonight or previous nights if it ends up on a landing we are
sort of trying to relax it a bit, but the platforms associated
with stairs is 100-square feet. It went up from 32-square feet.
I think as described earlier by Rob Herrmann, and that's because
we found in our experience was we could have them go up to 10x10
or thereabouts, without having erosion. The previous limitation
was 32-square feet was not that practical. So it's, if it's
directly associated with the stairs, it can't be over 100. So.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: When I did the math it looks like stairs and
the platforms in his calculation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If he added other sections of the stairs,
maybe there is a calculation error.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I think there is a calculation error on the
LW RP.
MR. PATANJO: Yes. If you add the existing three plus the 6'9"
then we are at 12. We're all good.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I wanted to make sure we are all good. Now what
about 25-foot non-turf buffer? Would you be amenable to that or
something between that?
MR. PATANJO: Well, the 25-foot non-turf buffer would be the
entire bank.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This says 50 foot, right? Or--
MR. PATANJO: We proposed the ten foot from the proposed, and I
called it a bulkhead, maybe that was the wrong term. Maybe it
should be a retaining wall because of the high tide line. But I
have proposed ten foot back from the base of the bulkhead and
then we'll use the rest of the entire bank, which goes back well
beyond the 25 feet.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: If it were to be 25 feet, in essence you would
not be doing any turf in that area anyway.
MR. PATANJO: No, you can't. There is no turf. So from the
Board of Trustees 51 April 19, 2017
bulkhead and the entire bank would be no turf.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: So to change the language to a 25-foot non-turf
buffer and reflect that on the plans would not be an issue?
MR. PATANJO: Absolutely not.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay. Anybody else like to speak on behalf of?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I just want to check. There is no way this
is 100-square feet. It's compliant.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Yes, I did the math.
MR. PATANJO: And for added knowledge, I have a DEC permit
currently for the project.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Are there any other thoughts from the Board?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve this application
With a 25-foot non-turf buffer subject to new plans reflecting
that change.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 14, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on
behalf of DAVID ECKERT requests a Wetland Permit to construct a
59'x47' two-story dwelling with a 120sq.ft. Front porch; a 425 sq.ft.
deck attached to seaward side of dwelling with two sets of steps
to ground; new sanitary system installed landward of the
proposed dwelling; along the landward edge of wetlands establish
a 50'wide limit of clearing and ground-disturbance area during
construction; install gutters to leaders to drywells to the
dwelling to contain roof runoff, and in accordance with Chapter
236 of the Town Code-Stormwater Management; and to install silt
fencing and/or hay bales prior to and during construction.
Located: 1035 Waterview Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-7-14
The LWRP found this to be consistent provided that the
board require a non-disturbance buffer landward of the wetland.
The CAC resolved to support the application with the
condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer.
The Trustees performed a field inspection on April 11th,
discussed dialing back the limit of clearing and non-disturbance
extension. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding
this application?
MS. MOORE: Good evening, Patricia Moore on behalf of the Eckert
family. This is one of the last lots in this subdivision and I
just need clarification of what you were --we had a 50-foot
limit of ground disturbance while during construction. I'm sure
that after the construction is all over there will be a need to
clean up, and I don't have any issue with non-turf, but 50 feet
is pretty aggressive here. So that would certainly be a
problem. We just, during construction seemed to me we wanted to
Board of Trustees 52 April 19, 2017
maintain a good 50 feet of any activity. So.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Our concern when we were out in the field was
there was some trees and everything. We just didn't want to
come back and see it all clear cut.
MS. MOORE: Within the 50 feet?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes.
MS. MOORE: Well, it says limit of clearing and ground
disturbance, that's the DEC rule. So we should have -- put it
this way. My client won't do that. Hopefully the contractors
will know better. That's why we set up the hay bales and silt
fence. It usually keeps the people out of that area or the
contractors out of that area so we don't have an oops.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: We had discussed maybe making the limit
ten-feet beyond that hay bale line as depicted in your plans.
Ten feet seaward.
MS. MOORE: The way the surveyor has drawn it, it looks like it
is already about ten feet out from the non-disturbance area. He,
didn't do specific calculations or measurements, so I guess I'm
not sure how you want me to describe this.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think it's a matter of coming up with a
.workable solution. If I might, the Board was looking that the
site would certainly be conducive to having phragmites control,
you know, with a permit, typical cutting within 12 inches,
saving what few Baccharus, they were trying to save some of the
mature trees, and it was just a matter of how do we get there at
this point with the building proposal. The thought was set aside
as much as possible now and possibly revisit.
MS. MOORE: I think that probably makes the most sense only
because --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It looks like the limits of clearing would
put those trees at risk. One thing it looked as if you took the
house to the east and was it their deck, and took a line of
sight along the neighbor to the east deck, in other words, and
ran that as a line through the property, its a very simple
thing to put on your plan or take off your survey, that would
provide another, what was it, some ten or 15 feet protection for
those trees. For now. Some may even be invasive. We just thought
for purposes of construction to just leave that alone for now
and then come back with some kind of habitat or proactive
restoration to get rid of invasive vegetation and get rid of the phragmites.
MS. MOORE: Let me see if I have pictures, because I honestly
don't remember the house next door. It was so wooded there, I
had to trespass.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Ten feet seaward of the hay bale shown on the
plan.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Oh, ten feet seaward of the hay bale line
shown on the plan.
MS. MOORE: Let me just come up, it might be easier. The way it
was drawn by John Metzger, he has the 50-foot limit of clearing
and ground disturbance, but then he has a hay bale line that is
pretty landward of that. He didn't really-- my recommendation
Board of Trustees 53 April 19, 2017
would be to stake the 50 feet.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: If he stakes it, here is the hay bale line. Ten
feet seaward of the hay bale line, would pretty much do what
Trustee Bredemeyer is asking you to do.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: See what this says here --
MS. MOORE: You tell me there's a deck here but this looks pretty
far out.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. That was taking it straight cross. But
the problem with the plans, it says 50-foot limit of clearing of
ground disturbance' It appears this whole area they want to clear it.
MS. MOORE: No, no. 'It's limit of clearing and ground,
disturbance. It means you can't clear. You can't clear and you
can't disturb the ground. That's the DEC language.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. It's a little obtuse.
MS. MOORE: No. I understand what you are saying. No, we would be
in big trouble with the DEC. So it's actually language that
they impose that says don't touch this area.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: That's even better than what we were thinking.
MS. MOORE: Yes. I mean, during construction we'll have to come
back and do some selectively pruning or, you know, `once you got
a building envelope you'll see better. Right now it's just so
overgrown.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess the concern is misreading of the
plans. If DEC wants that--
TRUSTEE SANDERS: That makes sense now.
MS. MOORE: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wish to comment on this
application.
(Negative response).
Any further questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this
application.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 15, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of
DAVID & CHANTAL LANDMAN request a Wetland Permit to modify the
as-built dirt driveway by installing a gravel driveway not to
exceed 12' in width along the northwesterly side yard property
line towards dwelling, which is to conform to Chapter 236 of the
Town Code-Stormwater Management; maintain the existing discharge
pipe located under the driveways on Lot 1 (SCTM#1 000-59-8-6.1) &
Lot 2 (SCTM#1000-59-8-6.2) in order to facilitate water flow to
the freshwater wetlands located on Lot 1 & Lot 2; establish and
perpetually maintain a 75'wide conservation or scenic easement
Board of Trustees 54 April 19, 2017
along the landward edge of the freshwater wetland vegetation;
establish and perpetually maintain a 50'wide non-disturbance
buffer along the landward edge of the freshwater wetland
vegetation; and to install either split-rail fencing (using
untreated lumber), a stone wall, stone boulders, or boulders and
native plantings, all with sufficient penetration or spacing in
the wall or boulders to allow water and small natural habitat to
pass under or through the wall penetrations. Located: 6610
Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-8-6.1
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The CAC on April 12th voted unanimously to support the
application.
The most recent field inspection by the Trustees was on
April 11 th, made a note that there should be restoration of
wetlands.
On April 17th, 2017, Trustee Domino met with Patricia Moore
at 6610 Soundview Avenue to discuss the relocation of the drive
so as to avoid cutting down two large trees and simultaneously
restore the wetlands that were disturbed on the southeast side
of the existing driveway. No plans to follow. And to that point,
on April 17th, 2017, our office received new plans reflecting
the discussion and a project description that if I could just
read it, we could save some time.
The final driveway design to conform to filed Planning
Board subdivision map except at the entrance. The "As built"
driveway shown on attached survey and photograph (1)to remain
in order to preserve existing trees along entrance of common
property line between Tax Lot 1000-59-8-6.1 & 6.2.
The width of the driveway for lot one not to exceed 12
feet, and to conform to Chapter 236 of the Town Code.
Third point, north of the "stone retaining wall," tapered
area highlighted in orange and shown as (2), remove the RCA and
add stone retaining wall/berm to raise the grade along west side
of proposed (pervious)gravel driveway in order to control storm
water runoff overflowing from northerly wetlands (vernal pond).
The fourth point, maintain discharged pipe under driveway
on Lot 1 and Lot 2 to facilitate water flow to wetlands on Lot 1
and Lot 2.
The fifth point, confirm and ratify Planning Board
Covenants and Restrictions filed on July 14, 2005, at Liber
12397 page 801: (Paragraph 3) location of non-disturbance buffer
at 50' from edge of wetlands and (paragraph 9) location of
conservation or scenic easement at 75'from edge of wetlands.
And last, at landward end of non-disturbance line (50'from
edge of wetlands), owner will delineate this line with either
split rail fence (with untreated wood posts), stone wall, stone
boulders, boulders and native plants, with sufficient
penetration or spacing in the wall or boulders to allow water
and small natural habitat to pass under or through the wall
penetrations.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
Board of Trustees 55 April 19, 2017
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore, on behalf of David and Chantel
Landman. We want to thank you, very much. They were thrilled to
learn that they didn't have to take down the trees at the entrance.
That is something they had been begging for, and I think when it was
staked you all agreed that was really something that should be preserved.
So they were very happy with that.
I believe they understood the issue with the drainage that
was coming off of the one pond and creating kind of a secondary
pond. Nobody wanted that. And I spoke to them about this. There
was no issue. There was no problem. Everybody was cooperative.
Thank you, President Domino, for taking the time with me. That
was very helpful. So, we appreciate it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are there any other questions or comments?
MR. DUFFY: My name is Mr. Duffy, and my question is, I live
right on the other side, west of them. And I would like to know
what we are talking about raising property. To stop the water
that way would give me the water.
MS. MOORE: No, I'll explain it. You might be able to see it on
the picture but there is a wetland here, see this, that is the
pond close to Soundview Avenue. There was, due to the storm or
whatever, it's breaking, you have the little pond here, is
breaking through and because of the grade it's kind of coming
down the road and creating another ponding over here. So what
the solution was, you can kind of see it there on the picture.
See where it's kind of caved in a little on the right-hand side?
What we have to do is what-- similar to the wall that is a
little further closer to the house is create a little bit of a
berm with the rock so that it stabilizes that corner and
controls the water so that it stays where it's supposed to be and
doesn't cut through and drain. We want to keep the wetland wet.
MR. DUFFY: So you have it contained.
MS. MOORE: Exactly. So the only area we are talking about is
here.
Sorry, am I describing it accurately?
MR. HAGAN: While I'm sure the Trustees appreciate that you are
having a one-on-one conversation, we ask that questions be
directed toward the dais and there is no internal conversations
going on between the two parties when dressing the Board, for
the sake of the record. So if we can put a stop on this. But we
appreciate the edification. I'm sure the Board does. It's rules
we have to maintain.
MR. DUFFY: My question is where they are going to raise the land
and when I heard west, I'm thinking over my property. She
explained that its the west side of their driveway. Which
have no problem with.
MR. HAGAN: Thank you, sir.
MR. DOMINO: Any other questions or comments?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 56 April 19, 2017
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
according to the new project description received April 17th,
2017, and new plans, with the proviso that we receive a new
survey that reflects the handwritten comments on this survey.
MS. MOORE: May I make a suggestion? Will it be more helpful to
the Board if post-construction we give you the survey, so it
shows what we described? Only because then you'll have a survey
showing the retaining, like a rock.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll have to defer to counsel.
The short answer is no.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The long answer is a licensed design
professional.
MS. MOORE: That's why I made a photocopy of it and the original.
Okay. Not a problem.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: There was a motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second the motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
a
Michael J. Domino, President
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED
r
k► psed
vq,da4 0.
so old Town Clerk