HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-05/17/2017 Michael J.Domino,President _Town Hall Annex�®� ®l®
John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President 54375 Route 25
J -
P.O.Box 1
Charles J.Sanders
Southold,New York
11971
Glenn Goldsmith Q
,C+® a® Telephone(631) 765-1892
A.Nicholas Krupskic®UN Ti, Fax(631) 765-6641 --
RECEIVED
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD JUN 2 7 2017
Minutes Southold Town Clerk
Wednesday, May 17, 2017
5:30 PM
Present Were: Michael J. Domino, President
John M. Bredemeyer, Vice-President
Charles J. Sanders, Trustee
Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist
Damon Hagan, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 5:30 PM -
WORKSESSIONS: Monday, June 19, 2017 at 4:30 PM at Downs Farm,
and on Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 5:00 PM at the
Main Meeting Hall
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of April 19, 2017
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Good evening. Welcome to our May 17th monthly meeting of the
Southold Town Board of Trustees.
would like to now introduce the people on the dais. To my left is Trustee
Bredemeyer, Vice-President of the Board; also, Trustee Charles Sanders, Trustee Glenn
Goldsmith and Trustee Nick Krupski. To my right we have Town Attorney Bill Duffy, and
we have our Senior Clerk Typist Elizabeth Cantrell, and our stenographer Wayne
Galante. We also have with us tonight Conservation Advisory Council member John
Stein.
Agendas are located on the podium and also in the hall, if you would like one.
There are some postponements. Postponements are usually because there is some
paperwork missing and the applicant thought better to wait a month.
Tonight we have on page seven, number two, 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
Board of Trustees 2 May 17, 2017
existing; remove existing 610sq.ft. wood decking and reconstruct a 199sq.ft..deck once
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.
And on page nine we have number ten, L. K. McLean Associates, P.C. on behalf
of 100 PARK AVENUE CORP., c/o PAUL PAWLOWSKI request a Wetland Permit to
construct a proposed 10'wide by 124.5' long fixed timber dock using untreated lumber
with a proposed 15.5'wide by 25' long boat lift attached to the side of the seaward
end of the fixed dock. Located: 100 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-7-3
has been withdrawn by the applicant.
Number eleven, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of PARADISE
POINT ASSOCIATION, c/o DOUGLAS CIAMPA requests a Wetland Permit to
construct a 42' long bulkhead extension comprised of vinyl sheathing, two (2) sets of
6"x6"timber walers, two (2)sets of 6"x6"timber clamps, 8" diameter timber pilings, 8"
diameter deadmen and tie-rods; backfill eroded area landward of proposed bulkhead
extension with ±40 cubic yards of clean sand obtained 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 number 12, 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 36,757sq.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 9,678sq.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 9,726sq.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,OOOsq.ft.). Located: East End Road, Fishers Island. SCTM#
1000-1-1-3.13 is postponed.
I would like to announce that under Town Code Chapter 275-8(c), files for this
hearing were closed seven days ago. Submission of additional paperwork, photographs,
et cetera, 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 June 13th,
2017, at 8:00 AM at the town annex.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll entertain a motion to hold the next Trustee
meeting on June 21, 2017, at 5:30 PM here at the main meeting
hall. Do I have a motion?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
Board of Trustees 3 May 17, 2017
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like a motion at this time to hold the
next work session at Downs Farm on June 19th, 2017, at 4:30 PM
and June 21, 5:00 PM at the main meeting hall. Do I have a
motion?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this time I'll entertain a motion to approve
the Minutes of April 19th, 2017.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Move to approve.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for April 2017. A check for
$7,752.18 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the
General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the
following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, May 17, 2017, are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
SEQRA:
Robert& Patricia Elliott SCTM# 1000-110-7-11.1
Fishers Island Ferry District, c/o R. J. Burns SCTM# 1000-12-1-10
Penn DuPont Sanger SCTM# 1000-10-3-20.1
Kathy Halbreich SCTM# 1000-138-2-12
Elaine F. Nesin SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.42
Robert Oxnam SCTM# 1000-51-1-22.2 -
James & Maureen Levelis SCTM# 1000-89-3-11.5
Charles & Marilyn Southard SCTM# 1000-56-5-22
TRUSTEE DOMINO: So moved.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: 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 4 May 17, 2017
Board of Trustees groups together actions that are deemed minor in nature. Accordingly,
I'll make a motion to approve as a group items one, two and four. They are listed as
follows:
Number one, McCarthy Management, Inc. on behalf of ANGELA NORTON
requests an Administrative Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to trim the
hand-cut Common Reed (Phragmites australis)to 12" in height by hand, as needed.
Located: 2653 R.O.W. off Long Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-9-1.1
Number two, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of WILLIAM GIACONE &
CINDY NANCE requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 400sq.ft. paver patio
seaward of the dwelling. Located: 1130 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue.
SCTM# 1000-111-14-17
And number four, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of JAMES &
KATHLEEN BLACKLEY request an Administrative Permit for proposed additions to the
existing two-story dwelling consisting of constructing a new 116sq.ft. front porch; a
1,059sq.ft. addition to existing second floor; an 84sq.ft. addition to the existing first floor;
and to add a 76sq.ft. addition to the existing 469sq.ft. deck attached to the seaward side
of the dwelling. Located: 415 Harbor Lights Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-71-2-4
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this point--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just a note for the record, item two has an
existing ten-foot non-turf buffer, so we would carry that through in the new approval.
It was pre-existing,just so you now. In case that was an issue. I just got a note from the
clerk. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right, item three, Deborah Doty on behalf of
ROBERT& PATRICIA RUSHIN requests an Administrative Permit for
the existing +/-11'x16' wood deck located landward of the
bulkhead; and for the existing 4' wide removable beach stairs
off bulkhead. Located: 6970 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-7-5.1.
This is a pretty straightforward application but we separated it out from the
others because it was deemed inconsistent by the LWRP coordinator because it
was built without a Trustee permit, and thereby by granting a permit it
would bring it into consistency. So that's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Roman numeral V. Again, in order to simplify our meeting, I'll
make a motion to approve as a group items two, five through seven, nine through eleven
and number 13. They are listed as follows:
Number two, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of JOHN FISCHETTI &
DEBORAH DEAVER request a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#8640, as
issued on June 17, 2015, and Amended on March 23, 2016. Located: 2615 Wells Road,
Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-1.2.
Number five, En-Consultants on behalf of 65 SOUNDVIEW, LLC requests a
Transfer of Wetland Permit#8724 and Coastal Erosion Permit#8724C from Emma Hall
to 65 Soundview, LLC, as issued on January 20, 2016, and Amended on January 18,
Board of Trustees 5 May 17, 2017
2017. Located: 65 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-99-3-2
Number six, Matthew Dwyer, Jr., Esq. on behalf of EDWARD & ELIZABETH
FREHER request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#5093 from Douglas Foerth to Edward &
Elizabeth Freher, as issued on December 17, 1999, and Amended on June 22, 2001.
Located: 700 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-97-7-6
Number seven, 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; and for an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit#5885 for the as-built wooden deck attached to the
seaward side of the dwelling that is approximately 29' long by 6'wide with an adjoining
41' long by a varying 8.5' up to a 14'wide section in lieu of the previously approved patio
with trellis. Located: 1615 Anchor Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-79-4-6.1
Number nine, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of 355 LAKE DRIVE, LLC requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8746 to relocate the dock from the
current position slightly over to the east. Located: 355 Lake Drive, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-80-3-15
Number ten, LEE SCHULTHEIS requests an Administrative Amendment to
Wetland Permit#8971 to use marine grade CCA pressure treated lumber for the 4"x4"
support posts, piles, and framing members on the proposed landward ramp, catwalk,
adjustable ramp and floating dock in lieu of tropical Greenheart. Located: 372 North
Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-6-29
Number eleven, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of JOHN F.
COSTELLO TRUST requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8969
to install 10'wide decking using untreated materials along the entire landward edge of
the bulkhead as the 10'wide non-turf buffer area. Located: Right-of-Way End of
Wiggins Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.3
And number 13, ROBERT J. GUARRIELLO &ANNA T. GUARRIELLO request
an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8918 for the as-built 4'x40' brick walk
leading from the 5.5'x6' platform to the dwelling; the 4'x60' brick walk from the 5'x7'
platform to the dwelling has been removed and will not be replaced; and the 5'x7' wood
platform, 3'x8' ramp, and two (2)sets of 3'x4' steps near the center of the,property were
removed and will not be replaced. Located: 250 Budds Pond Road, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-56-5-19
That's my motion. Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We'll separate out items one, three, four,
eight, 12 and 14.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item number one, STELIOS & PENELOPE
NIKOLAKAKOS request a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit
#8622, as issued on June 17, 2015. Located: 20795 Soundview
Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-13
Based on Trustee inspection which indicated that work has
proceeded beyond the scope of the permit that we had previously
granted, and a pending stop-work order from the Building
Department which is undergoing review by the principal building
inspector, counsel advises that we deny this without prejudice
while these matters are being tended to, and that the applicant
Board of Trustees 6 May 17, 2017
may have to reapply. My motion is to deny without prejudice.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number three, John M. Bredemeyer III on behalf
of JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, JR. &JEANNE R. BREDEMEYER FAMILY TRUST,
c/o JOHN BREDEMEYER requests the Last One-Year Extension to
Administrative Permit#8438A, as issued on June 18, 2014, and
Amended on September 17, 2014. Located: 2660 Village Lane,
Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-1-18
We reviewed it and I make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and second. Roll call vote on this
one.
Trustee Domino, aye.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer, abstain.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Trustee Charles Sanders, aye.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Trustee Glenn Goldsmith, aye.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Nick Krupski, aye.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been passed.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of
SOUTHOLD, LLC requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#6749 from
Dorothy Sande Lloyd to Southold, LLC, as issued on October 17, 2007.
Located: 2350 Clearview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-10-28.3
1 just want to make a note here that the non-disturbance
area is not disturbed. It appears some trimming was conducted.
I'll make a motion to approve this with the condition that the
non-disturbance area is not disturbed. and also with the condition the
split-rail fence to delineate the non-turf buffer so that the non-disturbance
area is not disturbed. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number eight, KELVIN KUBO & CARRIE SHIGETOMI
request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#2280 from Carol & Howard
Safin to Kelvin Kubo & Carrie Shigetomi, as issued on February
26, 1987, and Wetland Permit#395 from Carol & Howard Safin to
Kelvin Kubo & Carrie Shigetomi, as issued on February 26, 1987;
and for an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#2280 and
Wetland Permit#395 to install a proposed new 3'x15' adjustable
ramp and a proposed new 6'x20'floating dock in lieu of the
existing 3'x10' adjustable ramp and 8'x30'floating dock.
Located: 3445 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-107-9-10
The Board in reviewing this project felt that the fixed
dock extends too far into the creek and that the ramp should be
extended for safety reasons given the higher tidal range from
Board of Trustees 7 May 17, 2017
Mattituck Creek, so that we have recommended that the ramp be in
the range of 20 to 21 feet and to use through-flow decking when
and if the decking is replaced. This was discussed with the
owner during the course of the field inspection to which he
indicated that he had no problem with these requested changes.
And he has submitted a new diagram that conforms with the
suggested changes so that it does include a 3x20 fixed ramp and
shortening as we had requested.
Accordingly, I would move to approve this application
subject to the new plan received dated May 10th, 2017,
addressing our concerns that the dock be eight-feet shorter, the
ramp for safety concerns be a 20-foot ramp, and that the
stipulation be when the decking for the catwalk is replaced that
it be replaced with through-flow decking material. That's my
motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 12, PAUL & MARGARET KOBALKA request
an Administrative Amendment to Administrative Permit#8658A to
extend the existing 6'6" high fencing along the eastern side
property line an additional 20' seaward. Located: 695 Petty's
Drive, Orient. SCTM# 1000-14-2-23
The Board met with the Kobalka's in the field. We did tape and flag
the end of the proposed fencing. I would move that we approve this application
as submitted for the additional 20 feet. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion is made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next item number 14, John M. Wagner,
Esq. on behalf of ELLEN F. EMERY 1999 REVOCABLE TRUST, c/o ELLEN
F. EMERY requests an Administrative Amendment to the Denial
without Prejudice determination on December 30, 2015 for the
following: The as-built 100' long timber pile vinyl sheet wall
bulkhead; as-built 80' long timber pile tongue-and-groove
retaining wall with two (2) 8' returns located +/-25' landward
of bulkhead (buried); as-built 80' timber pile tongue-and-groove
retaining wall with two (2) 8' returns located +/-55' landward
of bulkhead; as-built 85' timber pile vinyl sheet retaining wall
with 12' return on north side of property and 25' return on
south side of property located 7 to 11 feet from top of bluff;
as-built sets of stairs from top of bluff to beach consisting of
a 4'x7' access platform to a 4'x28' set of stairs to a 55sq.ft.
Transition landing area, to a 4'x7' set of stairs to a 94sq.ft.
Transition landing area, to a 4'x17' set of stairs leading to a
4'x13' walkway, to a 4'x10' set of stairs parallel to bulkhead
to beach area; as-built +/-1,800 cubic yards of clean fill
Board of Trustees 8 May 17, 2017
spread evenly between the bulkhead and all retaining walls to
the top of bluff to replace lost bluff material; as-built
installation of jute matting for erosion control with plantings
of American beach grass and other native environmental grasses;
as-built installation of a drainage system to direct roof rain
and surface water from the upland retaining wall and house
foundation by providing a drainage swale with a 6" perforated
pipe to drywells in front-yard area (which received previous
approval of Southold Town Engineer); on the northerly property
boundary: For the proposed extension of the top of bluff vinyl
sheet pile retaining wall landward from top of the bluff 12' to
the northerly property line; extend the mid-bluff timber
tongue-and-groove retaining wall 14' to the northerly property
line; construct along the northerly property line a 6'x6' timber
pile lagged binwall stepped down the slope with 8" pile posts
10' long; place fill as necessary; clear brush and remove
overhanging vegetation at top of bluff to establish natural
angle of repose; add +/-20 cubic yards of clean sand and
re-grade as necessary; cover with woven geotextile on re-graded
area, and plant with American beach grass and other native
environmental grasses; on the southerly property line propose
to: Extend existing mid-bluff retaining wall approximately 8' to
property line; increase height of retaining wall by 18" and
reinforce with helical anchors; repair existing 6'x6' timber
retaining wall as necessary by replacing damaged waters, and
placing backfill in front of wall; remove brush at top of
retaining wall; re-grade by adding +/-10 cubic yards of clean
sand and cover with woven geotextile on re-graded areas and
plant with American beach grass and other native environmental
grasses. Located: 5925 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#
1000-111-13-6
Item 14 is the result of a lengthy period of Trustee
review of a project on behalf of Ellen F. Emery 1999 Revocable
Trust, care of Ellen F. Emery.
The Board has reviewed this matter and with the aid of
Trustee counsel and as a result of our field inspection which we
conducted May 9th, the Board is comfortable with this project
addresses all previous concerns that were matters of in-depth
discussion and litigation.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Also we to want to condition in the future any
rebuild of platforms will be brought into compliance.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. There is a specific field note
that the decks associated with the platforms are at this time
not strictly in compliance with the Wetland Code but the Board
feels that based on the field inspection that to alter them at
this time would damage the vegetation and the settled soils on
the site. So that in addition to the project as described, the
Board will stipulate that in the future when decks are replaced
they would be brought into compliance with the Town Code for
decks associated with stairs that exist at the time of deck
replacement. Accordingly, I move to approve as fully described
Board of Trustees 9 May 17, 2017
with future deck replacements being made to be code compliant
under the Wetland Code for future replacement.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. MOORINGS/STAKE & PULLEY SYSTEMS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Roman numeral VI, Moorings, stake & pulley
systems. Again, in order to simplify our meetings, we group
things together when they are similar in nature, and the Board
has deemed one through nine can be acted on as a group. At this
time I make a motion to approve.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are we going to do number nine with the
condition of before and after?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you want to pull nine?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right, I'll make a motion to approve one
through eight. They are listed as follows:
Number one, GEORGE GIANNAROS requests Mooring Permit in
Gull Pond for a 25' outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring #16.
Access: Public
Number two, CHRIS VASILAS requests a Mooring Permit in Gull
Pond for a 24' outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring #14.
Access: Public
Number three, DANIEL TUFARO requests a Mooring Permit in
Gull Pond for a 30' sailboat, replacing Mooring #28. Access: Public
Number four, JOAN BERGLUND requests a Stake and Pulley
System Permit in Narrow River for a 13' outboard motorboat,
replacing Stake#4. Access: Public
Number five, THEODORE HARRIS requests a Mooring Permit in
Mud Creek for a 16' outboard motorboat, replacing Mooring #8.
Access: Public
Number six, JAMES PAPADOPOULOS requests a Stake and Pulley
System Permit in Narrow River for a 10.5' sailboat, replacing
Stake#3. Access: Public
Number seven, BARBARA COHEN requests a Stake and Pulley
System Permit in Richmond Creek for a 14' sailboat, replacing
Stake #3. Access: Public
And Number eight, RICHARD VEZZANI requests a Mooring Permit
in Gull Pond for a 33' sailboat, replacing Mooring V. Access: Public
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item nine, ELIAS DAGHER requests a Mooring
Permit in Town Creek for a 28' sailboat, replacing Mooring #99.
Access: Private
Because of the proximity of the channel and neighboring
docks, we discussed this at work session and accordingly] would
move to stipulate that the mooring in this location include a
fore and aft anchor so the boat does not swing into the channel.
Board of Trustees 10 May 17, 2017
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion at this time to go off our
regular agenda and enter the public hearings.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
WETLAND AND COASTAL EROSION PERMITS
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like at this time to add, if you wish to
make public comment, that you approach, state your name for the
record and please keep your comments relevant to the application
at hand.
Number one, under wetland and coastal erosion permits,
K. Russell Glover on behalf of ROBERT OXNAM requests a Wetland
Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove and replace
in-place existing +/-110' long wooden bulkhead with new steel
sheet bulkhead and wood pilings. Located: 19625 Soundview
Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-22.2 located:
The Trustees did a field inspection on May 9th and field
notes show there were no issues observed as this was a
straightforward application.
The LWRP coordinator found it to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency arises from the fact that the as-built wooden
bulkhead was constructed without a Wetlands permit.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support
this application, requesting they use best management practices.
Is anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. GLOVER: Good evening, I'm Russell Glover. The site had some
minor damage in Hurricane Sandy and we applied under Hurricane
Sandy permits to make minor changes at that time. This, as you
see, was beginning to buckle and I said then we should apply to
the DEC and the state for the, for permits, which they granted.
And recently, in the last storm, a few months ago, the
neighbor's property was taken out pretty much completely. And
if you have a picture the other way it shows part of his wall is
in fact gone.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We are familiar with the site.
MR. GLOVER: And I believe the neighbors were granted a permit
already to rebuild their wall. And as I understand, the owner
and the neighbor would like to join together and do this project
as one, to save a couple of bucks. And they have been getting
prices in and we have been talking to contractors, and as far as
I know it's pretty much ready to go, and this is all we need
from you to get that going ahead.
The neighbor's, it looks like it's all the neighbor's up
there that is gone but it has started taking part of us away as well.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that wishes
Board of Trustees 11 May 17, 2017
to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I make a motion to approve this application as submitted noting
by granting a permit will bring it into consistency with the
LWRP coordinator's concerns.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next item, number one under wetland permits,
Docko, Inc. on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND FERRY DISTRICT, c/o R.
J. BURNS requests a Wetland Permit to replace four(4) existing
timber ferry terminal piles with new piles each consisting of a
new center wood or steel king pile, new inner core piles, and
nineteen (19) new dolphin piles all bolted together and wrapped
with wire rope. Located: North End of Trumbull Drive in-Silver
Eel Cove, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-12-1-10
This serves the Fishers Island Ferry District for
transportation between Fishers Island and New London. This
application was reviewed by the Trustees previously on
submission from Docko, Inc. It was also reviewed as an inhouse
review at our office's field inspection day on the 7th.
Also, the Conservation Advisory Council was unable to make
an inspection to Fishers Island.
The LWRP coordinator has determined this is exempt activity
largely dealing with replacement, rehabilitation and
reconstruction of a facility.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. NIELSON: My name is Keith Nielson, I'm with the Docko, Inc.,
and I have prepared the application documents on behalf of the
Fishers Island Ferry District. I have two return receipt cards
for the mailings and I'll submit them momentarily for the record.
This project is shown on the plan behind me. We have the
existing ferry ramp and there are dolphins that--three on the
east side, one on the west side --that we have had in various
permit applications over the last 15 years for maintenance work
and in most recent permit which expired a year-and-a-half ago to
replace these dolphins.
The ferry district has undergone some changes in management_
and whereas previous emphasis was not on the dolphins, current
management is very much focused on these dolphins. The outermost
dolphin at the north end of this landing facility takes a
Board of Trustees 12 May 17, 2017
huge load when the Race Point, which is 165 feet and 700 tons
comes in, it is frequently in a crosswind position to the slip,
and the chain and steel anchors that hold the ship to the ramp
that was rebuilt a couple of years ago are simply not adequate
to deal with the wind forces on the vessel. And so the 19-pile
dolphin at the north end of the site is clearly the highest
priority of the ferry district.
The other two inboard pile dolphins are primarily berthing
aids, and while they do get wrapped every once in a while by the
ferry in these crosswind conditions -- by the-way, that
photograph shows the Race Point in the slip, and you can see how
long it is. The outermost dolphin is only at mid-ship on the
boat. So when the ferry is at rest in the slip and the winds
are from the west to northwest, that one dolphin is handling the
whole load of the ship, and so it's essential that this be
replaced. Six of the outer piles are broken or cracked, and if
the ferry were to impact this during adverse conditions it could
destroy the whole dolphin, knock the whole thing down. And so
before that happens we are going to replace it with another
19-pile dolphin. It may have a steel King Pile, either an H-pile
or pipe pile, and the 19 piles --the other 18 piles will be
bolted and wrapped to the King pile and, in all likelihood, we'll
use all Greenheart piles for this purpose. With the biggest
piles being on the shipboard face, the west face.
The other dolphins may or may not be included in the
reconstruction project, which is currently out to bid. And that
would be strictly on an affordable basis depending on the budget.
These Greenheart pile dolphins can be pretty costly and so
ultimate bid items include the options work, the inner dolphins
being re-built out of southern yellow pine with wearing face
dolphins being Greenheart.
If there are any questions, I would be happy to answer
them. I should say I have personally conducted scuba diving
inspections of the bottom in this area. The area where the
ferry is tied up is highly agitated by the berthing maneuvering
and the powerful thrust of the ferry, so there is no vegetation down
there. There are heavy, gravelly sediments with exposed boulders.
There will be no adverse environmental impact by this project.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: How is visibility when you were down there?
MR. NIELSON: In the fall, after the end of October, it's pretty
good, from me to you. In the summer, I can't see me. So it's all
by feel.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A question has arisen. The office received
e-mail communication by person by the name of Justin Kiddy(sic),
inquiring whether the reconstruction and repair has anything to do with
what they purport as a hovercraft operation?
MR. NIELSON: It does not. The ferry district is competing
against a couple of high-speed ferries that operate through
different points on the Connecticut shore, and in order to
remain competitive they are going to be investigating, they are
investigating, and we'll probably be coming in fairly shortly
Board of Trustees 13 May 17, 2017
for permitting documents for a floating dock which will be
immediately to the right of the stern of the ferry where you see
it in this picture. It has to be maintained in that area and
parallel to the wharf in order to be shielded by terrain out in
the rack that basically cuts off most of the wave activity along
the wharf edge. It also has to stay in that corner so that it
doesn't adversely affect corner ramp berthing activities.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. The letter, excuse me, I should
say the e-mail letter here, was concerned about operations of a
hovercraft and simply requested we consider holding this
application for the time to look into some issues that relate to
hovercraft noise, fumes and wildlife as Mr. Kiddy indicates
apparently he's an avid monitor of the wildlife and so we'll
tell him it appears it's not pertinent to the matter before us.
Thank you.
MR. NIELSON: This is an entirely separate project.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to
this application, any further questions?
(Negative response).
Hearing no additional comments, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve the
application as submitted.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number two under wetland permits, Race Rock
Garden Company on behalf of PENN duPONT SANGER requests a
Wetland Permit to remove the existing Rosa rugosa and store for
replacing; within a 65 foot long southwesterly section of
existing stone seawall, remove loose smaller stones from top of
stone seawall and store for re-use as chink stones filling voids
between larger stones; add 40-50 stones (10-20cu.ft. each)to
raise the existing stone wall by two (2)feet; chink new stone
wall with loose stones stored earlier; no work is required at
base of stone wall; install +/-70 linear feet of woven wire silt
fencing after wall construction and before grading; pull back
existing topsoil, place +/-58 cubic yards of sandy fill, push
back topsoil and replant the stored Rosa rugose and mulch; and
to hydro-seed all disturbed areas. Located: 1616 Peninsula
Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-3-20.1
On May 9, 2017, all of the Trustees did an inhouse inspection
and found that everything looks good according to the plans.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council did not inspect this
property.
Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of the
Board of Trustees 14 May 17, 2017
applicant?
MR. NIELSON: Again, my name is Keith Nielson, I'm with Docko
Inc., and at the request of Mr. David Burnham late this
afternoon, I agreed to help represent him at this project. He
had some issues come up that he could not attend tonight's
meeting. He gave me copies of the application and the affidavit
of posting which I would like to hand in at this point. And if
there are any questions, I would be happy to answer them to the
best of my ability. I am aware, I'm familiar with the site and
we have done permitting on both sides of this property.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay. Anybody else here who would like
to speak on behalf of the applicant?
(Negative response).
Any thoughts from the Board?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I make a motion to approve the application as
written.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. NIELSON: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: En-Consultants on behalf of STEPHEN &
CHARLOTTE WAGNER request a Wetland Permit to construct an
elevated fixed timber dock consisting of a 4'x49' (196sq.ft.)
fixed timber catwalk with a seasonal 4'x1,2' 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
The Trustees conducted a field inspection, conducted
numerous field inspections on this; February 7th, March 16th,
as well as numerous inhouse inspections.
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. This was addressed
at the last public meeting. Some of the inconsistencies were to
minimize adverse effects of the development. There were numerous
objections that were discussed.
The Conservation Advisory Council mostly resolved to
support this application.
We have a number of letters in the file objecting to this
application from Daniel Watts, from Sara Burns, from Joan
Turturo and from Laura Watts.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MS. WATTS: Good afternoon, I'm Laura Watts and I filed a letter
and spoke last time. I understand that there are three or four
Board of Trustees 15 May 17, 2017
more Orient residents who also filed letters because they CC'd
me and filed them. So I want to make sure that you had them, or
if you want them, I have them.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The ones I read were the ones that we have in
the file.
MS. WATTS: Okay. There is one filed in February by Andrew Smith.
There is another one, e-mail filed by Ken Query(sic), and there
is another letter from Scott Stein.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: (Perusing). It's a big file.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The clerk files the letters.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: (Perusing). Excuse me, yes, we do have Scott
Stein. I'll keep going. I didn't go back far enough. Another
Laura Watts, e-mail from Laura Watts, letter from Laura Watts.
And I believe that's it. Yes, that's all.
MS. WATTS: So what do I do if I have a letter from Andrew Smith
I understand he sent to you in February?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We don't know whether a letter was received
in the file. The clerk files all of them ori the right-hand
jacket. At this point, the file is closed.
MS. WATTS: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You can open it up to anyone who has
anything to say, I guess.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishing to speak to
this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comment from the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's our understanding that the project
which occurs over New York State bottom waters was approved
today by the Department of Environmental Conservation and the
permit is being sent out. The applicant has submitted a letter
to address specific issues that were raised in the LWRP
inconsistency and also addressed concerns of the DEC and this
Board. A number of them. One was to make the dock seasonal'so it
would be, the dock would be placed in parallel with a DEC
shellfish closure. The DEC had requested that--that was a
concern that I had raised --the DEC had indicated that it
should, the float should be off the bottom so that it does not
rest on the bottom during low, low tides, and the plans were
slightly modified, I believe, to have it be less tucked into the
shore, and they included stairs up and over the dock for
riparian access.
In addition, the owner indicated they do not plan to
restrict in any way individuals' rights to use the foreshore
including the foreshore that is their private property.
If you can find the letter that was submitted by the
applicant concerning bringing it into consistency, maybe we
should go through those items. It should be on the jacket.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. So we have a four-page letter
addressing all the LWRP concerns on behalf of Robert Herrmann
from En-Consultants. As Trustee Bredemeyer said, one of them was
seasonality of the dock, making it a seasonal dock that would be
Board of Trustees 16 May 17, 2017
removed, the floating part of it; to not use any treated wood
that could potentially impact shellfish or finfish; installing
chocks to ensure that the floating dock remains elevated above;
and to ensure access below mean high water, the permanent
catwalk had been modified with access steps on both sides to
provide safe pedestrian access over the dock.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak regarding
this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions from the Board?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would like to consider signage for the
walkway over the dock so that the public is notified and can
navigate along the beach on the legal right-of-way.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Say that again?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think the dock should have signage on it.
Because I can understand some of the past testimony where people
were concerned there would be confusion and they would not know.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So they know there is public access. That's
a good idea.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that's a good way to address that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That way its unambiguous and it would also
preclude posting the dock as a private dock for that location.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other questions or comments?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think because the return addresses the
inconsistencies of the LWRP and concerns that we were looking
at, I think that looks like it is pretty thorough.
MR. HANLON: Robert Hanlon, I'm a resident of Orient, President
of the Orient Association. I am not speaking to this particular
application. The Orient Association does not take positions
about individual projects. But in response to Trustee Krupski's
suggestion about signage, one of the issues that the Orient
community has taken a very strong issue about is the viewshed
and preserving the viewshed especially along the waterways
within the community. Included in the concern about preserving
viewshed is both buildings and signage, and in fact we waged a
rather strong campaign recently when signage was put up on Rt.
25 near the ferry in a manner we thought was inconsistent with
the community character.
-I'm not suggesting signage is not a good idea, but I would
ask the Trustees review whatever signage is being proposed, if
they do decide to require signage, and try and ensure that the
signage, while being helpful, has minimal impact on the view and
does not take away from what I think both the property owner and
community would want as a fairly bucolic setting.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Presently, the Wetland ordinance limits
signs associated with wetland docks, that sort of environment to
basically 12x12 square inches, so I guess that-would be something we
could stipulate in the form of our consideration for a permit.
And if it's posted on a piling, that also reduces the visual impact.
MR. HANLON: I'm not being prescriptive. You folks do this all
Board of Trustees 17 May 17, 2017
the time, you know better than I do. We just ask that any
signage requirement take into account the idea of minimizing the
visual impact while still meeting your goals on that.
Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other comments?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and second, all in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll make a motion to approve this
application with the conditions that the dock be-seasonal, that
there be chocks installed to keep the dock elevated, that stairs
be included for riparian rights, and that a sign no more than
12x12 inches be posted on a piling, denoting public access over
this area, to address the LWRP inconsistencies.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of
ELAINE F. NESIN requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
in-place and 12" higher than existing +/-108' long timber.
bulkhead and +/-8' long westerly return with vinyl bulkhead and
return; construct new +/-12' easterly vinyl return; backfill new
bulkhead with approximately 15 cubic yards clean sand/loam to be
trucked in from an approved upland source and revegetate
disturbed naturally vegetated embankment with native plantings;
remove and replace in-place existing 4'x17'fixed timber catwalk
and +/-3'x14' adjustable ramp to floating dock; and remove and
replace in-place existing 6'x100'floating dock with a 6'x80'
floating dock(with permanent removal of most westerly 6'x20'
section of floating dock). Located: 875 Gull Pond Lane,
Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.42
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent due to
as-built structures were constructed without a Wetland permit,
according to Town records.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees inspected this property on May 9th and found
no issues, no obvious issues with the project, the scope of the
project.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. STEPKNOSKI: I'm here at the request of Rob Herrmann who
could not be here tonight. My name is Angelo Stepnoski. If you
have any questions, I'm here to address them.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, anyone else here that wishes to speak
toward this application?
Any comments from the Board?
Board of Trustees 18 May 17, 2017
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think our only question was with a, for a
non-turf buffer with this project. Ten-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that something the client would be amendable
to?
MR. STEPNOSKI: I don't think that's a problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve this application
with the following amendments, therefore bringing it into
consistency, by issuing a permit and satisfying the LWRP
coordinator, and with ten-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number five, Douglas McGahan on behalf of
ROBERT& PATRICIA ELLIOTT request a Wetland Permit to
construct an 18'x15.9'two-story addition onto the northwestern side
,of the existing +/-24.5'x40.5' two-story dwelling; and to install a 6'
high privacy fence along the eastern side yard lot line between
the two dwellings. Located: 275 West Road, Cutchogue.
SCTM# 1000-110-7-11.1
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council on May 10th resolved to
support the application.
The Trustees on field inspection on May 9th, 1:40 in the
afternoon, found the application was simple and straightforward.
There is a letter in the file from Tom and Isabella Wacker(sic).
It expresses concern about the impact of the structure on
the neighborhood. The concern is that in committing this set of
precedence for Southold Town, in dealing with development on
small properties.
Does anyone here wish to speak to this application?
MR. MCGAHAN: Good evening, I'm Douglas McGahan and this is
Beth Elliott. We are here to speak regarding the application.
Again, it's very straightforward. Regarding the Wacker's
letter, we have no comment on that.
One, you did visit the site. By the way, Elizabeth, you did
get my paperwork by the unconventional delivery method, under
the door?
MS. CANTRELL: Yes.
MR. MCGAHAN: With the exception of the fence and the addition,
with the recent good weather, Beth and Rob Elliott have gone
down to the beach and the stairs from the bluff to the beach
that you saw kind of go like this (indicating), and they are a bit concerned
about their grandchildren. And we are just wondering whether it
would take a new application or amend this one or whatever to
Board of Trustees 19 May 17, 2017
just straighten those stairs up, exactly the way they are now.
But that has nothing to do with this addition, I just wanted to
bring that up for your consideration.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We'll do them one at a time.
MR. MCGAHAN: Okay.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else want to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any other questions or comment from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I make a motion to approve this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. MCGAHAN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number six, Michael
Kimack on behalf of KATHY HALBREICH requests a Wetland Permit to
remove existing 5'5"x6'0"wood dock and two (2) 4"x6"wood
pilings; construct a 3'x8' (24sq.ft.)walkway using thru-flow
decking leading to a two (2)step wood staircase to a proposed
6'0"x8'0"wood frame fixed dock using thru-flow decking and four
(4) 6" diameter pilings to secure the dock. Located: 5100 Skunk
Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-138-2-12
This project is found to be consistent, and the
Conservation Advisory Council supports the application and
recommends the tire is removed from the shoreline. This is a
rather easy thing we can help with.
And it was noted the existing slope is at risk due to
erosion. The site has steep slopes that actually have been there
for a time, but, the Board looked at that and was aware of that
during the course of inspection. I think we discussed it in the
field on field inspection as noted here and we feel that the
structure would, as a replacement, is not going to increase
erosion or problems at the site. The Board felt it was very
reasonable. We did, however discuss during the course of our
work session Monday night that we thought that and it was suggested
by Trustee Krupski we might go to four-inch pilings on this.
MR. KIMACK: I would be reserve to do that because with any kind
of storm surge or anything in the water line that can take that
back and forth, four would be close to perhaps not being able to
withstand that much to be able to --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Could we get nominally small, let's say
locust or possibly approved tropical hardwood since it's a low
flow area?
MR. KIMACK: We can get an Ebay, basically. I know locust is
favored. I'm not sure if I can get locust filled.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Oh, to meet the reconstruction because of
Board of Trustees 20 May 17, 2017
the way it's built.
MR. KIMACK: Yes, because of the way it's put together. Locust
would have to be milled out and squared off, although we can
probably get Ebay.
TRUSTEE KRUP.SKI: There are quite a few docks in that stretch
that have four-inch piles, and they tend to help with the ice lifting.
MR. KIMACK: Look, its a judgment call, at best. Who knows.
Depending upon the kind of storms we have, it could stand for 40
years, it could stand for 40 days. It's hard to say. But I
would not have an objection if you feel that you have looked at
the others and you think it will stand -- it's not a big dock so
we are not dealing with a lot of a weight factors. But if it
was larger than that, I would certainly, anything larger than
that would withstand -- it is against the dock, so it's not
necessarily going to be in the way of a lot of wave action. So
we could do that, basically. Of course, having said that, you
would probably want me to amend my drawing, correct?
Liz is looking at me saying of course.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Four to six-inch difference, we leave to the
discretion of the Chair. But this is pretty straightforward. We
appreciate, we looked at this as a right-sized dock and really
just replacing what is there.
MR. KIMACK: I think what is there now is a 46, basically, so it
would not be that much difference between what it is.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll leave it up to you guys.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional questions or concerns?
(No response).
I think we can close it. Hearing none, I'll make a motion to
close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Having witnessed a number of docks there,
like you say, it could be 40 years, it could be 40 days, I move
to approve this subject to stipulation of four-inch pile size
and empowering the chairman to initial the plans for the change to
four so you don't have to submit new plans.
MR. KIMACK: Thank you. Have a good night.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number seven, CHARLES & MARILYN
SOUTHARD requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x23' wood
catwalk; a 3'x8' ramp; a 4'x10'wood floating dock; and to remove
five (5) dead trees on the property. Located: 435 Bay Home Road,
Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-5-22.
On May 9th, the Trustees inspected this property. The notes
state the trees that are required to be removed have been
identified and are okay to remove. The suggestion was to angle the
Board of Trustees 21 May 17, 2017
dock, request a little to the north.
And the LWRP has found this to be inconsistent, and they
have quite a few comments with regard to that. Under 6.3 they
say protect and restore the tidal freshwater wetlands. They
reference 9.3, preserve the public interest. And then it says
here it is unclear whether the five dead trees can be removed.
A 50-foot wide non-disturbance, non-fertilized buffer was
established under Wetlands#7103. Four-foot path was the only
exception and the clearing for the dock on the west appears to
infringe on the buffer area.
The Conservation Advisory Council has resolved to support
this application.
Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of the
applicant at this time?
(Negative response).
Crickets. Nobody here. All right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is the one where we talked about changing
the float width.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Float width or its angle?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Also the width. It's a four-foot float.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Dial the width back.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have a gentleman who wishes to speak.
MR. SOUTHARD: I'm Charles Southard, Jr. This is our application.
I just stepped up because you have questions or comments.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As I was saying,just in a brief discussion in
the field, four feet is a little narrow. So you'll have to be
playing kind of a balancing game. So we were talking about
bumping it out slightly on the float.
MR. SOUTHARD: No objection. That's fine.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It's more of a safety feature.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: So bumping it out to what exactly?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Five feet wide.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For just the float. And then for the overall
length, after looking at the depth and the scope of the creek
there, we are talking about dialing it back to 20-foot long
catwalk as opposed to the 23.
MR. SOUTHARD: Not a problem.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: With the proviso the three foot be removed from
the seaward end.
MR. SOUTHARD: That's fine.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The issue of the trees that was discussed by
the LWRP coordinator, I think based on an office review with
Google Earth. It's not the same as field inspection. We have to
realize he does a very thorough job, but in the field we noticed
there were all invasive trees and they were diseased and damaged
so that they released --and they were not dead trees or hollow
trees that provide ecological benefit for nesting birds. So I
think in this case the tree maintenance is in keeping with
general good conservation guidelines and its, we appreciate,
Mark does a really good job and ordinarily non-disturbance areas
have to be left inviolate, but specific requests on diseased
Board of Trustees 22 May 17, 2017
trees, I don't think it undermines the intent.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are the plans for this, is it through-flow or
just a wood catwalk?
MR. SOUTHARD: There is an area that is flow-through that goes
over the vegetated area of the wetlands. There is a strip of
about eight or ten feet of vegetated wetlands, and the pieces
that go over there are flow-through.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: We good?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Fine with me.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: One other comment, in the photograph, the dock
that exists there, right now to the north of your proposed dock,
does not have a permit and is under review.
MR. SOUTHARD: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: You're welcome. Anybody else like to speak on
behalf of the application?
(Negative response).
I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I make a motion to approve this application
with the following stipulations: That a five-foot wide bump-out
for the float, which would bring the 20-foot long, would modify
the catwalk to 20-feet long, and the three foot that would be
removed would be at the seaward end. By permitting this
application it will bring it into compliance with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. SOUTHARD: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number eight, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
JAMES & MAUREEN LEVELIS request a Wetland Permit to install a
20'x40' in-ground swimming pool with a brick paver pool patio
for overall dimensions of 24'x54; install a pool drywell;
install pool enclosure fencing; remove existing brick patio and
install a 600sq.ft. composite deck at grade with outdoor shower
against the seaward side of the dwelling; and for the trimming
of the existing phragmites to not more than 2' in width along
each side of the existing catwalk to no less than 12" in height
on an as-needed basis. Located: 830 Clearview Road, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-89-3-11.5
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on May 9th, no
objections to the pool per se but we noted it looked like the
homeowner clear-cut parts of the wetland.
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
t
Board of Trustees 23 May 17, 2017
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. We
received comments from the DEC, they wanted us to pull back 75
feet away from the wetland line, which is what I painted in the
field, which is what you saw. The application drawings you have
are 63 or 65 feet whatever it might be. I have revised drawings
that were sent to the DEC showing 75 feet away from the wetlands
in conformance with the DEC, which I assume will be an approval.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, any idea why on that trimming?
MR. PATANJO: It possibly had been trimmed. We are looking for
permits to do some maintenance trimming. There was an actual
permit for the phragmites trimming per the DEC from the prior
owner. Could it have been done by the prior owner?We actually
have the DEC permit for that. I can get you the DEC permit
number. And I also thought there was a Trustee permit.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There was, for two feet on either side of the
catwalk. We are looking at 50 feet. You look at that picture,
there is obviously--
TRUSTEE SANDERS: A little more clearing.
MR. PATANJO: The whole goal of the permit is to clear two feet
on either side of the catwalk. That's what we are looking for
approval for. Anything-that has been done in the past, we'll
allow to revegetate.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The matter is currently under review by the
bay constable. I don't know if that was clear. In addition to
the cutting, there is a section of non-disturbance zone that is
sort of, if you go through past the Baccharus you see to the
left of those standing is a large section clear-cut right to the
ground. That was in the DEC mandated zone. I don't know if the
Board members were then on the Board. I think I was the Ione
member. We were out here with Jim King, former President Jim
King, there had been a violation for cutting at that time. So
this property has been building up a history of violations.
MR. PATANJO: I think that now we can make it part of the permit
that no other additional clearing would be performed other than
the two foot on either side of the dock of the phragmites only.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: How about a,re-vegetation plan as well.
MR. PATANJO: What are your feelings on this area to allow it
to revegetate naturally? Looks pretty thriving to me.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There is a clear line where they have been
trimming phragmites, or someone has been trimming phragmites. So
then between that and the where it's mowed, there is a lot of
healthy, juvenile Baccharus plants.
The thought, for me at least, was that possibly they could
transplant a couple and move them-over to where we are standing,
because you can see where that line is supposed to be, and just
sort of help it along.
MR. PATANJO: Okay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because that whole green swath on the left-hand
side is all juvenile plants.
MR. PATANJO: So we are looking at the house in the background
Board of Trustees 24 May 17, 2017
there. We are standing on the dock. We are looking that way. So
you are saying the healthy plants on the left-hand side?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In between us and the tall stand of phragmites,
where it looks like it's a foot or two high. Those are all the green --
TRUSTEE SANDERS: In the picture, Glenn is looking right at it.
MR. PATANJO: Right. So you want to do the re-vegetation plan on
the actual plans that I submitted, stating we are going to
transplant some of the Baccharus from that area to where?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where we are standing. There is a pretty clear
line where it should go across.
MR. PATANJO: I think that line where you are standing would
probably be the walkway to the dock.
: TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where we are standing exactly is past the
four-foot wide walkway is where I was considering.
MR. PATANJO: To the right of you?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Do you want to point it out on the map?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, looking at that picture. The Baccharus
ends there and then it would be a four-foot wide path, then we
are looking for re-vegetation.
MR. PATANJO: Over in that area?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, keep going.
MR. PATANJO: May I approach the bench?
This is the walkway. This is where you are standing here.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. This whole area is where it should be
to.
MR. PATANJO: Would that be considered even a wetland area? It's
not abutting any--this area here is abutting the waterway.
This area is abutting the waterway.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The vegetation there is wetlands.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The area there seasonally floods from the
creek all the way up the property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we'll probably continue the four feet wide up.
MR. PATANJO: It does. Wouldn't it make more sense to do it along
here?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I suggest you make a real fence and gate here
and delineate this so it doesn't happen again.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And not revegetate, you are saying.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That would be fine. There is plenty of Baccharus
coming up.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We are standing in this picture right about
here. (Indicating). So you are saying a fence here and a fence along the
four-foot wide and then across the top?
MR. PATANJO: And instead of re-vegetating, we would allow it to
revegetate naturally, we would put a fence here, a fence along
the walkway and a fence here.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That works for me, as long as there is a gate
Here.
MR. PATANJO: Some sort of gate which would allow nobody to do
any cutting other than two-foot on the side of the dock, and
allow to revegetate up to those limits.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And let this revegetate, too, but we won't
Board of Trustees 25 May 17, 2017
restrict this with a fence. Why don't we just put a fence
straight across, save all this extra fence and have a four-foot
through the area?
MR. PATANJO: I'll do whatever you want. Do you want to do a
four-foot fence here? And we'll allow, maintain a four-foot wide
path.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Through that.
MR. PATANJO: Through this area for purposes of going to the dock
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That works.
MR. PATANJO: Yes. And natural vegetation.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm okay with letting it re-vegetate.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition that a split-rail fence be posted at the
landward-most side of the wetland to delineate the
non-disturbance buffer and to allow for no more than a four-foot
wide hand-cut path to the dock and limit of two-foot wide
clearing of phragmites only, on either side of the dock. With
new plans and a gate as well. And new plans depicting the
modifications. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. PATANJO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number nine, ALAN A.
CARDINALE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a communal dock
serving Lots 1.5. 1.7, 1.8 & 1.9 consisting of a 4'wide wooden
ramp at landward end connecting to a 4'x34'fixed wooden dock
with a 4'x40'fixed "L" section; two 3'x14' adjustable ramps off
of either end of 40'fixed dock section; two 6'x20'floating
docks situated in an "I" configuration with two (2) 8" diameter
float securing piles for each float; two (2) 8"diameter tie-off
piles centered between the two floating docks; and two sets of
two (2) 8" diameter tie-off piles situated approximately 13'
away from each floating dock. Located: 570 Private Road #28,
Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-3-1.5
This LWRP report is still under review of the coordinator
so we won't be able to conclude action in this matter absent
having a consistency review.
The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the
application, questions the number of docks allowed and which
parcels have the right to use the proposed docking facility.
Board of Trustees 26 May 17, 2017
The Trustees performed field inspection on the 9th of May
and raised the question that the dock is associated with a
commercially-zoned lot, for which there is a question.
The Board did suggest to meet with the applicant for a
pre-submission conference, which the clerk informs us was
rejected out of hand. Based on the water depth viewed during the
course of the inspection but for which we didn't have measuring
instruments, there was a general feeling that we would need
additional soundings at closer intervals because the Board feels
there may be an alternate configuration that would meet docking
needs for a right-sized dock that would not extend so far into
the creek, possibly a "T" configuration or an "L" configuration
might be more appropriate, based on our visual observation, but
that we would need to have more soundings than were provided in
the application.
Starting that off, before I go through the issues that the
Board discussed at our work session, I would like to open this
application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. GOGGINS: Yes, William Goggins, 13335 Main Road, Mattituck,
New York. Good evening, Ms. Cantrell, gentlemen. If you have
any questions, I'm here.
By way of history, this is a subdivision from the 1980s, it
was an eight-lot subdivision, Mr. Cardinale had purchased it in
the mid-80s and started a subdivision process. Initially they
were going to, they wanted to change it to five lots and they
were going to ask for a dock for each lot, and then it was
suggested through the DEC that they do a communal dock for the
lots. And that's what they did. And they started going through
the process.
By 2005, the subdivision process was going through. At some
point, there is even a letter from the Trustees to the Planning
Board basically stating that-- I'll read it to you. It was in
March 8th, 2006.
The current plan subdivides land for several parcels for
houses with a community dock coming off one of these lots.
Would it be possible for a dock to go off a right-of-way or park
area that is created for the subdivision as opposed to that
being part of one person's private land. And this will prevent
possible problems in the future.
So since 2006, it's been understood that this subdivision
was going to have a community dock because it would decrease the
impact on the environment rather than have configured the lots
so there would be five lots, they would configure the lots so
there would be one communal dock, so each lot would be able to
access it. I understand your concern that lot five is
commercially zoned. I spoke to Mr. Cardinale about it. He has
agreed to withdraw that lot from access if that would make the
Board happy. But, you know, although it's commercially zoned it
could possibly still be a residential parcel. But these lots are
Board of Trustees 27 May 17, 2017
really for use of the family. I mean their intent is family
members will own these lots. Anyway, having said that, soundings
were done, they have gotten DEC approval, the location of the
dock does not impede navigation. It's less than one-third
across. It does not impact access to public lands. It doesn't
impact any fisheries, shellfisheries, no part of the floating
dock will touch the bottom at mean low tide. In fact, I don't
think it comes closer than 30 inches, as required by the DEC.
And also, they have complied with every request, and this
has gone on since 2005-2006 with the Trustees. Initially the
dock was more to the east and the Trustees asked that it be
moved all the way over as far as possible to the west toward the
marina. Which they did. They moved it over to that point. And
this was basically tabled in 2009 because the Trustees wanted to
wait until there was subdivision approval.
So now there is subdivision approval. The Planning Board
approved the subdivision on September 20th, 2016. The Health
Department, November 16, 2016. The subdivision map was filed
with the county on January 10th, 2017, and this is all a
planning procedure that was done with the Trustees and the
Planning Board to make sure that this is going to be developed
the way everybody wanted it to be developed. And Mr. Cardinale's
position is at this point now they have subdivision approval and
they expect to get the communal dock, and now for them not to
have it, it's inconsistent with the whole process that they went
through.
They also reduced it. It was initially, I think an "L"with
an "E," with three ramps going out, and they reduced it to two
based on the request of the Trustees. I know this Board is not
the same Board. Mr. Bredemeyer, you may have been on the Board
at the time, I'm not sure, in 2006. But they already reduced
from an E to a C. So instead of six boats they have four boats.
And they did soundings at the time, which were acceptable. So I
would hesitate to agree to have to adjourn it and get more
soundings and more input, because they have done pretty much
everything they have been asked to do. And now that they have
subdivision approval they just assumed this would be permitted.
So I ask, the DEC approved it, and I would ask that you approve
it consistent with the application as it is because that was the
expectation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Question. How do you have the inference that it
doesn't impact fisheries?
MR. MILOWSKI: Glenn Milowski, I live on the property next door.
MR. GOGGINS: There is no indication of any clams through there,
there is no indication of oysters.
MR. MILOWSKI: There's mussels.
MR. GOGGINS: There might be mussels. But anyway, that's our
position, that it doesn't impact. It's consistent with all the
docks that are there. Its not as far out as some of the docks.
It's equal to some of the other docks across the creek. I'm sure
Board of Trustees 28 May 17, 2017
some people might be here to oppose it might even have a dock
that already goes out there. It's riparian rights of somebody to
have a dock. Again, this is going on since 2005, and so now to
deny the application, I think, again, its inconsistent with the
planning that has gone on for the past eleven years.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would like to review some of the
discussion that took place at the work session and maybe one
individual concern that I may have added to this that should be
brought up at this time. First of all, to recap. We don't have
the LWRP review so that, of course, we certainly acknowledge
that this has been in the planning process a long time. Actually
I was not on the Board in 2006 but actually initial discussions
going all the way back to 1990, 1 saw my name on a letter, but
the Boards of course do change and the experience of the Board
changes. So I want to just run through some things quickly.
The underwater land that the dock is proposed on is
purportedly owned by Suffolk County. Now, the Trustees would
maintain that James Creek is also Trustee land, but it would
appear that because of the Land Use Division and development,
some of the lands were also mapped as lands of Suffolk County.
And now the position of the Trustees for other properties in
this creek where they applied for dredging of the bottom and
placement of bulkheading, replacement bulkheading in-kind, was to
secure the permission of Suffolk County. So to be consistent
there, even though arguably a Trustee approval at this time we
don't require a separate lease or land-based approval so that
the wetland permitting where the Board reviews these if it
essentially is blanketed in with the approval of the Board for
use of their underwater land. But there is another landowner
that is possibly involved.
Also, a review of our records indicates the dock on lot
number two is not in conformity with the plans and
specifications of the prior permit, and therefore if we are
looking at providing dock facilities for a subdivision where we
already have one dock that is not in conformity, this would have
to be addressed whether or not the dock facility as built would
meet with the requirements of the Board. And the Board does feel
that there might be a right-sized configuration that might be
slightly different, that's why we are holding fast to this
notion of some additional soundings. And absent just, we don't
_want to dictate terms, we don't want to indicate during the
permit process that you've got to reduce it without the facts.
So that is where we are at. We want to secure facts with the
Board that works diligently to try to honor the riparian rights
of the owner.
The other thing, the Trustees recently, and it has been
coming to a very succinct and poignant experience that right now
poorly constituted and poorly regulated rights-of-ways to docks
in the absence of an ironclad homeowner association or rules or
dedicated responsibilities are absolutely cascading into repeat
and persistent harangues of neighbors, threats of lawsuits and
Board of Trustees 29 May 17, 2017
waste of Board time. So this is as bad, and as a Trustee, I
have been around a long time. This is as bad as living through
Hurricane Bob, Sandy and everything else. We have our own little
situation going on here that is horrific, and there is an
evolution of Boards' institutional knowledge going back to when I
was on it and chaired and Nick's dad was the vice-president and
subsequently Nick's dad was the president. We went through code
revisions that actually compels owners of rights of ways for
sign off for approval, but there is no guarantee --who maintains
the dock on a right-of-way? Who is actually the owner? Who
really commands the authority on who goes there and how it
works? So it's a real big concern.
And also, I think the Board is rightly concerned that when
there was an offer to work with the applicant on a
pre-submission basis, we were rebuffed. This Board is the Board
closest to the people in the Town and we pride ourselves on
trying to work with people. And it's a concern of ours. We don't
want to be top down. You know, we want to have communication
with the people.
MR. GOGGINS: I was not aware of that. I'm sure there will be no
objection to putting in the deeds the right-of-way and who has
to maintain it and so forth. That only makes sense.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are so far from discussing particulars on
it, I think from the file any additional letters or copy of the
DEC permit as granted is something we would want to have.
MR. GOGGINS: I'll submit that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I just think being a new Board with five
new members since the start, we are just looking to have a
discussion on it and not just go with our predecessors'
decision. That's all we are driving at.
MR. GOGGINS: Okay. I understand. So you want soundings, you want
me to contact Suffolk County, let them know what is going on.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So we have to wait on the LWRP report. You
need to contact Suffolk County. The Board is going to have to
put under review for separate permitting or amendment, if you
will, you'll have to talk to the clerk about a review of lot
number two's docks, to bring it into conformity. They require
an entirely new permit. I think there is information coming on
that. We'll determine the means for full permit. It's in an
entirely different location. And the soundings, and the other
matters are really the Board's issue to deal with future
discussion with yourself and the owners concerning operations
and maintenance. And we do appreciate if the understanding is
that the business lot will not be appended to the right-of-way.
I think we appreciate that. I think that was the discussion we
were concerned we might have to approach the Zoning Board of
Appeals formally for a determination because business property
with access to a dock starts looking like an M-2 or an M-3 zone
and we are concerned it might require a request for a zoning
change or interpretation from the Zoning Board. So that
certainly qualifies as a major concern.
Board of Trustees 30 May 17, 2017
MR. GOGGINS: With regard to the soundings, how far apart do you
want each sounding to be?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: By scaling it, it appears that the soundings
may be on the order of maybe ten feet apart. Let me check the
scale. It was one inch is 30 feet, and we are dealing with the
soundings a third of a foot. So the current soundings are
currently at an interval of about ten feet. I would say an
interval off shore of about three feet and then maybe running
beyond the dock so we have a notion of what is happening. Does
that sound reasonable?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MR. GOGGINS: That's from the mean low tide mark to the center?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would say it's a fairly, it's a standard
bank there, so maybe take it from the bank on out at mean low
low. I don't think anybody had a question. I think the datum and
the surveyor is of dispute on the soundings. So it would be
just to get a few more soundings in that space.
MR. GOGGINS: Anything else?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to reject the notion that any
concerns of determinations that this Board has that would be
different from the Board in 2005 is inconsistent. Since 2005, as
Trustee Bredemeyer points out, there is an evolution of Boards
and also an evolution in thinking. As a quick reference, we do
things differently now post-Sandy than we did pre-Sandy. So I'm
just rejecting the point we have to do lockstep whatever the
Board in 2005 decided.
MR. GOGGINS: I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that
when you go through a subdivision process and the Board of
Trustees says, well, we are not going to address it until you
get subdivision approval, because if you don't get subdivision
approval you are just wasting our time, and then the whole
planning process is based upon having a community dock, it
basically gives you the right to have it because the Trustees
knew about it the whole time. And so I'm not saying you should
be consistent with 2005. I'm saying you should be consistent
with your whole overall planning process.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Well, I did not know about this until several
weeks ago. So I'm in, there is a steep learning curve for me.
Thank you.
MR. GOGGINS: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak at
this time?
(Negative response).
Based on the discussion we had and the need for additional
materials, I would make a motion this -- is there anyone
additionally who want to speak in the audience? I'm sorry, you
were very quiet. Does anyone else wish to speak?
Also, at this time, Glenn Goldsmith is asking to be
recused.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you.
(Trustee Goldsmith leaves for the evening).
Board of Trustees 31 May 17, 2017
MS. MILOWSKI: I'm Rosemary Milowski, I have been living in the
house that is adjacent to this property that we are talking
about for 52 years, so I'm not a newcomer to that neighborhood.
I'm not too concerned about the dock so much but I know that's
just a prelude to them building the houses there, and that's my
concern. Because when a house was built on the beach, how that
was allowed is beyond me, but that's a horse of another color.
It impacted where more flood waters came down toward us than
when the house that is just west of Tina and Jim Roache, used to
be the property of Tina and Al Steiner, a house was built and
because that lot flooded so much they had to truck in a lot of
dirt, which now when we have exceptionally high tides or with
Superstorm Sandy, the creek water had no place to go but into
the Roache's yard and my yard, and it had gone into my basement.
And that's my concern when they start building these houses back
there, they'll be bringing in more dirt.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's a legitimate concern. The code has
changed since the prior construction in the area. The Town Code
now under Chapter 236 requires owners to control all their
runoff onto their own properties, and this Board has
jurisdiction over house construction within a hundred feet of
the wetlands. The building envelopes in the approved subdivision
have tended to move the houses out of the wetland area to
minimize those impacts and in most cases the Board of Trustees
will not see a house under our jurisdiction because the Planning
Board process, so that they have required that the wetlands are
mapped and they don't get yield, they don't get credit for the
land 'surface area for building from the wetland, so they are
removed from it. So even if this Board doesn't grant permits,
the applicants for house building and getting building permits,
they have to get a drainage review by the Town Engineering
Department. So that is sort of a self-healing, self-tending
issue with building construction at this time.
At this time it's really only pertinent discussions concerning
the dock.
MS. MILOWSKI: I know they are going to build because they
already started to clear the land back there which is already
taking away the trees and everything that would help block the
water from coming into my yard and the Roache's yard. They have
already taken down some trees like behind my fence.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If people do clear within our jurisdiction, the
hundred-foot line, you can contact the office or the bay
constable and we'll address it. Absolutely. And as far as the
houses, I know we are not talking about that now, but when they
do come in to build houses, we'll deal with that as they come
in. If they are within our jurisdiction. So that's something
we'll absolutely take into consideration when we get there. But
right now we are just on the dock.
MR. MILOWSKI: What kind of path are they going to have to the
dock? Are they going to take down more cattails and trees?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there is any clearing of the wetlands, lands
Board of Trustees 32 May 17, 2017
it's something that has to be reported, absolutely.
MR. MILOWSKI: But nobody reported it when they built their house
on the beach.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are getting a little off topic.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's up to people who see it to report it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are very willing to work with the public
hearings for a house that comes before us.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: We can't speak to that, unfortunately.
MR. MILOWSKI: That gentleman was talking about a right-of-way to
the dock. I don't know where the right-of-way would be. We live
on a right-of-way. I don't know where the right-of-way--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You are welcome to come in and look at the
plans. The file is available for inspection. You can come and
see the proposed plan.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would probably be a good way to handle it
so you can see all the documentation and what is going on.
MR. MILOWSKI: So where do we get this?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The town Trustee office.
MS. MILOWSKI: And where is that?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Near that Capital One Bank.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In the back of the bank, of the annex.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: 8:00 to 4:00.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: You just have to fill out a Freedom of
Information, and you'll be able to access the file.
MS. MILOWSKI: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You're welcome. Does anyone else wish to
speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no other comments, based on the requested items which
Attorney Goggins has duly taken notes, I would move we table
this application pending receipt of additional information.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this time I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
Michael J. Domino, President
Board of Trustees