HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-10/18/2017 Michael J.Domino,President �"�®� S®���® Town Hall Annex
John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President '�® I® 54375 Route 25
P.O.Box 1179
Charles J. Sanders4,, Southold,New York 11971
^
Glenn Goldsmith = Telephone(631) 765-1892
A.Nicholas Krupski Fax(631) 765-6641
com
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RECEIVED
t'
Minutes NOV 16.2r117 C 3�3CJpu►1
"-
Wednesday, October 18, 2017 outhold Town Clerk
5:30 PM
Present Were: Michael J. Domino, President
John M. Bredemeyer, Vice-President
Charles J. Sanders, Trustee
Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist
Damon Hagan, Assistant Town Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
i
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 5:30 PM at the Main
Meeting Hall
WORK SESSIONS: Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:30 PM at Downs Farm, and on
Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of September 20, 2017
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Good evening, and welcome to our October 18th, 2017 meeting.
At this time I would like to call the meeting to order and ask you stand for the pledge.
I would like to announce the people on the dais.
To my left is Trustee John Bredemeyer, Trustee Charles Sanders, Trustee Glenn
Goldsmith and Trustee Nick Krupski. To my right, Assistant Town Attorney Damon
Hagan, Senior Clerk Typist Liz Cantrell, and also with us tonight is our stenographer
Wayne Galante. We should have a CAC member with us, James Abbott. Agendas are
located in the hall and also at the podium there.
I would like to announce at this time the postponements. We have
postponements for a variety of reasons including incomplete applications. We have
page two, number four, MARY BETH HENSON requests an Administrative Permit for a
Ten-Year Maintenance Permit to cut choke cherry trees on the bluff down to 2'-3' in
height, leaving the trunk and roots intact; remove invasive species and poison ivy
(leaving the roots, cutting back and painting the stems); and to plant native plantings
Board of Trustees 2 October 18, 2017
such as seaside goldenrod, bayberry, and Montauk daisy. Located: 3300 Sound Drive,
Greenport. SCTM# 1000-33-1-6 has been postponed.
On page five, number one under Wetland Permits 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 has been postponed.
On page seven, we have number ten, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of
MAUREEN &JOHN HURLEY request a Wetland Permit to construct an 18'x73.4'
addition (including 12'x15' seaward side screened porch) to existing 27.5'x73.4'
one-story dwelling; install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff, and in
accordance with Chapter 236 of the Town Code-Stormwater Runoff. Located: 1535
Westview Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-107-7-10 has been postponed.
And on pages nine and ten, we numbers 17 through 20 also postponed. They are
listed as follows:
Number 17, Todd O'Connell, AIA on behalf of LOUIS & MARY ANN PAGNUTTI
request a Wetland Permit to construct additions to the existing 896.Osq.ft. one-story
dwelling with attached garage consisting of constructing a 282.5sq.ft. second-story
addition over existing dwelling; proposed second-story addition over existing 448.4sq.ft.
garage; existing one-story breezeway to be reconstructed into a two-story 88.2sq.ft
breezeway; proposed 63.5sq.ft. front portico; construct a 101.0sq.ft rear west covered
deck with balcony above; construct a 513.Osq.ft rear east covered deck with balcony
above; and to install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff, and in
accordance to Chapter 236 of the Town Code-Stormwater Management. Located:
57475 County Road 48, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-44-2-5.
Number 18, Stacey Bishop on behalf of FORDHAM HOUSE LLC, c/o DENIS
BOUBOULIS requests a Wetland Permit to install a ±1,167sq.ft. On-grade paver patio
along the seaward side of the dwelling; extend existing westerly 15' long by 10' high by
12" thick concrete and stone veneer retaining wall an additional 35' seaward for a total
length of 50' beginning at the left rear corner of existing dwelling; at seaward end of
westerly retaining wall, install a 28' long, varying height concrete and stone veneer
retaining wall parallel with the dwelling; along easterly side of property, extend existing 3'
high natural stone retaining wall an additional ±45' seaward; approximately 15' seaward
of proposed 28' long parallel retaining wall, install a ±3' high by±45' long retaining wall
situated approximately 1' landward of established 50' wide non-disturbance buffer; and
to install a generator pad, generator, and buried gas tank for the generator. Located:
5205 The Long Way, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-5-11
Number 19, Michael Kimack on behalf of DEMETRIOS & MARIA
PAPAGIANNAKIS requests a Wetland Permit to replace existing bluff stairs with new
in-place consisting of a proposed new 10'x10' top landing using trex (or equivalent)
decking; replace two (2) ±10' long side retaining walls and 4"x4" posts along upper
43"x10' staircase with new pressure-treated boards and additional 4"x4" posts as
needed; replace upper 43"x10' staircase; replace 5'5"x10"1" upper middle landing;
replace ±6' long retaining wall and 4"x4" posts along the 5'5"x101" upper middle landing
using pressure treated boards and additional 4"x4" posts as needed; replace 43"x11'8"
staircase and 5'3"x10'1" middle landing; replace 43"x12'9" staircase to a 5'2"x107' lower
middle landing; replace 43"x12'4" staircase; an existing 6'x6'3" shed near toe of bluff to
remain; and replace 6'3"x20'4" bottom deck seaward of shed with a 22"x3'2" end seat
i
Board of Trustees 3 October 18, 2017
and steps to beach; on the four (4) staircases replace stringers, treads, and 4"x4" posts
as necessary using pressure treated treads and stringers, and cedar (or equivalent)
railings; on the three (3) landings and bottom deck replace decking, framing and railings
using cedar (or equivalent) railings and trex (or equivalent) decking. Located: 2100
Sound Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-33-1-17
And number 20, 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 121 sq.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
TRUSTEE SANDERS: We also have on page three, number four, am I
correct on that?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, that was the transfer.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: All right.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: No postponements on page three. I would like to
announce under Town Code Chapter 275-8(c), files were closed
seven days ago. Submission of paperwork after that date may
result in a delay of the processing of the application.
At this time I'll entertain a motion to have the next field
inspection, November 8th, 2017, at 8:00 AM in the Town Hall annex.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I'll entertain a motion to hold the next Trustee meeting on Wednesday,
November 15, 2017, at 5:30 here at the main meeting hall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like a motion to hold the next
Work session at Downs Farm, 4:30 on Monday, November 13, 2017,
and at 5:00 PM on Wednesday, November 15, 2017, here at the main
meeting hall.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: At this time I'll entertain a motion to approve
the Minutes of September 20th, 2017.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
Board of Trustees 4 October 18, 2017
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for September 2017. A check for$5,202.65 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, October 18, 2017, are classified as Type II Actions
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under
SEQRA:
John Crokos SCTM# 1000-14-2-3.11
Jeffrey & Carol Oak SCTM# 1000-80-3-14
Maureen & John Hurley SCTM# 1000-107-7-10
D. Cannizzaro QRPT & B. Miltakis QRPT, c/o John Miltakis, Trustee SCTM#
1000-103-10-29.1
Frank &Angelina Carlucci SCTM# 1000-57-2-17
Thomas & Germaine Cassidy SCTM# 1000-97-7-2
Angelic& John Durante, Jr. SCTM# 1000-122-4-29
Solution East, LLC, c/o Anne Marino & Bernard Telsey, Members SCTM# 1000-78-8-2
Louis & Mary Ann Pagnutti SCTM# 1000-44-2-5
John Rumpler SCTM# 1000-79-1-5
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, October
18, 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:
Thomas O'Neill SCTM# 1000-78-1-41 & 1000-76-3-3
Charles Lomangino Trust SCTM# 1000-111-10-1.1, 1.2 & 2
Russell Bates SCTM# 1000-106-4-2
i
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's the resolution.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
IV. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Roman numeral IV. In order to simplify our
meetings, the Board of Trustees groups together actions that are
Board of Trustees 5 October 18, 2017
deemed minor in nature or similar in nature. Accordingly, I'll
make a motion to approve as a group items two and three. They
are listed as follows:
Number two, Slauvomir Sklodowski on behalf of EMILY MILLER
requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 200sq.ft. deck
addition onto the side of the existing 1,515sq.ft. seaward side
deck; and to install 49sq.ft. hot tub onto new deck area.
Located: 9575 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-119-1-3
Number three, ELIZABETH & SALVATORE PENNISI request an
Administrative Permit to demolish the two existing garages
located landward of the dwelling. Located: 1425 Pine Neck Road,
Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-5-40
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second the motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have item number one, under Roman numeral
IV, McCarthy Management on behalf of KASHA CACY requests an
Administrative Permit to install an on-grade 12'x46'3" stone
patio against the seaward side of the dwelling. Located: 235
Mill Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-135-3-26
The Board conducted a field inspection on October 10th.
This site, having previously had a permit for similar
construction and a requirement for a berm landward of the
50-foot non-disturbance area.
The Board in discussing this application with McCarthy
Management felt that a French drain should be incorporated in
with the berm and to properly handle runoff from the fairly
steep area upland of the non-disturbance area. And the Board did
notice that there had been through the years some activity
within the 50-foot non-disturbance area.
Accordingly, I would make the following motion: That
the applicant may proceed with plans for the berm including
French drain which will be submitted to the Board, and that there
shall be no further activity with the 50-foot non-disturbance
area, and that the non-disturbance area shall be required to have
filed restrictive covenants with the county. The prior permit
was pre-filing of C&Rs with the county. That's my motion.
(Perusing). All right, I will amend. There appears to be a
scrivener's error in one copy here that indicates 50-foot
non-disturbance buffer. I have been instructed by the clerk and
counsel that in fact the prior determination was a 35-foot
non-disturbance buffer.
So accordingly, I would -- and the original plans show 35
feet. So therefore, the 50-foot amount that had showed up on
a piece of paperwork is in fact in error and not in fact what
the Board -- so my motion is a berm with a French drain and
plans to show revised plans for it, and no activity within the
35-foot non-disturbance area, and the non-disturbance area shall
be filed with the county clerk. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll second that.
Board of Trustees 6 October 18, 2017
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
j TRUSTEE DOMINO: Roman numeral V. Again, in order to simplify
our meetings I'll take a motion to approve as a group items one
through seven. They are listed as follows:
Number one, FREDERIC ENDEMANN requests a One-Year Extension
to Wetland Permit#8734, as issued on January 20, 2016.
Located: 840 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk. SCTM#
1000-117-5-51.1
Number two, Melissa Butler on behalf of RYAN STORK requests
a Transfer of Wetland Permit#8527 from Jack Farnsworth to Ryan
Stork, as issued on November 19, 2014. Located: 1140 Park
Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-8-1
Number three, Christopher Joseph on behalf of TEAMC99A
PROPERTIES, LLC requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#8664 from
Hirsch & Co., LLC, c/o Vincent Seddio to TeamC99A Properties,
LLC, as issued on August 19, 2015. Located: 980 Oak Avenue,
Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-1-6
Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of ANGELIC & JOHN
DURANTE, Jr. request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#415 from
Harold Wilsberg to Angelic &John Durante, Jr., as issued on
August 20, 1987. Located: 4260 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck.
SCTM# 1000-122-4-9
Number five, En-Consultants on behalf of IRA & SUSAN
AKSELRAD request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#8919 to renovate the existing 25'x50' swimming pool by
installing marble dust, reconfigure interior steps, add
automatic cover, and install 5'x12' spa inside pool; replace
existing 1,581sq.ft. on-grade masonry patio with new,
reconfigured 1,985sq.ft. on-grade masonry patio; install
39sq.ft. masonry steps and 81sq.ft. masonry steps (with adjacent
boulders) down to pool patio; remove and replace
in-kind/in-place existing 6'x16.5' wood arbor located over
patio; remove existing pool heater and install on-grade concrete
pool equipment pad with wood screen panel; remove 81 linear feet
of existing masonry wall and construct 72 linear feet of new
masonry retaining wall around pool; and replace existing 38
linear feet of existing masonry walls and 161 sq.ft. of masonry
steps/landings on slope with 109 linear feet of new masonry
retaining walls and 208sq.ft. of new masonry steps/landings.
Located: 4125 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue.
SCTM# 1000-111-9-6.4
Number six, DKR Shores, Inc. on behalf of PAUL & NANETTE
LANCEY request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit
#8988 and Coastal Erosion Management Permit#8988C to install
Cape American beach grass plugs 2" on-center, and 3-gallon pots
of bayberry shrubs intermixed with stone along the landward side
Board of Trustees 7 October 18, 2017
of the bulkhead in lieu of the 10' wide stone splash pad.
Located: 19525 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-22.1
Number seven, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf
of JOHN F. COSTELLO TRUST requests an Administrative Amendment
to Wetland Permit#8969 to install a 4' wide deck along the
landward side of the bulkhead in lieu of the 10'wide decking;
and to install approximately 14 cubic yards of natural stone
onto the remainder of the property. Located: Right-of-Way End
of Wiggins Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.3
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. RESOLUTIONS - OTHER:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral six, Resolutions,
Set 2017/2018 Scallop Season:
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees open the
following dates to scallop harvesting and pursuant to Chapter
219 (Shellfish) of the Code of the Town of Southold: From
Monday, November 6, 2017 from sunrise to sunset through
Saturday, March 31, 2018 inclusive, in all Town waters, as per
Town Code.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number two, WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held
on Wednesday, January 18, 2017 regarding Michael Kimack on
behalf of SOUNDFRONT HOLDINGS, LLC; and,
WHEREAS, during the Public Hearing the Board of Trustees
RESOLVED to Table the application for a Wetland Permit Amendment
and a Coastal Erosion Management Permit Amendment and
conditioned the requirement of the posting of an expert
independent consultant fee in the amount of$2,000 pursuant to
the provisions of Chapter 275-7(1), (2) a, b, c, with final
payment of the remaining fee(s) due prior to final
determinations in this matter; and,
WHEREAS, on Wednesday, September 20, 2017 the Board of
Trustees met with Patricia C. Moore, Esq. And James J.
Deerkoski, P.E. on behalf of SOUNDFRONT HOLDINGS, LLC to discuss
the Tabled application and submit for the record a letter dated
September 18, 2017 from James J. Deerkoski, P.E. regarding the
as-built multi-tiered retaining wall system; and,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Board of Trustees are now
re-opening the Public Hearing regarding the application of
Michael Kimack on behalf of SOUNDFRONT HOLDINGS, LLC, and
RESCIND the Resolution dated January 18, 2017 as the letter
submitted by James J. Deerkoski, P.E. fulfills the requirement
Board of Trustees 8 October 18, 2017
of said Resolution.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Roman numeral VII, public hearings. This is a
public hearing in the matter of the following applications for
permits under the Wetlands ordinance of the Town of Southold. I
have an affidavit of publication from the Suffolk Times.
Pertinent correspondence may be read prior to asking for
comments from the public.
I would ask that you please keep your comments relevant,
j organized and brief, and five minutes or less if possible.
At this time I'll make a motion to go off our regular
meeting agenda and enter our public hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, under Amendments, Michael Kimack on
behalf of SOUNDFRONT HOLDINGS, LLC request an Amendment to
Wetland Permit#8047 and Coastal Erosion Permit#8047C for the
existing collapsed steel bulkhead behind concrete seawall and
existing damaged concrete seawall to remain; remove the
collapsed bluff stairs and steel sheet piling retaining wall
from face of bluff; the originally proposed bulkhead with 10'
and 20' returns, proposed 47' vinyl retaining wall with 9' and
10' returns, and proposed timber terracing walls on face of
bluff were not constructed; for the as-built stabilizing of the
concrete bulkhead by placing approximately 1,000 tons of large
stones in between the steel bulkhead and concrete bulkhead and
top off with 4-6+ stones; as-built gabion return wall along the
westerly adjoining property line; cut collapsed steel bulkhead
down below finish grade; as-built six tiered retaining wall
system, completely integrated, to stabilize slope and protect
westerly property line; redesigned bluff stairs to attach to
retaining walls; bluff stairs were constructed 4' wide and 45.2'
long in lieu of 50' with a 23sq.ft. top landing and a 24.5sq.ft.
bottom landing; replaced collapsed brick patio with as-built
176sq.ft. natural irregular shaped bluestone patio between
dwelling and top retaining wall; as-built 73sq.ft. lower tier
bluestone patio; as-built wire fencing along top retaining wall;
added fill to terraced areas; a t450sq.ft. sandy beach area
landward of stone bulkhead; re-vegetated void areas with
American beach grass and rosa rugosa. Located: 20275 Soundview
Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-8
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application?
MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. Do you
Board of Trustees 9 October 18, 2017
have any questions of me?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: No questions or comments from the Board.
Is there anyone else who wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing no comments, I'll make a motion to close this
hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as amended, noting that by approving it, it will bring it into
compliance with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. KIMACK: Thank you, very much.
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number two, Robert
Wilson on behalf of JOHN CROKOS requests a Wetland Permit for
the existing 187sq.ft. of bluff stairs consisting of a
4'6"x10'9" (48sq.ft.) upper landing to a 4'6"wide set of
stairs, to a 4'6"x4'9" (21sq.ft.) middle landing to 4'6" wide
stairs down to the beach with the bottom six steps being hinged
in order to fold away when stairs are not in use; and that all
platforms all stairs but the final six steps have 36" handrails.
Located: 2110 Grandview Drive, Orient. SCTM# 1000-14-2-3.11
The Board of Trustees inspected this on October 10th.
The Conservation Advisory Council was unable to access the
property at the time of their inspection and did not perform one.
The project has been deemed inconsistent under the LWRP
because the stairs were built without the benefit of a Town
wetland permit.
The Board in reviewing this series of stairs and landings
finds that it is fully in compliance with the current standards
relating to stairs going down the bluff, and so we did not see a
problem with the as-built construction per se in terms of the
construction standards.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. WILSON: Robert Wilson on behalf of John Crokos. I'm here to
answer any questions.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was a pretty straightforward set of
steps. I was just informed by the president that we did notice
some pruning of vegetation on the bluff. That is a permit-required
activity. In some cases judicious pruning is allowed under a permit,
but in this case we would like you to return -- have Mr. Crokos
return with a permit application if he wishes to do any additional cutting
there, otherwise it may lead to a violation.
MR. WILSON: Okay, I'll let him know.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any other questions?
Board of Trustees 10 October 18, 2017
(Negative response).
Anyone else here wish to speak on behalf of this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, motion to close.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this
application as submitted, noting there is to be no additional
pruning of vegetation of the property without a valid Trustee
permit. Thereby getting this permit will bring it into
compliance with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. WILSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number three, Robert Brown Architects, P.C. on
behalf of JEFFREY & CAROL OAK request a Wetland Permit to
demolish existing single-family dwelling; construct new
single-family, two-story dwelling with a 1,820.2sq.ft. footprint;
a 601.6sq.ft. attached garage; a 160.4sq.ft. seaward side screened porch
with side entry stairs; a 422sq.ft. seaward side deck attached to dwelling;
a 238.6sq.ft. seaward side on-grade patio; install gutters to leaders to
drywells to contain roof runoff, and in accordance with Chapter 236 of the
Town Code-Storm Water Runoff; and to abandon existing sanitary
system and install new landward of dwelling. Located: 155 Lake
Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-80-3-14
The LWRP has found this to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
with a note that the Conservation Advisory Council supports the
application with the condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer.
On October 10th, the Trustees with the exception of myself,
went out and inspected this property. The notes say
straightforward but they also make a note of non-turf seaward of
stone wall.
Is there anybody who would like to speak on behalf of the
Applicant?
MR. BROWN: Robert Brown, architect on the project. How are you.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Good
MR. BROWN: We are essentially leaving the, everything, well, we
are tearing down the existing building, replacing it, and pretty
much everything seaward of the building envelope is being left
intact. There are a couple of minor things we want to remove.
There is a bit of a wall that we want to remove. But really we
are trying to keep the impact minimal.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Does the 15-foot non-turf buffer meet with your--
MR. BROWN: We have no problem with that, of course.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the area between the bulkhead and
stone wall might be more than that. It seems like there is a
Board of Trustees 11 October 18, 2017
unit for landscape maintenance and non-turf it might be easier
and more esthetic.
MR. BROWN: We would take it to the wall, sure.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: So seaward of the stone wall. From the
bulkhead to the stone wall.
MR. BROWN: That only makes sense.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The CAC requested 15 feet, and it's a little
different.
MR. BROWN: Yes, we can do that.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Anything else?
MR. BROWN: Really, I was hoping the plans would pretty much
speak for themselves. If you have any questions at all, please.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I think we are good. Any questions from anybody
here?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve the application
with a non-turf buffer to the stone wall.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not 15 feet. It's slightly more.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's why we tried during the dialogue to
address the comments.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I make a motion to approve the application with
non-turf buffer to the wall. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. BROWN: Thank you, all, very much.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number four, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
D. CANNIZZARO QRPT & B. MILTAKIS QRPT, c/o JOHN MILTAKIS, TRUSTEE
requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing deteriorated timber
bulkhead and landward concrete retaining wall; construct
in-place of wooden bulkhead 81 linear feet of new vinyl bulkhead
with two (2) 10 linear foot bulkhead returns, and raised an
additional 18" from existing bulkhead height; install 23 cubic
yards of clean sand fill landward of proposed bulkhead; and
install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer
along the landward edge of the bulkhead. Located: 1460 Strohson
Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-103-10-29.1
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The CAC resolved to support this application, however
questions the absence of drywells and the layout of leaders
directing runoff into the creek.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on 10/10, noting
the retaining wall should be moved back to the cement wall with
replanting in front. And also the need for a non-turf buffer.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this
application?
Board of Trustees 12 October 18, 2017
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. Just for
-a little follow-up on what the DEC had said. They requested also
in, you know, in coordination with what you wanted, to move the
bulkhead behind the existing one and cut the existing bulkhead
,off at the mud line to avoid damage to the wetlands grasses in
the area. I believe you have -- unfortunately I was not able to be
'there, but Dave Cannizzaro was there at the meeting. So,
as I understand it, I don't know if Dave wants to come talk
about it or not, but we were talking about the possibility of
locating our proposed bulkhead a little bit seaward of the
concrete wall, just a few feet,just to make up some sort of
distance there. We have about five-foot separation. So I would
like to, if we could offer three feet away from the bulkhead
just to gain an extra two foot of land for the property owners.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I believe we had discussed both in the field
and at work session allowing the retaining wall to be right in
front of the current cement wall, nothing further seaward than
that. That would enable them to take down the current concrete
wall and make the wall --
MR. CANNIZZARO: May I address the Trustees? I'm Dave Cannizzaro.
I realize that you were going to discuss this after, at
your work session, and my concern was that the, after discussing
with the neighbors, there is bulkheads on either side of our
property, on the bulkhead, and my neighbors actually expressed a
concern that they would like to have it continue the way it has
for many years. Obviously nobody likes change. So is there any
opportunity to discuss going more seaward with the new retaining
wall or is that, has that been determined and there is no --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, that's why we are here to discuss that
right now.
MR. CANNIZZARO: Okay, so I would like to --
MR. PATANJO: In the past on other projects, the DEC typically
wants it one or two foot behind the existing, so you can install
the proposed behind the existing. So we can install the
proposed bulkhead without damaging or doing any disruption to
the existing bulkhead and it avoids any disruption to any of the
wetlands grasses. So that's why we were talking about possibly
moving it two foot back from the existing. Which is really --
it's really the midpoint. It's about five foot in the area
between the concrete retaining wall and the existing bulkhead.
So if we can meet in the middle at two-and-a-half feet in the
middle, avoid disruption, clean-cut the existing bulkhead,
install our new one, and as soon as the new one is installed,
backfilled, we would clean-cut at the bottom at the mud line,
the existing one, therefore there would be no sedimentation, no
disruption to any of the wetlands grasses. We'll still be
behind the high water line because of the slope over there, and
again, we'll be doing a non-turf buffer, which we'll discuss next.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Would you have an objection to additional
inspection of re-staking that location that would be the seaward
most point so that you are not -- obviously we realize that
Board of Trustees 13 October 18, 2017
walers and piles and bulkheads have thickness. So I know the
Board's preference would be to push it certainly back even a
little more. But would you be adverse to maybe, let's say
putting it within two feet of the upper bulkhead, in other words
a defined measurement of what is fixed as opposed to what is
deteriorating. And then, in other words we are talking maybe a
slight bias further landward, staked, and then monitored by the
area Trustee.
MR. PATANJO: I would be comfortable if we put the face of the
proposed bulkhead two feet seaward of the face of the concrete
retaining wall.
MR. CANNIZARRO: I would be comfortable with that, too. And we
also have returns to contend with.
MR. PATANJO: Yes, the returns will be tied into the existing bulkheads.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's two-feet eight-inches from the back of--
' TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We also would like you to save the plants that
are disturbed.
MR. PATANJO: And transplant them? I believe we talked about
that earlier today. He would like to keep those, the Rosa
rugosas, I believe.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And also any Spartina that gets disturbed
during the course of digging, it's kind of a variable shore
behind the non-functioning bulkhead section, but save as many,
all good plants, whether it's Rosa rugosa or Spartina.
MR. PATANJO: Okay. And with respect to the non-turf buffer,
there was some consideration I believe discussed in the field
about minimizing it from the ten foot.
MR. CANNIZZARO: There was some discussion about possibly
compromising with the width of the non-turf since we are coming
into the landward side with the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So since we are going two feet off the cement
wall, you want go 12, or--
MR. CANNIZZARO: I would also, typically it's ten-foot non-turf.
I was hoping to get eight foot non-turf. Because we are still
going to be ten foot from the sea wall.
MR. PATANJO: With the replanting of whatever is there.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Aren't you two foot closer now, too?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Maybe stay with ten.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Stay with ten.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Also I was thinking it would probably be a good
idea with best practice to use through-flow on at least the
start of the deck.
MR. PATANJO: That's what we talked about last time, we agreed
with that, doing say the first ten feet with through-flow on the
existing dock.
One of the questions was the height of the bulkhead. We
have on the proposed plans 18 inches above the height of the
existing. Is that still, that's been approved many times in the
past by the DEC. I just wanted to make sure we are still okay
with the 18-inch height.
Board of Trustees 14 October 18, 2017
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we discussed that in the field and
realize it actually minimizes down slope from the lawn so I
assume with the non-turf, I don't think anybody had a problem
with that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The silt fence also.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: The silt fence, yes. Is there anyone else
here who wishes to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing no other comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
j TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
1 with the condition that the new retaining wall be two feet
seaward of the existing concrete wall with through-flow decking
j on the first section of the existing dock with a silt fence to
j be installed during construction and also with a ten-foot
non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: With the line staked ahead of time.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Yes, with the line staked ahead of time for
where the new retaining wall will be going into place, prior to construction.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. CANNIZZARO: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, Jeffrey Patanjo on
behalf of FRANK & ANGELINA CARLUCCI request a Wetland Permit to
remove existing deteriorated wood bulkhead and replace with 53
linear feet of proposed low-sill vinyl bulkhead with associated
12 linear foot low-sill bulkhead return; landward of proposed
low-sill vinyl bulkhead install a proposed 51 linear foot vinyl
bulkhead with associated 32 linear foot return; and install and
perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the
landward edge of the upper bulkhead, and allow 60 square feet of
wetland area to return to natural conditions upon removal of
existing bulkhead. Located: 1265 Island View Lane, Greenport.
SCTM# 1000-57-2-17
The Board of Trustees inspected the site on October 10th.
At the request of the Board as a result of the additional
discussions on work session this Monday, I went back and
performed an additional site inspection.
The Conservation Advisory Council supported the application
with the condition the existing fence located less than 20 feet
from the water running horizontal is brought into compliance.
I believe that fence is a pre-existing nonconforming fence.
And the, as a result of the inspection, the Board viewed the
aspect of having a low sill bulkhead as favorable. There were
Board-of Trustees 15 October 18, 2017
(questions concerning the existing dock structure, which,
actually doesn't show--that's it. Sorry. Okay, so there were
questions about a prior permit that was issued to Mr. Carlucci,
Sr., maybe, that the clerk brought to our attention and that I
had volunteered to go out and take another look.
The structure that is there was really never approved and
previously Mr. Carlucci had approval for a fairly standard
catwalk and ramp that was never built. So there is no permit
for it. And based on the Board's discussion during the
work session we realized that this existing structure is largely
going to have to be removed in order to conduct activities, so
it would be my recommendation, and I have not had an opportunity
to discuss it with the whole Board, I'm just relaying my
findings from the field inspection, that possibly the entirety
' of the dock could be --this existing dock could be replaced
essentially in-kind with through-flow as an amendment to the
structure. There is no permit to go seaward of the property line
so it would have to end there. The underwater land here is
actually in private ownership due to a grant that goes back to
the Earl of Sterling.
Mr. Carlucci's father actually happened to be a patent
attorney. We tried to charge the senior Mr. Carlucci for dredge
fees back in the day. And of course we have our town patent. All
patents sort of related, he politely informed us that he brought
a chain of title, I think it's with Mr. Mulholland now. So
anyhow, if I have not confused the Board, the notion would be
you give us an amended plan for the nice sitting area and
existing, all the through-flow, because it essentially will all,
barring a very couple of feet, it will be all over the beautiful
new marsh that will grow.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. I'm just
looking at my survey. You have the same copy. That was actually
surveyed by my surveyor, so this is an accurate depiction of
where the property line is. It looks like there is only a foot
or two of the end of the existing dock that extends into private
property, and I'm sure they would have no problem pulling that
back a little bit if that is what would be required.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think that's what we are looking for.
MR. PATANJO: Yes. And I agree with the thought of putting
through-flow decking on the entire deck because the whole
purpose of the low sill bulkhead is to revegetate and re-naturalize.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It sounds pretty straightforward. Are there
any questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else theory wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Before I make a motion to close the hearing, another possibility
would be, too, if Mr. Carlucci wanted to revisit a dock
construction during the time where --this will obviously be a
major construction project, it's just a notion although it would
Board'of Trustees 16 October 18, 2017
have to be put under for full review. It's untimely to do it
now. So maybe that can be done in the future.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Quick question. Does this project call for fill
'being brought in behind the --
MR. PATANJO: No. We are going with the same height.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, being no further comments on this
project, and it being considered consistent with the LWRP, I'll
make a motion to close this hearing.
;TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
,TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this
application subject to the submission of a new plan outlining
the use of through-flow decking material and that the deck to be
j rebuilt and included into the permit will not extend seaward of
the property line. That's my motion. And that we ask for the
dimensions of the dock structure to be put on the plans so they
can be incorporated into the permit.
MR. PATANJO: No problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number six, Matthew 011en, Goose Neck Property
Owners Association President on behalf of THOMAS O'NEILL
requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge approximately
300 cubic yards of spoil within a ±25 foot wide by±157 foot
long area of channel bottom along the entrance of a private
canal to a depth of-3.5' mean low low water with 1:3 slopes;
dredge spoils to be placed on association property within an
enclosed area using staked hay bales and silt fencing to dry;
once dried the dredge spoils are to be spread out on site.
Located: Private Canal in Goose Creek, Southold & 1600 Smith
Drive South, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-1-41 & 1000-76-3-3
The Trustees did a field inspection on October 10th and in
the notes state that it is fairly straightforward and it was a
good place for the dredge spoils to be deposited.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent with Town
Code and policy.
The CAC on October 11th resolved unanimously to support the
application.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. OLLEN: Matt 011en. I'm the agent for the applicant. My wife
and I have owned a home on the Goose Neck Estates peninsula on
Smith Drive North in Southold for nearly 30 years, and we
support this application.
The canal in question is privately owned and has provided
bay access to the residents of our community for more than 50
years. The canal was last dredged about 50 years ago. The
maintenance dredging as applied for will be privately funded.
Board;of Trustees 17 October 18, 2017
The Goose Neck Property Owners Association, of which I'm
president, along with Tom O'Neal, the owner of the canal bottom,
agreed last year to work together to get the canal dredged to
,preserve our way of life on the peninsula. Bay access is a big
part of what makes our community special, and is part of a long
;tradition of life on the water in the north fork. I would ask
you please allow us to do our part in preserving this bay
access. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I have in the notes that this is a one-time only
permit. Does anyone else wish to speak to this?
MS. GOMEZ: Pat Gomez, and I live on Smith Drive North, next door
to the private beach, which is where they are going to be
spreading whatever it is they dig up. And that concerns me. I
mean, we don't know what they are digging up. And I'm concerned
about possible toxic elements that might be there and also the
odor, a smell. And people use this beach a lot.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Based on the history of operations for this
creek and similar creeks, the material coming out is not
expected to be toxic. And the Department of Environmental
Conservation in their granting permits would compel special
additional testing if it were necessary.
To be honest with you, in many years being a Trustee, and
I'm just finishing my 18th year, I have not seen it for this
sort of a project. It is possible that there will be some small
amount of organic matter in with what is mostly sandy material.
' I actually do water sampling in Goose Creek with a cooperative
program with the Shellfish Advisory Committee that I head up and
I'm in there with a kayak, and most of the material is sandy, so
it would likely be easily spread and the small amount of organic
matter typically oxidizes and is incorporated and is lost to the
sandy process. There is not an expectation for this site, and
based on what I have seen that there is heavy mucks or mud and
the small amount of mud or organics that would be in there would
dissipate and would not likely cause an odor problem. That would
be something associated with large scale dredging projects in
canal areas that are bulkheaded for which there is a lot of
silty fines going in. I don't see it as an issue. It's a
reasonable question but I don't see it as an issue in this case.
MS. GOMEZ: Is there any requirement that testing be done to
ensure there is not a problem?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would be the discretion of the Trustees
to add additional testing but for a site like this where it
would be unusual, the area is not an agriculture. The small
number of boats there would not likely be have having toxic
materials from fittings or bottom paint that would be in
generally measurable quantities, so it would be discretionary if
the Board wanted to add sampling, but it's simply based on
history, in doing an in-depth environmental analysis would not
be a place we would expect a problem nor would a Board typically
ask to have an additional sampling being done.
Board of Trustees 18 October 18, 2017
MS. GOMEZ: Okay, thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You're welcome.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number seven, En-Consultants on behalf of
SOLUTION EAST, LLC, c/o ANNE MARINO & BERNARD TELSEY, MEMBERS
request a Wetland Permit to repair/patch approximately 114
linear feet of existing concrete seawall including two (2) ±2'
returns; and ±6'x8' concrete steps, including in-kind/in-place
replacement of small broken sections where needed. Located: 900
Goose Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-8-2
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. He
states the structure was constructed without a Board of Trustees
Wetland Permit. It is unknown when the concrete wall was constructed.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application.
The Trustees visited this site on the 10th of October. The
remarks were okay to repair the cement wall, no trimming seaward
of wall to be non-disturbance, and the concept of a non-turf
buffer landward of the wall.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Good evening. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on
behalf of the applicant.
Just to respond to the LWRP and Board comments. The
concrete seawall we know has been present since at least 1976.
We had obtained an aerial photograph of the wall. The DEC could
have actually issued a non-jurisdiction letter for the dwelling
renovation except that the wall was not quite 100 feet long. So
they recognized its age prior to their jurisdiction, but the
length didn't qualify. So that's why it doesn't have a Trustee permit.
With respect to the non-turf buffer, the Board had issued
j permit#8864 in 2016 for those dwelling renovations that are
going on and that permit required a ten foot non-turf so we
would just stay with the same ten-foot non-turf buffer that was
there. Otherwise it's pretty simple project. It's really just
trying to repair and maintain the wall in place.
The one detail that the contractor mentioned to me is in
just a couple of places where the wall is actually broken. Their
plan was all the repair work will be done from the landward
side, so there will not be any disturbance on the wetland side
of the wall. They will probably drive like a one-inch steel rod
into some sort of a small deadman on the landward side of the
Board of Trustees 19 October 18, 2017
wall where there's a couple of spots where the pieces come loose.
I didn't know, I didn't realize they were going to do that,
so I don't show that deadman detail on the cross-section of my
plan. If the Board wants me to, I can update that, otherwise if
it's considered minimal enough then I won't worry about it. But
I want to at least mention it because usually we try to include
those specifications on the section.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anyone feel the need for updated plans for
the deadman structure?
(Negative response).
It's kind of a straightforward situation. It's not really complicated.
All right, is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Or any comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, with that being said I make a motion to
I close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I make a motion to approve this application
thereby bringing it into consistency by permitting it with the
LWRP coordinator.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I just wanted to say, on discussion --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's closed already.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: (Continuing) did you want to include the
non-turf--
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's already on a prior permit.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. What about the non-disturbance
seaward. That was the question I had.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean seaward is the wetland, essentially. So.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would be protected anyway.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was sort of-- after thinking about it and
seeing the picture, that was sort of my -- it is wetland so, it
really can't be disturbed.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay, number eight, En-Consultants on behalf of
THOMAS & GERMAINE CASSIDY requests a Wetland Permit to remove
and replace (in-place and up to 12 inches higher) approximately
90 linear feet of existing timber with vinyl bulkhead; construct
a ±28' vinyl bulkhead in-place of existing ±29' timber bulkhead
(up to 12 inches higher and up to 5 feet farther landward);
construct±32' vinyl bulkhead in-place of and up to 12 inches
higher than existing ±27' timber bulkhead; construct a ±6'
southerly return, and ±12' northerly return in-place of existing
8' northerly return; incidentally dredge up to 10 feet seaward
of new±31, ±32', ±28' and ±24' sections of bulkhead (950sq.ft.
i
Board of Trustees 20 October 18, 2017
total area) to a maximum depth of-2.5' MLW and use
approximately 70 cubic yards of sand/silt spoil as backfill;
remove all existing wood walkways/decks and construct new
4'x±36' and 4'x±31' wood walkways; and to establish and
perpetually maintain a 5' wide non-turf buffer area landward of
all new bulkheading. Located: 280 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue.
SCTM# 1000-97-7-2
The LWRP has found this to be consistent.
And the Conservation Advisory Council has resolved to
support this application.
On October 10th, 2017, the Trustees with my absence
investigated this property and the notes are as follows:
Section with boat basin is okay. Possibly low sill on the port.
Then it was re-inspected on 10/11/17, President Domino and
Mr. Bredemeyer re-inspected on 10/11/17 and their notes provide
replanting plan with Spartina in front of both seaward sections
of the creek side of the bulkhead and may reuse plants that get
disturbed during activity of building the retaining wall.
Is there anybody here who would like to speak on behalf of
the applicant?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant. And Tom Cassidy, the applicant, is also in the audience.
Generally, a pretty straightforward application. I think
the LWRP report notes that grandfather permit TR1860 had been
issued for the existing structures on the property prior to Mr.
Cassidy's purchase. That was issued back on May 16th, 2012, or I
should say that was a transfer of the grandfather permit TR1860
in 2012 to Mr. Cassidy.
We are making a couple of changes to the configuration,
although those decks that sort of overhang the water that you
are looking at there, and there is actually intertidal marsh
growing on the far side, on the south side, which is on the
other side of that slide, is actually growing underneath those
decks. So as mitigation for the project we are proposing to
remove and not replace those decks that are overhanging the
water which will take away that coverage that goes over the
creek and hopefully allow some of that Spartina Alterna flora to
and back and continue to flourish on the outside of the wall.
Some of the landward walkways will not be replaced. In
other locations they will be replaced. There is a slight
reconfiguration of the north side of the boat basin just to
square that corner which will create a little more of a waterway
inside the basin at the expense of the upland.
Um, we had proposed incidental dredging on the inside of
the basin and then also on the outside of the north side of the
basin. The comments, I had had an opportunity to talk to Jay
after he and Mike had re-inspected the site, and discussed the
idea to actually try to actively encourage that Alterna flora to
come back on the outside of the bulkheads with some plantings,
which the applicant is agreeable to at least trying to get that
done. And that would necessitate our removing the proposal to
Board of Trustees 21 October 18, 2017
incidentally dredge in front of that section of the bulkhead that
is on the lower half of your slide there, that's on the north side.
So if that was acceptable to the Board we would issue
revised plans that would eliminate the incidental dredging on
the north side and show an attempt for active planting of
Spartina Alterna flora in front of both walls.
So if that is agreeable to the Board, that would be okay by
us and we would give you the revised plans accordingly.
I see a lot of heads nodding yes, so I'll take that as a yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I was waiting for Charles. That is, in
essence, what Mike and I brought our report back from
discussions with Mr. Cassidy, and that was our recommendation at
the work session. And we appreciate the fact you are going in
that direction and get some more productivity in the creek.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: So in essence a revised plan reflecting changes
to the dredging and the replanting.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is there anybody else who would like to speak
about this?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with revised plans reflecting changes to the dredging and replanting.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Incidental from the description?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Limit incidental dredging on the inside of the
basin allows the functionality in the basin since they are not
doing incidental dredging outside, it's not it would not be an issue.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Therefore it would not matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: So we'll stick with the same thing, a motion to
approve the application with revised plans reflecting changes to
the dredging and replanting plan.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number nine, En-Consultants on behalf of ANGELIC &
JOHN DURANTE, JR. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family,
two-story dwelling with attached garage and steps, a ±365sq.ft. covered deck, a
±376sq.ft. raised masonry stone patio, a±90sq.ft. raised masonry bluestone patio, and
an 18'x36' swimming pool; install pool equipment, pool drywell, and pool enclosure
fencing; install stepping stones and a gravel driveway with cobblestone inlay; install
a drainage system of leaders, gutters and drywells; install a sanitary system
located landward of the proposed dwelling; and to construct onto seaward side of
existing bulkhead a 4'x6' cantilevered timber platform, 3'x14' hinged ramp, and 6'x20'
floating dock secured by two (2) 8" diameter pilings and serviced with water and electricity.
Located: 4260 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-29
Board of Trustees 22 October 18, 2017
The LWRP found this to be consistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the
application.
The Trustees conducted a field inspection on October 10th,
noting that it was pretty straightforward and also the need for
a non-turf buffer.
Is there anyone here wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicant. The project has basically two components to it.
We submitted two different plans, one is a site plan from
Peconic Surveyors which shows a proposed dwelling with an
attached covered deck on the seaward side of the house that
would meet a hundred foot setback from the wetlands boundary,
and then a raised natural stone patio and swimming pool which at
it's nearest point would need a 75 foot setback from the
wetlands boundary.
There is a sanitary system of course proposed in connection
with the house that is located outside of the Board's
jurisdiction, and there is an existing four-foot wide walk along
the bulkhead, and we had shown on the site plan a 15-foot wide
non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead walk.
Now, I will admit that we had intended to show a 15-foot
wide non-turf buffer from the bulkhead. So it would be 15-feet
inclusive of the boardwalk. So if that is acceptable to the
Board we would actually have to revise this site plan to show
the buffer starting in the right place. If the Board preferred a
non-turf buffer that was say about 19 feet, then it's correct as
written. But we would have to reference to the 15-foot non-turf
buffer actually starts behind the boardwalk.
This is really just a drafting miscommunication with the
surveyor that I didn't catch until I sat down at the hearing
tonight. So you have to let me know about that.
The other component is just a simple addition of the 46
platform off the bulkhead with a 3x14 ramp and 6x20 float, the
boat dock is along the bulkhead there.
There was a prior permit actually for the shoreline work
which earlier in the meeting you transferred to the Durante's.
Not proposing any work on the bulkhead, but just as a point of
information.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here wishes to speak regarding
this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response) .
MR. HERRMANN: What is your pleasure with the buffer?
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Do you want to go 15 feet from the bulkhead
back, inclusive of the four-foot walk?
(Affirmative response).
Okay. Hearing no other comments, I'll make a motion to close
this hearing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
Board of Trustees 23 October 18, 2017
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application
with the condition that the 15-foot non-turf buffer begins at
the bulkhead, and new plans showing the change.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number eleven, McCarthy Realty on behalf of
JOHN RUMPLER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 16'x32'
in-ground swimming pool with a 5'wide on-grade brick walk
around pool; install an 8'x8' pool drywell to contain pool
backwash; install a 6'x8' pool equipment area; and install 4'
high pool enclosure fencing. Located: 470 Goose Creek Lane,
- Southold. SCTM# 1000-79-1-5
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent and
required a vegetated non-turf non-fertilization buffer to
protect water quality in Goose Creek.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
however notes the project was not staked.
The Board visited this project on the 10th of October. Also
noted it was not staked and would like to see a 50-foot setback
to the pool.
I also have a letter here from a neighbor received on the
17th. It reads as follows:
Greetings. My wife and I are the owners of the premises
that lies immediately to the southwest of the applicant. We have
lived in this location for 63 years in a house that we built
with our own hands and in which we raised our two daughters.
All the lots in this area on the south side of Goose Creek
are relatively small by today's standards, averaging less that
20,000 square feet each. Over the many years that we have lived
here, all of our neighbors have exercised restraint and
consideration for the local community character by making only
limited additions and alterations to their homes as necessary to
accommodate growing families and their own needs as caused by
aging and lack of mobility.
This letter strongly protests the applicant Rumpler's
request to locate in-ground pool equipment enclosure and fencing
immediately adjacent to our house and only five foot removed
from our northeastern property line. Since the applicant's rear
yard measures 75 feet from side to side and 77 between the house
and the bulkhead it appears there might be room to adopt a more
neighborly placement of a 37x21' pool, patio and fence enclosure
elsewhere rather than crammed up against our property and
impinging upon our presently beautiful view of Goose Creek and
then northeasterly to Goose Creek bridge.
If the applicant had been a long-term owner of the premises
who is making this pool application for personal use or for
Board of Trustees 24 October 18, 2017
medically required exercise, we might view this project in a
different light, but the major renovations and the house itself
and recent appearance of a "for sale" sign it is obvious that
this proposed pool is only a blatant attempt to increase the
sale price without regard for character to the community or its
effect on us.
If this Board in its infinite wisdom decides to allow such
a major change to this area we at least pray that the
orientation of the pool be changed so that its long access runs
from side to side across the applicant's property thereby
placing it's southwesterly edge further from our property line
and concurrently decreasing its northwesterly extension toward
the bulkhead by some 16 feet, which would at least preserve some
of our treasured view.
Additionally, along with the deep concerns about the
location of the pool itself, we are troubled by the proposed
location of the equipment enclosure on that side on the site
plan as immediately outside our sun room window. My wife and I
use this room 12 months a year for our reading pleasure and
dread the thought of the noise and machinery immediately next
door making this room unusable to us.
With the space that is available in the applicant's rear
yard and the existing vegetation that already screens the
premises to the northeast, we wonder why all this burden of this
project, if approved, must fall upon us. I regret I am unable
to appear before the Board of Trustees to voice_our opposition
to this project but my wife has had recent surgery and is
confined to Peconic Bay Medical Center while I'm having
increasing mobility problems that makes my trip to the hearing
room very difficult.
I'm trusting this letter will be considered in the same
gravity as if I were to appear in person. Very truly yours,
Robert C. Mulgraph.
Okay, is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding
this application?
MR. MCCARTHY: Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy Real Estate, on behalf
of Rumpler. I would love to get a copy of that letter. The
Mulgraph's adjacent neighbors have been good neighbors with this
family for many years. If we can make the application more
hospitable to them we would certainly be open to it. We are not
looking to create an undue burden on the neighbors. We would be
happy to move the pool equipment. It's not important to us
exactly where that goes, but if there is a mutual acceptable
agreement, then we would be open to your suggestions as to where
that should go. We would be happy to do it. We did look at
rotating the pool 90 degrees. This is a 75 foot wide property.
We looked at rotating the pool 90 degrees to have it run
transverse across the property line and felt that that would
really monopolize the yard for the nine months of the year that
it was not going to be used. So we tried to pull the pool back
as far as we could away from the bulkhead and brought it in as
Board of Trustees 25 October 18, 2017
close to the house as we can. So just to draw your attention to
it, the pool is located, landward edge the pool is located at
the seaward edge of the deck. That was done so that we didn't
have, we didn't come into the side yard of the deck and
necessitate a variance, okay, to have an accessory structure in
the side yard. So that is the location that was selected for
the edge of the pool to meet the edge of the deck. We did look
to rotate it 90 degrees. We just felt it would really overtake
the usability of the rest of the yard. This way with the
orientation that we have it here, looking seaward, perhaps the
left-hand side, the western side of the property would be more
pool oriented and the eastern side could be used the other nine
months of the year.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The change of orientation albeit there is
obviously siting issues that are environmental, the orientation
change would possibly address concerns that we found
independently. We were trying to keep it to more code compliant
50 feet, even before this letter came to our attention. And
then, the other question would be if, any thoughts to putting
like one of these modular smaller pools, exercise-type pool or
some other pool, if concerns --there again, ours are
environmental concerns. We don't really have a lot of leg to
stand on other than that we appreciate your attempt to make this
more neighborly. But we are certainly thinking about making the
pool smaller to get it away from the wetland and obviously
accommodate neighbors in a neighborly sense, too.
MR. MCCARTHY: I think we are open to both of that. We have a
great deal of respect for the neighbors and not looking to place
an undo burden on them. But that's the reason why the pool is
situated the way it is. Number one, is for zoning so it didn't
become on the side yard of the deck, and at least get us a
reasonable-size pool which left us 45 feet from the bulkhead. As
a point of reference and unfortunately it's not shown on this
plan, there is a non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead as I'm sure
you folks saw when you were out there. And all the improvements
on the property--the house was built with benefit of permits
from this Board. There's a split rail fence permit from this
Board, and everything onsite is in compliance with the permits
that have been granted.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: If it's rotated and put in the center, would it
still be able to meet all the setbacks?
MR. MCCARTHY: My only constraint was the setbacks, zoning wise
particular to the deck was that it did not come alongside of the
deck, okay, because then it would be an accessory structure in a
side yard, because the deck is attached to the house.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I mean there must be technology you could
rotate the pool and have some form of decking covering over it
in this day and age that would even increase the serviceability
of the yard. Here again, this ain't us, but there is so much
can be done nowadays from an engineering standpoint.
MR. MCCARTHY: Well, they did it in "It's A Wonderful Life," I
Board of Trustees 26 October 18, 2017
think.
So, if we were able to modify the plan to keep the pool
itself 50 feet from the bulkhead, would that be more acceptable?
And relocate the pool equipment so it was not directly adjacent
to the sun room of the neighbors, would that be more acceptable
to the Board?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Seems to meet our needs. What about
soundproofing, having the pool equipment put in an enclosure
with soundproofing as well? I'm throwing it out there only
because it's not a big cost item and it also benefits the
homeowner themselves.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Or a wall or something. You know, you can get
creative with it.
MR. MCCARTHY: Sure, we are happy to make a reasonable
accommodations. Or move it to the other side and wait for the
other neighbor to write a letter. But, yes, we would be
agreeable put a wall there to deflect the sound so it doesn't go --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So where would we move the pool equipment?
Does anyone have any thoughts on that?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe allow for them to table and bring
revised plans.
MR. MCCARTHY: We could certainly pull it street side. If you do
look at the aerial, it was shown in the front left-hand corner
to the left of the number four, there we could pull it street
side still along the same side and it would be more akin to
being next to their driveway rather than next to their living space.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: That would work.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So should we wait for new plans?
MR. MCCARTHY: Well, if we agree to rotate the pool and keep it
back 50 feet from the bulkhead edge, relocate the pool equipment
to the southwesterly corner of the structure, would that be acceptable?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With conforming revised plans.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Sounds reasonable.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Put it in the form of a motion.
MR. MCCARTHY: I appreciate you taking it easy on me tonight
because I have my three kids here.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Does that mean we are supposed to --
MR. MCCARTHY: You're supposed to give me a yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They are very well behaved.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's okay with the Board then, with revised
plans?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Yes.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. Is there anyone else here that wishes to
speak regarding this application, or any additional comments
from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I make a motion to approve this application
Board of Trustees 27 October 18, 2017
with the following amendments: The pool will be rotated 90
degrees and will be at least 50-feet further, or 50-feet back
from the bulkhead, and with new plans depicting that, as well as
the pool equipment moved up toward the front of the house closer
to the driveway.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. MCCARTHY: Thank you, for your accommodations.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 12, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on
behalf 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"4" 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
The Trustees did a field inspection on November 10th and
noted that everything seemed to be okay, as per plans received
October 10, 2017.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application suggesting open-grate through-flow decking.
The LWRP coordinator on a memo dated June 14th, which
predates the revised plan, found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency arose from his concern that the dock might impinge
upon the one-third rule and be a hazard to navigation.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting,
for the applicant 675 Hill Road LLC.
I put a fairly comprehensive presentation before we made
various changes including reducing the size of the float and
moving the structure landward, which clearly avoids the problem
of violating the one-third rule. But I'm here to answer any
questions you may have.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Very good. As we noticed, you have shortened the
proposed dock assembly to keep it away from the one-third.
MR. ANDERSON: Correct.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And it's probably the shortest that you can do
that. Any closer to the shoreline and you would not have depth
to water.
MR. ANDERSON: That is correct.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
Board of Trustees 28 October 18, 2017
noting that the revised plans received October 10th, 2017, will
bring it into compliance with the LWRP.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number 13, Suffolk
Environmental Consulting on behalf of CHARLES LOMANGINO TRUST
requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten Year Maintenance Permit to
restore the navigability of a man-made channel in a lagoon
located contiguous to applicant's properties by maintenance
dredging the channel within an area measuring 30.0' wide by
350.0' long, dredging up to a depth of-4.0' below mean low low
water, extending from the northern entrance to the southern
terminus, resulting in 350 cubic years of dredge spoils;
dredging will utilize a typical closed-bucket dredge, mounted on
a crane; the resultant spoil will be placed on lands owned by
the applicant along the eastern shoreline of the channel and
contained by placement of hay bales and siltation fencing around
its perimeter. Located: Dug Lagoon off Horseshoe Cove, 1035
Meadow Beach Lane, 602 Meadow Beach Road, & Lowland Road,
Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-10-1.1, 1.2 & 2
This application is deemed to be consistent with the LWRP
with a specific recommendation for water turbidity controls
during the dredge project.
The project is supported by the Conservation Advisory Council.
The Trustees looked at the proposal on field inspections on
the 10th and we had no immediate concerns with the project as it
was proposed for the dredging at that time.
Is there anyone who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicant Lomangino.
I don't know what tide you were there. I know Mr. Ivans of
my office was there with you, but it is almost impassable during
low tide, so.
This is a creek that is a manmade lagoon. It was previously
dredged pursuant to permits issued by both DEC and Army Corps
and this Board in the late 90s. So it's an attempt to basically
reopen something that had been historically maintained by dredging.
I'm here to answer any questions you may have. One thing I
noticed in the application that you should be aware of is that
when you were down there, you would have seen a lot of beach
grass and that sort of vegetation growing. You were actually
there on the shoreline looking at, you were standing on the
previous dredge spoil site. And the only thing I would say
about our application should add, we would tend to do it, and
stabilize it with beach grass plantings, and essentially you
would wind up with a functional channel and natural habitat
resembling a sand dune, basically.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes
to speak to this application?
Board of Trustees 29 October 18, 2017
Please come up to the lectern and speak your name clearly
for the record.
MS. HARRISON? My name is Patricia Harrison. I have the adjacent
property just south of the Lomangino property. And, um, I'm all
for it. You know, that's my first comment. But I do have some
questions. One, and maybe Bruce you could answer this, how is it
determined that that was a manmade canal? Because we owned our
house --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Ma'am, please just address the Board.
MS. HARRISON: I'm sorry. Okay, I would just like to know because
our family has owned our property since 1930 and as far as I
know that canal was always there. Not that it makes a
difference. It's just a curiosity question.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I can address the question. It was on an old
file subdivision map which I believe we may even have as an
inclusion in the file.
The clerk informs us we have it in the file. So, in other
words, this was a manmade waterway that was part of a
development of what would be considered an environmentally
inappropriate kind of Florida-style dredging and fill in all the
wetlands and bulkhead. And there is an old map here that hereby
certify this map was made from actual surveys May 29th, 1938,
and the concrete monuments are located as here. So there is
actually some specific notes here with respect to an old filed map.
MS. HARRISON: Would I be able to get a copy of that?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Surely.
MS. HARRISON: Okay. Thank you. My second question is the
siltation fence. What is that going to be made of and how long
will that stay up?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There are two types that are typically used.
There is the in-water controls that the LWRP coordinator is
requesting, and they are temporary, that are usually booms with
a silt curtain that occur during construction. Then the others,
as in the language, are, it's hay bales that are staked with
typical black plastic fencing material that is approximately
what, two feet, give or take, and they are usually, we don't
normally put a time line for them because they usually are left
in place until the material has stabilized, then can be
finished, graded and planted.
MS. HARRISON: Okay. And it's the owner's responsibility to get
rid of that; is that correct?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, it's part of the restoration and
planting plan. Ordinary construction that has never become an
issue, but that is something that is ordinary and usual
construction and maintenance post dredging would be to remove
the hay bales and the silt fence.
MS. HARRISON: Okay. And my last question is in the proposal
that I received they mentioned any other agencies that have to
review this proposal. Are there any other agencies or is this it?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, there are. It would have to be a joint
application to the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the
Board of Trustees 30 October 18, 2017
Department of Environmental Conservation.
MS. HARRISON: So does that all happen before the dredging
happens, lguess?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, we have, it was included in this
packet that they have the required authorizations from the DEC
for this project. And that usually also includes the Army Corps
with it because it's a joint application.
MS. HARRISON: So it's already been approved by those.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
MS. HARRISON: Okay, thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You're very welcome.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application?
(Negative response).
Any questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I would 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 a silt
curtain siltation controls during turbidity during the course of
construction be utilized and that because this is a natural
resource area where the spoils to go, that would we would
request that within maybe six months' time that a silt fence and
hay bales could be removed at, within that time period for beach
restoration with planting with American beach grass at standard
densities. That's my motion. And we don't need revised plans.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: We'll take a brief recess right now.
(After a recess these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number be 14, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
on behalf of BUDD'S POND MARINA, INC. requests a Wetland Permit
for the reconstruction of existing ±51' long wave wall which
will be comprised of vinyl sheathing secured between two (2)
tiers of timber walers (6"x6"-both sides), and 8" diameter
timber pilings; widen the existing boat launch runway by
relocating/reconstructing the runway an additional ±2'further
towards the west in order to widen the overall width of the boat
launch runway from ±16.5' to ±18x5'; and to construct a ±97'
low-sill bulkhead comprising of vinyl sheathing sandwiched by
6"x6" timber top walers, 6" diameter timber pilings (in a
staggered formation on either side of the bulkhead), with a top
elevation of 2' in order to allow tidal flow over the structure
during high tides; area directly landward of new bulkhead to be
Board of Trustees 31 October 18, 2017
filed with ±20 cubic yards (t250sq.ft.), obtained from an
approved upland source, graded, groomed and planted with
compatible native wetland vegetation (i.e. Spartina ssp. At 1'
o/c). Located: 61500 Route 25, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-6-2.2
I'll read a letter from William Bill Lieblein, CEO of Port
of Egypt Marina.
Please notify the Town Trustees that C&L Realty, Inc., Port
of Egypt Marina, Inc., in Port of Egypt, have no objections to
the bulkhead work being proposed by Budd's Pond Marina, Inc.,
Albertson Marina, Inc.
The LWRP has found this to be consistent with the one note
of turbidity controls are installed during construction to further Policy
Number Six.
And the Conservation Advisory Council supports this application.
And on 12 September 2017, at 11:00 AM, all Trustees were
present and the notes say: Simple project and should increase wetlands.
Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of the applicant?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting
for the applicant.
I don't have anything to add, but I'm here to answer any
questions you may have. I hope you understand the purpose of
the, with the travel width has to be widened and it has to be
redone for structural reasons. We thought the low sill bulkhead
was a good idea because you guys may remember we secured a
dredging permit there and the idea is to protect and in fact
increase wetlands along that area. And the wave curtain is
necessary --the wave wall is necessary because this marina is
subject to storm tides, wave surges from the southeast. It's
completely exposed from that direction. So I thank you for your interest.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Anybody else like to speak on behalf of the
applicant or anybody from the Board?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve this application.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number 15, Costello Marine Contracting Corp.
on behalf of NICHOLAS & GEORGIA NOTIAS request a Wetland Permit
to construct a dock consisting of a 4'x40' fixed landward ramp
up onto a 4'x150' level dock; construct two 4'x40' lower
platforms at offshore end of dock; install four (4) 10" diameter
mooring pilings; install water piping and electric conduit to offshore end of
dock; and to construct a 4'x20' walkway/ramp over dune.
Located: 450 Paradise Point Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-93-1-3
This is a continuation. It was tabled last time. So we
Board of Trustees 32 October 18, 2017
went over the LWRP report that found this to be deemed inconsistent.
The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this
application with the condition that provisions are made for
lateral access along the shoreline.
The Trustees have conducted numerous inspections on this
site, the most recent being October 10th, 2017, and it was
discussed about moving the dock further north and shortening the
length of the dock.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello on behalf of the applicant. I'm
here to answer any questions. I do remember onsite moving the
dock to the north five feet, which is agreeable, but as far as
the shortening of the dock, I don't recollect that conversation.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We had a work session in between. We had a
Work session subsequent to that and the Board is continuing to
have discussions, just straight up with you, we meet in the
field but we don't make determinations per se.
MR. COSTELLO: Right. The dock is shorter than the neighboring
structures and it's contiguous with the neighboring structures.
Already being shorter as applied for.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Shorter than --the other ones were only --
MR. COSTELLO: And it's the same exact length as the ones
recently approved. But shorter than Macari and Miller.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So there is multiple properties before Cedar
Beach Road. The launching ramp.
MR. COSTELLO: Two.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Two properties. Three properties?
The Board during the course of the work session, we are
concerned about approaches to the town ramp facilities which
will be improved on in the future but obviously this is more
remote. I was not of the impression there were three properties.
I simply didn't know.
MR. COSTELLO: Well, the properties moving further to the south
will kind of be handcuffed by setbacks. This is the last real
piece of the old estates being a vast vista of land. It's the
last one left there. So this particular property is in a very
good standpoint to have a dock there.
Moving forward, you know, I don't have a crystal ball, I
don't know what's going to go on with the southern properties,
but from the looks of them, they are narrow in comparison --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And they'll be heavily constrained.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, they'll be constrained by the setbacks. But
where Mr. Notias has purchased a piece of property where --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right.
MR. COSTELLO: (Continuing) he doesn't have any setback issues
whatsoever.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Understood.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: In an effort to kind of address some of the
LWRP concerns and take a de minimis approach to this, if we move
it five feet to the north and if we dialed it back ten feet, in
that location, you still get the same water depth as you would
Board of Trustees 33 October 18, 2017
in its current location.
MR. COSTELLO: I would have to look at the hydrographics but the
length, like I said, the past three other docks, this is basically the same
exact design. Like I said, without getting into an argument about the
other southern property owners, I don't see it restrictive to anybody
considering the distance away from Cedar Beach. And there are
three other properties there. But as far as Mr. Notias goes I find it
acceptable to move the dock five feet to the north to stay away from
the other property owners, stay away from Cedar Beach. But shortening
it, considering three other docks have been approved in this area,
and it is shorter than Miller and Macari, which have been there
for, I don't know, probably 30 years ago?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, it's not quite the overall length of the
dock necessarily that we deal with. A lot of times it's the pier
line. So if the shoreline is starting to bump out there, it
would only make sense to uphold the pier line and keep it
shorter, I mean far shorter than the other ones.
MR. COSTELLO: I mean, you can see the dynamics of the beach
there, you can actually almost tell the topography of it by
looking it at. I mean, the piece of land is curved going out. I
mean, this has always been an argument with the pier line. It's
a curved beach and the underwater topography of land you can see
by the hydrographic, I mean, it's consistent when you leave
Miller and go to Macari and you come straight down. I mean,
that's the overall -- I don't want to handcuff the guy and move
him back ten feet. It doesn't seem like really much of an
arguable point. There is not a lot of water there to begin
with. To push him back any further, as far as safe dockage, I do
feel he's far enough away from Cedar Beach that, I mean ten feet
won't make anything but more difficult on him and cause more
bottom disturbance from his boat. He's got a boat that's --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We notice on the hydrographic it was just
slightly deeper by moving it over the five feet. I'm wondering
if we could get five --
MR. COSTELLO: The issue is the boat will be there and he has to
dock the boat. And the further we move it in, the further issue
it's going to be. I mean, it's not going to become a better
situation as the years go on and I don't want to come back in
here looking for a ten-foot dock extension. This application
seems very reasonable considering neighboring, you know,
contiguous with the other neighboring docks; there's been three
other docks approved in the area; I'm willing to move it five
feet to the north. Um, but I don't want, I don't think it's
really worth arguing about from a --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And move it to get the depth so you don't
have the problem with damaging the boat.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Did you say you agree with the movement of five
feet?
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, I can certainly move it five feet to the north, it's
not a problem, to stay away from the public beach and the access.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Nick makes a good point. You are correct, you
Board of Trustees 34 October 18, 2017
are 150 feet from all the other docks but the actual beach does
bump out therefore bringing us out longer and the pier line thus changes.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, but--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The notion of the pier line I think is not
well defined, so if you don't take in the physiography of a body
of water it can be somewhat defeating.
In other words the pier line on the Hudson River is
somewhat different, the pier line can be the set distance out of
a perpendicular dock and running along the natural shoreline of
a body and to try to confine it to a straight line seems to defy
the great one that makes the tides move and pushes the sand
around. It seems, I don't think it's cast in stone that a pier
line has to be, you know, transit straight, you know--
MR. COSTELLO: And we are not dealing with a canal or a dredged
waterway here. We are talking about, you know, it's five miles
to the next thing. There is no issue with navigability. It's not
like we are deal with a narrow channel here. It's literally
miles across the bay. You know, like I said, I'm willing to move
the dock five feet to the north but I don't want to move the
inshore any and it becoming a docking issue for the owner of the
property. It doesn't seem like a real issue to argue.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The challenge for us, Jack, is that we have to
address the LWRP inconsistency, and the length is an issue for
the coordinator. We have gone through this several times.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: There is a seven-page report of why there
should not be a dock here.
MR. COSTELLO: It's the same report they probably issued on the
last three docks.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: One of them concerns the length. And we are
talking pier line and water depth and starting to encroach
towards the public beach and public launching facility.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The last couple have been between sort of the
established pier line so it's sort of easy to deal with because
you have docks on each side.
MR. COSTELLO: The last one was the last one to the north, so
there was no real pier line established on that side of Linda
Sanford, was the far northern one, and her dock is the exact
same design as this one. And I shortened the "L" and actually
dropped the amount of the scope of the project. Like I said, to
avoid this thing, I kept the design further off that property
line to keep it further away so we would not argue about the
setbacks, staying to a 30-foot setback. I moved it further off,
and now I'm willing to move it another five feet to stay away.
And like I said, I originally moved it off so we avoid the
argument and then moved it another five. And this is the same
as the northern dock. Exactly. With the exception the "L" is
ten-feet shorter. So we actually dialed back the scope. And
this piece of property is wider than the Sanford property that
is the far northern dock. So we actually moved it further off
the property line than the required setback, we dialed back the
"L," ten feet, and no, like I said, there is, as far as the guy
Board of Trustees 35 October 18, 2017
docking his boat there, you know, I don't want to handcuff him
by giving up ten feet of something that is less than we just
approved at the far other end. Without having an established
pier line past Sanford. Because she is the last one, then Mike
Scarino is further this way. But again, there was no pier line
set on that other one because of Sanford. And as you come
around toward that point you'll have an issue with this curve.
So if you pan that out a little bit, Elizabeth, you'll see it
will become an issue because when you come to Paradise Point
itself, this is just a big, curved cove with no restrictions of
a channel. And you can see by the color of the water it's a very
consistent depth. So to change anything at this point it just
really seems irrelevant.
I understand the issues you are facing.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And that is our problem. It might seem
irrelevant to you but to LWRP it's not irrelevant. And that's where
we have to bring it into consistency otherwise we can't approve it.
MR. COSTELLO: Scaling it back ten feet, I mean, I don't really
feel it makes a difference either way. I mean, moving it
further off the property line is really, seems like a fair, you
know, way to --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Did you mention the point we discussed --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: If you bring it, the way the plans look right
now with where the dock is, you are looking at two foot nine, to
basically two foot four of water depth. Where it's currently
written and drawn up in your plans. The water depths to the,
that would be north, it gets deeper a little bit as you go
north. So even if we dialed it back say five feet so that most
landward portion of that dock, which currently is sitting'in
around 2.4, you would be around approximately 2.6. So he would
still have adequate water depth. He would actually have more
water depth than he does currently. It would address the LWRP's
concerns, it would dial it back a little bit, it would move it
further away from the public bathing beach and the public
launching ramp which would be a de minimis approach and would
bring it into consistency with the LWRP.
MR. COSTELLO: As far as the beach goes, you have three other
property owners between this piece of property and that. So I
don't think there is any argument for this interfering with the
beach whatsoever, because you have to address three other
property owners. There's three pieces of property between this
and the public beach. So I don't really think there is even an
issue with the public beach. Because you'll have to address
this with three other property owners moving forward. I would
have to bring it back to the owner if you want to moved further
away, but I was willing to give the five feet. I negotiated with
the owner but dialing it back in length considering what just
happened, you know, what the other recently approved docks were
on this, the same exact vista. You know, I don't bring docks in
front of this Board with crazy delusions on clean vistas. I
don't do it, I don't expedite them, but --
Board of Trustees 36 October 18, 2017
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: No, and I think you had a good point when we
were in the field, you said you look one direction you see a
dock, you look the other direction you see a dock. You bring
the application. If you don't, you won't. This is our concern,
you look one way you have a dock, you look the other way, you
don't. You have a public beach. That's what the gist of this
LWRP report is getting at.
MR. COSTELLO: But like I said, you have three other pieces
property. Private pieces of property.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We appreciate everything you are saying. It
wouldn't seem unreasonable to bring it back to Mr. Notias for
that discussion. From our point, it's a minimal request to bring
this into an LWRP compliance. And I think we are all of the mind
that this, we are at the end of the boating season and unless he
is planning on doing some real hard scalloping in January, it's
certainly something you could confirm with him.
MR. COSTELLO: The dock is scheduled to start, now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can't scallop if the dock is in the way.
MR. COSTELLO: So does that mean --the issue at hand, the dock
is scheduled for this fall. For now. I mean, and it's something,
I mean, I don't have the liberty to scale this back. I did take
the liberty of moving it over five feet but scaling it back
considering there has been three, like I said, this exact same
dock, and it's scaled down, you know and it has the shorter"L"
ten-feet shorter'. So because the whole issue was he didn't want
it moved in front of his house so he said let's just scale down
the "L," let's make it less structure than Sanford and Scarino.
And it's obviously smaller than Macari and Miller because they
are six-foot wide docks and longer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So if we are held by restriction here and we
are holding hard and fast on this number, do you need to go back
to your client and have a discussion with him?
MR. COSTELLO: Well, the thing, like I said, he was willing to
move it over the five feet and keep it further away from the
bathing beach. That's fine. But as far as the overall length
goes, he's going to want to remain consistent with other things
this Board has recently approved. That is something that I would
have to go back and talk to him and his attorneys. I'm not his
attorney. I'm just an expediter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: And that's probably the best position you could
take right now, Jack, because back in the day when they approved
this LWRP program, there were strings attached and the strings
are that we have to bring things into compliance with whatever
this LWRP coordinator puts down on paper. And this is seven or
eight pages that we need to satisfy, and if we don't do that,
it's going to be denied.
MR. COSTELLO: What I have to do is I have to go back to Mr.
Notias and his attorneys and discuss with him because from here
it will go to his attorneys. I mean, that's just the way, I
mean, I mean, I'm willing to move it over five feet.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have not made a determination yet. He
Board of Trustees 37 October 18, 2017
can go to his attorney any time he likes. We have one here, they
are great people --
MR. COSTELLO: I know, I just-- I have a bunch I'm doing. I
can't speak for him on this one. I'll have to go back to him and
I guess, I mean --
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And if you request a copy of the LWRP report
to address his concerns, and then --
MR. COSTELLO: So what was the request, shorten it five feet?
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Five feet to the north and five feet shorter,
would bring it into compliance.
MR. COSTELLO: Five feet shorter, I mean can we --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Let's say it would go a long way into bringing
it into compliance.
MR. COSTELLO: If five feet shorter and five feet to the north is
going to bring it into compliance, like I said, I have to talk
to him. But as far as I go, I would be willing to do that, if
you could base an approval on that. I would just have to clear
it with Mr. Notias.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We could do it with submission of plans and
the permit can't be issued if the plans don't conform with the
vote. That gets things moving along.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I mean, if he doesn't know what his client will
agree with, I just don't know if it makes complete sense. You
know, why take a chance on that then where are we going to be,
if Mr. Notias doesn't agree, it gets complicated.
MR. COSTELLO: Well, if I could get an approval moving it five to
the north and five feet shorter, I mean, I have to work with you
guys too. I have to work with him, I have to work with him. I
have to make it happen here. And I'm willing to see what I can
do unless, you know. So, I mean, this is all on public record,
he'll be able to read the Minutes. Um, I mean that's all I can
really do. If we have to bring it into conformity and five and
five makes it, then that's what we'll do.
MR. HAGAN: With permission of the Board, so I'm clear, are you
requesting to table this now for an opportunity to speak with
your client?
MR. COSTELLO: No, I would actually have the Board approve it
based on shortening the dock five feet and moving to the north
five feet, and wait on new plans.
MR. HAGAN: Okay, that's all I need to know.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any other questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay, I'll make a motion to approve this
application with the condition that the dock be moved five feet
Board of Trustees 38 October 18, 2017
to the north and dialed back five feet in length to address the
LWRP coordinator's concerns and bring it into consistency, with
new plans to depict the changes, and subject to approval upon
new plans.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion has been made and seconded. All in favor?
(Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Sanders,
aye. Trustee Goldsmith, aye. Trustee Krupski, nay).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm a nay on that. Sorry, I think it's too
close to the public beach and the ramp, and it has to end
somewhere.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number 16, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on
behalf of RUSSELL BATES requests a Wetland Permit to remove 122'
of existing north and east side bulkheads and 12' of west
return; construct 122' of new north and east side bulkheads
in-place; construct new 16' long west bulkhead return; add an
additional 24' of rip-rap to top of approximately 82' of
existing rip-rap at end of west return to raise top elevation
one foot; construct a 4'x5' platform; install a 3'x20' seasonal
aluminum ramp onto a 6'x20' seasonal floating dock secured by
two (2) 8" diameter anchor pilings. Located: 15 East Mill Road,
Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-4-2
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent and
inconsistent. He found the proposed bulkhead work to be
consistent, along with the returns and the rip rap. And he found
the new float and platform to be inconsistent.
A discussion on cumulative impacts and dock density in
Mattituck Creek is not provided; the need to extend the dock
into public waters with adequate water depths; whether adequate
facilities are available to boat owners and/or operators for
fueling and discharge of waste and rubbish to such facilities
are not proposed or discussed. The applicant currently enjoys
access to public water via an existing private dock structure
with adequate water depth; the proposal may exceed the minimal
structure necessary to access navigable waters.
And then the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to
support this application with the drainage plan depicting roof
runoff.
The Board of Trustees went out on October 10th. They
questioned the need for a floating dock; questioned zoning,
which was looked into since then, and they noted it was a
straightforward bulkhead replacement.
Is there anyone here to speak regarding this application?
MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello on behalf of the applicant, just
here to answer any questions of the Board.
As far as the float, I mean, you guys know what it's like
there at low tide. It's just an easier way to access a boat,
and it's primarily for a kayak. It's easy to see where it is.
This picture is taken at dead high tide. If you go there at dead
low tide, and there is a five or six-foot tide swing in
Board of Trustees 39 October 18, 2017
Mattituck Inlet. It's hairy getting onto a boat. It's basically
for a small boat. And I have not gotten any resistance from any
other agencies. And as far as the bulkhead, it's a straight up
replacement. I mean, it's cut and dry. It's an nasty job, but
someone has to do it. So if there are there any questions.
TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I think we discussed the option of possibly
doing a float with a ladder as opposed to the ramp. Because our
concern was the current floating dock extends past the fixed
dock. And obviously that's due to the length of the ramp and
everything with the tide drop. So putting a floating dock that
extends no further seaward than the fixed dock is some way to
access it.
MR. COSTELLO: It doesn't go past what would be the considered
the structure of the piling. There's two pilings off of the tie
off pilings at the end of the dock that hold the bow of what was
a fishing boat that is no longer there anymore. It's no longer a
fishing pier, it's just a private owner. And there are two
dolphins off the end of that pier, what you can clearly see one
of them, the floating dock doesn't extend past what you consider
the marine structure. I mean, it goes past where you can walk
but it doesn't go past the marine structure. That's why it's
laid out that way.
And the 20-foot ramp is kind of like what is, and by the
suggestion of this Board and many other occasions in Mattituck
Inlet due to the five or six-foot tide swing, we know that it's
more comfortable to walk down a 20-foot ramp and I know that you
guys in the past have suggested that to property owners inside
Mattituck Inlet. I'm dealing with a guy right now that had to do
a change because a 12-foot ramp was not long enough.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Does he need those tie-off piles if he's
predominantly doing kayaking or small boating, unless he's got a
float, he can tie his boat on a float.
MR. COSTELLO: Like I said, we are not going to take --this is
obviously has been there for years and years and years.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are not talking the dock, I thought you
said they are outboard tie-off piles.
MR. COSTELLO: No. In line with the actual catwalk, you can see
off on the left there --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. Maybe they are not on the plans.
MR. COSTELLO: No, they are. And a floating dock is actually
inside of those. So what you consider the marine structure, the
float doesn't --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ordinarily, those have no utility for a
float in that position, so the question would be maybe the Board
should request--
MR. COSTELLO: They are tie-off piles for the bow of the boat.
The pier itself is not long enough to dock a --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess I'm confused because -- I know how
tie-off piles work. I've tied a few boats --
MR. COSTELLO: It's for the bow of the boat. The boat that was
there was a fishing boat. Those piles are there --
Board of Trustees 40 October 18, 2017
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right. But we are talking about a future
use. It's starting to look like two docks and a marina on a
property that is zoned residential. That's the problem.
MR. COSTELLO: It doesn't add any berth to the piece of property.
I mean I could tie a boat up on the inside shore of that dock
just as well. It just makes it more safe and more accessible.
We are actually putting the floating dock where a boat usually
lays and making the water more accessible and safer for the guy.
You know what I'm saying?We are not adding a slip to the piece
of property. We are taking a slip away and making it more
accessible for a smaller boat. Where that float is, is a slip.
So you can only accommodate two floats at that dock. And you
will still own accommodate two boats.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Unless one is going stern two to the tie-off
pile. You can get creative with this.
MR. COSTELLO: You know what I'm saying. We are not expanding its
usage. We are just making it more useable. You know what I'm saying?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I just don't see the utility of this tie-off
pile. What was it used on what would be the west side of the
fixed pier, in back in the day, the boat was longer. Or they
still want to have a long boat on the one side.
MR. COSTELLO: Yes, on the canal side, to tie the bow off. So we
kept the float inside the marine structure, so we are not adding
any slips.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, I kind of get it now. We have
one catwalk that a pre-existing, obviously non-conforming, it's
gorgeous, and one ramp and one float.
MR. COSTELLO: Right.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you guys be more comfortable if we move
the float in slightly and also is that a possibility? I'm just --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a rational argument because it's
already taken, the ramp/float assembly is already taken up a
space for a boat and it's, the longer ramps are for personal
safety in that creek. I'm all good with it now. I think
provided they honor, strictly honor town zoning and they do not
rent boat slips -- honor the zoning provisions for no more than
two boats other than the owner, you know, as long as it's in
keeping with the zoning and we are not creating a zoning issue,
I'm good.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: The only question I have is why a float. You
answered that, so, I'm good with it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
Anyone else here to speak regarding this application?
(Negative response).
I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: A motion is made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And I make a motion to approve this application
noting that the ramp and float are essentially added to the
Board of Trustees 41 October 18, 2017
catwalk and are not two docks, and are actually providing safer
access in the same way to this water, thereby bringing this
application into consistency.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
A e
Michael J. Domino, President
Board of Trustees
RECEIVED
NOV 1 6 2017 e 3 *0PM
Poeod Toerk