HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-07/19/2017 Michael J.Domino,President ��®� S® �® Town Hall Annex
John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President �® �® 54375 Route 25
P.O.Box 1179
Charles J.Sanders ,s2,
`�-� `u Southold,New York 11971
Glenn Goldsmith Telephone(631) 765-1892
A.Nicholas Krupski �� a� Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RECEIVED
Minutes �1 `ecQ 3a
AUG
Wednesday, July 19, 2017 h
5:30 PM &tuthold Town dark
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, August 8, 20.17, at 8:00 AM, and
Wednesday, August 9, 2017, located on Fishers Island, New York.
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 5:30 PM
WORKSESSION: Monday, August 14, 2017, at 4:30 PM at Downs Farm and on
Wednesday, August 16, 2017, at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall.
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of June 21, 2017
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Good evening and welcome to our July 19th, 2017
monthly meeting. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order.
I would like to announce the people on the dais. To my left
is Trustee John Bredemeyer, who is also vice-president of the
Board; Trustee Charles Sanders, Trustee Glenn Goldsmith and
Trustee Nick Krupski. To my right we have Assistant Town
Attorney Damon Hagan and Senior Clerk Typist Elizabeth Cantrell.
Also tonight we have stenographer Wayne Galante. And with us
from the Conservation Advisory Council is Peter Meeker.
I would like to announce the agendas are located in the
hall and also on the podium.
I'll now announce the postponements. Postponements occur
because of a variety of reasons, typically people are not
prepared to move the application forward. We have postponements
Board of Trustees 2 July 19, 2017
on page five, number three and number four.
J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of ELIZABETH A.
E. JOHNSON requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit to remove an existing deck at bottom of bank; install
approximately 110' of rock revetment along eroded bank; remove
remains of crib dock and remains of damaged timber dock, and
construct a 4'x70' fixed dock; a 4'x20' ramp with rails; and an
8'x12'floating dock with 18" legs at each corner to prevent
float from resting on bottom at low tide; remove and replace
existing embankment stairs to beach; and to install and
perpetually maintain a 2'wide buffer strip planted with shrub
vegetation and coastal seed mix along the landward edge of the
top of the bank. Located: 1990 Peninsula Road, Fishers Island.
SCTM# 1000-10-3-11 has been postponed.
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 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 seven, number nine, Suffolk Environmental
Consulting on behalf of RICHARD J. MAY requests a Wetland Permit
to reconstruct the existing ±76.0' long timber jetty along the
southern shoreline by reducing the overall length to ±68.0' (to
extend to the ALW);jetty is not to exceed 2.5' above grade; the
use of vinyl sheathing; 6"x6" timber walers; and 8"-10"
diameter timber pilings staggered on either side. Located: 1340
Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. SCTM# 1000-92-1-5 has been
postponed.
On pages eight and nine we have ten, eleven, 12, 13 and 14'
are postponed. They are listed as follows:
Number ten, AMP Architecture on behalf of WILLIAM GRELLA&
GARY OSBORNE request a Wetland Permit for the as-built 232sq.ft.
Belgium block parking area; as-built 121sq.ft. Belgium block
walkway; as-built 517.3sq.ft. managed lawn areas; as-built
240sq.ft. gardens; as-built 160.5sq.ft. crushed shell areas;
as-built 22.3sq.ft. metal planter box; as-built 14.3sq.ft. metal
waterfall; as-built 15sq.ft. rear concrete stairs; as-built
713sq.ft. pavers on sand; as-built 95sq.ft. gravel on sand;
as-built 11 sq.ft. fire pit on sand; as-built 41 sq.ft. open
shower with Belgium block on sand base; as-built two (2)
7.2sq.ft. concrete table bases; as-built 16sq.ft. front concrete
stairs; and for the proposed installation of a 46.4sq.ft. set of
second-story wood stairs consisting of a 4'x4.3' upper platform
with 4'x7.4' stairs to seaward side patio area; proposed
installation of 27sq.ft. of pavers on sand. Located: 1200 First
Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-7-30.
Number eleven, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf
Board of Trustees 3 July 19, 2017
of 675 HILL ROAD, LLC, c/o GLENN HEIDTMANN requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a dock consisting of a 4'x6' entry ramp
secured by two (2)6"x6" posts; 4'x7' steps secured by four(4)
6"x6" posts; 4'x15' elevated catwalk supported by four(4) 6"x6"
posts; a 3'x15' hinged ramp; and a 6'x20'floating dock secured
by four(4) 8"x8" pilings. Located: 675 Hill Road, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-70-4-28.
Number 12, Shore Marine Construction on behalf of FREDERICK
BLANCHARD requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x350'fixed
catwalk using CCA treated timber super structure and Thru-Flow
decking over a 1,400sq.ft. area of the fixed catwalk; a 3'x20'
aluminum ramp; and a 6'x20'floating dock secured in a "T"
configuration with two (2) 8" diameter CCA timber piles.
Located: 5503 Main Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-7-5.6.
Number 13, 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.
And lastly, number 14, 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
Those have all been postponed.
Also, I'm going to announce that under Town Code 275-8(c),
the files were closed seven days ago. Submission of additional
paperwork at this time may result in a delay of the processing
of the application.
And at this time I'll entertain a motion to have the next
field inspection Tuesday, August 8th, 2017, at 8:00 AM at the
town annex. Motion?
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 Wednesday, August 16th, 2017, at 5:30 here at the
main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
Board of Trustees 4 July 19, 2017
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to hold the next work session
at Downs Farm, 4:30 on Monday, August 14, 2017, and at 5:00 PM
Wednesday, August 16, 2017, at the main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this time I'll entertain a motion to approve
the Minutes of June 21st, 2017.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for June 2017. A check for$5,115.20 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, July 19, 2017, are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
SEQRA: Include one, two and three. Roman numeral one, Roman numeral two, Roman
numeral three.
They are listed as follows:
Marijo Adimey& Veronica Lugris SCTM# 1000-135-1-5
Conch Out, LLC, c/o William Reed SCTM# 1000-10-3-12
Harbor Lights Property Owners Association, c/o Kenneth Peterson
SCTM# 1000-71-2-1.2 & 1.3
James Deerkoski SCTM# 1000-114-10-2
Barbara Kohn SCTM# 1000-111-14-12
Richard J. May SCTM# 1000-92-1-5
Nicholas & Barbara Pallante SCTM# 1000-111-14-30
William Grella & Gary Osborne SCTM# 1000-117-7-30
Do I have a second to that resolution?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 5 July 19, 2017
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Also under Roman numeral III,
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, July 19, 2017, are classified as
Unlisted Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations. A
Long Environmental Assessment Form and a field inspection have
been completed by the Trustees for the following applications
and it is hereby determined that they will not have a
significant effect on the environment:
Ellen Herman SCTM# 1000-59-5-8.1
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral IV. In order to simplify
the meeting, we group together items that are deemed minor in
nature. Accordingly, I make a motion to approve items one
through five as a group. They are listed as follows:
Number one, MORTON COGEN & MARTHA ANNE HOWARD request an
Administrative Permit to install approximately 40 feet of 6 foot
high fencing along the southerly property line. Located: 1395
Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-137-4-31
Number two, MURIEL PEABODY LOOMIS TRUST requests an
Administrative Permit to armor landward terminus of bulkhead
return with 6 yards of 5001b.-6001b. Boulders within the eroded
area; all work to be limited to the subject property. Located:
125 Cove Circle, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-49-1-18
Number three, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of
JULIE ANDERSON requests an Administrative Permit to install a
420sq.ft. paver terrace on a concrete slab on the seaward side
of the dwelling. Located: 4298 Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue.
SCTM# 1000-111-14-29
Number four, ELLEN & HENRY SANTACROCE request an
Administrative Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to
hand-cut Common Reed (Phragmites australis)to not less than 12"
in height by hand, as needed. Located: 7785 Horton Lane,
Southold. SCTM# 1000-54-5-49.3
Number five, NEW SUFFOLK WATERFRONT FUND requests an
Administrative Permit to install a 5'x6'x3' high open marina
stand; and install up to five (5)6'x2' cedar benches along the
landward side of bulkhead. Located: 650 First Street, New
Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-117-8-18
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE.
'AMENDMENTS:
Board offrustees 6 July 19, 2017
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral V, again, in order to
simplify the meeting I'll make a motion to approve as a group
items one through nine. They are listed as follows:
Number one, CHERYL L. HANSEN REVOCABLE TRUST requests the
Last One-Year Extension'to Wetland Permit#8489, as issued on
August 20, 2014. Located: 405 Williamsberg Road, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-78-5-17
Number two, BYRNES FAMILY TRUST requests a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#3985 from John Crossley to Byrnes Family Trust,
as,issued on February 28, 1992. Located: 912 Great Peconic Bay
Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-145-2-9
Number three, LESTER & ETHNA LAY request a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#4760 from Walter Smith to Lester& Ethna Lay, as
issued on June 25, 1997. Located: 370 Williamsberg Road,
Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-5-9
Number four, LESTER & ETHNA LAY request a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#438 from Walter Smith to Lester& Ethna Lay, as
issued on June 11, 1987. Located: 370 Williamsberg Road,
Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-5-9
Number five, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting Services on
behalf of FRANK& PAULA DOKA request a Transfer of Wetland
Permit#9039 from Carolyn Ameen to Frank& Paula Doka, as issued
on June 21, 2017. Located: 755 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck.
SCTM# 1000-115-11-4.1 '
Number six, WILLIAM;&JEANETTE AYERS request a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#8865 from Harold Reese, Jr. To William &
Jeanette Ayers, as issued on August 17, 2016. Located: 122
Hickory Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-7-51
Number seven, Michael Kimack on behalf of PAUL GROBEN
requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8277 to
install a 6'x20'floating dock secured by four(4) 8" diameter
piles set in an "I" configuration in lieu of a 4'x16'floating
dock. Located: 3705 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-13
Number eight, JOHN PITMAN requests an Administrative
Amendment to Wetland Permit#7771 to construct a 6'wide by
134" long deck extension,onto existing first story deck located
on seaward side of dwelling. Located: 1100 Ruch Lane, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-52-2-34
Number nine, Douglas McGahan on behalf of ROBERT & PATRICIA
ELLIOTT requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#9023 to install a 17sq.ft. Cantilevered bay window onto the
north side of the proposed addition. Located: 275 West Road,
Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-110-7-11.1
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Moving on to Roman numeral VI, Moorings/Stake &
Pulley Systems.
VI. MOORINGS/STAKE & PULLEY SYSTEMS:
i
Board of Trustees 7 July 19, 2017
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number one JASON PICKERELL requests a Mooring Permit
in Goose Creek for a T sailboat, replacing Mooring #67A. Access: Public.
Trustee Sanders performed a field inspection on July 17th. We discussed this
application during our meetings and we noted that we did not see the need for a mooring
for a small boat such as this that can be easily launched at a beach or launched from the
top of a car. In the pictures that were provided show a boat, a sailboat with no sail. So
make a motion to deny this application without prejudice.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next item, MARINA DECONCILIIS requests
a Stake and Pulley System Permit in Richmond Creek for a 16'
canoe, replacing Stake#6. Access: Public.
The Board performed an inspection of the proposed location
for a mooring and it's in question that access cannot be made
from public property. The applicant also, contrary to the
request to use a stake, the applicant is asking to chain it to a
fence. There is no fence there, but fences are all on private property.
Also the Board has discussed at length that changes in our
mooring policy and that small vessels such as canoes or very
small sailboats that can otherwise be put on a car top, or
kayaks, are not appropriate for permanent mooring positions
since they are typically used on day-use, and they are
problematic because they'll fill up with water and potentially
create mosquito breeding and problems associated with standing water.
In any case, the Board on field inspection and subsequent
discussion at work session is not disposed to grant permanent
mooring facilities for canoes and kayaks. I would move to deny
this application without prejudice.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Roman numeral VII. At this time, I'll make a
motion to go off our regular meeting agenda and enter into the
public hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is a public hearing in the matter of the
following application, for permits under the Wetlands Ordinance
of the Town of Southold. I have an affidavit of publication
from the Suffolk Times.
I would ask that those who speak state clearly for the
record your name and keep your comments brief and pertinent to
the application at hand.
Board of Trustees 8 July 19, 2017
Number one, under Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permits, MARIJO
ADIMEY&VERONICA LUGRIS request a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to install and re-grade approximately 6 cubic
yards of clean fill to eroded area of bluff; add jute matting
and re-vegetate eroded area using native sea grass; install
three (3) drywells to contain roof run-off on the property.
Located: 21515 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-135-1-5
The LWRP coordinator has found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this
application with the condition that gutters, leaders and
drywells are installed to contain storm water runoff.
did a field inspection on this site in the latter part of
June and found that erosion had been caused by a storm because
there was not at that time gutters and leaders and drywells, and
that completed construction and putting in said leaders and
drywells would alleviate the problem.
So is there anyone here to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I make a motion to approve this application as submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number two, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on
behalf of CONCH OUT, LLC, c/o WILLIAM REED requests a Wetland
Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to stabilize a partially
eroded and undermined embankment/rock slope by installing
approximately 76' of armor layer riprap revetment by installing
a continuous line of silt fencing that shall be maintained
throughout construction; removing and storing existing stone and
rock; removing existing embankment stairway; excavating to a
depth of 3' to 4% installing filter fabric and provide a layer
of 3" diameter crushed stone filter layer; installing armor
layer riprap revetment utilizing minimum 4' diameter rock at
toe; install armor layer riprap revetment utilizing minimum 2'
diameter rocks; fill voids as necessary; proposed revetment will
tie into adjacent neighbor to the north; relocate and re-install
embankment stairway; and install a 2'wide buffer zone with loam
and plant with woody shrub and coastal seed mix. Located: Right
of Way off Peninsula Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-10-3-12
The LWRP has found this to be consistent, and the
Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection
therefore no recommendation was made.
And on 6/22/17, at 11:45 in the morning, Jay Bredemeyer and
Glenn Goldsmith inspected this. Their notes are as follows: If
Board of Trustees 9 July 19, 2017
dock added, must apply a stake for August inspection; dock looks
okay; revetment is standard construction as needed.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of
this applicant?
MR. JUST: Good evening. Glenn Just, JMO Environmental
Consulting, for the applicant. If there are any questions from
the Board or the public.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any questions of the Board?
Glenn and I looked at it. It looked like standard
construction.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Would anybody else like to speak on behalf of this?
(Negative response).
make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve this application.
It is deemed consistent under the LWRP.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application of 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
The intention is to improve these areas with fill and
reseeding because they are regularly inundated by tidal waters
where it's drawing siltation and silt into the ponds there that
are located onsite.
The LWRP has found this to be consistent under the Town's
coastal management plan.
Board of Trustees 10 July 19, 2017
The Conservation Advisory Council was unable to make the
trip to Fishers Island, therefore there is no recommendation.
Trustee Goldsmith and myself visited the site. The
application as proposed appears to deal with a conservation
measure, actually to protect the waters from siltation from
regular inundation, and appeared fairly straightforward.
The close proximity to what are essentially pristine tidal
ponds, we felt based on our inspection that an inspection or
certification of a silt fence either by a member of the Town or
one of the Town agencies, or a licensed engineer, would be
appropriate.
Is there anyone here wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. JUST: Once again, Glenn Just, JMO. Dick Strauss who owns or
is the PE for Sam Mays and people better planned, I spoke to him
after he visited the site and he would be more than willing to
come up with some sample drawings how to install the hay bales
and silt fencing ahead of time, and he'll inspect on whatever
basis the Trustees want prior, during and after the job is
completed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a licensed engineer we'll take his letter
in lieu of the ability to get a Board member there, unless of
course we have a building department representative or
representative of the Trustees, it would be a matter of
efficiency because it's a matter of getting a person over to the island.
,Any questions?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Seeing and hearing no one wishing to speak, 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: I'll move to approve this application as
submitted with the provision that an inspection of a properly
constructed silt fence be made for the project prior to
construction that is either inspected by a representative of the
Town or in lieu of Town inspection, submission of communication
from a licensed engineer that meets standard silt fence construction.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. JUST: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number two, Costello Marine Contracting Corp.
on behalf of BRUCE GOLDSMITH request a Wetland Permit to remove
75' of existing bulkhead and 32' long westerly return; construct
75' of new bulkhead and 32' long westerly return in-place, using
vinyl sheathing; and to perpetually maintain the 10' wide
non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead.
Board of Trustees 11 July 19, 2017
Located: 2550 Hobart Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-3-8
(Trustee Goldsmith leaves the dais and exits this meeting room).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: For the record, I would note that Trustee
Goldsmith recused himself and is out of the room.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So noted.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be exempt.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees visited this project multiple times, most
recently on July 11th, we performed a brief inhouse inspection,
noting that it is a straightforward application.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Are there any comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a straightforward bulkhead
reconstruction.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(All ayes).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I'll make a motion to approve this
application as submitted.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, L. K. McLean
Associates, P.C. on behalf of 100 PARK AVENUE CORP., c/o PAUL
PAWLOWSKI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a proposed
4'x121.7'timber dock with a finished elevation of 4.50;
construct a 4'x30'fixed lower platform parallel to the seaward
end of dock using four(4) 10" diameter piles with a finished
elevation of 2.50; and for two (2) additional 10"diameter
mooring tie-off piles installed 12' off the lower platform; and
non-treated wood will be used in the construction of the dock.
Located: 100 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-7-3
Before I get into the hearing itself, I see Mr. Pawlowski,
you have come to the lectern. Is L.K. McLean Associates still
representing you as far as the engineering side? Because we did
have a letter in the file from Charles Cuddy, an attorney.
MR. PAWLOWSKI: Both are.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Both are. Okay. Just for clarification sake,
because we had met on an initial pre-submission inspection to
discuss aspects of your proposal with Chris Dwyer of L.K. McLean.
MR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes, they are more on the design than engineering.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's fine. Thank you.
This application has been deemed to be inconsistent by the
Town's LWRP coordinator. There is an 18-page report in the file
that I'm just indicating the length of it by reference.
The Chairman Mike Domino will be referring to a capsule
Board of Trustees 12 July 19, 2017
summary of that in the future. Later on in the hearing process, if you will.
The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support the
project with a recommendation, and I'm going to try to get to
that momentarily. The Conservation Advisory Council proposed to
support with concerns. I'm trying to find the paperwork. Bear
with me a moment. The file is fairly lengthy.
The Conservation Advisory Council supported the
application, however the height of the dock and provisions for
lateral access were not depicted on plans. East/west lateral
access should be indicated near point"A" on the plans. They
were concerned about lateral access up and over to preserve
riparian rights.
The Trustees, in our own review of Town waterfront
policies, I also did a review of the proposal and there is a
two-plus page summary of concerns that the Board itself had with
respect to LWRP proposals. I may get into that later.
We have in the file a letter, letters in the file from Mr.
Pawlowski on June 14th. There is a letter of 6/23 from attorney
Charles Cuddy representing Mr. Pawlowski, specifically invoking
permit terms of the Trustees for a permit granted on 10/19 of
2016 to a Dan and Gina DeVito as a means of comparison.
There is an engineering report dated July 13th from Race
Engineering on behalf of the applicant, on behalf of Mr.
Pawlowski.
On 7/13, Mr. Pawlowski also submitted a letter undated
which was added to the Trustee file.
There are two letters in opposition to the proposal in the
file; one of Dave and Anne Corieri and a Robert and Elizabeth
Sheehan, in the file.
At this time I would like to open up the matter for public
comment.
MR. PAWLOWSKI: Paul Pawlowski, owner, 100 Park Avenue,just here
to answer any questions you may have. Obviously, you have gotten
my letter, so I belabored my points, and we had a few site
meetings. So mainly to answer any questions you may have
currently and whatever else I could do to help.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time I'll just go through briefly an
independent report the Trustees did looking at the coastal
policies of the Town. Although the LWRP coordinator gives us an
over-arching and very comprehensive review of town policies, the
Trustees also in their capacity, we want to look at the Town's
policies, because not having an application, a new dock proposed
in this area, so I'm just going to go through some of the
concerns that we did have in our independent review. And as
said before, Trustee Domino will also review a summary of the
LWRP coordinator's report.
The Trustees are concerned that the site does not make
beneficial use of the coastal site insofar as potential hazard
associated with the site including most beneficial uses
attributed to docks. This relates to things like wave fetch,
concerns about wave energy for that area.
Board of Trustees 13 July 19, 2017
The site may add, that's under policy one. One of the
Town's coastal policies. The site may also adversely effect
coastal development by establishing docks in an area potentially
unsafe for most ordinary dock uses.
Under policy two, the proposed dock is in an area of few
docks that are infrequently used and no new Chapter 275 wetland
permits have been issued since Tropical Storm Sandy.
The proposed siting has 180 degrees of uninterrupted wind
fetch exposure of six miles and up to seven miles along the
coastline depending on the prevailing southwesterly wind, which
is the southwesterly wind direction, which is the prevailing
winds in the usual boating season.
Policy number four is concerns that wind-driven wave
action, tidal action and flooding during modest breeze and storm
conditions may make vessel operations hazardous to life or limb
on approaches to the dock, particularly if there is insufficient water.
The facility-- it doesn't appear the facility, at least on
at this proposal, this particular application, can be designed
to scale it with standard dock construction to reduce some of
these potential hazards. There is certainly concern about
potential, severe damage from wind and ice for Great Peconic Bay
siting, and there are concerns for potential leakage of fuel or
sewage due to simply the wave action because of abrupt wave
crest there.
A further concern is that-- and it will be discussed by
the LWRP coordinator--this project, unlike the particular dock
that was cited by attorney Charles Cuddy and the Danny DeVito
application, is located basically with protection from a fairly
high headland and it's nested and protected from prevailing
southwesterly winds in the summertime.
The applicant's proposal receives the full fetch of not
only the southwesterly prevailing summer winds but also is in a
VE zone, which is a high velocity zone. So you can see by the
map here that unlike the example given as for comparison to the
proposed suitability of the dock, the Board has real concerns
that the proposed dock is in a VE zone.
It has been noted by the LWRP coordinator that the body in
front of the entirety of this property and adjoining properties
going some distance east and west and almost to Jamesport, is
essentially a large sandbar, but it doesn't have any of the
attributes of a small sandbar that wraps or protects a body. In
other words it's a large sandbar that is entirely shallow in its
dimension, so it's pliable and it's moveable and can be effected
by the high winds and fetch across Peconic Bay. Unlike the site
which has been discussed in the Cuddy letter, the DeVito
application, the DeVito application, which is not in a VE zone
has the protections of Paradise Point sandbar and the sandbar
that is known to exist in the shoals that exist at Cedar Beach Point.
The concerns also are that water depths in the application
that need to be absolutely calibrated to tidal state and with
respect to fetch because the Board's own field inspection on
Board of Trustees 14 July 19, 2017
June 13th, it was noted that with a fairly light wind, and most
of us felt it was probably in a range of seven to 12 knots, that
there were white caps and the large fetch was already producing
large waves entering upon the property. Wave heights would be
amplified because of the sandbar, and the Board is certainly
concerned that a mariner in a vessel that would be trying to
come home on low tide with high wind conditions would then be
possibly grounded or would be repeatedly scouring the bottom and
disturbing the environment, the benthic environment of the bottom.
That's all I have at this point with respect to the
observations of the Trustees. Do the members have anything to
add at this point?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Not at this point.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In the letter sent to us from Attorney Charles
Cuddy, he makes mention of the dock slightly to the west.
However this is the only dock in the area and this dock was
built without a permit and prior Trustee jurisdiction. The same
dock was actually allowed to be repaired, but at that point it
was existing. And it should be noted that this dock is also over
privately-owned underwater lands.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And as Trustee Bredemeyer mentioned, during
our June 13th field inspection, with the southwest wind which
was not very heavy that day, there was pretty big waves there,
there was white caps and a lot of wave energy in that area of
the bay. I just wanted to note that.
MR. PAWLOWSKI: With those white caps, that site meeting that you
met me at, remember? The moment you left, I left and went to
Paradise Point and videotaped, and the exact same scenario that
was happening at my dock was happening at Paradise Point.
However their wave action was stronger because they have way
more boat traffic than mine would ever see, because of going to
Shelter Island and Greenpoint. But I literally have, it's 15
minutes from when you left, I drove right out there and
videotaped, and it's pretty much the same exact fetch you were
talking about. And that dock was approved. And that dock, so
it didn't get a permit pre-Trustee jurisdiction, they throw it
in, and then it's okay to rebuild it if it's already, you know?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ordinarily we are not doing a lot of
conversation back and forth, but as a point of institutional
knowledge, I was on the Board at that time and the dock was
deemed to be functional at that time and under the rules at that
time, the Board was allowing minor repairs to structures to
continue their functionality.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The Board of Trustees has to bring each
application into compliance to the LWRP. The LWRP coordinator
sent this 18-page memorandum to our office, specifically
addressed to me. I'm not going to read the entire 18 pages, but
a brief summary of nine points, I'll enter them into the record.
Because as I stated before, we have to bring an application into
compliance.
Number one. The proposed dock structure and vessel will
Board of Trustees 15 July 19, 2017
extend 124.5 feet into the waterbody, interrupting scenic
viewsheds important to private property owners and to the people
of Southold Town.
Number two. Waves driven by the wind are determined by
fetch, wind characteristics, decay distance and water depth.
With the wave breaking beginning when the wave height is roughly
80% of the water depth. The uninterrupted six-mile fetch and the
approximately three to three-and-a-half foot depth will result
in wind and wave impact during storm events, creating hazardous
conditions, threatening life and property.
Number three. Partial shoreline is located in a coastal
hazard area VE zone, defined as areas with special flood
hazards.
Number four, the area where the dock is proposed is a
designated New York State Department of State Significant
Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat North Fork Beach Complex, and
environmental impacts that generally result from dock structures
there include: One, physical loss of habitat; two, degradation
of the ecological complexes; and three, functional loss of
habitat from destructive activities.
Number five, impacts from construction. Sea grass once
prominent in Peconic Bay will not reestablish. 5b, damage to
ecosystems from vessels, for example, turbulence or prop wash.
5c, high turbidity levels attenuate some like the sediments that
eventually settle out and smother existing shellfish and larvae.
Six, the public trust doctrine holds that the public has
certain rights of access along the shore, including fishing,
shellfishing and navigation, and must be balanced with the
riparian rights of landowners. The applicant retains no
ownership rights to public waters or bottom lands where the dock
is proposed.
Seven, the reference to Star dock to the west received a
permit in 1997, prior to current Chapter 275 regulations, and
prior to the adoption of LWRP in 2004.
Number eight, the distance between high and low water as
shown on the applicant's plans is one foot. The depth of this
water shown at the dock terminus is 3.86 to 3.88 feet. Mobile
Graphics shows the tidal fluctuation greater than three feet
using randomly selected May 12, 2017, as the date.
And last, number nine, the proposed action does not meet
the purpose of Chapter 268, Waterfront Consistency Review Item
C. That is reservation, enhancement and utilization of the
unique coastal area of the Town take place in a coordinated,
comprehensive manner to ensure a proper balance between
protection of natural resources and the need to accommodate
limited population growth and economic development.
That as stated is a brief summary of the 18-page LWRP
memorandum.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to address
the Board with respect to this application?
MR. CUDDY: Hi, I'm Charles Cuddy, I have an office at 445
Board of Trustees 16 July 19, 2017
Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, New York.
I'm the letter that was referenced. I was wondering, the
LWRP, who authored that, can you tell us?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That is authored by Mark Terry who is the
Local Waterfront Revitalization coordinator for the Town.
MR. CUDDY: Can you give me some of his credentials and
qualifications?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: He is the Town's principal planner. I don't
have a list of his qualifications here. I'm sure we can provide
a copy of his qualifications.
MR. CUDDY: Because we don't have a copy of that report, we would
like to get a copy of that to respond to it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Certainly.
MR. CUDDY: And also his qualifications to do it.
I'm interested that you talk about your policy but I didn't
hear anybody talk about the code. And if you look at the code,
which is what I think you have to follow, you look at 275-11, 1
think this application meets the requirements of 275-11. It's
going to be constructed within the circulation of water; it's
not going to interfere with neighbors' access to the water.
These are items that you I'm sure you are looking at. And it
doesn't prevent the public from passing either way. It doesn't
imperil navigation. It doesn't stop swimming. It doesn't impair
the use of other waterfront property.
When you get down to the standards that you have to adopt,
look at 275-12. 1 think all of those standards are met by this
application. I think, objectively, not subjectively, but
objectively, this application is like the DeVito application.
And I don't see there is a great difference. I understand you
talk about height wave energy, I don't know where that term
comes from. I don't know how that effects anybody, and I'm not
sure if it is measurable. You seem to think it is. I doubt that
it is. I think on an objective basis, when you go to 275-11,
then to 275-12, this application complies with those, and I ask
you to approve it. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to this
application?
MR. CORIERI: Dave Corieri, 412 Park Avenue; my wife Ann. We've
lived there for 18 years. If you could pass these down, Mr. Krupski.
In that packet you'll have on old engineering report that I
had done about the shoreline on the south side of Southold, on
the Great Peconic Bay. So it's a cover letter, there is an
engineering report about sand deprivation that occurs along that
coastline, and the reasons why. And the last picture is a
picture of the beach.
I just want to go over the cover letter real quick, and I
won't take more than five minutes of your time.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If we can hold on one second. (Perusing).
Sorry, please go ahead.
MR. CORIERI: We are not supporting the permit and strongly
object to the new construction of the 122' dock jutting into the
Board of Trustees 17 July 19, 2017,
Great Peconic Bay, and our objection is also shared and
supported by the community and our neighbors. I think you have
another letter there from Robert Sheehan, who is my neighbor.
I did go down to the Town a couple of weeks before when the
first hearing was cancelled, and I went to get the file and it
was not there. So I wrote a quick letter, and that's probably
the handwritten letter from me is probably what you have in the
file.
So, number two, the 122' dock will block walking access
down the beach, on land and bay. A lot of people on that line
walk down that beach and that will, on the last page that you'll
see, is a picture of the beach. And I have a colored picture
you can pass down. And you can see the high tide mark where it
hits the beach. This is from our property, looking all the way
down to Strong's Marina right here. If you would pass that down.
And you can see there is no, they are all low-profile jetties.
Actually the last jetty was broken down and is low profile. So
we do have access down the beach. And the building of a dock
would have to go all the way up on the beach and obstruct
anybody walking down the beach, including walking in the bay.
Because that bay at low tide is probably about three to
three-and-a-half feet, 200 to 250 yards out. I mean, it stays
real low and you can walk down that beach.
,Navigation. Navigation is heavy there. Strong's Marina is
right, 200 yards down. So I have to oppose the gentleman's
comment that it doesn't impede navigation. We sit out on the
Adirondack chairs and we watch the boats all come back at night
and pull into Strong's Marina. And they come down the coast.
There is no dock except the Norris dock that was referred to
which was grandfathered in and is very short. And there is
never a boat there.
How many boats can dock in a 122' dock? I mean, sounds like
you can get a couple 48-footers and you could put a lot there.
You know, it's just a lot of boat traffic and there a lot of
skiers and wake boarders that travel that coast in addition to that.
Most docks are combined inlets. The wave action on the
widest portion of the Great Peconic would devastate dock
structures from nor'easters and hurricanes can cause significant
property damage to bulkheads along the coastline, not to mention
the contamination from the lubricants and the oil and everything
else that may be in a vessel docked.
I went through Irene and Sandy. We are 22 feet above sea
level. Irene and Sandy came up about 15 feet, skulled out all of
our bulkhead, skulled out the cliff, and I was left with debris.
And every time that happens it cost 15 to $20,000 to repair.
Thank God, I kept the bulkhead.
Last but not least, if this application was approved, would
that open the floodgates?Would one dock be built and now
everybody is going to build a dock? Because you can't
potentially discriminate. And so it would be an opening of the
floodgates.
Board of Trustees 18 July 19, 2017
So in summary, I think that you have contaminants, boating
impacts, navigation impacts, certainly esthetic impacts. I mean,
we have been living there for 18 years. I got to tell you, it
beats living in Buffalo.
Access down the beach both land and bay, and what's the
future development? How is that connected to the airport? Are
we going to have boats come in, go to a plane? Are we going to
have sea planes come in? I mean, now we have to tie into a
commercial operation, which can you control the future? I don't
know if you can control the future.
Tidal action and storms, those waves in the afternoon crush
the bulkhead. I mean you cannot put a boat out on that dock on
an afternoon with that southwest wind. On occasion you can when
the wind comes from the north, it's flat. But that's the widest
part of the Great Peconic. So when you start from Southampton
and come all the way down, by the time those waves build up, now
comes up to three feet, now they are crashing. And it's
devastating.
So anyway, I respectfully request that you turn down this
permit. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Before we have additional comment I would
like to say we have the request of Charles Cuddy, the attorney
for the applicant, to review the LWRP and the report that you
just gave us, which is fairly lengthy in addition to your
summary. So I don't know if Mr. Pawlowski would also want to
allow time for additional study by the Board. We'll certainly
take additional comment, but it would seem appropriate so that
your attorney has a chance to review the LWRP and other
paperwork we have in the file, as well as the Board then review
additional materials coming in. So I just want to offer that.
MR. PAWLOWSKI: Absolutely. I just want to try and answer some
of those questions.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We don't normally go cross-talk, but if you
want to address to the Board, that's fine.
MR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes. I would just like to address a few things,
based on the LWRP and some -- as far as bay walking, there is a
current, there is groins all along my property and neighboring
properties. This dock would only extend 20' past the existing
groin. The existing groin is not low. It's over four feet out of
the ground at some parts. So roughly it would be taking up 20
feet out of six miles across.
On the sandy side or beach side it's three feet to the
south so --to the north -- so I would be effecting no walking
capabilities whatsoever, especially if I put in a staircase that
is going east and west. So there is no effect on walking.
Lubricants. It's a well-maintained boat. That same boat is in
Strong's Marina so there is no more adverse effect to the
lubricants with the boat.
The Irene and bulkhead conversation, that's the number one
thing that I'm respecting or understanding, and I have to
respect. That seems like the biggest concern by the Board is
Board of Trustees 19 July 19, 2017
high energy and fetch. So this dock would potentially stand
further than bulkheads. We are talking about a 1% storm. This
dock could be built to withstand a 1% storm more than any
bulkhead that is a direct hit. Water passes through, ice could
pass through. So we are talking about a storm that's going to do
a lot more damage than my dock compared to everyone's bulkhead
along the beach.
Mooring, navigation. I have a mooring out there. Its very
easy to hook up in any weather, almost. It's a very expensive
boat. If a storm is coming I would obviously take'it into a
marina, if that was the case.
Navigation. There is the Peconic Yacht Club there with
five to 20-year old kids learning to boat for the first time,
going up and down the shoreline every single day. This proposed
dock would not affect them once ever. Strong's Marina traffic, I
have never-- I've lived in Lupton's Point, I've lived here for
a few years, you know, a year, but I've lived on the north fork
for over 30 years. No one cuts that close to the shore within
20 feet of the groin, ever, because there are groins there.
So there is no adverse effect to boat traffic any more than
the one that we keep referencing off Paradise Point.
There is absolutely, this is a private property, has no
sort of connection commercially to the airport. That is my
partner on another project. But my partner owns the airport
outright. I have no partnership with that at all. And this is
only to enjoy the waterfront as much as I possibly can. It has
nothing to do with the commercial business, and as you can see
what we have done with the airport there, we've actually
downgraded, we got rid of the commercial application and left a
few pilots there to enjoy that airport.
And I bring this up because it goes into the whole thought
process of this dock. The number one thing I really want, that
LWRP, I think you could, every single point in there except for
V-1 and high energy effects could have been said about the dock
that was approved. Every single point in there could have been
said about the dock that was approved. But some points could
have been more said about that dock than mine. Meaning, you
know, public access is much closer to that dock. There is a lot
of points in that LWRP that I guarantee you could be said about
that dock, if not more.
So I think the number one thing that I do understand is
this high energy concern. But with engineering this could be
mitigated. And as a residential application, and I said it in
my letters, that's the only thing that stands out different than
that dock by a mile of potential fetch. So I could mitigate
that, or my engineers could mitigate that by building a much
stronger dock.
And floodgates, I understand that is always a Town Trustee
concern. You know, the less you could do in the water. The
better, and I think that's why you are all here on this Board.
However the floodgates were opened when that dock was approved.
Board of Trustees 20 July 19, 2017
That dock-- I have the mentality if I get this approved, great.
If I don't, oh, well. But once that was approved, and the basic
resident with no engineering, that is a dock into the bay. This
is a dock into the bay. And the biggest factor that is out
there is high energy. We could build this dock perfect to
mitigate that problem,just like the oil rigs in wherever.
mean, this is not that much high energy where we could stop it.
And safety, like I said, my six-year old is in that yacht club
and she cruises up and down that beach in the worst wind all
year long. Thank you, for your time.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, Mr. Pawlowski. If anyone else
wants to speak briefly, but again Mr. Pawlowski we would like to
know if you want us to table the matter so you would have an
opportunity to review files and your attorney as well.
MR. PAWLOWSKI: Please table the matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We'll allow everyone an opportunity to speak at
this time and we'll continue to take additional comment and
table at your request.
MR. PAWLOWSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else wish to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Any additional comments?Trustees?
(Negative response).
At this time I'll make a motion to table this application for
one month to allow the applicant and his attorney an opportunity
to review the LWRP report. I'm sure the attorney for the
applicant wants to know the credentials of the LWRP coordinator.
I'm sure that information is public record of the Town, and
we'll also, the Board will have the opportunity to review the
report of Mr. David and Ann Corieri. Motion to table.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number four, HARBOR LIGHTS PROPERTY OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, c/o KENNETH PETERSON requests a Wetland Permit to
replace 388 linear feet of existing bulkhead in-place with new
using vinyl sheathing; and to raise the height of the new
bulkhead an additional 12" above existing top grade. Located:
715 Harbor Lights Drive, Southold & 595 Schooner Drive,
Southold. SCTM# 1000-71-2-1.2 & 1.3
The LWRP found this to be exempt. The only note, turbidity
controls are required.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on July 11th.
One question we had is how will the equipment access this
project. And if there was to be any maintenance dredging.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
Board of Trustees 21 July 19, 2017
application?
MS. EWING: Susan Ewing, 1795 North Parish Drive. We are the
westerly neighbors of the Harbor Lights Association. In 1984
the Harbor Lights Association requested a permit, I think they
requested a permit to extend the bulkhead on their side of the
canal, at least 60 feet, and leave ours the same. At that time
have a seal indicating that there would be no adverse effect to
the wetlands, no damage from erosion, natural habitat, et
cetera. Since that time -- my family did express concern back in
the early 80s about that project. Since that time, we have had
significant erosion. I don't know whether it's because of that,
but given that another permit is being requested, I'm wondering
if we can determine whether the westerly bulkhead should be
extended to the same length.
I would like to know--we have a beautiful meadow and
tidal pond. Most of the property is wetland. There is sometimes
when the pond has absolutely no shape because the meadow is
flooded. Some days I looked and I think that the bay could
potentially meet the pond and then that wetland is completely
gone. Again, I don't know if it's because of the misshapen
bulkhead but I would like that explored to indicate that maybe
with this current permit, maybe the bulkhead on our side should
be extended as well.
And then my second question, the attachment that I received
does not indicate that the bulkhead on our side will be
refurbished, and there are significant holes and whatnot and
exposed steel rods. So I'm assuming it will be refurbished but
I just didn't see that on my report.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding that application?
MR. PETERSON: I'm Ken Peterson. What Susan is referring to is
before my time. And I believe you are correct, it was 1984. The
bulkhead on the east side was extended out and I think-- I have
been there quite a long time also --there is a lateral drift
-that comes east to west, and the bulkhead, some of the drift has
built up against the bulkhead, but I don't believe putting the
west side out further is going to help the erosion on your side
of the beach at all. I think it will just make it worse.
On the other side of our association there is the property
owner who has bulkheading that goes out into the bay. And
everything washes out behind his bulkheading also. Because it's
just a natural drift. And part of the reason for the dredging
and everything that goes on every six to eight years is the
lateral drift that fills in the entrance to the canal. So you
can see that the sand does build up against that eastern side of
the bulkhead. And it has helped keep sand out of the canal.
We are proposing and we have deposited some sand on the
west side, which is the section that is only behind Harbor
Lights. We always kind of have a situation where do we put the
materials when we do dredge. And right now we are bringing it
Board of Trustees 22 July 19, 2017
all the way down in front of the association, all the way down
there on the right-hand side where you can see the bulkhead is,
they are going out and there is a washing out that is going on
there. So we try to protect the pond by putting the spoils
materials down there, which helps that beach part that does tend
to erode.
The project that we are doing now is to replace in 50-year
old bulkhead. It's about ready to, you know, it's deteriorating.
It's age is to the point where it's deteriorating very badly.
And the part that was put in in 1994 also on the east side was a
CCA-treated bulkhead, but it has been broken up and beaten by
wave action. So I don't know who from the Trustees went down
there, but the replacement of the bulkhead is quite needed. The
access to the project will be through the association property
and then moving west down the beach, which has been always the
access from any dredging that has gone on there on the canal.
' The only thing I could say, yes, we will deposit, we are
going to deposit material on the west side of the beach, which
will tend to wash down in front of your property. If you wanted
us to in the future or this time, we could deposit more sand.
Because there is a natural lateral east/west drift along that
coast. It's just you are not going to stop it. It just happens.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you, very much. We do have the Minutes
from the 1984 meeting and one of us happened to be on the Board
at that time. I won't mention any names, but somebody was
present for that meeting as well.
Is there anyone else wish to speak regarding this
application?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Quick question. On the questions concerning
the status and holes on the west side bulkhead, have you done a
review of that as well?
MR. PETERSON: The west side will be completely replaced. The
only part that is not being replaced is the inside part that was
there prior to '94, which is in pretty decent shape. Everything
else is being replaced. And that part that is washing out on
your side is definitely being replaced. It was patched through
in the last dredging, that's why when we finished that we
applied for the DEC permit right away to prepare that for the
next time. And we have their reviews.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
MS. EWING: I would like to, if I may ask, we are happy to
receive the spoils. We have before. And as long as it's not a
stock piling of spoils, we would obviously, it would have to be
environmentally friendly where it was spread. And I guess I'm
just requesting that someone who has more knowledge than me find
out is that lopsided bulkhead hurting our property and the
environment.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is your property?
MS. EWING: Yes. And you can see the bulkhead is different
lengths. It's shorter on our side. I'm certainly not an expert.
Board of Trustees 23 July 19, 2017
1 would like an expert to look at it.
MR. CAMPBELL: I'm Matt Campbell, I'm the President of Harbor
Lights Association. Obviously I think the bulkhead on the east
side is obviously longer because as he said where we get hit on
this is nor'easters that come in, and that's what pushes the
sand out that way, so obviously that's why that bulkhead is
longer than the west side to capture the sand so it doesn't
completely fill the inlet.
MR. PETERSON: That's also part of the reason it's elevated 12
inches because of natural buildup of flow.
MR. CAMPBELL: With Hurricane Sandy it flowed right over and all
the sand went right into the inlet.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Anyone else here wish to speak to
this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comment from the Board?
MR. CAMPBELL: We would be happy to put more sand on the other
side. The only question is I don't know how they would dump it
so far. They can't spread it.
MS. EWING: What they did last time is they actually--
TRUSTEE DOMINO: No cross conversation, please. Just address the
Board.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So just in reference to a comment that was made
earlier, any flooding you would get in the tidal wetland, it
would not be effected by the bulkhead length --
MR. CAMPBELL: I think that's correct.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: (Continuing) in terms of any super high tides
or anything like that, or higher than normal sea levels.
MR. CAMPBELL: I live on the beach there, I been there for 15
years. I've seen all the storms. It fills in, fills up and goes out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. The length of the bulkhead wouldn't
effect the tide there.
MS. EWING: But it doesn't create a flushing motion?
Our beach was quite --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can't--you have to approach.
MS. EWING: I can remember our beach was quite large and the
Harbor Lights beach was not that size at all. So that's why it
seems to us that it is this flushing motion. It's just very,
very different. We have photographs and, you know, we used to
have plenty of room to even sit on the beach. Now we can't, at
high tide, you would have to walk through the grass to go down
the beach. So it's significantly different than what it was.
MR. EWING: I'm Sue's husband. I have a picture on my phone from
back when this was an aerial photograph when they first put this
in that shows the beach and, you know, how much wetland and
things were present back then. I don't know if that's worth
showing you guys or not.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can we get a letter of access to that side so
we can cross the property to access that side?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: If I'm correct, you are the property owner to
the west?
Board of Trustees 24 July 19, 2017
MS. EWING: Yes.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Can we get a letter from you granting us
permission to access your property?
MS. EWING: Absolutely.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So in light of the recent developments, I
make to motion to table this.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number five, Joan Chambers on behalf of JAMES
DEERKOSKI requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built 2,762sq.ft.
Single-family, two-story dwelling constructed further landward
than original location with as-built attached 321sq.ft. covered
front entry porch; and as-built attached 610sq.ft. Multi-level
wood framed deck with an octagonal screened in section on
seaward side of dwelling; as-built masonry retaining walls
separating the higher grade below the deck from the surrounding
yard; as-built stone steps and a short Bluestone walkway run
along the retaining wall. Located: 260 Deer Drive, Mattituck.
SCTM# 1000-114-10-2
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency arises from the fact that this structure was built
without a wetland permit.
The Conservation Advisory Council voted unanimously to
support the application.
The Trustees did a field inspection on July 11th at three
o'clock in the afternoon, and the notes indicate that property
was cleared within 50-feet of the property line; that a
split-rail fence to the edge of the retaining wall might
delineate the limit of clearing; non-disturbance seaward of that
fence; and that gutters and leaders to drywells would be
advisable; and there should be a drainage review by the Town
engineer for the property.
We are in receipt of a set of plans dated May 25th, 2017,
that show drainage plans.
Is anyone here to speak to this application?
MS. CHAMBERS: Joan Chambers, representing the owner. This
project started like many of my projects, with trying to bring
some accessory structures into compliance with the Building
Department. And of course we found we are too close to the
wetland with most of them. And also the original Trustee permit
for the structure, for the house, claimed it was 75 feet from
the wetland. And it's actually 96. So there was some
adjustments since the original Trustee permit. So that's why we
sort of went back and began to review the whole property.
After your visit there, and I got a list of your
recommendations, I went back and talked to Jim about it. He
pointed out that he has drywells on all four corners of the
house that handle the runoff from the roof. He also has a
drywell in the backyard. Those are on the site plan that I
Board of Trustees 25 July 19, 2017
turned in last week. It is dated revised July 13th, 2017. 1 just
have a small copy of it here. That shows the four drywells on
the four corners of the house and the drywell that is to the
driveway in the bottom.
So what Mr. Deerkoski proposed to do to help with the
drainage issue was to put a French drain across the bottom of
that driveway, and an additional drywell there to catch more of
the runoff from the driveway. And also under your
recommendation to put a split-rail fence in that begins at the
end of that stone retaining wall, and to declare that 42'10"
roughly of undisturbed from that split-rail fence back toward
the wetlands.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is the drywell you are proposing the one, if
you look at the property, you have the drywell that is down
obviously at the bottom. Then there is the driveway that goes
straight into the backyard. Is that where you are proposing the
French drain?
MS. CHAMBERS: That's where he's proposing to put in. So if you
go right down the right-hand side of the driveway, at that end
there is actually a French drain, and put in another 6x8 drywell
to handle that runoff. He thinks the existing drywell is
handling it, but he understands an additional one will make sure
that nothing is running all the way down Deer Drive, down his
driveway and ending up in the creek. Okay?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you. I read the field notes pretty much
verbatim, but it was suggested at a work session that it might
give your applicant a larger backyard and do more to protect the
creek if instead of the split-rail fence shown on the plans,
that you simply move the existing chain-link ten feet landward,
if you can understand that.
MS. CHAMBERS: I understand that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And again, it gives you a larger backyard and
you don't have to do the split-rail fence. And it would give us
a sufficient buffer that we think to handle some of the effluent
from the owner.
MS. CHAMBERS: I don't think the applicant would have a problem
with that. So I can do a revised site plan and bring that in
that shows that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And a French drain.
MS. CHAMBERS: And a French drain, yes. Do you still want this
to be reviewed by the Town engineer for drainage and runoff?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a general rule the Board defers to the
Town engineer for design specifications of the drainage
structures like French drains, which does relate to ground
conditions which are beyond our field of expertise.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We have one other issue. This photograph shows a
gutter going to a drainage pipe. If that drainage pipe really
runs over to the side of the property, and it is not connected
to anything --
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Well, let me show the next picture. Maybe we'll
determine if that's the case. That's because that's what was
Board of Trustees 26 July 19, 2017
confusing us. It looks like it's connected into that pipe which
goes to the right. The car's to the left and that's the little
driveway that goes straight into the creek area. It looks like
it connects to that and draining right down into the creek.
MS. CHAMBERS: I'll bring that to James' attention and make sure
it goes to the drywell. He said there was four drywells and all
his gutters were connected to it. So I'll have to bring that to
his attention, okay?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments?
(Negative response).
Would anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application with
the following changes, which would bring it into compliance with
the LWRP coordinator.
That is that we move the existing chain-link fence ten feet
landward and submit new plans showing same; and a French drain
at the end of the driveway; and all gutters and leaders to
drywells. That's my motion. And, sorry; have it reviewed by the
Town engineer.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. CHAMBERS: Thank you, folks. Good night.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number six, Michael Kimack
on behalf of ELLEN HERMAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct
a 3'x10'walkway using Thru-Flow decking, pressure treated
framing, and four(4) pressure treated 4"x4" support piles
attached to a 4'x16'fixed dock using Thru-Flow decking,
pressure treated framing, and six(6) 4"x4" locust pilings.
Located: 1655 Lake Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-5-8.1
The project has been deemed to be inconsistent under the
LWRP citing concerns of environmental citing and dock standards.
The LWRP coordinator report makes reference to the county, but
its Town-owned underwater land, but there is a county park
adjacent to it.
The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support the
application.
And the Trustees performed a field inspection -- I take
that back. The Trustees performed a pre-submission inspection
and conducted an inhouse review of the plans submitted that were
in conformity with the request that we thought we would like to
see, the formal review. And we felt it was, on work session
discussion felt it was fairly straightforward. But in
addressing the inconsistency, we did note that other dock
construction on poorly flushed fresh waters we had imposed a
Board of Trustees 27 July 19, 2017
strict no-treated lumber throughout the dock construction as
part of the discussion during work session. That's where we are
at with respect to the review.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this
application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack for the applicant. We did have the
pre-application, you had expressed your desires and interest to
make sure no pretreated pilings that were going to be used on
that. And my client actually did find locust piles. She asked me
how many and what specifications, and she was able to obtain the
necessary ones. So we have that. And the application basically
said locust, so I was not quite sure we were able to actually
buy locust. But that works.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Cedar works well but locust is even better
for fresh water. Would there be an issue if we were to request
as we had reviewed at our work session, that strictly non-toxic,
something, like cedar or tropical hardwoods.
MR. KIMACK: We are using through-flow all the way through. Would
you want to use that? Are we talking about the 3x10 walkway or
all of it, basically?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All supporting timbers from the walkway and
for any cross ties. Because it is a rather sensitive area and
you can see possibly be leaching some topsoils.
MR. KIMACK: Well, ACQ, a little bit, but nothing like CCA.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the Board is going in that direction.
MR. KIMACK: I don't think my client has an issue.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That addresses the inconsistency and brings
it to standard for freshwater.
MR. KIMACK: Could you make that comment on the drawing I gave
you, basically?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We can ask the chairman. We can make that
notation. I think that's di minimis enough. We can ask the
chairman to do that. Any additional comments?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, that's it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else wish to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Seeing no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application as submitted with the stipulation that all materials
used to construct the dock are non-toxic in nature, either
employing, in addition to through-flow decking, locally-procured
hardwoods and tropical hardwoods, and that the amendment be
considered as part of the plans with the chairman signing off.
That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and second. All in favor?
Board of Trustees 28 July 19, 2017
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number seven, Michael Kimack on behalf of
NICHOLAS & BARBARA PALLANTE requests a Wetland Permit to dredge
approximately 400 cubic yards of spoil within an approximate
63'x68' (±4,284sq.ft.) area; use approximately 120 cubic yards
of dredge spoil to construct a surrounding berm and dispose of
the remainder dredge spoils to an approved upland site;
construct a ±275 linear foot earthen berm approximately 2' in
height with 1 on 3 sides surrounding excavated area; provide a
±320 linear foot long silt fence surround with staked bales
around berm; construct steel drop weir within excavated area
with outfall pipe to return clarified water to pond; area to be
dredged using a long-arm excavator and deposited in excavated
area; ±5,OOOsq.ft. dredging area to be contained by floating
booms and silt screening; dredge spoils disposal area to be
restored to conditions that existed prior to excavation and
spoils deposition; excess excavated material not used in
restoration and to be disposed in an approved upland site; and
to remove five (5)trees on the property consisting of one (1)
24" caliper; three (3) 6" caliper,`and one (1)2" caliper.
Located: 4302 Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-14-30
The LWRP found this to be inconsistent, and they reference
6.3 protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetland.
The application has not demonstrated that the flowing dock
standard pursuant to 275-11 construction and operation standards
have been met.
He also references erosion control. Installation of an
erosion control structure is necessary during any building,
grading, landscaping or site work to be within the Trustees'
jurisdiction.
They also reference placement of erosion control structure
shall be determined by the Trustees or designee; intertidal
construction and excavation requires installation of silt boom
that will retain all suspended sediments within immediate
projected area.
They also reference number 3-a creeks. Only maintenance
dredging may be permitted when it can be demonstrated that the
action of man has resulted in impairment of water quality and
residual value.
The Conservation Advisory Council has resolved to support
the application.
And the Trustees inspected this property on the 11th of
July, and some of the notes—actually, everybody was present at
this time. The notes say why take down the trees. What is the
berm for. Piping directly into water? Dredging appears to be
okay. Spoils to upland source does not look like an issue.
Would anybody like to speak on behalf of the applicant?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant.
Let me clarify a few things. Number one, my description is
different than the one that was posted, basically. And it's
Board of Trustees 29 July 19, 2017
different in this way. What you've got here is the excavation on
the ground is what you see there. The area to be excavated
would equal for the most part the amount of spoils to be taken
out one to one. The berm though would not be made out of berm
spoils. The berm would be made out of excavated spoils. The
berm could not possibly be made out of dredge spoils. If
anyone's worked with concrete, if anyone has ever done a sump
test on concrete, if you put a lot of water into it down to
about a one or so, you can't take the dredge spoils out and make
the berm.
So if you look at my original application you'll see that
the berm that surrounds the excavation area was made out of the
excavated soils, basically. And it's the only way you can do
it. And it surrounds the area completely, pretty much a hole in
the ground, of equal amounts of that hole in the ground would
basically take all of the dredge spoils that are coming out. And
then around that berm, based upon the math, would be the silt
fence and the bail fence all the way around it.
Essentially it works from a turbidity factor, basically,
when you take your dredge spoils out and putting it into this,
basically. And the liquid factions that would be coming up will
simply be reducing the turbidity so that clarified water would
be returning. The DEC's comment was, and we did that--
originally it was set up where this was turned so that the
return clarification was going to the wetlands. What the DEC
requested was that we turn it so that it went over the open
zone.
We just got the DEC approval a few days ago and I submitted
a copy. It should have been in your files. The DEC approval. But
essentially, in this particular case you can dispose of the
excavated material a lot easier than you can dispose of the
dredge material. So I mean, for taking away the excavated
spoils basically is not a situation where you have any
contaminants. You are just filling it with the dredge spoils.
Then when it's all filled in, it's replenished or replaced with,
you take the berm around it basically and use the berm material
to put it back over the top and then put the soil back and
reseed it. Essentially, that's it. Anything left over would
also be taken offsite. That's the engineering approach to it.
apologize, I didn't catch it a little earlier, but if you
look back at my application, it cannot be the intent to use
dredge spoils for the berm. You would have to wait a long time
for it to dry out'in order to have any kind of viscosity. It's
a pretty straightforward operation in terms of taking it and
placing it and then burying it, basically. I think there is more
than adequate protection.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Why did you take that approach in terms of
removing all the trees?What is the primary purpose of doing that?
MR. KIMACK: Well, because the area is fairly large. It's 62x63.
If you look at the area, there was really not that much more.
What I tried to do is take the one big one on the left over
Board of Trustees 30 July 19, 2017
there and just bypassing it. The berm, in essence I can say, you
can't take the big one off to the right because that's pretty
much in the middle of the 63'x68' area. The area was chosen
simply because that's the volume that is necessary to come out
to be able to plant it with dredged spoils material. And that
is the area that we had basically to put that with as little
consequence to the vegetation as possible. Which is another way
to work it out.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Could you define for this Board and clarify for
the Board what is your definition of"clarified water."
MR. KIMACK: Clarified water, it's a function of turbidity level,
Mike, basically. What you are looking at, when you have
something like this, the question is how heavy are the siltated
particles within the water. And I've done de-siltation and
removal of turbidity before. It's a question of being able to
allow it within that confined berm area long enough and
sufficient enough so that it raises up the particles within it
which causes turbidity to have a chance to settle down. So the
clarified water basically skims off the top, it goes down that
pipe basically and back into the waters. Done correctly, the
turbidity level is reduced so that when you look at the water it
looks fairly clean.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: There are no other options for removal of
dredge spoils to another site?
MR. KIMACK: You know, normally I would say yes, but in this
particular case, and what is happening is that DEC--and I've
got the DEC approval. I'm still going to the Army Corps of
Engineers. There is no approved offsite area for dredge spoils.
And Army Corps will ask you and require you to have an approved
site. And I've looked around and talked to everybody. There is
no approved site. So I'm not quite sure as we go forward what
the heck we are going to do with dredge spoils. Because there
will always be a need to get rid of them.
This way we avoid that because we are not getting rid of
dredge spoils, we are getting rid of excavated spoils that don't
fall under the same category.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think my concern is that we have taken
something that is as simple as dredging out a spot for a boat,
for human use, and we are taking out all the trees right on the
creek, getting into the wetland border kind of there. We are
very close to the wetland border. And I personally don't like
the pipe draining directly in. I mean, if anything, I would want
to see that drain through at least, you know, something --
MR. KIMACK: What do you mean by directly in? In essence do you
know how it's functioning?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
MR. KIMACK: I mean, you are raising the water up high enough to
allow the turbidity--
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I understand all that. But if anything I
would still want to run it through something.
MR. KIMACK: You mean some kind of mandate of a clarifier?
Board of Trustees 31 July 19, 2017
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I agree with Nick in that respect. Because
I've never seen a pipe when they do a dredge project, with a
pipe that leads right back to the water that you just dredged from.
MR. KIMACK: DEC doesn't seem to have an issue with it.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: It seems like it defeats the purpose, to me,
quite honestly. If you can de-water it, you set up the berm and
continue and it de-waters through the ground.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a natural filter.
MR. KIMACK: It does. In essence what you are asking me is how
much possible water would necessarily go through. Now the
question is what's the permeability you are putting down.
don't know the answer to that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The materials coming out presumably are
silty fines, fairly fine material. So I think the fact is we
are not seeing this currently with the interface dredging the
county performs, because most of that material is course sandy
material which of course is then re-applied to beach nourishment
where this is more traditional construction of dredge berms. I
guess the question is if the DEC is passed on it by the size and
scope of this is not such that they are looking for actual
turbidity measurements or monitoring of the discharge. They
have expertise in that.
MR. KIMACK: Well, they were concerned about it, originally it
was positioned where the pipe went through the wetland out to
the side. Their concern is they didn't want that to occur
because it resulted in an impact on the wetlands.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What about constructing a sand filter
downstream a bit?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Even a pipe running to some sort of homemade
sand filter so it's not going directly in.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 400 cubic yards is big, obviously, in some
degrees of scaling, but by the same token it would seem it would
not overburden some sort of accessory filtration.
MR. KIMACK: I can't say right here, basically. I mean, basically
once they start on dredging, basically is how much liquids do
they come up with. I do agree with John that it would be silt
moved in with the sand basically. The permeability factor is
probably going to be fairly high, looking at the scale on that
one. So there would be some water that would be able to flow
down. But recognize also that water table is only down three
feet. I mean the excavation on it, if you look at the
excavation, its fairly close to the water table. Essentially.
So whatever goes down, it's okay, I mean it will hit the water
and dissipate out. It would not be a turbidity factor there. But
in essence as you put the material in, there may be perhaps have
to be some kind of phasing material that would allow the water
to raise above it but not go out, because if you have six inches
to 12 inches of water above the placed dredged spoils, you want
that to be able to have an opportunity to settle out.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the return water would be going in, the
return water would be landward of a silt boom, right? Because
Board of Trustees 32 July 19, 2017
if it goes into the -- in other words the requirement to have a
silt boom during dredging, if the silt book is left in place so
the de-watering --
MR. KIMACK: Exactly. In essence through the de-watering process,
the silt boom would be there, if that happens, basically.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there any way to configure the excavating
change its shape somehow so you don't have to remove those
trees? Especially that 24-inch caliper.
MR., KIMACK: Well, I could --the area is a fairly good sized,
Mike. You probably saw it down there. Basically there is more
off to the left there, more land off to the left. No matter
what, if we stayed away from the 24 we'll lose that cedar right
there by the stake. There is no question about that. That will
end up somewhat in the middle of it, basically.
If we, I think if we pulled it over, we would lose that--
what your suggestion is to move it away from the wetlands and
try to preserve the 24-inch, if we could put it on the edge of
the excavation, is what you are looking at. Yes. From DEC's
perspective I don't think that would much, with theirs, I mean,
I sent an amended drawing and they are basically concerned about
the overflow and stuff like that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about the issue with digging down to
groundwater and basically dumping anoxic sludge on top of the
ground water which is, like you said, three feet from the
surface. Is there, I mean any--
MR. KIMACK: I think the expectation is that this excavated
material won't be toxic material.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And there is no option to bring this stuff
offsite?
MR. KIMACK: Gentlemen, you can do your own investigation on
that. And I have. I have not found approved sites. I've talked
to a lot of people that do this. That docks, you would expect
guys that do this, that put in docks like this or bulkheads,
there are no approved sites. Because basically what Army Corps
of Engineers will ask you is give us your approved site to move
the material off. And I have not been able to find one.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't want to go off the deep but I'm
sensing the very large tree operations in that area is kind of
stuck in the ways of getting approval on this. I'm wondering if
this maybe you would request or seek to try re-engineering to
try and save the tree.
MR. KIMACK: What you are looking for is to try to save the big
24 on the right side.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. We are getting close to wetland.
MR. KIMACK: I mean, I can excavate pretty close to it because
you are only going down three feet. It's not really going to
impact a lot of the root system.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, of course we don't want to totally zap
the root zone with potentially anoxic material.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The cedar would be a much more appropriate tree
to take out and then replace with something realistically sized. I mean --
Board of Trustees 33 July 19, 2017
TRUSTEE SANDERS: What about the issue of the plans --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The DEC is satisfied that the scaling, and
they granted a permit and the scaling is not likely to lead to
turbidity that would damage surface waters. I don't have an
appreciation for this on this scale. They are pretty tight on discharge.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, even discharging but prior to the
boardwalk there, at least you'll get three inches through the
ground and get the natural filter as opposed to just dumping
water back in, if something goes wrong.
MR. KIMACK: There is a possibility, how they do this and how
quickly they do it, there is a possibility that some of the
water will stay in the berm itself. I mean if they put it in and
they leave to come back the next day to do some more drainage,
then find all of it gone.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which is definitely possible.
MR. KIMACK: But that will be a function of the permeability of
what you are taking out, as we all know. If anybody has done
permeability tests, we used to do that in the old days up in
Vermont, to determine how fast it goes down. That was always in
the 20-30 range because we didn't have any sand. But
potentially, on the pyramid scale of used soils, primarily,
that's what you are dealing with. Functionally, I have done
this kind of stuff before in Vermont, it's worked and it's
worked well, if it's done right, and phased out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is this something that we can put a temporary
drywell in headed back toward the basin, in that direction, as
opposed to having a pipe flowing directly into the water source?
MR. KIMACK: I think the question is how much water is in that
drywell and then the problem is the drywell will be sitting on
top of water. It's only down three feet. So now the question is
do I go back to the engineer of the Town and ask if I could do
that. Because I don't have two feet below the drywell. Even if
that's temporary, I have to meet those requirements. So the
drywell I don't think will necessarily fit this particular
operation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a possibility, I think what he's
talking about--
MR. KIMACK: There is a possibility of moving it. I don't have a
problem moving it to save the trees.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, as far as the drainage,just pull the
pipe back ten feet. That's really all I'm looking for, I think.
I'm not looking to get fancy here.
MR. KIMACK: The pipe comes over and goes over the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. So if you pull it back ten feet it would
not go over the bulkhead
MR. KIMACK: And just let it go on the ground?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would be much happier with that.
MR. KIMACK: I would have to pull it back further because
surrounding the bulkhead and the patio going all the way around
is the walkway that, they have to pull it this side of the
walkway for it to actually occur. And just let it go in there,
Board of Trustees 34 July 19, 2017
and whatever gets to the water gets to the water?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, everything will eventually get to the
water but at least it's going through a natural filter and
natural processes.
MR. KIMACK: I think from the DEC's perspective I don't think it
changes their approach, because in essence if they're satisfied
with the fact that this has the ability to lower turbidity
levels to acceptable standards, which is normally about one or
less than one on the turbidity scale, that if we were simply to
shorten and just drop it on the ground and then, you know, let
it go soak in the ground and whatever got to the water, got to
the water, after that. The result would be the same, as opposed
to the lake discharge, the lake approach. But it would, as you
indicated, would have the opportunity to go further cleanse
itself or whatever soils it actually may have before it got to
that. Chances are it will be behind the bulkhead anyway, so.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Are you going to make those adjustments?
MR. KIMACK: Yes. Yes. I mean, I think you are asking for two
adjustments. One, you would like me to reposition to avoid the
trees on the right-hand side, one. Pull it over this way. The
other is take the pipe and shorten it so it doesn't overflow,
goes on the ground, whatever overflows to the ground, what I
would have to do in that situation is to make sure from the
DEC's perspective once we do that, that it doesn't flow back to
the wetland. Because that was DEC's concern in the first place.
Originally that pipe went out and discharged into the wetland
going to the creek. So if we are pulling it back and not making
it direct discharge, basically, then the concern would be to
make sure that it doesn't head back that way, because then it
would defeat the purpose of what the DEC basically gave us
permission for.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is insufficient space to create would
be similar to like a sand drying bed that you put, in other
words you dry effluence that has fines in it--
MR. KIMACK: I don't know, I mean. In a sense it would be a
function of the volume that is coming out of that pipe and how
quickly it comes out.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In other words we pull the pipe back, should
it be some excavation with some sand in it for the time that it
works. I think it's an engineering matter. It's a little beyond me
MR. KIMACK: There is so many variables in this in terms of how
much you put in, how much water comes up, how much of the
material is sitting and going down,the pipe and over what period
of time. It's difficult to assess that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is this pipe going to be mechanically driven?
MR. KIMACK: No, it's water comes up and goes back down. Gravity.
It's a high point in the berm situation. I mean, Mike, it may
not even necessarily have to function basically, as John's point
is if you have any level of permeability you'll have soaking
down through. Here is you put your spoils in the water will come
up to the top, the heavy goes down. The question is how high
Board of Trustees 35 July 19, 2017
that water comes up, how long it stays there, how much turbidity
is lowered, then it reach the high point, it catches the pipe
presumably in a sense clarified, basically it's clarification of
turbidity and that clarified water runs out over the bulkhead
into the water.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I understood that. I'm processing a point that
Trustee Krupski was getting at about allowing it to percolate
through the natural filters rather than deposit it free fall into--
MR. KIMACK: He's asking for another level of potential treatment
before it gets to the water. In a sense, I think his concern is
that what has been designed basically was not sufficient enough
to get to turbidity levels when you put it back pretty much into
the water. That would be the engineering goal as to having set
it up this way. Can you screw it up? Yes. I mean, basically
these things, basically how big it is and how much material you
put in and how much permeability you have and how much water
comes up above the solids, how much settling of the solids out
of the liquified water occurs, how quick that occurs, how quick
the level comes up. Have you achieved all of that before it
meets the ground and gets back. That's a function of I think
probably the rapidity upon which the material that is taken out
and how much it comes down to that.
If you did this all one shot, chances are you'll get turbid
water out. Which you don't want to do. I mean, the whole goal
here, if you do it right, I think the thing is focus on doing it
right within the containment so that the water coming out really
meets the turbidity level. If that's done correctly then what
you are asking for, and this is another layer of protection, is
not really required or necessary.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: How would we do know that though? That's the
problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I ran excavators on jobs before. The job is to
get the job done. You pick up the sediment and you move it as
quickly as possible. Because they are getting paid for project,
not to spend all day scoop by scoop.
I'm not asking for too much here and I don't like this from
the start, but I'm trying to work with you to reach --
MR. KIMACK: So you are looking at, if we shorten the pipe, the
pipe goes on the ground, basically.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Like a natural filter.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: It seems to be your two biggest obstacles are
the tree and the pipe.
MR. KIMACK: The tree is easy enough to take care of. Basically,
I worked off the drawings, the surveys that I was given. The
trees originally when they were done were not on the survey.
Which if you notice, in a sense they didn't pick up the trees.
So when I went to the property and staked it out, I designated
those trees had to come down. Predicated on where it was sited.
But do we have enough room to move it over? Sure. I mean then
the only tree would be the red cedar. I could probably, I have a
couple of ideas. Taking what Nick said, if we were going to do
Board of Trustees 36 July 19, 2017
something like that then I would basically bring the silt
fencing section over and the hay bales over to make sure nothing
runs back toward the wetland. I would have to. And bring it
right across to the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The question could be is why even need the
pipe? To do this berm and everything, let it naturally filter.
Why are we even discussing the pipe?
MR. KIMACK: You need the pipe because if you are filling it up
the regular way and you are coming up to the high point, you
don't want to overtop the berm.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well if the operator is taking their time and
doing it the right way, it probably wouldn't.
MR. KIMACK: Thank you, very much. Look, gentleman, in an ideal
world, sure. In a sense, um, my example was I was excavating out
30,000 yards basically and I was set up for a snow making pond,
in Vermont. And I did this exact same situation with a high
pipe basically. Everything was going fine until three days
later we ran into a hurricane, and after the hurricane left,
after dropping eight inches of rain, and I wasn't onsite, they
kept running it. And all of a sudden it wasn't clear water
going into the stream, it was turbid water. Well, after we paid
the $3,000 fine because they hauled my ass up to the court for
that, it was a lesson learned. Can it go wrong? Sure. But
basically if you have the design in this situation, I know it
would work, given the fact there is a control aspect to it where
you actually make sure that the materials are placed, the water
comes up, there is enough time to allow that turbidity actually
to occur, and coming up. Can we shorten the pipe, lay it on the
grass, something like, to allow another layer, and make sure
that it doesn't get back to the wetlands? I don't know if I
could sell that to DEC. I mean, to be fair. In a sense I would
have to go back to them and amend the permit, basically, and say
that the Trustees don't want direct discharge, they want another
layer of protection.
The only thing I would suggest is perhaps that you could
probably recommend that a qualified person like an engineer be
onsite when this is being done, to make sure the design works
appropriately. Because if you have oversight then that would be
the safeguard.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Have you spoken to a contractor or showed him
this proposal?
MR. KIMACK: I have not. I mean, I know how to, but I have not
spoken to a contractor in terms of how to. But its --this
actually digging and putting the berm in, the guy actually doing
the excavation out there, who will fill it, basically with the
dredge spoils is the one that really-- I mean to dig this out,
to remove the materials, to create the berm and to put the silt
fence around it, that is okay. I mean that's pretty
straightforward construction work. What we are really talking
about is the guy coming in and doing the spoils dredging. And at
that point doing the spoils dredging I would perhaps suggest
Board of Trustees 37 July 19, 2017
that we have a qualified person onsite to make sure that the
spoil dredging placement, given the circumstances by which you
want the clarification to occur or the de-siltation of the water
to occur, occurs under a watchful eye to make sure that
functions the way it's supposed to function. And quite frankly,
that's the only way you can protect it. And if you had that,
then it would work. I know that I should have been there that
one day up in Vermont, but I wasn't.
Look, when it's set up correctly, it works. The question
here is we are taking the spoils and putting it in there, and
you're right, how quick you put it in, maybe the guy will,
someone on the site saying, okay, you have gone that far, I
still have -- he can take, I mean, I could take samples of water
off the top, you can tell right away looking at what turbidity
level you have, looking at it, because you have the chart on
turbidity there. So as the water raises up, if you have someone
onsite to sample turbidity in terms of how quick the settlement
occurs, that's easy to do. But you have to have somebody there
making sure that occurs.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I totally understand your position. I think
what is happening with the Board is they are saying they want
the pipe moved back and they want the 24, they want that 24-inch
tree to survive.
MR. KIMACK: I could revise the survey, but if I move the pipe
back I have to go back to DEC to explain to them why. And I'm
not quite sure they will agree. I mean, it's one of those you
guys have your own set of concerns and standards and so do they.
So they have already given us approval of the overflow,
basically, to their satisfaction.
Can I suggest, if we have somebody overseeing the dredging
to make sure that clarification occurs, then there is not any
need to put it on the ground because what is going back will be
clarified water, or would meet the turbidity level standard.
Because that's really what you want here. If any water gets to
that pipe, has that water been clarified enough so that when it
gets over. As long as you can control that point in terms of
turbidity level.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll just clarify. You are open to the
modification of the location for the saving the tree. You have
an issue with regard to the modification of the pipe. So what I
suggest is we'll close the hearing, if somebody anybody else has
anything else to say, and we'll vote according to that. So
make a motion to close the hearing. Unless somebody else has
something else they want to say in the meantime.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: To be clear, we are asking him to reconfigure or
suggesting that he reconfigure to save the trees and move the
pipe back.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I can't support it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And to have a qualified --
MR. KIMACK: I made a suggestion before to have a qualified
Board of Trustees 38 July 19, 2017
person there.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So you would have a licensed engineer from
the testing company. If it's only four-hundred cubic yards, the
whole operation will probably be a three-to-four day job. So.
MR. KIMACK: The key to success is making sure that the water
going out that pipe meets the turbidity level. That's it. And
once it hits the turbidity level, then it can go back into the
waters. That's why it's all set up this way.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There may be an engineer from the Town's
shortlist that is approved. We are not absolutely certain, but
there might be a question whether you simply can reimburse the
engineering --
MR. KIMACK: I think that would be a prudent way because -- I
have not talked to my client yet but at the same time I could
advise him of-- if it doesn't work and it goes back during, and
it goes into the water, all hell will break loose. So in a
sense that is meant and intended to make sure it goes back
clean. How do you achieve that?Well, you achieve it by watching
it basically and making sure you test it, make sure it doesn't
get into overflow pipe at a higher turbidity level than is
acceptable. And that would be -- so it's getting up, the water
is getting up and turbidity level rises, stop it until it has a
chance to settle down.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Where are you heading, Mike, with this?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we should table until we get another
set of plans showing the proposal from the engineering.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I think that's probably your best bet.
MR. KIMACK: I hear it coming. You kind of like that this
evening.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: No, we don't like tabling.
MR. KIMACK: What you would like to do is table for me to have a
chance to re-do the layout basically.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Correct.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You can inquire as to proceed is maybe if
you check with the Town engineer, if there is an engineering
firm saying that the Town recognizes -- in other words the
wetland ordinance allows us to do a pass-through of expenses for
expert opinion. So under that clause I would think that an
engineer that would be onsite --
MR. KIMACK: It would obviously be picked up by the client,
basically. I mean, it's not rocket science, this particular
one. Its not a difficult engineering thing. It's really making
sure the water has a certain turbidity level. You have dirty,
you have clean. Done. That's really straightforward.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is there anybody else who would like to speak
on behalf of this application?
(Negative response).
Anymore thoughts from the Board?
(Negative response).
Motion to table this for further review.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made. Is there a second?
Board of Trustees 39 July 19, 2017
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KIMACK: Thank you, gentleman.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Timothy Hough on behalf of BARBARA KOHN
requests a Wetland Permit to construct+/-164 linear feet of
vinyl bulkhead in place of(and 12" higher than) existing timber
bulkhead (including +/-31' of bulkhead/retaining walls forming
step-down platform and stairs to be replaced in-place and 12"
higher); construct+/-47 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead on
landward side of existing timber bulkhead to be removed;
construct+/-16' westerly return; remove and replace existing
steps, decking, and walkways adjacent to bulkhead (in-place,
except 6'x55'section of easterly walkway to be re-oriented to
align with easterly property line); backfill area landward of new
bulkheading (including Tx14'x15" concrete step-down to be
eliminated)with approximately 20 cubic yards of clean sand fill
to be trucked in from an upland source; and raise existing shed
(in-place) approximately 27" onto newly established grade.
Located: 500 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#
1000-111-14-12
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application.
' The Trustees visited this site on the 11th of July and
noted this is mostly a straightforward replacement, match the
height of the property next door to the east; possibly allow for
a ten-foot walkway; non-toxic wood material to be used.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HOUGH: Tim Hough on behalf of Barbara Kohn. I'm the agent
for the application. I'm just here to answer any questions or
concerns you have.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The prior Board approval that this current
application is fashioned after, we did -- it is proper to make
mention of pipes that were found penetrating the bulkhead. We
didn't see in the final stages when we were there but of course
any permit that we might consider we would not want pipes coming
through. I guess that's also a question of the boathouse or
house, they would like a drainage assembly there. So they would
be something the Board would want to continue forward. There be
no pipe penetrations into the water.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't like pipes that lead directly into the
water. In case you didn't know that.
MR. HOUGH: That would be fine.
MR. CAVANAGH: My name is Tom Cavanagh. My wife and I lived at
600 Little Peconic Bay Road for over 20 years. We are the
adjacent property directly to the east of the Kohn property. I
would just like to state first of all I was not notified of this
application by certified mail, so I have not had a chance to
Board of Trustees 40 July 19, 2017
review the file.
'And the first point then, I sent a fax, my apologies for
sending a fax, but I did find out about it very late. I tried to
send an electronic copy and for some reason it came back as
spam, and Elizabeth Cantrell was very helpful in making sure you
did receive my comments and concerns.
The request for replacement of the bulkhead is not really
In-place and in-kind. The proposed bulkhead will be 12 inches
higher and will require grading changes to the property. So I
request that the applicant submit a civil engineering report
with grading indicated said there is assurance there will be no
storm water runoff on my adjacent property.
Recently, my neighbor did a major landscaping renovation in
the front yard and changed the actual grade of the property by
over three feet, and whenever there is any type of heavy rain, I
get tremendous storm runoff on my property. I would rather not
have the condition I currently have to live with in my front
yard, in my backyard. So I ask you take that into consideration
when you review the application.
The existing shed structure is a pre-existing condition.
It's not compliant with current wetland laws. Raising the
structure 27 inches increases the degree of non-conformance of a
non-conforming structure and it is not in conformance with
Southold building code. So I would also like you to take that
into consideration, considering that the wetland laws are part
of the Southold building code, and modifying this existing
structure would not be approved by the Southold Building
Department.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry. I'll let you finish. I have a
question about that.
MR. CAVANAGH: Okay. The 6x15 section of the easterly walkway was
removed, so the application is not actually correct. It was
removed by the Kohn's a few years ago, so it no longer exists.
The existing bulkhead is also constructed beyond the south
tie line of the Kohn property, which means the actual existing
bulkhead may be on land that the Kohn's do not own or it may be
built over land under the water that is owned on behalf of the
people of Southold that the Trustees should be interested in
making sure they protect.
I did submit a site plan indicating the tie line and the
fact that the actual bulkhead projects beyond that tie line.
think this would be a major concern to some of the agencies
having jurisdiction.
When I renovated my bulkhead, I owned the land under the
water on my property. And State Coastal Management was concerned
about a dock that was projecting over the land under the water.
And initially they said that I had a patio over the water and I
was exceeding my riparian rights. It was not until I subsequently
showed them that in fact I had a deed for the land under the water
that that actual dock as an existing condition was approved.
So what I would also suggest is that if a condition was
Board of Trustees 41 July 19, 2017
illegal when it was initially installed, it's not a condition
that should be grandfathered. And if they do get approval to
modify their bulkhead, that any rebuilding of the bulkhead
should be entirely within the owner's property, and the owners
should confirm they do own the property.
This application was originally submitted in 2008 and was
not fully approved and accepted. There is a small section of the
existing bulkhead that is on my property, and in 2008 we
respectfully requested in light of the renovation of this
magnitude, that the pile and decking be removed from our property.
The Kohn's subsequently sued us for adverse possession and
they were unsuccessful in their attempt. The court re-asserted
our ownership of the property, and we again request that any
approval of this application be subject to removal of the
current pile and bulkhead section that is on our property.
I do have a copy of the ordered judgment to indicate that
we are, it is our property that is currently--that part of the
existing bulkhead is currently on our property. And if this
application is approved we would request that that part of the
bulkhead that is on our property not be reconstructed in-kind and
be removed. So you have a question?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have two questions. Now, the portion in
question, which seems based on what you said here, is the small
section that is on your property. And to remedy that you are
suggesting its removal. But does that not leave an unprotected
continuous bulkheading which puts all neighbors at risk. And I'm
just wondering what your thoughts are. Is it your intention
then to come and extend the bulkhead?
MR. CAVANAGH: No, it doesn't. Because since the existing
bulkhead on the Kohn property was built beyond the tie line and
property line, the bulkhead actually extends perpendicular to my
bulkhead and goes out another 15 feet. So modifying the
bulkhead, their bulkhead, that projects beyond the property line
would not impact the continuation of this bulkhead.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm having trouble envisioning that. I have
two dimensions barely I could think of.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I have a quick question, sir. You are
mentioning raising it 27 inches?
MR. CAVANAGH: Yes, that was in the application. The existing
shed should be raised 27 inches.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Raise existing shed in-place approximately 27
inches.
MR. CAVANAGH: Again, I haven't seen the application or seen the
file. I'm only reading what is in the Suffolk Times.
MR. HOUGH: I think that's referencing the sump in currently. So
currently the shed is in a sump. So now the new bulkhead is
coming up one foot. So to eliminate that sump and all the
concrete and drainage situation, she would like to raise it to
the new grade of the new bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: But not the span of the whole bulkhead is not
being raised 27 inches.
Board of Trustees 42 July 19, 2017
MR. HOUGH: No. Well 12 inches to meet his bulkhead.
MR. CAVANAGH: The structure is, which is the shed, is a
nonconforming structure is grandfathered, that's being raised 27
inches, which increases the nonconformity of a nonconforming.
Which is not allowable under Southold Town building code.
The request is to raise the top elevation of that shed 27
inches from its current elevation, the top of the shed. That's
increasing the nonconformity of the condition.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Those determinations are made by the
principle building inspector.
MR. CAVANAGH: Well then I recommend this be reviewed by the
principle building instructor because it is a structure and a structure that
would not be allowed currently by wetland laws in that location.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That would be a matter for Board discretion.
But it certainly seems like if there is a question of
nonconformity, the Board regularly has reviewed Building
Department before we proceed. So that sounds reasonable.
With respect to the Department of Environmental
Conservation, typically is approving 12 inches higher where it
matches neighboring elevations to try to preserve and protect
against more frequent storms and provide some coastal
resiliency. You did make a point though about not having runoff
issues. So trying to reconcile --
MR. CAVANAGH: I have no issue with the increase of the height of
the bulkhead proposed, as long as I have some assurance the fill
that will be coming in will not create a runoff condition on my property.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The runoff condition you spoke of in your
front yard is something, depending when the work took place, is
under Town code and you can make a referral to the engineer or
code enforcement. On face value it sounds like there is an issue
with respect to the drainage code.
MR. CAVANAGH: It's a chronic problem. It was a dramatic change
in elevation. Thank you.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Can you show us on the screen the image of the
section you are referring to, sir?
MR. CAVANAGH: Sure. This is what I indicated when I said was
bulkhead. This is the actual tie line of the property to the
land, and that tie line goes across here. This whole section of
bulkhead is built entirely south of the property line. And this
return here, this section is actually on my property. So to
remove this section, this would just be continued and it would
be continuous with my bulkhead, which ends here. So the
bulkhead could be continuous, and this section could be matched
back to the property line.
But the more important issue is the fact this is actually
built on, appears to be built on land over the water that may or
may not be owned by the Kohn's and may in fact be owned by or
under the jurisdiction of the Town of Southold.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: We have to look at this.
The attorney for the Trustees is going to address the
issues you brought up with regard to the meets and bounds of the
Board of Trustees 43 July 19, 2017
actual property.
MR. HAGAN: Just at the Trustees' request, I did look at the
historical record with regard to this application. Just as a
point of order, for the Trustees' edification, the meets and
bounds of this application do in fact meet and match the
application of 2008 related to this property that that Board at
that time had a public hearing on, had addressed concerns from
the public at that time and then made a determination in 2008 to
approve this description. And this description matches that
application from 2008.
MR. CAVANAGH: I'm not certain that is correct or accurate. The
survey I saw in 2008 did not indicate a south property line
along the tie line. It was omitted from that site survey. So the
site survey plan I saw that was submitted in 2008 was not a
complete site survey and I don't recall it indicating the south
tie line and I don't recall it indicating any kind of separate
parcel for land under the water or any sites indicated for the
initial tie line.
MR. HAGAN: Just for clarification, you were in opposition and
had spoken in 2008 to that application?
MR. CAVANAGH: I was in opposition and spoke in 2008 concerning
the part of the bulkhead that was actually on my property.
MR. HAGAN: I just wanted to confirm you were the same party that
read the Minutes of that previous meeting. Thank you, for clarifying.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Being mindful of and carrying forward the
findings of a previous Board and finding no other real issues
with this application, I make a motion to approve this
application with the amendment that the pipes be removed and
there is no flow through the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a matter of discussion after a second.
Where the issue is raised about a nonconforming structure, I
don't know if that was of the prior discussion, I'm not
personally an expert in the building and zoning. I'm wondering
if we should hold out a reservation concerning a building
department review of the boathouse, whether it should, it has
any legal standing. I'm not aware of it being.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Also amend it to withhold until it's reviewed
by the Building Department.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's what I'm wondering, if that is
prudent, so that way we are not blessing a structure that the
Building Department may wish to comment on.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Do you wish to amend your motion, Nick?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. I move to approve the application with
Board of Trustees 44 July 19, 2017
an amendment of removal of any pipes through the bulkhead and
waiting on the blessing of the Southold Building Department in
regard to the shed.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That motion has been made. I'll second with
just a request too that we stick just to a reiteration, a
stipulation that it conform with Chapter 236 for drainage
concerns raised. The original application we didn't have
Chapter 236 for drainage.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and amended. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I'll second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded, all in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HOUGH: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this time, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
Michael J. Domino, President
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED
- ', �ed a 3.3 a��n
AUG l 7 �OIJ�y�
So hold Town Clark